Understanding Concepts of Happiness in the Context of Traditional Values Across Cultures and Seeking Foundations for Dialogue in a Multipolar World


Simurgh University

My name is Vania Markovich. I am a Doctor of Psychological Sciences and the founder of Simurg University. Today we have gathered here, in a space that brings together all our guests, to address a topic that is incredibly important and relevant for all of us. We have formulated a number of questions that we would like to discuss today together with our speakers and, perhaps, develop into a full discussion of the issues that will be presented throughout the conference.

It is difficult to overestimate the role and significance of the conversation we are having today in the contemporary world. Today we are communicating in two languages: Russian and Spanish. And the refusal to rely on a single language of communication is not merely a gesture of courtesy, but a matter of principle. We consciously chose to allow each participant to speak in their native language — the language in which they think and live. In that case, a person speaks not «about culture,» but from within their own culture, from their own experience and meanings, rather than from an imposed system of coordinates.

The opportunity to speak in one’s own language allows each participant to express themselves from the depth of their cultural reality. That is precisely why today we find ourselves in a space of authentic dialogue.

From the very beginning, I would like to say a few words about why the need for a conference like this emerged, why we gathered specifically today, and why Simurg University became the platform and organizer of this event. While reflecting on and discussing the topic of happiness, we identified several serious problems of contemporary society.

The first problem is that happiness is increasingly viewed today as a public category rather than a personal experience. Happiness is once again becoming an object of public debate, of attention from the state and society, a reference point for political strategies and managerial decisions. Yet precisely because of this, happiness ceases to be merely a personal emotion and becomes a language through which society forms an idea of development and the future.

We place happiness at the center of our discussion and move it beyond the boundaries of exclusively private life, yet at the same time we still do not have a unified explanation of what happiness actually is. Modern happiness and well-being indices create the illusion of objectivity and universality; however, in reality they simplify a complex and contradictory human experience. Conflicts, inner experiences, and cultural differences disappear from view.

More and more often, happiness is presented as a universal goal for everyone, but at the same time its human dimension is lost. Happiness is not only pleasure and pleasant experiences, but also the ability to go through loss, difficulties, and crises. We see that in different cultures happiness means different things. Behind the same word may stand completely different meanings: duty, suffering, responsibility, sacrifice — all of these may also form part of happiness.

Attempts at universalization erase this depth and impose certain models of «what happiness should look like.» Yet happiness is formed within concrete historical, cultural, and social conditions; it reflects the values of a society, its ideas about family, spirituality, work, and the meaning of life. All attempts to present happiness as a universal category lead to a loss of depth and a distortion of meaning.

We see that previous concepts no longer work. Sustainable development is impossible without equal dialogue between cultures, without rejecting hierarchies and the imposition of supposedly «correct» ways of living. Such dialogue requires recognition of the diversity of ways of existence.

In this context, it is important to note that Russia has historically been a space where different cultural traditions and worldviews coexist. Each of them possesses its own understanding of well-being and happiness, creating a multiplicity of perspectives. Therefore, the conversation about happiness in a multicultural context is not only an international issue for Russia, but also a deeply internal and existential one.

We proceed from the idea that real work begins with the ability to see not only one’s own phenomena, but also the differences between them. Recognition of differences is a sign of maturity and the foundation of authentic dialogue. We want to begin this dialogue here, listening to one another: representatives of different cultures, political systems, and lived realities.

Separately, I would like to emphasize the importance of emotional maturity. It is precisely emotional maturity that allows us to move beyond normative expectations of «what happiness should be.» Emotional maturity provides a language for understanding happiness as a living process rather than as the obligatory outcome of a «successful life,» as it is often presented in contemporary Western culture.

It allows us not to suppress negative emotions or exclude them from the experience of happiness, but to recognize them as part of human life. Difficulties, frustrations, losses, and the experience of grief do not negate happiness; they form part of the fabric of reality. Happiness is not a static state of harmony, but a process that passes through crises and periods of uncertainty.

Such an understanding reduces the pressure of the constant demand to «be happy» and returns happiness to the space of a living dialogue between the individual and reality, with time, with other cultures, and with other people.

Emotional maturity is necessary not only for the individual person, but also for society as a whole. In conditions where technological development advances faster than our understanding of human nature, emotional maturity becomes the foundation of stability, the ability to face crises, and the capacity to shape the future.

We are convinced that any conversation about happiness requires abandoning universal solutions and focusing instead on meanings and ways of living. It is necessary to listen carefully and to recognize the right of every culture to its own understanding of well-being and happiness.

I invite everyone to an open dialogue, to philosophical questions about happiness. I invite you to reflect together on what happiness may be and whether there exists a shared space for understanding it.

Today we live in a world where states are compared not only in terms of economics, technology, and military capabilities, but also by the level of happiness of their citizens. At first glance, this appears to be a major humanistic step forward. However, if we look more closely, it becomes clear that the discourse surrounding happiness is far from neutral.

Happiness has once again become a political category. It has turned into an element of political competition: a tool for defining who «lives correctly» and who «lives incorrectly.» Most happiness indices are constructed quite simply: they take into account income, consumption levels, the degree of individual freedom, comfort, and trust in state institutions. These are important parameters, but the problem lies elsewhere.

All these indicators were formed within a specific model: Anglo-Saxon, individualistic, liberal (in its various forms). When this model is presented as universal, conflict emerges — not between countries, but between different understandings of well-being.

For many people, happiness is not merely an individual feeling. It is connected to a sense of justice, integration into society, dignity, and confidence in the future. When these aspects are ignored, a country may rank very low in international happiness rankings and yet not consider itself unhappy — and vice versa.

It is important to emphasize that the issue is not whether indices are «good» or «bad.» The problem is the standardization of happiness. Once standardized, happiness becomes a form of pressure. Some states begin telling others what is supposedly «wrong» with them, based on an external system of reference. In Latin America, this is felt especially strongly.

There, happiness is often understood as a collective condition, as a sense of social justice and belonging to the community. It is no coincidence that Venezuela has a Vice Ministry of Supreme Social Happiness. From the outside this may appear strange or even comical, but within that cultural context the logic is entirely different. There, happiness is measured not by consumption levels, but by solidarity, dignity, and cooperation.

A person may live with limited resources, face economic difficulties, and still not feel unhappy, because happiness is measured not by comfort, but by the extent to which one feels needed and integrated into society. These aspects do not appear in global rankings, and that is precisely where the problem lies.

If we take the Islamic world or Iranian culture as examples, we see that the understanding of happiness is different there as well. It is not equivalent to individual pleasure or comfort. It is linked to social balance and justice. The success of a state is measured not by how much comfort it provides, but by the degree of justice it guarantees within society. These criteria cannot be reduced to universal indices, but that does not make them any less real for millions of people.

The Russian experience lies somewhere between these models. Historically, happiness in Russia has been connected with the meaning of life, the future of one’s children, and the destiny of the country. Personal well-being is often linked to collective destiny. That is why attempts to measure happiness exclusively through individual comfort do not work in this context.

This brings us to a complex yet obvious idea: a multipolar world is impossible without recognizing that happiness does not have a single definition. As long as we continue trying to impose one universal scale, we will only deepen misunderstanding between cultures. What we need is not a single index, but a culture of translation: a language that allows us to speak about well-being and happiness without devaluing different approaches.

Happiness may never become a global standard, but it can become a meeting point: a space where different understandings coexist and enter into dialogue.

Question:

For a long time, we have reflected on the idea of a Ministry of Happiness — not in relation to any specific country, but as a general concept. Today we see different examples: Venezuela, India, the United Arab Emirates. Many countries are moving in this direction.

Do you consider such an institution necessary? Given the complexity of today’s world, if a structure emerged that could improve people’s quality of life even by a small percentage, or develop methods that contribute to this goal, that would already be a positive initiative.

The main thing is that it should not turn into an excessively bureaucratic mechanism. Because, as we know, sometimes it takes only a small change for «happiness» to turn into «unhappiness.»

If such an institution managed to improve the lives of even a small part of society, it would already be fully justified.

I believe that, considering the complex situation the world is facing today and the difficulties people encounter, the emergence of an institution or organization capable — at least to some extent — of improving quality of life, or of developing methodologies capable of increasing the level of happiness of the population even by a few percentage points, would be a very positive initiative.

The main thing is that, as often happens in different countries, this structure should not become an excessively bureaucratized mechanism. Because, at least in the Russian language, it takes only a small prefix added to the word «happiness» to turn it into «unhappiness.» The same applies to governance: an excess of bureaucracy can easily distort the original meaning of the idea.

Therefore, if there existed an institution capable of improving the lives of even a small percentage of the population and bringing people closer to a sense of happiness, that alone would already be a serious and fully justified result.

Good afternoon. How are you?

It is a great honor for me to have the opportunity to listen to all of you and to participate in this gathering. When I first heard about this initiative, beyond everything that can be analyzed from a theoretical perspective, one fundamental question inevitably emerged: what is happiness, really? How does happiness manifest itself in our everyday lives? How is it expressed within our culture?

And here I found it especially interesting to reflect on the uniqueness that each culture brings to this concept. Because we usually associate happiness — or at least this is how liberal logic has taught us to think — exclusively with consumption or with a binary perspective: either I am happy or I am not. As if happiness were a kind of final state, a determining factor that divides people into the happy and the unhappy, even within the same society.

This way of thinking, characteristic of the liberal tradition and of Hobbesian ideas that separate good from bad, happiness from unhappiness, has obvious limitations — especially when we examine the issue from the perspective of the periphery.

I am speaking from Argentina, a country that can be considered part of the periphery of the global system. And I emphasize this geopolitical dimension because even today the distribution and exercise of power on a global scale continue to shape our reality in profound ways. During the Cold War, our country was within the sphere of influence of North America and formed part of a system that contributed to the development of an empire of which we ourselves were part. Today, fortunately, as we can see, that empire is in decline.

In this new multipolar world, other centers are emerging, with different concepts and different ways of thinking, offering us new ways of understanding not only happiness, but also the human being within society. That is why I believe it is important to reflect on happiness from the perspective of the periphery: first, because it is the reality in which I have lived; and second, because if we remain trapped within this binary logic of happiness and unhappiness, we may conclude that peripheral countries — with less access to consumption and less participation in global structures of power — are condemned to unhappiness.

Yet it is interesting to reflect on the fact that happiness is not determined solely by material principles. The human being is not only matter, but also spirit. Human life is defined not only by the ability to consume or accumulate wealth, but also by the possibility of self-realization and of finding meaning within a social community.

In this sense, we can say that today, in our region — which clearly does not occupy a central role on the international stage — happiness is grounded in other principles, deeply connected to our culture. A culture that is whole, diverse, and formed from multiple traditions.

And I say this not only because I am Argentine, but also thinking of the Latin American experience as a whole, and especially of the Río de la Plata region, where different migratory currents coexisted and transformed our identity. Many cultures that suffered persecution throughout history found here a space in which to develop. When a person thinks about their country, an idea emerges that brings happiness: a sense of belonging, a reason for being here, the memory of our parents and of those who gave us life.

In this sense, happiness is connected to what we remember, to what has historically shaped us. It cannot be reduced solely to material dimensions, as many studies often attempt to do, because it also possesses a profound spiritual dimension, depth, and transcendence within history.

In Argentina this can be seen especially clearly. Between 1945 and 1955 there existed a political project in which «the happiness of the people» was a central slogan, and the state assumed an active role in seeking to ensure that the population felt happy. This leads us to reflect on the limits and possibilities of the state — from a governmental and institutional perspective — in relation to people’s happiness.

It is impossible to decree happiness. One cannot say: «Now you are happy for this or that reason.» But the state can place the pursuit of collective happiness among its highest goals. And in recent decades, at least in Argentina, happiness has not been an explicit objective of political leadership. Public governance has been directed toward other goals, often far removed from the deeper well-being of the community.

We are a young country; our history spans only around two hundred years. If one looks only at economic indicators, one might conclude that Argentinians are not happy: we experience severe economic crises that make it difficult to build a future. And yet culture is what remains, and it is culture that shapes a profound sense of belonging.

This feeling is clearly visible, for example, in events such as the recent Football World Cup, or in the issue of the Malvinas Islands. This is connected to what the previous speaker mentioned: the idea of sovereignty and the understanding of happiness through it. The ability to decide the fate of one’s territory and one’s future creates a deep sense of belonging that strengthens collective identity.

In Argentina, despite economic difficulties, there exists a strong national feeling that manifests itself in spheres that are not strictly political: football, art, religion. We are a country with religious freedom and without major interreligious conflicts. And if Argentina has given something spiritual to the world, then undoubtedly it is Pope Francis.

