It’s International Happiness Day (20th March)—I just learned. And if there's anything harder than pursuing happiness, it's merely defining it. So, it's worth honoring those who pursue a definition of happiness—especially when sailing epitomizes that definition.

The Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess proposed a simple but profound equation for happiness. Before I get to the various formulations, I’ll mention Naess's philosophy is rooted in a Nordic concept called friluftsliv, which literally means "open-air living". Friluftsliv is a way of life that embraces nature as a source of recreation, health, and spiritual nourishment. It encompasses everything from sailing and hiking  to camping and fishing, as well as simply enjoying fresh air and scenery.

More than just a hobby or an activity, Friluftsliv is an attitude, a mindset which helps us appreciate the simple pleasures of life and cope with its challenges. (Naess, who coined the term "deep ecology"  thought it would also inspire us to protect the environment and live more sustainably.) His equation—through evolution and translations— has a few variations.

The simplest is:

$$ H = S/C, $$

where H is happiness, S is self-realization, and C is consumption.

This suggests happiness can be increased by reducing our dependence on material goods and technology, while increasing our connection with ourselves and nature.

Less is More.

$$

H = P + (E x S) $$

Here, happiness (H) depends on personal characteristics (P), external conditions (E), and how well these match our goals or aspirations (S). In other words, happiness is not simply having good things happen to us, but also of how we relate to them and how they fit with our values and desires.

Later, Naess replaced “happiness” with “well-being”. Well-being or “human flourishing”:

1. is a better translation of eudaimonia (Aristotle called it the highest human good)
2. acknowledges how much "happiness", at least in English, is unfortunately conflated with comfort and pleasure.

We too often choose comfort over happiness and happiness over fulfillment. Perhaps it’s choosing the known over unknown, familiar over unfamiliar. It seems a “safe bet”.

So, in addition to Naess’ equations, I’ll add an inequality of my own:

$$ Comfort < Happiness < Fulfillment $$

We think that enough comforts will add up to happiness. And enough happy moments will break us through to a fulfilling life.

But the world's wisdom traditions all tell us otherwise.