Return to Saussure

Note: This text was originally written in Spanish and is presented here in English translation. Introduction Happiness rarely presents itself as a sharply defined event. In most lives, it neither bursts forth nor announces itself; instead, it accompanies the ordinary course of existence in a discreet manner. While pain leaves marks, demands attention, and imprints itself upon memory, happiness often passes silently, as a background condition that sustains without imposing itself. When human beings turn their gaze back upon their own history, they tend to recognize with precision what wounded them, yet struggle to identify those moments when life was, quite simply, in balance. This mismatch between lived experience and retrospective judgment, already formulated in Antiquity, runs through the work of Fyodor Dostoevsky. It allows us to think of happiness not as the absence of suffering, but as something that, precisely because it does not demand to be named, ends up being forgotten....

Introduction In recent years, a wave of popular books, podcasts, and wellness platforms has turned to Greek philosophy for answers to modern challenges. Stoicism is repackaged as a kind of self-help minimalism; Aristotle is reinterpreted to address crises of meaning; Plato becomes a mentor in the art of mindful living. Central to this revival is a promise: that ancient wisdom can make us “happy.” But what if this promise is based on a misunderstanding? What if the happiness Greek thinkers pursued is not the same as the one we seek today? While eudaimonia is often translated as “happiness,” the resemblance is deceptive. The ancients did not view happiness as an emotional state, nor did they locate it in wealth, popularity, power, or personal fulfillment. On the contrary, Aristotle dismissed the life of pleasure as “fit for cattle.”¹ This article offers a cautionary note. It explores how the meanings of happiness have changed over time, and why interpreting ancient ethics through ...