In his writings and speeches, Francis spoke of happiness as the joy of encounter, as going beyond oneself, as moving toward the other, as creating together with others. There is no purely individual happiness: it is found in community, in those moments when we rethink and reaffirm who we are.

From the perspective of the periphery — understood not only as a place of scarcity, but also as a theological and human space — there is a search for the authenticity of being. Happiness is deeply connected to culture, to its uniqueness and particularities. It is not convenience or comfort. In Latin America, even where material resources may be lacking, there is an abundance of encounters, celebrations, solidarity, and the desire to move toward others.

Happiness is expressed in both rural and urban environments, where social and communal bonds generate meaning. The nation, ultimately, can serve as the guarantor of the conditions necessary for happiness. The example of the Malvinas Islands demonstrates this well: a short war that took place more than forty years ago remains alive in collective memory and continues to unite the Argentine people through remembrance and respect for those who gave their lives.

Happiness, in the end, is a feeling. It cannot be imposed. But we can reflect on the condition of collective happiness within a community. And here a political question emerges: what is the role of the state in shaping this feeling?

We believe that the state should create conditions in which people want to participate, to become involved in more immediate, local, and communal forms of decision-making. To participate, make decisions, and assume responsibility means strengthening the sense of belonging and integration.

Preserving traditions is also of fundamental importance. When politics attempts to erase the past in the name of supposed innovation, the historical thread is broken, and people become isolated from their cultural identity. Happiness is also not merely access to material goods, but the possibility of living with dignity and meaning, knowing that one’s efforts are not in vain.

Another essential foundation is security, understood not only in a physical sense, but also as the possibility of building a life without constantly facing social, economic, or environmental crises. In this sense, our Latin American traditions, more closely connected to nature and to the rhythms of life, offer valuable guidance for rediscovering happiness in what is most essential.

This is not about rejecting technology, but about restoring contact with creation, with the surrounding world, with simple things. The state must also guarantee the rights of children and a dignified old age. Predictability, calm, and stability allow people to make thoughtful decisions and live more peacefully and with dignity.

Disorder, uncertainty, and the impossibility of planning for the future generate anxiety, stress, and a diminished sense of happiness. Therefore, in conclusion, I would like to say that politics and the state must create conditions of tranquility for a community that does not lose sight of its history, its culture, its spirituality, and its connection with nature.

Thank you very much.

Question: You say that the human being is soul and spirit. At Simurg University, we share this approach, this understanding of the human being.

How do you perceive today the fact that the understanding of happiness is increasingly being disseminated not as something determined primarily by the state or by external circumstances, but as an inner state of the soul?

To what extent, in your opinion, can happiness be understood as an inner state of the person, one that does not directly depend on what is happening around them?

It does not depend only on external circumstances, nor only on the political situation. The state of happiness is not determined exclusively by one’s economic situation, family status, or money.

I think it is difficult to reduce happiness to a percentage or a quantity. There is a constant interaction between the inner and the outer in all of us. We cannot simply place ourselves at the center and say, «I am happy despite everything,» even if, for example, we are in the middle of a bombing. There are realities that constantly pass through us.

There are periods of greater and lesser happiness. I read a study that analyzed who lives longer. One might assume that if a person lives longer, it means they are calmer, that there is a system that supports and sustains them. However, the study showed that those who lived longer were people who met with others, who maintained relationships.

Because we are social beings. Our life is built together with others. And I think that one of the great dramas we are experiencing today, especially in the post-pandemic period, is loneliness amid constant online involvement: we are always connected, but without hugs, without contact, without meetings, without living human laughter nearby.

We live through mediation. And I think there is a challenge here that each of us can accept, even on a small scale, without thinking that this is a matter of major politics or some large state plan. It is something we can begin to practice every day: when we call a relative or a friend, when we meet someone for coffee.

I think this is exactly what fills us with energy and makes life a little more inspiring. These are small human actions, small everyday joys that bring people closer together, open hearts, and fill life with genuine meanings.

Question: What is happiness for you?

For me personally, happiness is, first of all, in the people around me: in my children, in my family. That makes me very happy. Great happiness also implies great responsibility. But I think we all imagine our happiness through those with whom we can share it, regardless of circumstances.

That is why I say that there is a private, personal sphere, and there is also a public sphere in which we can all participate and improve something. In this sense, I believe the state, as an institution, has certain limits: it can help create conditions, but it cannot decree the happiness of a political community.

Here in Argentina, we usually do something called comer asado: we gather together to cook meat on the grill, over an open fire. We spend long Sunday hours talking about different topics, eating and drinking mate — a traditional drink we inherited from the Guarani people.

In both difficult and joyful moments, we gather to drink mate. Perhaps in other cultures people gather around other drinks, but the meaning is the same: to be together.

Question: I am Tuvan; I was born in Tuva, which is part of Russia. I was very interested in your idea that happiness includes both national belonging and belonging to one’s native land. I fully share this view.

My question is: what measures and actions could be taken today so that an ordinary person could help unite people of different nationalities and traditions around a shared understanding of happiness?

Hello, it is very nice to meet you. I am glad that what I said seemed interesting to you. I think the essence of this question — the harmony that should exist between cultures — is closely connected to what Pope Francis expresses through the idea of the «polyhedron.»

First of all, it is necessary to understand that we are different and that the world consists of many parts, many different facets, which have both the possibility and the responsibility to engage in dialogue and understand one another. Despite all our differences, human beings are guided by principles that we share. No culture proclaims theft, murder, or lies as its fundamental values. This does not belong to the origin of human nature; rather, it may be a matter of interests, and that already belongs to the sphere of politics.

But in a cultural sense, if a person is able to accept that there are other people who think differently, who have other traditions and another way of life, then I believe coexistence is possible. I think there is a current of thought — especially an Anglo-Saxon one — that has failed to understand this, and throughout history this has led to the destruction of many cultures.

Fortunately — thank God — Latin America has not suffered such a complete defeat, although today it is going through many difficulties. Here, even the very concept of happiness is deeply connected with encounter, celebration, and the veneration of those who lived on this land. In Latin America, there is a very strong tradition of respect and veneration for ancestors and the dead.

There are cultures in which this is expressed especially clearly. In Mexico, for example, death is celebrated; it becomes part of a festival. In Argentina, we are more restrained, but we share the idea that happiness lies in community, in unity, and in encounter. And I think that, in a certain sense, this is what sustains us in these difficult times: our culture.

As for peoples themselves, there is no natural conflict between them. Conflict is usually something artificial, imposed, aimed at destroying the other. It is often also the result of ignorance. This happens, for example, when people speak about Russia: many still retain an image formed forty years ago. But when someone with good intentions explains, shows photographs, and tells what they have seen, that image changes. Surprise, curiosity, and questions appear.

I think the same happens with other cultures, such as India, which many people still imagine as it was twenty years ago, although in reality it has changed greatly. If we always approach others with curiosity, a desire to learn, and humility, then these are precisely the principles that allow us to understand one another, even if we do not speak the same language or share the same traditions.

At the deeper levels of society, this is not a real problem, but something artificially imposed in order to divide us and set us against one another. Pope Francis has always said that we must build bridges, not walls.

And I think this also implies a personal attitude: to be humble, compassionate, and understanding, because this not only makes encounter easier, but also allows us to learn from the other.

I think that answers your question.

The starting point is multipolarity, because it represents the central characteristic of our time — one that has called previous structures into question and given rise to a system that has produced the greatest condition of unhappiness in the history of humanity. And this is a complex issue, because we are not speaking about fantasy or philosophical abstraction: this is a concrete reality with a millennia-long history, one that is felt throughout human society and transmitted at every level through mass media and other forms of ideological influence.

Throughout history, there have been three major peaceful processes that brought wars to an end and opened attempts to reorganize the world in search of what was called «human happiness.» The Peace of Westphalia at the end of the seventeenth century; the agreement that ended the Napoleonic wars at the beginning of the nineteenth century; and the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. As for 1945, it is too contradictory to be called «peace,» because it ended one war only to open another.

This happened because the calculations of those who favored continuing the conflict in 1945 showed that such a cost was acceptable to them, and so they proceeded. There is extensive documentation — from Winston Churchill to Truman’s Secretary of State — demonstrating that even after the formal end of the war in May 1945, when Soviet troops took Berlin, the decision was made to continue the confrontation in other forms.

Equally evident is the disintegration of everything built between 1945 and 1948 in the form of multilateral agreements and international organizations. There existed a vast range of agreements that were only «multilateral» in appearance, since they were subordinated to one or two centers of power, above all American power. In less than half a century, the United States managed to establish itself as a dominant, hegemonic, and controlling power thanks to its military and financial superiority.

That cycle comes to an end around 1992. From that moment onward, so-called unilateralism became established — which in reality was nothing other than the open and formal concentration of power that had long already existed in practice and systematically, almost as in the Middle Ages, only now without disguise and without any attempt to contest it. This model, too, eventually produced a counteroffensive, a historical response.

All of this compels us to rethink our approaches if we wish to seek formulas capable of working toward solutions — or at least toward a shared conception of human happiness agreed upon among states. Since Westphalia, modern states have assumed the role of regulators of humanity’s social and political life. This «curse» of the modern state, which completely regulates human life, ultimately led to financial madness: to a financial civilization in which everything becomes a commodity.

Everything is a commodity; everything is reproduced as a commodity. This process, almost diabolical in character, leads to endlessly recurring crises, because the pursuit of profit and greed as the regulating law of human life knows no limits. Either war intervenes to impose another restructuring, or the process never stops.

And yet, throughout human history there have been many attempts to achieve peaceful coexistence. This perspective has passed through different stages: from the millenarian movements of the three great monotheistic religions, which led to attempts at mutual understanding and shared confessions, to the many utopias that emerged beginning in the thirteenth century, when projects of communal life were created that lasted days or years but never managed to establish themselves as stable systems.

Nevertheless, only three years ago the results of a study were published — a study that lasted almost two decades and was conducted by a group of scholars from three universities: the Autonomous University of Barcelona, the Autonomous University of Madrid, and a German university institute. The study confirmed that around 3,200 years ago there existed a society that managed to survive, reproduce itself, and remain stable for more than 500 generations — that is, for over a thousand years.

This society succeeded in preserving itself as a social, productive, and integrated system organized around the reproduction of life and families, without major contradictions, with only minor conflicts, and without recurring crises. Hundreds of archaeological studies analyzed by the researchers attest to this.

Before the rise of the great empires of domination — and of the system based on the domination of classes and peoples — there existed a society that reproduced itself for more than a millennium without significant inequality, without hierarchies, without private property, and without the accumulation of surplus. And this study argues that no evidence of surplus exists. Where there is no surplus, there is no private property; where there is no private property, there is no extreme individualization of society, production, and consumption.

And if that logic does not exist, then neither do structural inequality nor recurring crises. For roughly a thousand years, no systemic crises were recorded. This is historically groundbreaking, because this kind of information was unavailable to the emancipatory thinkers of the nineteenth century, including Karl Marx. Both Marx and Lewis Henry Morgan built their theories on fragmented and scattered data that could not be systematized into a coherent body of knowledge. The significance of this study lies precisely in providing that theoretical confirmation.

The study was carried out in southern Cebu, and its principal objective was to demonstrate something fundamentally important: the dominant ideology over the centuries — especially in concentrated form during the last 250 years, and in even more intensified form during the last two decades — has insisted that no form of life other than neoliberalism, individual private property, accumulation, and the logic of surplus can exist.

We were made to believe that the world must necessarily remain under the control of one, two, or three dominant empires that govern the external space of the planet, states, and societies. And that is precisely what is now being challenged.

This knowledge was published in 2022 and expanded in 2025. It is extraordinarily new. We are speaking about a scientific discovery with profound consequences for sociology and politics, especially regarding the redistribution of human rights. This information cannot easily be transformed into a commodity or inherited resource because it does not generate profit. Therefore, it usually remains confined within academic circles and specialized audiences.

And yet this does not diminish the fact that it constitutes one of the most serious scientific proofs upon which one can rely when justifying a project of multilateralism in opposition to the neoliberalism of concentrated empires and established blocs — such as the European Union and the United States — set against what is referred to as the «subordinate world,» above all Russia, Iran, and China.

This evidence is of interest not only to the press and to those searching for another paradigm for the world; it also offers state leaders in significant countries the opportunity to rethink the future of their nations — and the future of humanity — on different foundations. Not toxic foundations, but foundations based on sufficient and verifiable information.

