"Happiness is created as a result of our being active participants in the game of life."
I agree that you have to participate and be an active member of life to find happiness. You can’t just sit, doing nothing, and wait for it to come to you. Happiness is something we actively have to know and find because you can't find or search for something you don’t know. My question is if you must actively participate in life to find happiness does that mean it is not available for those who do not seek it? Can you stumble upon happiness while living life even if you aren’t' searching? I think it is possible because there is always a small, active part of ourselves that is seeking fulfillment and happiness.
I agree Deanna. I think you can happiness either way, but sometimes when you focus too much on happiness, you lose site of what you were looking for. At the same time everyone can become happy like William Jame's says it is all about perceiving it. So I think you can find it when looking but not too hard, and also when not even trying at all.
Maddie I agree that if you focus too much on happiness that it can become a problem. If you spend all your time looking for happiness I don't think you can become happy because we never really know what true happiness is so that can lead to a lifetime of wondering. I think if you live your life trying to do what's best for you, you will find happiness along the way.
I believe you can only find happiness through trial and error, and that is only done through living life. It takes a while to discover what your likes and dislikes are, and what truly makles you happy. It kind of reminds me of an experiment in science or something. You can form a hypothesis for what you think is going to happen, but once you perform the experiment, the results could be far different from what you originally thought.
"In the past or the future, one could be happy, but in the present, only when not fully conscious."
I think this is an interesting statement to think about. I agree that thinking about the past one can be happy, but everyone idealizes the past. The future offers how which makes some people happy, but it is also extremely scary at times. The present being a place to be happy only when not fully conscious is something I tend to agree with. That's one of the reasons I think music makes us happy. It takes up a potion of our head and we are not fully conscious of the world around us when we listen to it and so are happy.
I thought about this statement a lot too, and it made sense to me. Everyone's always talking about the 'good ole days' were everything was better. Gas prices were lower, people were kinder, there was more respect in the world, etc. We seem to be of this opinion that, as a whole, the past was better than the present. And as for the future, while it can seem scary, there is always hope that in the future, you'll find yourself in a better place than you were before. So I definitely agree with that. I also agree with this argument that you can only be 'happy' in the present by not being fully present. When you fantasize about the past or future, you're 'happier' in the now because you're not fully dedicated to this present place and time. The same goes with music and with anything that gives you any sort of escape-- I like to use the example of books as well. You leave the world you're in and go somewhere better, oftentimes.
What confuses me about this discussion is that I have heard many times that people are happiest when not anxious about the future or depresses about the past and how great it once was. I have heard that one is only truly happy when we fully live in the present and not worry about how things were or will be. My favorite quote speaks to this "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift that's why we call it the present".
I think about this alot too and i agree that it is majorly confusing; however, i do not necessarily agree with the idea that one cannot be happy in the present. An example of being happy in the present would be the last essay we just wrote. Those songs (and seaside) make us happy... right now. It is true that looking back at our past we see that we are happy, however, we are still happy in the present tense when we listen to the songs.
"Sometimes the right isn't compatible or in-line with the good" -Dr. Seanor's explanation of Kant
Personally, I found myself agreeing with most of what Kant's philosophy stated. Sure, in the extreme situation of the gunman, I would find myself lying, but in many other situations that I could think of, Kant's philosophy makes pretty clear sense to me. I do believe in this idea that there is only ever one right action with the right reason, and I do believe in this system of universal rules that Dr. Seanor described. The thing that stuck out to me the most though was the above statement about happiness not always being in line with correct morality. If you remember, during our discussion on Christianity, I made the statement that it wasn't easy to be Christian. It was never meant to be easy, and I think a lot of that difficulty comes from trying to follow the right set of morals. You'll have to tell the truth to your parents even if it means being grounded for a month; this consequence might seem painful at first, but you will grow from it. In my opinion, this growth can make you happy as it leads you more towards this ideal sense of a moral person. Also, it makes you into that person, as Kant says, that is worthy of happiness in the afterlife. Because of this, you can hope for happiness, which is very much in agreement with my view when it came to happiness and Christianity, and you can also gain some sort of satisfaction from knowing that you're following the right path.
Relating to your original quote, as a hardcore Christian do you really see a difference between the right and the good? If so, what would it be?
In the gunman example, Kant would refuse to lie to the gunman, because it is right to never lie. The good thing to do (at least in terms of the good of humanity), would be to lie to him, to preserve human life. As a Christian, wouldn't you see lying to the gunman in that situation as both good and right? I can't think of an example where you would have to separate the two. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't think of one off the top of my head. Maybe this is just semantics and I'm over-thinking all of it.
I agree that the right and good are separate entities. The good could be telling your sensitive friend she looks good in that dress but the right would just be being honest. When considering the good we put our own personal convictions and beliefs into consideration. I do wonder if there is a universal right. I think Kant would say yes to that?
This "ignorance is bliss" ideology leads to a different view of being unaware of what we are missing. Does the fact that the common NASCAR fan does not always enjoy a high-scale club as much a say a wealthy CEO have to do with a different upbringing or is the fan truly missing out on happiness and vice-versa. Putting the whole "happiness is objective" aside, there is something that gives different people different views on happiness. Are people missing out on what could possibly make them happy just because they are ignorant?
I think it's a possibility, but not always true. Of course there are going to be things people haven't tried before that could make them happy, but people are just different. Someone who was raised around NASCAR and is a fan of it now probably isn't going to like a fancy party with nice clothes and that does not mean he's ignorant he just simply enjoys different things. Now it is probably because of the fact that he grew up around NASCAR but I don't think that makes it ignorance just the fact that people grow up with different opportunities.
