A viable theory of well-being has useful applications for individuals and groups alike. Psychologists frequently refer to notions of well-being for the sake of enhancing patients' well-being when it is lacking, and public policy makers may appeal to the idea of well-being when crafting policies for the sake of the well-being of cities, counties, states, and nations. One of the problems with such endeavors is that there is no standard, agreed upon definition of well-being. After investigating the most common theories of well-being, I argue that Michael Bishop's Network Theory is the most reasonable starting point for a viable theory of well-being; however, I also argue that Network Theory must be revamped. Network Theory requires an essential component that is missing from its current rendition. In 2015, Bishop published The Good Life: Unifying the Philosophy and Psychology of Well-Being. Bishop's Network Theory is unique among philosophical theories of well-being. Traditionally, theories of well-being, including Aristotle's eudaimonic view of human flourishing; Roger Crisp's hedonism; James Griffin's life satisfaction theory; and L.W. Sumner's authentic happiness view, have all employed a similar method in crafting their theories: the method from the armchair. Indeed, armchair methods of philosophical analysis can yield truths, and many philosophers certainly reflect on actual, real world experiences while at their armchairs, but Bishop argues that a strong theory of well-being requires that philosophers investigate and appeal directly to scientific findings. As such, Bishop's theory of well-being is specifically inclusive in its approach to finding the truth about well-being. Bishop's theory is inclusive insofar as he includes both philosophy and science in order to craft his theory. The science to which Bishop appeals is psychology; more specifically, Bishop researches scientific studies in the field of positive psychology. Bishop explains that, in the field of positive psychology, even though there are many references to well-being, there is a wide range of definitions, with no standard theory or model of well-being to which psychologists appeal when making claims about how to address or enhance well-being in people's lives. Bishop's solution is to thoroughly investigate the scientific studies and then step back, taking a meta-view of the information and insights from positive psychology. Indeed, a pattern emerges, and Bishop articulates this pattern through his Network Theory. The central point of Network Theory is that, when positive psychologists are studying people whose lives are going well, they are studying aspects of individuals' positive causal networks (PCNs). The particular parts of PCNs are called PCN fragments, and they include specific emotions, attitudes, and successful interactions in the world. For instance, the phenomena of feeling joyous, of approaching one's day with an attitude of optimism, and then performing wonderfully during a challenge at work, each count as a fragment in an individual's PCN. My argument is that, because of the way Bishop organizes the science of well-being while also including philosophical methods and insights, Network Theory is the best starting point for a theory of well-being; however, Network Theory needs to be revised because it is missing an essential feature of well-being. In making this claim, I provide a set of counter-examples that illustrate PCNs in cases where well-being cannot reasonably be said to exist. For example, there are serial killers whose only sense of positive affect or positive attitude come about when they are planning and executing torture and murders, which are often sexually charged, thus adding more "positivity" in terms of positive affect. For such individuals, positive successes include the actual luring, torturing, and murdering of their victims. Because of the PCN that develops, the killers want to murder again; in doing so successfully, they create more positive emotions more themselves, thus supporting the homeostatic nature of PCNs. To add support for my argument, I also appeal to studies in positive psychology that indicate additional features beyond positive emotions and positive attitudes that support successes within the PCN model. In particular, I pinpoint the role of authenticity, but I also revamp the notion of authenticity so that something other than subjective authenticity is emphasized as essential for well-being. In the end, I argue that my revamped version of the Network Theory of Well-Being provides a more viable model of well-being than Bishop's original theory, although he provides the dynamic, inclusive foundation. The emergent theory has practical value and myriad applications for problem-solving in individual counseling, coaching, and/or consulting, including applications in Logic-Based Therapy. Group well-being can be explained through the revamped notion of Network Theory, too, but that is a topic for a future project. / A Dissertation submitted to the Department of Philosophy in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. / Spring Semester 2017. / April 17, 2017. / Authenticity, Ethics, Network Theory, Philosophy of Psychology, Positive Psychology, Well-Being / Includes bibliographical references. / Michael A. Bishop, Professor Directing Dissertation; John Kelsay, University Representative; James Justus, Committee Member; Michael Ruse, Committee Member.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:fsu.edu/oai:fsu.digital.flvc.org:fsu_507698 |
| Contributors | Lang, Martha L. (Martha Louise) (authoraut), Bishop, Michael A. (professor directing dissertation), Kelsay, John, 1953- (university representative), Justus, James (committee member), Ruse, Michael (committee member), Florida State University (degree granting institution), College of Arts and Sciences (degree granting college), Department of Philosophy (degree granting departmentdgg) |
| Publisher | Florida State University, Florida State University |
| Source Sets | Florida State University |
| Language | English, English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Text, text, doctoral thesis |
| Format | 1 online resource (123 pages), computer, application/pdf |
| Rights | This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s). The copyright in theses and dissertations completed at Florida State University is held by the students who author them. |
Page generated in 0.0115 seconds