Community does not negate the individual. Community is not the opposite of individuality. An integrated individuality is possible. That is precisely why the twentieth century became, to a large extent, a century of dystopias, and it took nearly two hundred years for dystopia first to establish itself in literature — initially in Russian novels, then in Caucasian ones — and later in reality itself.

This means that a society organized in such a way has no future: neither ecologically, nor in terms of labor, nor in terms of security. Fear dominates cities. There can be no future in such a form. Multipolarity may become — so to speak — a paradigm of salvation, because it is neither an external nor an internal solution: it is a structural response to the entropy established in the twentieth century.

If the states promoting multipolarity succeed in building a model completely opposed to the dominant system that has taken shape over centuries — and especially over the last 250 years — then it may become possible to escape a system that leads toward the total industrialization of absolutely everything.

Question:

We often speak about the fact that humanity today could live differently, especially because we already possess historical experience of alternative forms of social organization. However, these reflections are usually focused on those who govern states and societies.

My question is this: what role do ordinary people play in transforming existing structures of power and leadership?

Can we truly influence the direction of social development? And if so, in what way?

What concrete actions on the individual and community level can help move society in this direction?

I think the following, based at least on the social tradition of the last hundred years: if ordinary citizens manage to become involved in organizations, discussion groups, action groups, or communities within their local environment and sphere of belonging, then we will be able to influence already established structures.

If such forms of organization allow our opinions, reflections, and positions — validated by the local community — to reach the political sphere and be taken into account, then that is already an important step.

That is precisely why Latin America — and especially our region, though not only it — possesses a legacy of historical contributions dating back at least to 1910, valuable not as closed models but as open human experiences. These are concrete attempts to resolve the relationship between power and community.

Beginning in 1910 with the Commune of Morelos under the leadership of Emiliano Zapata, and through many later experiences, Latin America has contributed practices and reflections aimed at making possible the elevation of popular opinion, participation in decision-making, and active involvement in the political system.

The launching of collective decision-making, the capacity for communal self-organization, and conscious participation are only three examples among forty or fifty historical experiences that Latin America offers as a tradition of thought and human practice. All of them point toward the possibility of an alternative path — both practical and theoretical — in relation to dominant models.

Thank you very much for the invitation. It is an honor for me to be here with you. I am speaking from Brazil, so I will speak a little in Portuguese; I hope this will not create difficulties either for the translation or for the colleagues present.

I was asked to speak a little about how happiness is understood in Brazil — from the perspective of my culture. Of course, this is a complex subject and not exactly my main field of work, although I do have a philosophical background and spent some time studying at a faculty of philosophy. In general, I deal with other issues, but this is undoubtedly a very interesting topic.

In Brazil there is quite an extensive body of literature on this question, although it rarely speaks directly about happiness. More often, it addresses ways of life, values, cultural roots, and similar themes. Nevertheless, from this literature one can identify a number of elements that help shape an understanding of happiness. What I will try to do now is outline, in broad terms, what happiness may mean for a Brazilian.

Naturally, this is an open reflection: there are differences between cultures and civilizations, as well as within the country itself. Brazil is a very large country, and although from the outside there is often a stereotypical image — football, carnival, joy — within it coexist many cultures, ethnic groups, and regional traditions, each with its own understanding of life, culture, and, of course, happiness.

For example, in southern Brazil, where I currently live, there is a strong gaucho culture, close to Uruguay and Argentina. In the central-western regions there is a noticeable influence closer to Paraguay. Along the Atlantic coast, especially in Rio de Janeiro and Bahia, the Afro-Brazilian presence is very prominent. Despite this diversity, there are also common traits that make it possible to speak of a shared Brazilian identity.

In general, Brazil is considered a country of cheerful and happy people, and perhaps this is partly true. But behind this image lie many nuances. I do not seek to define happiness in universal terms, but we may begin from the idea of an inner human condition: a kind of existential fulfillment, an attitude toward life, a readiness to accept life as it is.

From this perspective, one can speak of a particular way of life characterized by a positive attitude toward existence that is typical of Brazilians. So what is happiness for a Brazilian? The answer is complex, but the classic interpreters of Brazil — such as Gilberto Freyre, Sérgio Buarque de Holanda, and Darcy Ribeiro — agree in identifying certain shared traits of Brazilian identity. Some of their works, incidentally, are also available in Russian.

These traits may be united under a concept known from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche — the Dionysian principle. To think about Brazil and Brazilian life means, in a certain sense, to think about a specific form of Dionysianism. This is not classical ancient Dionysianism, but a Brazilian variation of it, deeply rooted in corporeality, collectivity, and a sensual perception of the world.

This experience manifests itself as a kind of celebration of life through the senses, through fusion, through excess — yet softened by warmth, openness, and a constant search for balance between the pursuit of pleasure, tranquility, and the inner contradictions inherent in Brazilian culture.

One of the central elements here is the enjoyment of sensory experience — in gastronomy, in music, and also in a particular relationship to sexuality. Brazilian cuisine is extraordinarily diverse and rich, having emerged from the intersection of European, African, and Indigenous traditions. At the same time, the foundation of Brazilian society is not so much the individual or the state as the family.

It is within the domestic sphere that many cultural traits are formed: cuisine, music, forms of communication. Even Brazil’s most famous musical genres originated in household courtyards — spaces of shared life where African, European, and Indigenous influences intertwined. Although many rhythms took shape during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, their roots go back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Sexuality in Brazil also developed in a freer form compared to other colonial contexts. The Portuguese, unlike other colonizers, displayed less rigidity in moral norms, which created tensions with the Church and the Inquisition. This greater flexibility became incorporated into the idea of the «good life» and, consequently, into the understanding of happiness.

This particular importance of the body and the senses is reflected even in everyday habits. Brazilians are known for showering very frequently — something connected to a culture of bodily care and sensual sensitivity. Portuguese chroniclers already noted during the colonial period that Indigenous peoples bathed in rivers up to ten times a day, something completely unimaginable for Europeans of that era.

In the public sphere there is also a distinct openness: a willingness to engage with others and a certain rejection of the formalism and impersonal bureaucracy characteristic of many European cultures. In Brazil, relationships are more direct, warmer, and less hierarchical in everyday interaction.

If in classical Dionysianism catharsis was achieved through tragedy, then in the Brazilian version it is achieved through celebration. Even religiosity, especially in earlier periods, had a more festive and expressive character than in Europe. Today this form of catharsis manifests itself most vividly in carnival — as a space of temporary inversion of hierarchies, norms, and rules.

Life in Brazil is often perceived as something that unfolds within spaces of leisure and social interaction. Work is a necessity, but not life itself. For many Brazilians, Monday is the hardest day of the week, whereas Friday and Saturday are the happiest. Happiness is found in music, in street socializing, in celebration, in carnival.

This culture, which may be called hedonistic, has historically also found expression in forms of ecstasy — for example, in messianic movements often associated with expectations of a utopia of happiness. Even when this does not take the form of open revolt, there remains a tendency to mock authority ironically.

Humor — including dark humor — is an important feature of Brazilian character and serves as a way of coping with suffering, pain, oppression, and death. Laughing at tragedy often becomes a form of resistance.

Thus, happiness for a Brazilian is at once a sensory experience and an attitude toward life. Yet it also contains a hidden melancholy — a contrast especially evident in music: even the most joyful rhythms are often accompanied by lyrics filled with longing or sadness.

Overall, these are only a few preliminary reflections on the subject of happiness in Brazil — an attempt to describe how this value manifests itself within our culture. I am open to questions.

Question:

How would you describe — or even define — Brazilian happiness?

If we were to formulate the concept of happiness briefly but deeply, what would Brazilian happiness be?

I think I would generally describe Brazilian happiness as a form of tropical Dionysianism.

This raises the question: are we speaking primarily about something external — about what happens outside us, such as beautiful nature, the beauty of people, music, good food? Or is it rather an inner state, a way of projecting one’s inner world onto external reality and interacting with it?

I would say that, in the case of Brazil, the connection with the external is very strong. The sensory dimension, the perception of what comes from outside, is extremely important for Brazilians. One could also say that there is a clearly expressed tendency toward extroversion. This form of happiness has a deeply social dimension.

For example, family. The typical Brazilian model is not the nuclear family, as is often the case in Anglo-Saxon cultures. In Brazil, the family usually includes uncles, aunts, cousins, and sometimes even pets; whenever possible, everyone lives more or less nearby. In some younger generations this is changing under the influence of more contemporary and individualistic attitudes, but the family bond nevertheless remains central.

I can give a personal example. I am unmarried and moved to another province for work. However, my mother did not rest until she convinced my father to move to the same province where I live, together with our dog. Now they are my neighbors. Although we do not live in the same house, it was important to her that we be at least close to one another. That is very Brazilian.

And for me, too, this is important. I remember that when I was far away from my family, that experience was not especially good for me. I am rather introverted; I do not need big celebrations or an intense social life, but family is truly fundamental for me.

In this sense, although we do need external elements — pleasure, food, family, friends — at the same time we project our inner perception onto the external world. A kind of mutual nourishment emerges: the external nourishes us, and we, in turn, give shape to the external through relationships, art, and shared life.

Question:

How many ordinary people in Brazil sincerely consider themselves happy?

Or do you think most people tend to think more about the problems that always exist?

Well, I could say the following about Brazilians. In Brazil there is a very common expression: a Brazilian never gives up.

Most Brazilians complain about politics, economic problems, and social difficulties. There are always many reasons for concern, especially over the last ten to fifteen years, when political life in Brazil became much more conflict-ridden. And yet Brazilians feel that all of this can be endured if there remains the possibility to relax, enjoy oneself, and experience some kind of pleasure or positive moment.

That is why during presidential campaigns — and political campaigns in general — candidates very often make promises related to food and consumption. Not so much in the sense of eradicating hunger, but, for example, promising that every citizen will be able to eat the best cut of meat, that everyone will have their beer, and that there will be money for travel and enjoyment.

This has a very strong impact on the Brazilian imagination, because even the poorest people also tend — and this has both positive and negative aspects — to realize themselves through consumption. And not only through food and drink, but also through things: goods promoted by advertising and industry — a new television, a new mobile phone, and other consumer items.

Of course, there is also a negative side to this search for self-realization through the external: through the sensory, the material, the bodily, the tangible. This is a form of happiness that relies heavily on the external and, at the same time, reveals its own contradictions.

Question:

How do Brazilians relate to inner silence and meditation?

This is a very interesting question. Perhaps for most Brazilians there is too much noise around them. This is connected both to the way cities in Brazil are built — with very dense urban development — and to the general way of life. Very often, a person simply does not have an external space where it is quiet and calm.

But Brazil also has a very strong spiritual and messianic tradition. Even popular movements and historical uprisings in Brazil were almost never based on modern ideologies; rather, they were uprisings of a spiritual nature. For example, the Canudos uprising or the Contestado War were led by religious figures — monks or spiritual leaders — even if they did not belong to the official church hierarchy.

I would also say that the element of inner life is present in the melancholy that can often be found in art. This is not necessarily an experience close to the majority of the population, but if we speak specifically about Brazilian music, Brazilian poetry, and, to some extent, Catholic spirituality in Brazil, there is indeed a more pronounced search for inner silence.

Quite often, for example, people connected with the artistic world leave large cities to live in the interior regions of the country. Brazil is a country where, as in Russia, a large part of the population is concentrated in a few major cities, while vast territories remain sparsely populated.

Therefore, in some cases there is a conscious search for spaces where greater focus on the inner world and a deeper connection with silence are possible. However, this attitude is not characteristic of most Brazilians, but rather of certain specific social and cultural groups.

I would like to begin with the question of the very possibility of speaking about happiness within the framework of a conference. I do not intend to consider happiness as something individual — the happiness of separate people — but rather as something connected to a collective challenge for peoples and perhaps even as a category that, in a certain sense, precedes the concept of «humanity» in its broadest meaning.

It seems to me that reflecting on this subject today — in our era — characterizes a significant part of the world, with the possible exception of certain ideological positions that are satisfied with the way the contemporary world is organized. I do not think it would be an exaggeration to say that reflecting on happiness in an age of catastrophe — in the literal sense of the word — is an extremely important task. And I would especially like to thank my friend Alexander Dementiev for the invitation and for the opportunity to participate in this meeting thanks to modern technologies.

I intentionally use the word «catastrophe.» I borrow it from a text written by Hannah Arendt in memory of her teacher Karl Jaspers — a text titled Men in Dark Times. In this reflection on Jaspers there is an important idea: during periods of large-scale planetary catastrophes, the very idea of humanity — this word, this category — leaves the comfortable space of literature or utopia and becomes an urgent political imperative. Humanity as a task for politics. The very notion of humanity becomes political.

