As someone who writes about happiness, I'm often challenged to answer these three questions:

    作為一個寫有關“快樂”的文章的人，我通常被問到下面的3個問題：

    1. How do I define "happiness," anyway?

    我到底是如何定義“快樂”?

    2. Instead of happiness, which is fleeting/deceptive/egotistical/illusory, isn't the real goal to achieve joy/contentment/satisfaction/peace/self-realization or [fill in the blank]?

    與其追求“快樂”這種短暫的/騙人的/自私性的/虛幻的東西，難道我們不該追求愉快/滿足/滿意/平和/自我實現(xiàn)或其他什么嗎?

    3. How can we agree on what it means to achieve these states? What I mean by happiness might not be what you mean by happiness. You say happiness is a warm puppy; I say happiness is living alone in a cabin at Walden Pond; etc.

    對于我們而言，實現(xiàn)這些狀態(tài)意味著什么呢? 我對快樂的定義和你的不一樣。你說快樂是一只溫暖的小狗；我說快樂是獨自住在Walden Pond的一間小木屋里面；等等。

    In law school, we spent an entire semester discussing the meaning of a "contract," and I know all too well how a term can elude you as you try to define it. For the purposes of my happiness project, I decided not to worry about definitions too much. In scholarship, there's merit in defining terms precisely, and one positive psychology study identified fifteen different academic definitions of happiness, but when it came to my project, spending a lot of energy exploring the distinctions among "contentment," "positive affect," "subjective well-being," "hedonic tone," and a myriad of other terms didn't seem necessary. I decided instead to follow the hallowed tradition set by Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, who defined obscenity by saying, "I know it when I see it."

    在法學院，我們花了一整個學期討論“合同”的定義，我很了解，越想定義一個術語，越難以抓住這個術語的含義。為了我的快樂計劃，我決定不去考慮定義。在學術方面，準確定義術語是有價值的，有一個積極的心理學研究為快樂找出了十五種不同的學術定義，但是在我的計劃里，似乎沒有必要花很多精力探討“自足”、“積極影響”、“主觀幸福”、“享樂情調(diào)”等無數(shù)個其它術語之間的區(qū)別。相反，我決定追尋最高法院大法官波特斯圖爾特的神圣傳統(tǒng)——他用一句“當我看到它就會認出它”的話定義猥褻。

    I think it's enough to think about being "happier." Even if we don't agree about what it means to be happy, we can agree that whatever happiness means, it would be nice to be happier. I think the looseness of the term happiness is actually helpful; it's a concept large enough to embrace many different perspectives.

    我認為考慮“更快樂”就足夠了。即便我們對“快樂”的定義不一致，但我們認同不論快樂是什么，能“更快樂”就好。我認為快樂這個術語的的定義應該很松散，這個概念太大，足以包含許多不同看法。

    I suspect that one reason that people try to avoid using the word "happiness" is that happiness has a bad reputation. It's often associated with superficiality, self-absorption, narcissism, and pleasure-seeking. (As in Woody Allen's movie Annie Hall, when Alvy asks a happy couple how they account for their happiness, and the woman answers, "I am very shallow and empty, and I have no ideas and nothing interesting to say," and the man agrees, "I'm exactly the same way.")

    我懷疑人們在回避用“快樂”這個詞的原因是“快樂”的名聲不好。它往往和淺薄、自我沉迷、自戀和享樂相關。（正如在Woody Allen的電影Annie Hall中一樣，當Alvy問一對快樂的男女如何解釋快樂，女的說：“我很淺薄、空洞，我沒看法，我說不出什么有意思的東西。男的附和：“我也正是如此。”）

    In fact, however, studies show that happiness doesn't make people complacent or self-centered. Rather, happier people are more likely to volunteer, to give away money, to persist in problem-solving, to help others, and to be friendly.

    實際上，研究表明快樂并沒有讓人們自滿或以自我為中心。更快樂的人更有可能做自愿者、捐錢、對解決問題堅持不懈、幫助別人及友善。

    One study showed that, all over the world, when asked what they want most from life — and what they most want for their children – people answered that they want happiness. I know when I feel happy. Trying to be happier – that's good enough for me, without a precise definition.

    一項研究表明，在世界各地，當問及人們在生活中最希望得到什么，最希望他們的孩子得到什么的時候，人們回答是“快樂”。但我快樂的時候，我知道快樂是什么。努力更快樂——這對我來說足夠了，不需要一個精確的定義。