I am thinking here of Jaspers’s 1958 text The Atom Bomb and the Future of Humanity. In it, Jaspers says something very simple and at the same time terrifying: after Hiroshima, all human beings on Earth realized something they had never known before — that we already possess the means to destroy ourselves, and that all it takes is pressing a button.

This threat, this horror, the awareness of what may happen to us, forces us to perceive humanity as a task, as something that must be built. Faced with the danger threatening the human race — in the sense that humanity may become nothing more than an object under threat — we must conceive humanity as a single collective subject.

In other words, if Jaspers’s terminology seems too distant, one could express it this way: we must move from understanding the human race as an object of threat to understanding humanity as a subject acting in its own name — a subject capable of taking responsibility for its own destiny.

Jaspers proposed what he called the «great conversation» — a dialogue among all the peoples, cultures, and civilizations of the planet. I intentionally use these words — culture and civilization — which also appear in the theme of our conference. We are speaking about a dialogue among different traditions that must jointly reflect on the common challenges facing humanity. And this must be done not only from the standpoint of scientific or technical reason, but also from the standpoint of critical and reflective thought.

Here we can hear echoes of broader intellectual debates of the twentieth century. Above all, I mean the Frankfurt School — in particular Max Horkheimer. And of course Jürgen Habermas, who profoundly developed these ideas. I would like to mention two of his texts.

The first is Knowledge and Human Interests (1968). In this work one can hear the echoes of the student movements and liberation slogans of Paris at that time. Habermas proposes understanding forms of human knowledge not as neutral, but as linked to different types of interests. Thus, the natural sciences are connected with a technical interest — the aspiration to master the world; the humanities with a practical interest — understanding other cultures and societies; and the critical sciences — such as psychoanalysis — with an emancipatory interest: the liberation of both collective and individual subjects.

This idea resonates with what I mentioned earlier: we must think not only within the logic of the technical domination of the world, but also from the standpoint of critical thought capable of directing knowledge toward broader goals.

The second important text by Habermas is Technology and Science as Ideology. In it he returns to the idea of the «great conversation,» but now applied to national societies. He describes it as a dialogue among three elements: power (the state), scientific-technical and university systems, and an active, critically minded public opinion. The more developed this dialogue is within a society, the more democratic that society becomes.

The idea of the «great conversation» on a global level forces us to move beyond this model and ask ourselves: how can we organize dialogue among states, scientific systems, universities, and the peoples of the world in order to find solutions to global problems?

And here emerges what I called «Latin American humanism.» It may offer important ideas. Almost simultaneously with Habermas, the Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro wrote a series of works titled Studies of Civilization. In the first book — The Civilizational Process — he proposes a philosophy of history based on technological revolutions: agrarian, commercial, industrial, and finally thermonuclear.

But unlike Jaspers, he viewed this last revolution not only as a threat, but also as a possibility — the possibility of a new stage that he called the «age of humanity.»

These ideas had a major influence in Latin America. In Argentina they were developed by Alcira Argumedo, who in her book Horizons Without Certainty showed that the key question lies not in technologies themselves, but in the political structures capable of directing their development.

Another important author is Horacio González. In his final book, Humanism. Contestation and Resistance, he analyzes forms of «damage» to humanity in the contemporary world — from colonialism to technological pressure.

If I had to name the key thinkers of this current, I would highlight Darcy Ribeiro, Leopoldo Zea, Alcira Argumedo, and Horacio González. They help us move closer to that «great conversation» of which Jaspers spoke.

Universities play a special role here. In Latin America there is a strong tradition of understanding higher education as a public good. In 2008 it was declared that higher education is a universal right and an obligation of the state. This is a radically democratic idea.

It is important to understand the university not only as a right of individuals, but as a right of peoples — and even as a right of humanity as a whole. Because the problems we face long ago transcended national borders.

Therefore, universities must actively participate in global dialogue, build cooperation, and avoid colonial forms of interaction. The issue is not subordination, but equal exchange.

We need to synchronize our efforts and jointly develop new strategies of education and knowledge in dialogue with other peoples. In this sense, Latin American humanism may play an important role in reflecting on the future in these difficult times.

And now I would like to reflect briefly on the subject of happiness from a civilizational perspective. What I propose is not a technical analysis, but a cultural reflection. How is this concept grounded in a multipolar and civilizational world? First of all, I will approach this question through the Peruvian point of view: from an Andean perspective, including elements of Amazonian culture as well as components of Spanish origin.

This is a tradition rooted in the time of the Inca chronicler Garcilaso de la Vega and continued in the works of De la Torre, Schreiber, Salazar Bondy, and other historians and thinkers of Peru. I would say that there is a certain constant feature defining the character of Peruvian thought: the ideal of cultural realization. To speak of realization on a cultural scale means speaking of the national identity of peoples. The national identity of an organized community allows it to understand itself as part of one particular nation and not another.

In the case of Peru, national identity — what we call Peruvian-ness — takes shape as a syncretic combination of the country’s various cultural aspects and ethnic components, together with their knowledge, traditions, folklore, and social practices. This entire field of identity belongs to the sphere of culture, understood as a system of signs and meanings that define a community.

Here it is important to bring all these elements together without losing ourselves: to develop without abandoning tradition, relying on the legacy of our ancestors, who passed down to us a moral code and fertile land where Christian morality was also able to take root. A significant part of this legacy goes back to the Inca civilization. Many of its present-day bearers are the Quechua people. The three best-known commandments — Ama sua, ama llulla, ama quella («do not steal, do not lie, do not be lazy») — express simple but deeply moral truths that reflect an ethic rooted in popular culture and going back to ancient Indigenous traditions. This moral code, transmitted from our ancestors to the present day, is one of the key ethical foundations of our society.

Among the peoples that still exist today — such as the Aymara, Amazonian peoples, and others — morality is closely linked to care for the land and the natural environment. There is a deep respect for the message of the ancestors, a kind of constant echo of their legacy. It is impossible to achieve genuine satisfaction without realizing the ideal of justice. Peoples cannot be truly sovereign if their development is not grounded in the realization of their own cultural potential. The ideal of sovereignty is impossible without the ideal of independence.

A nation becomes more autonomous in its worldview when its creative activity — artistic, scientific, or intellectual — expresses an ethos that embodies its national dignity. Each civilization possesses its own cultural codes, which brings us to the principle of cultural relativism and the interconnectedness of different traditions.

In social practice, this is expressed through the preservation of fundamental principles that guide the development of peoples. Tradition should be understood as a set of practices, ideas, and values worthy of preservation in order to ensure dignity and a dignified future. Therefore, reflection on the past and future of peoples must be carried out from a national point of view.

In Peru — as in ancient civilizations such as China or India — the ideal of the «good life» in the Inca era was understood as oriented toward eternity. The good life was conceived as collective well-being with a commitment to permanence. This ideal requires concrete conditions for the construction of happiness, based on two key principles: reciprocity and redistribution.

Following Peruvian historians such as Rostworowski and Lumbreras, the Incas understood reciprocity as mutual assistance through collective labor. It took three forms: minka, ayni, and mita. The first meant voluntary labor for communal needs — for example, the construction of irrigation systems or work in mines; the second meant mutual assistance between families, especially in agriculture and construction; the third meant participation in the construction of roads, bridges, and administrative centers. Redistribution represented the highest level of this system: the fair distribution of necessary goods to ensure the life of all members of society.

Tahuantinsuyu — the name the Incas gave to their empire — functioned on the basis of this system. Peasants handed over a significant part of their production to the state, and the state redistributed it through the ayllu — the basic unit of Inca society, made up of communities of families sharing a common ancestor, whether real or mythical. These forms of organization allowed the empire to develop. Even today, almost five centuries after its fall, many Inca irrigation systems continue to function.

This Andean utopianism persists to this day as a way of thinking about the future through a return to a glorious past. Our ethos as a people is also expressed in the political search for the figure of the Inca as an ideal ruler. We strive for a balance between tradition and modernity, between economic independence and the moral foundations of society.

Therefore, the happiness of a people cannot be separated from the material, social, and economic well-being of persons, since cultural realization also requires social and personal realization. The state performs a fundamental historical function here: to activate the living forces of the people. This is its historical mission.

Within the framework of Romantic nationalism and the formation of civil society over recent centuries, happiness acquires a universal dimension, since each nation contributes to the common good of humanity. National dignity resides in this. Patriotism — understood as love for the homeland — is the foundation of the national project, which in turn represents the highest expression of the patriotic idea.

Internationalism is impossible without values and without love for one’s own country. In essence, it is fraternity among peoples. In the Ibero-American and Peruvian context, Peru represents a historical unity that begins with Tahuantinsuyu, passes through the Viceroyalty, and arrives at the independent republic. This historical continuity forms a millennia-old national consciousness.

The Peruvian state is the expression of the historical destiny of the Peruvian people. When it fails to reflect that destiny properly, structural errors arise that prevent the full realization of the country’s historical potential. Economic freedom must serve internal cultural development. This is not merely an economic goal, but an ontological one: the economy must serve cultural ends.

Politics — including in its ethical and even metaphysical dimension — must take into account the legacy and sacrifices of the ancestors. In the new multipolar reality, which is becoming increasingly visible in international politics, cultural realization becomes a central element. Countries such as Russia, China, and India have already understood that national renewal is impossible without a cultural, technical, scientific, and above all axiological foundation: tradition, history, and an organic conservatism that preserves identity.

Only peoples capable of preserving their culture can achieve a higher level of development and occupy a dignified place in the global civilizational hierarchy. Cooperation among states and civilizations, based on mutual assistance and respect for traditions, becomes a key direction. Processes such as cooperation within BRICS or dialogue platforms in Asia — although Peru does not participate directly in them — are seen as examples of cooperation grounded in shared values.

Thus, cultural realization becomes the foundation of a civilizational understanding of well-being. It is this realization that ensures the growth of the strength, dignity, and authority of states on the international stage.

Question:

Mr. Israel, please tell us what personal happiness means for a contemporary Peruvian.

And the second question: if you had to explain to a five-year-old child what happiness is, how would you do it?

Well, we could put it this way. For a contemporary Peruvian, happiness is first and foremost life in community. Living together, living in a spirit of fraternity, being close to one’s family. Despite social and economic difficulties — for example, Peru is currently facing a serious security crisis and constant political instability — and even despite a relatively stable economy, political problems remain.

Nevertheless, the collective dimension remains central. Peruvians always seek to be with their family. Family is a key value, as is the very idea of community. Despite the shortcomings of the political system, there is a deeply rooted understanding of the importance of community, of the spirit of the ayllu — the foundation of Inca society, which in one form or another still survives today.

There is a sense of fraternity among the peoples of Peru — in Ayacucho, Puno, Cajamarca, and other regions. There is an idea of mutual assistance, of social solidarity. I believe this is where the understanding of happiness for the contemporary Peruvian lies.

If I were explaining this to a five-year-old child, I would say: happiness is when a person is able to realize themselves. A person is happy when they become themselves and do so within a community, while being useful to others. Community must always remain important.

The history of Peru confirms this: being useful to society, participating in collective work — as was done in the past — has always been connected with the idea of happiness. Happiness means being needed by others, serving society, and leaving one’s mark on it. In the ayllu.

Today this word is no longer used in quite the same way, but there are different forms of social association: rural communities, associations, collectives. To live in community, to be useful to it, to realize oneself within it, and to leave a mark on the community — this, in my view, is what happiness consists of.

Question:

Is there today a difference in the understanding of happiness between younger and older generations in Peru?

Yes, there is something similar in Peru. One can speak of a kind of generational divide. Different generations were formed under different historical conditions and imagine their future in different ways.

This divide can be traced to the period of the 1980s and 1990s — a time of deep social, economic, and political instability. At that time, a serious rupture occurred in the perception of the world. The Soviet Union still existed then, and the government of Juan Velasco Alvarado was ideologically close to that direction.

After him came democratic governments, such as that of Fernando Belaúnde Terry, which sought to improve the situation of peasants and Indigenous peoples. The period of Velasquismo had a strong influence on a generation oriented toward social justice and transformation. After that period ended, this model gradually began to disappear.

Then, under presidents such as Alan García and Alberto Fujimori, the country moved toward a neoliberal model and the depoliticization of society, which strongly influenced the new generations. In this sense, one can speak of a «before» and «after» Velasco. Before, society was closer to a socialist model; after, there was a sharp rupture.

Nevertheless, this does not mean that young people became apolitical. On the contrary, today we see active participation by young people in protests, demonstrations, and social movements.

Although generational values differ, participation in public life remains an important part of their worldview.

Question:

Peru shows good economic indicators. But in whose hands is the economy really?

This is a very complex question. Peru’s economy must be considered in its historical context.

Earlier, the country was oriented toward a model close to socialism. During the rule of Velasco Alvarado, an agrarian reform was carried out aimed at dismantling the oligarchic system of land ownership and achieving a fairer distribution of land.

Later, under democratic governments, especially during Alan García’s period, the country experienced a severe crisis with hyperinflation. This led to a sharp turn toward neoliberalism.

With the arrival of Alberto Fujimori, large-scale privatization and economic deregulation began, accompanied by corruption. After his fall, the country formally became democratic, but almost all former presidents ended up under investigation or in prison.

The economy became more resilient to political changes, but a serious problem emerged: economic growth did not lead to full social development.

The idea of «trickle-down benefits» did not justify itself. This became especially evident during the pandemic, when it became clear that the state was not prepared for the crisis.

Today this issue is once again becoming central. The economy requires reforms. Despite certain growth, the main benefits are received by large business groups, while a significant part of the population does not feel these changes.

The low quality of public services is clear evidence of this. That is the essence of the problem.

When Erika invited me to participate in this gathering, I immediately began thinking about happiness — above all through the perspective of Aristotle and the Stoics, but especially through the perspective of Juan Domingo Perón. Perón, the founder of Justicialism and a key figure in the history of our country, offers, in my opinion, a very profound and important understanding of happiness.

I deliberately chose a provocative title for this work — and for my presentation: Practical Happiness. A Justicialist Guide for New Generations. For me, happiness has, above all, a practical meaning. Happiness is always action. Happiness is a process. And it requires, first and foremost, an aesthetic dimension.

Since my field is philosophy, my principal task is to think. And when speaking about happiness, I believe it can be approached primarily as an aesthetic category. By the end of this talk, we will also see that it can be understood as an erotic category — and perhaps, above all, precisely in that sense.

I would like to begin with a brief quotation from Epictetus, who says that there is only one path toward inner tranquility and happiness: not to consider external things as one’s own, but to entrust them to God. What does this mean? Above all, it means distinguishing happiness from luck. Luck is what does not depend on me; happiness is what depends only on me.

For the Stoics — and especially for Epictetus — happiness begins with this distinction: what depends on us and what does not. Everything external cannot serve as the foundation of happiness. What does not depend on me must be «given over to God.» Happiness begins with this ability to distinguish.

In Aristotle, we find a similar but more developed line of thought. In the Nicomachean Ethics, he says that every action, every inquiry, every art, and every choice aims at some good. The good is that toward which everything strives. And the highest good is happiness.

In this sense, happiness is the ultimate goal of all actions. But there is an important clarification here: happiness cannot be something external, nor can it be something evaluated only at the end of life. If it were, we could never know whether we had truly been happy. Happiness is therefore the goal, but not an «ending.» It is realized here and now, within action itself.

In this sense, happiness has an aesthetic character: it is practice, it is action. Aristotle distinguishes between action and production, and happiness belongs precisely to the sphere of action. The good is not postponed until later — it is realized in the very process of acting.

This idea, in my opinion, is also present in Perón. For him, politics is action directed toward the happiness of the people and the greatness of the Homeland. To govern means creating conditions in which politics serves that purpose.

Thus, among the Stoics happiness acquires a metaphysical dimension; in Aristotle, an ethical and political one; and in Perón, above all, a political one. Politics itself becomes a form of aesthetics: a way of acting, building, and creating.

I am trying briefly to show how happiness manifests itself on three levels: ethical, aesthetic, and political.

From an ethical point of view, turning to Aristotle and Justicialism, we may speak about the path toward happiness as a question: what should be done? This question requires principles, norms, and orientation.

Within Justicialism there are twenty principles forming an ethics directed toward the happiness of the people and the greatness of the Homeland. Two dimensions can be distinguished here: an ethics of responsibility (close to Kant) and an ethics of merit or achievement — and it is this latter dimension that is linked to action.

Here we find continuity between the Stoics, Aristotle, and Perón: a person can be happy when acting as they ought to act. In Justicialism, the hierarchy of responsibility is as follows: first the Homeland, then the movement or organization, and only afterward the individual. The individual always comes last.

This means correcting the ego: happiness is connected with placing the common good above personal interest. First the Homeland, then the collective — and only then myself.

Also important here is the ethics of «doing things well.» The question arises: how should one act correctly? For Aristotle, it is the «golden mean» between excess and deficiency. This principle becomes central: avoiding extremes.

To this are added the intellectual virtues: reason (nous), technical knowledge (téchne), practical wisdom (phronesis), theoretical wisdom (sophía), Socratic humility (understanding that we do not know), and also the capacity for creativity. To be rational, competent, humble, and capable.

This ethics allows a person not only to be happy themselves, but also to contribute to the happiness of others — of society and of the Homeland. From the Stoics through Aristotle to Perón runs a single line: happiness always transcends the individual; it is connected with something greater than ourselves.

Happiness is action. It is practice. And this practice is aesthetic. The word «aesthetics» comes from the Greek aisthesis — sensitivity, bodily perception. To be happy means to create beauty, to make something beautiful.

Ethics is connected with the good; aesthetics with beauty.

And all this culminates in politics. In Justicialism, the goal of politics is clear: the happiness of the people and the greatness of the Homeland.

The three pillars of this idea are economic independence, political sovereignty, and social justice. Independence makes it possible to control resources; sovereignty makes it possible to govern them; social justice makes it possible to distribute them with dignity.

Social justice is not merely the distribution of goods, but the creation of work. Work is not suffering, but realization. Through work, a person creates meaning, beauty, and participates in the common endeavor.

A human being is formed through the collective, through the community. Society exists in order to make what is common truly common.

And finally, an important principle: every people must decide its own destiny. No country has the right to impose upon another how it should live. Genuine international politics is founded on respect, fraternity, and self-determination.

To conclude, I would formulate it this way:

to do good, to create beauty, and to love.

Happiness means acting, creating, loving, and going beyond oneself.

Question:

You said that for you happiness is connected with thinking. But is the content of that thinking important? Can reflecting on difficult things, on pain and suffering, also be a form of happiness?

A very good question — truly a very good question.

Yes, I do indeed devote myself to thinking. And sometimes thinking is simply the ability to ask a good question. And just now, here, a very good question was asked.

In general, the question of happiness is already, in itself, a beautiful question. But I tend to understand happiness somewhat differently. Sometimes it reminds me of Argentine music — the chacarera. There is a well-known musician, Raúl Carnota, and his song Chacarera del pensador («The Thinker’s Chacarera»).

What happens to many philosophers is that we solve problems, constantly think through different issues, and no one notices it. No one ever comes to know about it, yet we work things out, struggle with problems, confront difficulties — even if nobody realizes it.

That is why I would understand thinking above all as action. I would not focus so much on the act of thinking itself, but rather on the action that thinking sets in motion. If we speak about happiness, then happiness must be shared. It must be something shared with others.

Sometimes I fear becoming that solitary thinker who solves things no one will ever know about. And in those moments, I feel very alone. And I am not sure whether such solitary thinking truly makes me happy. I do not know.

It seems to me that doing something good, creating something beautiful, or loving is much closer to happiness. Because even thought itself, when it is shared with others — as we are doing now — changes. To love, to do good, and to create beauty are much closer to happiness precisely because they involve sharing, going beyond oneself, and opening oneself to others.

Question:

I would like to ask a question. Could you elaborate a little further on the concept of the Homeland? Let us imagine that we truly love, create joy and happiness — that is, something shared and held in common — and that, as Alfonsín said, «we keep our house in order.»

Now let us think about the neighborhood. If the house is in order — I am speaking metaphorically — if we have put our Homeland in order, what does that mean from the perspective of contemporary European ideas? Where are the borders? Are they clear and fixed, or are they flexible and shifting?

It seems to me that Perón spoke about continentalism as a step toward universality, toward universalism. In other words, he understood the Homeland not as a closed concept, but as something that extends beyond itself toward a broader reality. In this sense, he also referred to the legacy of Jesus and to the idea of universality.

I am Muslim, but this aspect interests me especially because I propose thinking about a strategic unity between Islam and Christianity. Tomorrow I will speak more about this. But for now I would like to emphasize precisely the concept of the Homeland.

Because at first glance one might think that, for Perón, the Homeland was simply Argentina. Yet we understand that his conception was much broader. Could you elaborate a bit more on this idea and explain how Perón understood the Homeland beyond a strictly national definition?

Of course — thank you very much for the question. In reality, there is absolutely no problem in the fact that you are Muslim. We Justicialists are open to everyone. As long as there is love, as long as there is beauty, everything else may differ. Love is universal. In the end, only love remains. It is truly a very good question.

Sometimes one might even ask whether this concept should still be preserved today. Why does it remain relevant? Why should we continue reflecting on the Homeland? Because in Justicialism — including as a theory of government — to govern means to create work for the common good, for the happiness of the people and the greatness of the Homeland.

The greatness of the Homeland follows from the happiness of the people. In other words, first comes the happiness of the people, and then the greatness of the Homeland, almost as the culmination of that bond. But the starting point is always the same: the happiness of the people. That is why it remains so important to continue reflecting on what the Homeland is and what place this concept occupies within Justicialism.

At the same time, it is necessary to free the concept of the Homeland from a narrowly literal, «paternal,» or patriarchal understanding. If the word «Homeland» is taken literally as «fatherland,» then that emphasis must be shifted. At its core, Justicialism is a kind of erotic mode of thought: it understands being as love.

If we speak about the «organized community,» a theological dimension also appears here. What is theology? It is language, an attempt to think and speak about God. There is a paradox in this: reason tries to express that which exceeds reason itself. From this perspective, in Perón’s thought the Homeland — connected with this «erotic» idea — is above all love.

The Homeland is love. If we understand it as «home,» as a space of belonging, then that home may be the neighborhood, Buenos Aires where I live, or even Saint Petersburg. Because as long as a person does not invade another’s home, does not violate another’s boundaries, they can do good, serve the common good, and act for others.

When Perón returned from exile in Spain, he changed one of the principles of Justicialism. Previously it said: «For a Peronist, there is nothing better than another Peronist.» Later he changed it to: «For an Argentine, there is nothing better than another Argentine.» This is very revealing, because today we might say — looking at one another here — that for a human being, there is nothing better than another human being. Nothing stands above that.

And in conclusion, I would like to add one more thing. Whenever Justicialism speaks about God, it always speaks about unity. In the key texts of Justicialism, the word «God» is always connected with the unity of the people. God, in this sense, is the One — unity itself.

Why? Because Justicialism does not think in terms of struggle. It is not a doctrine of war or class struggle. It is not built on conflict — it is built on unity. That is why concepts such as God, Homeland, or home are always linked to the idea of unity.

We love one another because we understand that we are one. There is even a certain «erotic excess» in this idea: we are united because everything is one, because everything is love. For Justicialism, everything is love.

If one understands this, a person can not only act and be happy, not only bring happiness to their Homeland, their community, and themselves, but also respect the humanity within each of us — that shared human essence which unites us.

Perhaps I have gone on a bit too long, but these questions genuinely fascinate me. They resonate with me very deeply.

Speaking about happiness from the perspective of Islamic thought, it is important to note that there is an enormous body of work by outstanding scholars devoted to this topic. In Islam, based on the Qur’an, we find many divine texts that address the question of happiness. In addition, the hadiths — the sayings and teachings of the Prophet — are key sources for understanding happiness in Islam. This body of knowledge is extraordinarily vast: there are countless books devoted to human happiness.

Furthermore, Islamic philosophy, drawing upon Greek philosophy, developed as a distinct intellectual tradition. As Islam spread across different regions, it reinterpreted and transformed the philosophical traditions of various civilizations — Persian, Western, and Chinese. In this way, Islamic philosophy emerged as a system of thought grounded in divine laws.

When we speak about Islam, it is important to understand that it is not a religion opposed to earlier traditions. Islam is a continuation of Judaism and Christianity — that is, of the Abrahamic monotheistic religions. Therefore, when reflecting on the philosophy of happiness, it is necessary to understand the concept itself correctly.

I would also like to emphasize the contribution of Persian poetry and literature. As an Iranian and as a sheikh, I know well that there exists an immense number of poetic works dedicated to happiness. That is why this topic requires deep and comprehensive study.

I live in a country that is often considered one of the happiest in the world — Brazil. Many people here claim that Brazil is the happiest country. Yet a key question arises: what does happiness actually mean? For example, in Islam dancing is not considered a sign of happiness. In Brazil, however, if someone says they are happy but cannot dance, people may reply that they know nothing about happiness. Therefore, the first thing we need is a precise definition of happiness.

Let me briefly address the meaning of the word itself. In Persian, «happiness» is shadi. It is also a female name meaning «joy» or «happiness.» In Arabic, the words farah or al-masarra are used, and these terms also appear in the Qur’an.

If we speak about what happiness means for a Muslim, philosophers first point out that it is a kayfiyya nafsaniyya — an inner spiritual state of the human being. It may happen that a person lives in a society where everyone appears happy, yet they themselves are not happy. Many countries assess happiness through indicators such as quality of life. However, quality of life is neither an exact nor a sufficient criterion for happiness.

Happiness is an inner state. A person may be in prison and still be happy, while kings living in palaces may be deeply unhappy. Thus, happiness has a profoundly personal and inner character.

In Islamic tradition, the well-known thinker and theologian Morteza Motahhari wrote that happiness (shadi, surur) is a feeling of joy and inspiration that arises when a person achieves what they desire: the pleasure of attaining a goal. Other authors consider happiness to be a collection of pleasures. Yet overall, it is important to understand that if a person feels happiness in their life, even if others do not understand it, then that person is truly happy.

Today on social media one can see images of poor people eating in difficult conditions while still appearing happy. And conversely, there are people who possess everything yet remain unhappy. I once saw a Deutsche Welle report about Brazilians living in Finland — a country with a high quality of life. Many of them said: «As a Brazilian living in Finland, I am not happy.» Why? Because they had lost many of the things that once made them happy.

How, then, can one arrive at a true understanding of happiness? In Islam, interpreters of the Qur’an and the hadiths emphasize that happiness must remain under control. Pay attention to this word. Happiness brings spiritual satisfaction to the soul and body, but it must remain within certain limits. When it exceeds moderation, it may become harmful — like alcohol or drugs, which intensify pleasure and later lead to deep sorrow.

Islam teaches balance: a person should not remain constantly either in sorrow or in excessive joy. Happiness must be moderate.

I will now briefly mention the principles of happiness in Islam. The goal of Islamic teaching is the formation of the perfect human being. Happiness is necessary for this, but it must meet certain conditions.

The first condition is that happiness cannot be connected with sin. Sin is disobedience to the Creator. It may bring temporary pleasure, but it deprives a person of lasting and genuine happiness. Therefore, Islam cannot speak of happiness based on sin — for example, intoxication or forbidden acts.

The second condition is that happiness must not harm others or limit their freedom. If a person wishes to listen to music, they have no right to impose it on others. Happiness cannot be built upon violating the rights of others.

The third condition is that happiness must not be reduced to empty entertainment (al-lahw). This refers to activities that bring no benefit and do not develop the person, but merely waste time. Islam does not approve of pleasures devoid of meaning and purpose, including many forms of addiction widespread among young people today.

Islam teaches that happiness should be meaningful, beneficial, and purposeful.

A person cannot be constantly happy or constantly unhappy. In the hadiths it is said that the joy of the believer is visible on their face, while sorrow remains in their heart. In society, a person should be kind and radiant, yet inwardly aware that this world is temporary, that we are here only briefly, preparing for another world.

It is similar to a student taking a final examination: they rejoice because they are about to move to a new stage, while at the same time understanding the seriousness of the test. This world is preparation for eternal life.

In Islam, it is recommended to divide the day into four parts: work, family, rest, and sleep. Leisure time should be spent with family and friends. When a person returns home, they should leave their sorrows at the door and enter with joy. One should not bring sadness either to loved ones or to society.

In conclusion, I would like to say that true and lasting happiness in Islam is achieved through obedience to God. The highest goal of the human being is to please God, because we come from Him and return to Him. This is the highest happiness.

When a person avoids sin, they experience an inner satisfaction that cannot be attained through forbidden pleasures. Islam teaches that obedience to God is the path to genuine and supreme joy.

Question:

You mentioned that even when the body suffers — for example, when a person is in prison or living in difficult conditions — they can still be happy. From this it follows that happiness is a spiritual state, not necessarily connected to material conditions. How do you understand the relationship between physical suffering, material conditions, and spiritual happiness?

I believe the problem is that humanity has arrived at materialism by separating the soul and the body.

This separation between spirituality and materialism has led us to think only about the body: caring about appearance, clothing, going to the gym in order to look physically perfect in the eyes of society. Yet in the process we have forgotten spirituality, forgotten the soul, which is far greater and more important than the body. Therefore, the solution is to return to spirituality.

Today spirituality is an urgent necessity for humanity, as essential as the air we breathe. Without spirituality, life is impossible. Yes, bodily pleasures exist, but the body is limited. For example, when I eat — I eat and eat — eventually I cannot continue, because the body has limits. Here, for instance, I have Iranian bread: I ate part of it, but I can no longer eat the rest. The body is limited, whereas spirituality has no limits.

We must fill this emptiness by returning to an understanding of the true reality of life. And the reality of life is that one day I will die. If I have no understanding of the future, I will inevitably feel sadness, because I know that one day everything will end. If the grave were the end of human existence, then this life would inevitably be filled with sorrow, because every time I thought about death, I would lose the sense of happiness.

But if a person properly understands that death is like a bridge leading to eternal life, then they begin to live differently. As it is said in the famous expression: ad-dunyā mazra‘at al-ākhirah — this life is the field of preparation for the next life.

Then a person becomes capable of rejoicing in life because they understand its meaning. That is why it is important to realize that life is far broader and deeper than simply the material world.

Question:

Can we say that this is a reminder that we do not have much time, and that it is important to reach true happiness and, at that moment, be connected with God?

That is a very good question. In Islam, there is a distinction between two kinds of prophets: the external and the internal.

The external prophets are those who came to humanity. Islam speaks of 124,000 prophets sent to all peoples and all lands. I do not know whether there were prophets in Russia, but if there were 124,000 throughout the world, it is entirely possible that some came to this land as well.

But the internal prophet exists within the human being even before the coming of the external prophets. This internal prophet is the human intellect, heart, and capacity for reflection. When a person truly reflects, they arrive at the conclusion that the order of this world cannot exist without Someone who established it. In this way, they come to the Creator — to the One who helps in difficult moments, when a person feels alone, completely alone, yet senses that there is Someone supporting them and able to help them.

That is God — regardless of what name is used: Allah, God, Dios, Khoda… I do not know the correct word in Russian. All these names refer to the same Being. It is like the sun: every language has its own name for it, yet its essence does not change.

To find God means first of all to find Him within oneself, through the heart and the intellect, through inner understanding. That is why one Persian poem says:

«I am happy because I am with You.

And it does not matter to me what happens or what others say, because I feel as though I hold gold in my hands, while everyone around says: ‘No, it is only a stone.’ But I know it is gold — and it does not matter how others understand it.»

Thus, the person who is with God… Imam Ali, successor to the Prophet of Islam, said:

«If I remained alone on all the earth, I would feel neither fear nor sorrow, because I know that I am with the best Friend.»

You know that the human being is by nature a social creature; we need friends. But the best friend of the human being is God, because He is the closest of all. God is closer to the human being than their own jugular veins. Therefore, a person will not feel sorrow if they know that they are with the most powerful Creator.

And this feeling does not need to be sought only in philosophical books or somewhere outside oneself. It already exists within us. It can be felt inwardly. Search within yourself — and you will find it.

Question:

I have a question. Very often, when a heavy or negative state arises inside me, when something difficult happens, I experience a feeling of loneliness. And in that moment, when I feel this loneliness, it is very hard for me to remind myself that God is near, that everything is okay, that I am under His protection, and that this state will pass. So I wanted to ask: is there any hadith or verse from the Qur’an that could remind me in such a moment that I am not alone? Some time ago I began reading the Qur’an. I am not sure whether I read it correctly, but I do read it. And so I wanted to ask this question: how should one read, or how should one find a hadith or passage that could help in a difficult or negative emotional state?

The Qur’an is a book revealed by God to humanity; it is the message of the Creator to creation. Supplications, when we raise our hands in prayer, are the message of the human being to the Creator. Thus there are two complementary directions.

But there is also a third element, situated between them — between the Qur’an as the revealed message and supplication as the human response. This element is salat, prayer. Therefore, the Muslim unites all three:

* reading the Qur’an,

* making supplications at any moment — raising one’s hands and saying: «O God, help me,» or «O You who watch over me,»

* and performing prayer as the most complete form of connection.

In your case, when you read the Qur’an, try to place yourself in the position of someone listening to the Creator Himself speaking directly to them. Sometimes God speaks through an intermediary — the Prophet — saying: «O Prophet, say…» Sometimes He addresses humanity — and you are part of that humanity — sometimes the believers, and sometimes the unbelievers. If inwardly you place yourself among those being addressed, the understanding becomes much deeper.

The second point concerns inner experience. There are Qur’anic verses, hadiths, and supplications I would like to mention. A hadith is a saying or narration and usually has a more general character. A supplication, however, is a very deep inner state of the human being, and it helps immensely.

That is why I consider it very important to know the supplications of Imam Sajjad. There is a book called Sahifat al-Sajjadiyya — a remarkable work. I think Sheikh Abdul Karim could explain better what kind of book it is. Supplication helps greatly because it is often accompanied by tears. And tears cleanse the heart. When the heart is released through tears, a person feels lighter, calmer. Crying may appear to be an expression of sadness, but afterward a state of balance arrives. A person cries, and afterward becomes more open, more receptive.

This is the state of equilibrium. And in conclusion I would say that there are passages in the Qur’an through which a person may address God directly.

Question:

In your lecture you said that happiness is impossible without limiting our physical body. Is this connected to the idea that human nature is inherently limited, and that there are negative aspects within us that lead us away from the right path?

When a person leaves the state of balance, it may seem that the body is receiving pleasure. But at the same time, the intellect, soul, and spirit enter into contradiction. The body desires more and more pleasure, yet cannot sustain it, and as a result sadness appears.

To achieve balance, it is necessary to establish limits. For example, if a person drinks and drinks and drinks, eventually they end up in a state where they feel terrible, lying there exhausted and broken. In Ecuador, for example, they say afterward that the person is «left in a terrible state.»

The same happens with entertainment. A person goes to a party thinking everything is wonderful and pure pleasure, but afterward returns home and may spend an entire week feeling empty or suffering. This is connected both to the body and to its limitations. Therefore Islam teaches maintaining balance so that a person may truly enjoy life rather than destroy themselves.

We also speak about limits within society. For example, I may want to drive at maximum speed, but the law forbids it. Why? Because enjoyment must be shared by all. Islam says: you cannot violate the boundaries of others for the sake of your own pleasure. You must limit yourself so that everyone may live and enjoy together. And this in itself brings happiness.

For example, when a person has money and sees someone poor and helps them, they also experience joy. They see the other person’s smile — and this brings them happiness. A person could keep everything for themselves, but when they share, they experience a deeper joy.

That is why Islam constantly speaks of balance as a condition for happiness.

Balance between body and soul, between the individual and society. And in conclusion I would like to say that loneliness in Islam is not considered something positive. Loneliness leads to sorrow. Therefore, a person should share life with others: first with family, then with friends, and ultimately with society as a whole.

I am from Argentina, and I will try to present the theme of happiness as the fullness of the realization of the human being and of humanity — that is, from the perspective of society. From this viewpoint, happiness is only possible as something shared, within community.

Latin American thought constitutes a very broad tradition. Within it, happiness can only be achieved together with others: in the family, in the small community, in the larger community, in the nation, in the people, and also within the community of Latin American and Caribbean countries.

America is, in essence, a profoundly mixed and mestizo land, and many different elements have shaped this way of thinking. There are indigenous cultures — peoples who inhabited this continent before the arrival of Columbus. These include the Maya, Aztec, and Inca cultures, comparable to the Egyptian civilization or the civilization of the Yellow River: ancient civilizations.

And in these cultures, as well as among other peoples who perhaps did not create great civilizations but were nevertheless deeply significant — such as the Guaraní people — there exists an understanding of happiness as a social good, as something that cannot be achieved individually but only collectively, within the people and the community.

The Nahuatl culture — one of the civilizations of Mesoamerica, now represented mainly in Mexico and in large parts of territories that today belong to the United States (territories taken from Mexico in the mid-nineteenth century) — upheld an important idea: the path toward God is closely connected to the path toward happiness. In this culture, the singing of birds and the blossoming of flowers were symbols of beauty and, at the same time, forms of reverence toward the divine. Beauty was regarded as a necessary step on the road to happiness.

Within the Guaraní culture — a nomadic people who never even developed sedentary agriculture — there nevertheless existed a complex theology. They claimed that God was created through the word — but not through the word of a single person, rather through the word of the entire people spoken during their nomadic movement. There also existed the idea of life as a journey toward the «land without evil» — a journey that can only be traveled together. Even the conception of life after death was linked to this communal notion. Thus, fulfillment and happiness were always understood collectively rather than individually.

This same logic is also present in Christianity. Although the relationship with God is personal, faith itself is always communal. Pope Francis, whose popularity is largely connected to his ability to feel the suffering of peoples and formulate collective messages, stated in his first encyclical that faith is above all a social manifestation — an experience that is lived, celebrated, and shared together. It is impossible to be happy outside of life with others, outside of shared existence. This idea is central both to Christian theology and to the worldviews of indigenous peoples, and it constitutes one of the key elements of Latin American thought.

Peronism in Argentina also became a continuation of this line of reflection on happiness, bringing together the indigenous traditions of the Americas and Christian thought. From this arise several key ideas: happiness is not achieved alone, but together with others; the human being does not exist in isolation, but always in relation. Peronism formulated important principles, for example: the goal of political action is the greatness of the nation and the happiness of the people. The happiness of the people is explicitly identified as a political objective.

No one can fully realize themselves within a society that itself remains unrealized. The fullness of human life and social life are profoundly interconnected. This conception — that happiness is possible only collectively — reappears constantly in Latin American thought.

Pope Francis stated that the fullness of human and social life will be achieved only when all people on the planet have housing, food, and work. He emphasized that this is possible only through the efforts of every individual, and he highlighted labor as the element that binds us to one another. In this way, together we can move toward happiness.

From this perspective, approaches that consider happiness exclusively as an individual experience are not necessarily wrong, but they are incomplete. The fullness of happiness is impossible outside life in community: first in small communities, and then in broader forms, extending ultimately to the people as a whole.

This concept has been developed for a long time within Latin American political thought. I present it from a philosophical perspective — although I am not myself a philosopher — and philosophers can certainly develop it more deeply. Nevertheless, this idea is clearly present in Latin American thinking as the result of the convergence between indigenous worldviews and Christian theology.

We believe it is no coincidence that the Catholic Church — one of the most influential religious institutions of the contemporary world — has twice consecutively elected a pope connected with Latin America. The first was Pope Francis, an Argentine deeply rooted in Latin American culture. The second is Pope Leo XIV, a Latin American by choice: born in Chicago, but a citizen of Peru.

Both pontiffs emphasize that happiness and community are founded upon love for God, and that love for God must necessarily manifest itself in relationships with others. We are all brothers and sisters, part of one great human family. Despite differences in conceptions of God, Catholicism seeks dialogue and respect with all religions of the world.

Both Pope Francis and Pope Leo XIV have produced important documents on happiness. Francis, in his encyclical Dilexit Nos, asks the question: «Have You loved us, or do You continue to love us?» Leo XIV says: «I have loved you.» The central meaning is that love for God is love for humanity, and it must reveal itself in fraternal relationships. Only when this love extends to all humanity can we speak of true happiness.

Today at least one-third of humanity lacks sufficient food, access to dignified work, land, healthcare, and education. Under such conditions, it is extremely difficult to speak of genuinely happy peoples or of the full realization of happiness.

We believe that at the present moment happiness — if it is possible at all — can only be achieved through the struggle for justice: for equal rights, for access to food, dignified work, education at every level, and healthcare. These elements are essential for transforming a complex reality.

Perhaps the crisis of the contemporary world allows us to understand that this struggle itself gives meaning to our lives — both personal and collective. And we believe that this is the path toward a happiness that is not limited to the individual dimension, but becomes social as well.

Question:

I am from Colombia, from Bogotá. Can you hear me well?

Mr. Podetti mentioned the Maya, Aztec, and Inca cultures, which for us — representatives of the indigenous peoples of the Americas — form the foundation of our understanding of happiness. These cultures, although they may exist today in different forms, despite the passing of years and even millennia, were never completely destroyed. There is an ongoing struggle to preserve their languages, traditions, and ways of life.

And when you, Mr. Podetti, connect the influence of the Catholic Church with these cultures — and mention figures such as Pope Bergoglio and other pontiffs — I feel not so much a question as a concern.

These cultures deeply belong to us; they are part of our heritage and continue to shape our understanding of happiness. You emphasize the idea of moving from the individual toward the collective — and this is precisely where my doubt arises.

Today we know the Maya, Aztec, and Inca cultures better, and we see that even without a logic in which labor is a constant obligation, their societies were organized differently. For example, in a community of around twenty-six people, only one person might be responsible for preparing food, while the others devoted their time to living — dancing, playing, socializing, and building relationships.

And my question is the following:

How do you see the relationship between these indigenous cultures and the Catholic Church? You established a connection between happiness and the cultures of the Maya, Aztecs, and Incas, but the Catholic Church possesses a highly organized social structure, with clear rituals, strict schedules, and discipline.

When Christopher Columbus arrived in America — an event some call an encounter and others an invasion — there was a profound replacement of the indigenous peoples’ way of life. In one form or another, attempts were made to adapt them to rhythms, rituals, and disciplines foreign to them — and many still do not accept this to this day.

How do the Catholic Church and traditional cultures coexist today in the context of understanding happiness?

How do you understand the relationship between the Catholic structure and indigenous worldviews?

It is a very interesting question because, in reality, I was not speaking about the Catholic Church as an institution, but rather about Christianity. The Catholic Church as an institution committed many errors throughout the entire process of the conquest of the Americas and the destruction of indigenous cultures. Although the Church has asked forgiveness for this, history has recorded what happened from precisely that perspective.

For example, the city of Tenochtitlan, the capital of the Aztec Empire, was not something accidental, but rather the result of a long historical process developed over centuries by extraordinarily complex cultures. The population of Tenochtitlan was ten times larger than that of Venice at the same time, when Venice was still throwing waste directly into the water. And yet that city was completely destroyed by the Spaniards: not one stone was left standing upon another.

This deeply shocked Europeans because they were confronting a civilization with extensive knowledge in geography, astronomy, and theology — a theology that, in many respects, intersected with Christianity.

However, it is important to remember that this entire process of destruction — undoubtedly a dark page in history — was accompanied by a parallel process. And we believe that this is what our peoples inherited: the incorporation of many indigenous theological conceptions into Christian and Catholic thought.

The first great defenders of indigenous peoples were, in fact, priests. For example, Friar Antonio de Montesinos, who declared that the enslavement of Indigenous peoples was a mortal sin. Today the words of the Church may perhaps not carry the same weight, but at that time this meant something enormous: to speak of mortal sin was to make a fundamental declaration.

Many of those who defended the rights, culture, and dignity of indigenous peoples and wrote about them were precisely members of the clergy. Pope Francis, for example, in the Amazon renewed the dialogue between Christian theology and the nearly three hundred indigenous peoples living in that region and defending their Amazonian territory, which today is threatened and being destroyed by neoliberalism and capitalism — processes that continued long after the era of conquest.

Therefore, everything you are saying is true and does not contradict what I presented. On the contrary, we are speaking about a profound integration.

Today the idea of buen vivir — «good living» — which was common to nearly all indigenous cultures, is being developed as a political and social project. Pope Francis publicly referred to this idea, considering it part of the proposals and reflections concerning the future of Christianity.

I do not know whether I have fully answered your question, but I would not want to go excessively deep into the topic.

Question:

Pope Francis stated that the fullness of human life and social life is only possible when every person is guaranteed three basic goods: land, housing, and work. He was speaking about collective human goods and about the idea that without the fulfillment of basic needs, happiness is impossible.

Do you believe that over time this concept could become applicable to modern societies?

I believe that civilization — Western civilization, modern Western civilization — is in a state of profound agony, extremely painful for millions and millions of people around the world.

In one of his documents, Pope Francis noted that the world is undergoing serious upheavals and approaching a turning point. Addressing all the peoples of the world, he proposed guiding principles for building a new society.

It seems to me that humanity can develop and move forward precisely because the peoples of the world are rising up against the current situation. No one agrees with social exclusion, with hunger, with the impossibility of realizing basic human rights. Everyone who confronts these problems — each according to their own culture, faith, and convictions — stands against them.

There is a conviction that there are enormous numbers of peoples in the world who do not accept the existing order of things. We believe that we will move forward — perhaps slowly — but we will move toward transforming the current order into a more just and equitable society, and also toward a more harmonious way of coexisting with nature.

Happiness is sharing — sharing with others and asking ourselves how to solve the problems humanity faces today in order to improve the situation. Meetings like the ones you organize broaden the horizons of inclusion, participation, and dialogue.

In the West, for example in Latin America, during the period from the 2000s until around 2015, there was the so-called progressive wave in power — with Hugo Chávez and other leaders. Not all of them, and not always, acted with enough openness or possessed the necessary means to truly expand the participation of different cultures and develop dialogue among them. I do not mean to say that there were no meetings or dialogue, but they lacked continuity. These processes did not produce enough people capable of sustaining and continuing this path.

As a result, this opportunity for dialogue was interrupted. Today, in many Latin American countries, neoliberal governments have come to power — both through legal and illegal means. In Argentina as well, not all doors were open even during the period of progressive government.

As Muslims, we maintain a critical view of the West, but also a critical view of terrorism — ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and other banned organizations that were used by imperialism to attack peoples, religions, and above all Muslims themselves. For every Christian killed by terrorists, thousands of Muslims are later killed.

Even Hillary Clinton stated that Al-Qaeda and ISIS were created by the United States in Syria. The opportunity for dialogue opening today is an immense treasure and a great opportunity. I humbly ask you to think about continuing this process. Even if language barriers exist, dialogue must continue, because mutual enrichment is limited when there is no shared space.

In Islam, as Sheikh Mir Jalili already mentioned, happiness is knowledge and practical union with God. It is living in such a way as to attain God’s love and favor. And this is not limited only to this world. It is both a spiritual and a material matter. Islam does not propose absolute asceticism: there is no monasticism in it. It is not about rejecting the world or perceiving the body as something inherently sinful.

Like Judaism and Christianity in their prophetic essence, Islam unites body and soul. As the Greeks used to say: «a healthy mind in a healthy body.» Everything must be used for good and in gratitude to God.

Human beings came from God and return to God. We know where we came from and where we are going. But the way we walk this path determines our happiness.

Happiness is not exclusively individual, but neither is it exclusively social. I can be in prison and be happy, and I can be in a palace and be miserable. Martyrs, for example, may be tortured, but inwardly they remain united with justice and with God.

The spiritual dimension is limitless; the material dimension is limited. Human beings were not created for a purely social utopia. Even if tomorrow we distributed all the wealth of the world equally, it would still not be enough. Love is higher than justice. When a mother gives her food or blanket to her child, she acts not only out of justice, but out of love.

Love is the renunciation of one’s own rights for the sake of another. That is mercy. That is the Kingdom of God on earth.

Unfortunately, Western Christianity became institutionalized and turned into part of imperial power. The Empire became Christian, but this does not mean it embraced the original spirit of Jesus’ message. That is why today we see power structures such as the UN Security Council, where five countries possess veto power simply because they won the Second World War. This is not democracy — it is the law of the strong.

Happiness requires independence, courage, and dignity. I must fulfill my duty even if I do not see victory during my lifetime. My obligation is to contribute to the construction of goodness. Perhaps victory will come centuries later.

Jean-Paul Sartre said that human beings thirst for God, yet denied His existence. Without God, life becomes absurd. We strive for absolute happiness, absolute beauty, eternity. Nothing finite can satisfy this longing. Only God.

I cannot be happy at another person’s expense. In the Judeo-Christian and Islamic tradition, the key to happiness is faith in God and good deeds, solidarity, and kindness toward others.

The West has lost its orientation. It needs the East just as the East needs the West. Plato warned that if merchants rule, they will seek only their own benefit. Today we see parliaments dominated by millionaires.

Justice requires putting everything in its proper place and recognizing that we are not the Creator. We are creatures, and we need the Creator. The first step toward happiness is recognizing the supremacy of God.

I grew up in a Christian family and never rejected Christ. In Islam I found a deeper understanding of his message. Twenty-five years ago I traveled to Iran, and there I was able to encounter the East, Islam, and myself.

It is extremely important that we get to know one another and overcome the barriers and walls of misunderstanding. I sincerely thank Simurg University, Alexander, and all the organizers. This is very important work that must continue.

And finally, I ask you to translate the comments into Russian as well, because we want to understand what is being said — even when it is criticism.

Question: Why does God allow unhappiness?

Unhappiness was not created by God. God created us.

Look: when a child is born, the doctor or nurse says, «Your child is healthy.» And I ask: why is the child healthy? Why is that even the question being asked? Because health is the norm. That is the natural state. That is happiness.

But if they tell you, «Your child has a problem,» you ask: why? Because that is no longer the norm. It means that somewhere in the process of creation, something went wrong.

That is why I begin with the words: «In the name of God, the Most Compassionate, the Most Merciful,» as the Qur’an says. God is presented as merciful to everyone, and especially merciful to those who believe and recognize His guidance. God is not the same for everyone in the moral sense: Pharaoh and Moses are not the same; Caesar and Jesus are not the same. Everyone eats, everyone lives under the sun, but the believer lives under the eternal mercy of God.

As Professor Casares said yesterday, a person should remain happy even if part of their body is cut off. In the Christian tradition there is the example of John the Baptist, whose head was cut off. For a believer, even in that moment it is possible to say: «Lord, You gave me life, and I return it to You.»

The Prophet said that when God truly loves a person, He takes that person’s soul and, as a reward, grants eternal paradise and glory in the next life.

In the Argentine national anthem there is a beautiful line: «We swear to die with glory!» In other words, to defend justice and truth until the very end. In every culture there are heroes who sacrifice themselves for others. Such heroes are honored everywhere. Many gave their lives so that we could live.

Therefore, happiness is the norm. God did not create unhappiness.

But one may ask: why does God allow unhappiness? There is indeed much suffering in the world. Why does He permit it?

Because we are human beings, and the human being must attain perfection together with God. If God gave us all of paradise, all happiness, without asking anything of us, that would not truly be paradise. True paradise is the joy of attaining something through effort and faithfulness.

Angels do not face trials. They always obey. But the human being is different. In the Islamic tradition, when God creates Adam, He says: «He will be My representative on earth.» Why? Because the human being possesses both body and spirit. If a person subjects the spirit to the body, he falls lower than demons. But if he subjects the body to the spirit — not denying the body, but balancing it — he can rise even above the angels.

That is our challenge.

Imagine if we managed to put an end to tyranny on earth. Is there anything that would make us happier than seeing peoples living in justice? Happy Palestinians, happy Venezuelans, Americans free from oppression. Happiness cannot be built upon the suffering of others.

In the Qur’an, God tells Moses to go to Pharaoh, who imagined himself to be a god. But how can you be a god if you have a toothache and cannot sleep? What kind of god are you? The true God is the Creator of the order of the universe.

There is an episode in which Abraham challenges a king: «If you are a god, then make the sun rise in the west.» And the king fell silent. A peasant who wakes up at four in the morning to work knows that he is not a god. Pride — that is the real problem.

There are good people in palaces and bad people in the fields — and vice versa. But there will be many peasants and ordinary workers in paradise because they were not consumed by pride.

Justice is a common goal. Even people with different views can unite around social justice. But our understanding of justice also includes a spiritual dimension. It is not only about distributing bread equally — even ants can do that. In a family, it is not justice alone that governs — it is love.

A mother gives her coat to her daughter. That is not justice — that is love. And love is higher than justice.

We know that we came from God and that we return to Him. And we understand that eternal happiness is possible — both personal and collective. That is our duty and our mission.

Absolute happiness is God and union with God. It is not simply equal distribution of goods or an endless celebration. It is something deeper.

It belongs to the spiritual realm.

Another point that seems especially interesting to me is the name of Simurg University. You know that the Simurgh is a mythical bird from the Persian tradition. The word itself is Persian and is associated with the great poet Farid ud-Din Attar, who many centuries ago wrote the famous work known as The Conference of the Birds (Mantiq al-Tayr).

In this work, there is a dialogue among birds searching for happiness and wisdom. They want to find the Simurgh — the sage, the true king. They ask themselves: where is happiness? where can we find it? where should we go?

The wise one tells them that they must journey to a distant mountain — Mount Qaf. The road is long and difficult. Many birds begin the journey, but along the way they encounter suffering, trials, and obstacles. Some turn back; others cannot continue. In the end, only thirty birds reach the summit. And there they realize that «Simurgh» itself means «thirty birds» (si-murgh). They understand that the journey itself, the trials, and their unity had been the true path to happiness.

That is the profound meaning: happiness is not something external, located somewhere far away; it is revealed when we walk together, when our hearts are united. Being beside one another, sharing the journey — that is happiness.

As a philosopher of religion and a university professor, I have had the opportunity to travel through many countries — India, Lebanon, Turkey, and others — and I have seen that the concept of happiness is universal at its core. The Abrahamic religions — Islam and Christianity — as well as Eastern traditions largely share a common understanding.

Happiness has two dimensions: inner and outer.

The inner dimension is the most important. If a person carries inner conflicts, unresolved experiences, or spiritual wounds, they cannot attain true peace. In the Abrahamic religions we learn that the first step is achieving inner peace, reconciling the heart.

One may imagine the heart as the sea. If you throw a small stone into a river, the water is immediately disturbed. But if you throw the same stone into the sea, it is barely noticeable. The difference lies in the scale.

A person whose heart is like the sea possesses inner stability. But someone whose heart is «narrow» is like a boat in a stormy river: any difficulty throws them off balance. The wider the heart, the greater the peace.

That is why it is important to dedicate time — in the morning and in the evening — to dialogue with God. To ask: «Grant me inner peace, grant me inner happiness.» When a person attains inner peace, their relationships with family, community, and society as a whole improve. Inner peace comes before outer peace.

I sincerely thank Simurg University for the invitation and for creating a space where we can reflect together on the meaning of happiness. And I thank all the professors and participants of this congress.

Question:

Where should the knowledge of God begin?

And at what moment does a person understand that they have come to know God?

That is a very good question.

Islam means submission to God. In a certain sense, one could say that Christianity is also a form of «Islam» in the sense of surrender to God. Islam is not merely a religion; it is a way of life, an entire system encompassing many aspects. There are different levels — social and personal — that must be united in order to draw closer to God.

A person seeking happiness must begin with themselves and then move toward society. They cannot remain limited only to their inner world. Their happiness must also extend to the community.

In Islam there is a kind of program for achieving such happiness, especially inner happiness. It includes three stages.

The first takes place upon waking. When a person awakens, they turn to God — for example through prayer — and say: «Lord, I turn to You. Help me today not to commit a single sin.» Throughout the day they must strive not to sin — neither with their gaze, nor hearing, nor actions, nor thoughts.

The second and third stages occur at the end of the day. Before sleeping, the person again turns to God: «Lord, if today I made a mistake, forgive me and grant me another day so I may continue moving toward happiness.»

This path may seem simple, but through daily practice it gradually leads to inner peace. And inner happiness manifests itself in social life as well.

As for justice — it is a key concept. All schools of thought have reflected upon it, because without justice there can be no genuine happiness.

In our tradition, Imam Ali — the son-in-law of the Prophet Muhammad — explained that justice means «placing everything in its proper place.» The world is a system with many levels, and each thing has its own function. To act justly means respecting this order.

According to Imam Ali, justice means placing everything where it belongs. Every person should occupy the position corresponding to their abilities and responsibilities. When everything is in its proper place, harmony arises.

It is like in a house: when everything is in order, beauty appears. That beauty itself is justice — because everything is where it ought to be. Life functions in the same way.

The problem of the world is that things are often not in their proper places. People lacking the necessary qualities occupy positions that do not correspond to them. That is how injustice emerges.

Therefore, in our tradition, justice means respecting the proper order of things and people. For me, that is the most precise definition.

I would like to add something else.

Justice is also one of the names of God in Islam: The Just. Because if justice means «everything in its proper place,» then my place is to be a being in need of God, while God’s place is to be the self-sufficient Creator. My place is to depend on God.

In theology it is said that the human being consists of body and spirit, and that the spirit is the divine breath. Human beings reflect divine qualities in everything except self-sufficiency. If a human possessed absolute power, they could say to the dead: «Rise,» and the dead would rise; they could command the sea to part, as in the story of Moses; they could stop a hurricane. But that is not the case.

That is why for centuries people have not hung images of Aristotle in hospitals, but rather images of Christ, Mary, Fatima, and the saints. Because in them they perceive a connection with the sacred, with divine power.

As for justice in society, true leaders are those who express divine will: Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. They were chosen to teach and guide. They were able to establish justice, fight poverty, and restore order. But they did so not by depriving people of freedom, as though they were angels. They did so through people’s participation, through consent and solidarity. And often the prophets were rejected: they confronted empires, tyrannies, persecution, and even death.

Nevertheless, we continue moving toward that justice.

Now — how does one begin to know God?

It is similar to any other form of knowledge. If I wish to study medicine or engineering, I seek out those who know, I study, ask questions, and investigate. With God, something similar occurs.

The Qur’an says that we already know God within ourselves, because He is absolute perfection and absolute happiness — the very thing toward which we strive. But this knowledge manifests itself especially in moments of crisis.

The Qur’an gives an image: if a person suffers shipwreck, if they are in the sea clinging to a plank and nothing else can save them — whom do they call upon? They call upon God. When the attacks of September 11 occurred, many people went to churches and mosques. When a plane is falling — everyone prays.

This inner impulse exists. But then, when comfort, entertainment, modern idols, and false reference points return, people forget again. The world distracts us with layers of pleasure, and we lose sight of the Creator.

Daily prayer — in the morning, afternoon, and evening — helps us remember. This is not about escaping the world.

In some Eastern traditions, there is the idea of renouncing the world and its pleasures. In Islam, this is not the case. Islam teaches balance. We should not reject the world, because we live in it. We must build a proper relationship with it and remember its source.

There is nothing wrong with enjoying life: having a family, children, loving, smiling, rejoicing. That is not a sin. The sin is forgetting God and thinking that everything ends with this limited happiness, which is ultimately illusory.

Because here I may be very happy, but I will grow old, become ill, and die. I cannot avoid this, even if I am a billionaire. It is said that Walt Disney wanted his body to be frozen so that he could awaken five hundred years later. But what would be the point? To wake up in a world where you know no one, where everything has changed. Is that happiness?

True happiness cannot be reduced to extending material life. It must have a deeper, eternal dimension.

Question:

I would like to ask a question.

You speak about very beautiful things, about an understanding of happiness that is completely different from the Islam many of us know in Russia. Personally, my first associations are wars, militants, and unhappy women.

Why is there such a great difference between that image and the spiritual vision you are presenting? How can one find the right path and understand where the truth is and where to seek happiness?

When I said that Western elites build a wall — an impenetrable wall of communication — this is exactly what I meant: the media tells me what Putin is like, what Russians are like, what Chinese, Iranians, Indians are like… I am given a ready-made image.

But the Qur’an says that a believer should listen to everything and choose the best. I cannot rely only on what Western media says. If I limit myself to that, I may begin to hate the oppressed and love the oppressors.

That is why it is important to travel and see things with your own eyes. And if that is impossible — then at least to study, search for information, and compare sources. Yes, there are algorithms and informational «bubbles,» but we still have tools to learn more. And then — if I become convinced that something is true, I accept it. But first one must step beyond this wall.

As for women — next time I could invite my wife. She is a sociologist and can speak in detail about the position of women in Islam. After the Islamic Revolution in Iran, many women entered politics and parliament. Today, the majority of university students in Iran are women. Their social role has expanded significantly compared to the era of the Shah.

In Islam, a woman should be respected for her spiritual value, not for her appearance. If a person is valued only for appearance, they become an object. But when intelligence, inner strength, and contribution are valued, relationships become more stable.

Islam proposes balance: personal development and participation in society without losing the importance of family. No one can replace a mother in raising children — not a phone, not television, not even school.

I would also like to speak about patience. Patience is an essential part of the path toward happiness. One should not try to reach the maximum immediately. With patience and respect for others, a person gradually approaches happiness.

This does not mean accepting injustice — it means understanding that everyone has their own rhythm. For example, within a family we cannot demand instant results from children.

Among the paths toward healthy happiness in Islam are:

* conscious devotion to God

* good deeds

* generosity

* moderation

* positive thinking

* balance in life

I remember a story about a millionaire who, despite his wealth, did not feel happy. A friend took him to an orphanage and suggested he give toys to the children. When one child sincerely thanked him, his heart opened. Sometimes happiness comes when we give.

Another important point is not to live in a constant desire for «more and more.» A purely material approach may provide comfort, but not happiness. If my well-being is built at the expense of others, I will never truly be able to enjoy it.

Happiness also requires optimism — the ability to think positively and to smile. And above all, it requires maintaining balance. Balance always brings us closer to genuine happiness.