I interpreted this quote as humans are never really content. As it says in our reading, "human beings display an undeniable tendency to quickly accomodate themselves to their pleasures--to grow bored--and then become anxious or uneasy in their satisfaction". In desires, we will always become anxious because we will never truly be satisfied in them. We will all enjoy different things, but in these different things, we will still become bored eventually.
"Happiness isn't part of natures plan"- Dr. Seanor's explanation
If Happiness isn't part of human nature, than what is the point of life? What is a world where naturally you might not be happy?
I might be taking what Dr. Seanor said about Kant a little too far...but after class today, these questions rattled around in my head. I really struggled with believing that naturally we aren't going to be happy or at least that nature doesn't push us to be. He made it sound like happiness is by chance, that for you to be happy you have to be doing the right thing for the right reason which might sometimes make you happy. but you could only be happy because you are following the golden rule. I don't really see this being true, because I do think happiness is part of natures goal. that's why humans have emotions. I think that if we always did the right thing for the right reason maybe life would be a lot easier, but then you would just be gambling for happiness, it would be almost by luck that you'd be happy. I strongly feel that happiness is something that naturally we are suppose to feel. it's just something we sometimes forget how to obtain it. I think that by sometimes doing the wrong thing for the right reasons might make you happy. For example, the girl with Julliard, I think that if she has no interest in pursuing a life as pianist, it might be wrong thing because she is passing up a once in a lifetime opportunity but right reason because she doesn't think she will be happy doing it, so she should do what she thinks what will make her happy and not just gamble it on the right thing..
I might need to explain further but I'd like hear what you all think about this...
I don't really know if we are naturally supposed to be happy, like it's our purpose or something like that. To me that sounds nice but it isn't true. My personal belief is that we have the option to choose to be happy kind of like our latest philosopher. We have the ability to control our own happiness and happiness is an option for us but would tend to agree that happiness is not part of nature's plan. I don't think nature has much of a plan besides letting the strong survive and the weak die out. Instead, happiness is an option in our lives that we can choose to accept or try and reach or we can choose to ignore it. For me we are what we make ourselves. You can choose and make yourself miserable or you can make yourself happy. Happiness might not be in plan but it is an option for life that has to be chosen.
"The more people try to attain happiness, the further they get from true contentment."
So is happiness something you just happen upon in the course of your life, and not something to strive for?
I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. I truly believe that you cant go out looking for happiness because happiness you'll never find it, or you're use the wrong means to attain it. However, I think you can study and through trial and error, you can discover exactly which things make you happy. I think you can, as we are doing in this class, see what great thinkers had to say about happiness, and through their voices, discover what it means for ourselves. So maybe, I believe happiness is something that happens over a period of time. You cant force it like this quote implies, but if youre patient and willing to learn, happiness will come about for you.
yeah, but being patient/willing to learn does not entail thinking: "@#$% when is happiness going to come already? We are studying philosophy in this class, not explicitly TRYING to be happy. There is a difference. Those people who literally sit down on a daily basis and think "why am I not happy" and "surely this will make me happy" tend to be unhappy...so ponder philosophy, just don't spend time thinking about your own happiness too much.
There are some areas Kant brings up that I certainly agree with (I do feel like you don't deserve to feel good about yourself for an action if you did it for the wrong reasons), but I find his insistence on absolutes to be a tad problematic. (You all know my stance on relativism). Also, the way he essentially blanches all emotions from his decisions...I suppose it could be more practical, but as a human being with a soul and a conciense, I simply couldn't do that...Finally, to those who say that "well Kant's idea is good, there's just a few exceptions," then they are not following Kant. His whole point is black and whites: no exceptions, even if a masked gunman is in the picture.
William, I agree with you on your second point, about the exceptions to the rule. To quote one of my friends (Thomas Seitz), "if you can't take an argument to the extremes, then it doesn't work anymore". Obviously it would be easier to believe Kant's model if we had a few exceptions to it (like the gunman example), but those exceptions are what make him different from everyone else.
I agree with both of you, but I think I struggle with believing the whole Kant idea because nothing in life is truly black and white, there is always grey. I personally like it that way, and I don't think we can truly be a Kantian because we naturally will make exceptions, it is really hard to fight it.
i think that the simplicity of Kant's principle is that it has no exceptions because in order for it to work, it must be a universally accepted practice. Think about it with the gunman example. If society appealed to the Kantian ideas, there would be no gunman in the first place because he would understand the fact that his actions would be inhibiting his talents: shoot kids, go to jail, not see fulfillment of talent. I can hear the wheels spinning in your heads but please understand that this is a stretch... but it makes sense ONLY if everyone embraces it. Otherwise, i think that it wont work.
"People respect those who do the right things for the right reasons."
This gets into the grey area that most of us believe exists. While doing the right thing for the right reason sounds great, most of us have agreed that in today's society, determining the right thing is more difficult than Kant describes using his categorical imperative. According to this, I agree that the right thing can be easily distinguished, but I simply do not agree with Kant's method. For example, I would not respect a person who tells a gunman where a large group of people are. The condition that one should never lie cannot be an absolute. If I followed this rule, I would feel more guilty telling the gunman the truth than lying to him. I believe that simply never lying does not make you a morally better person because some situations either require a lie or are unharmed by a small, trivial lie.
"Happiness is created as a result of our being active participants in the game of life."
ReplyDeleteI agree that you have to participate and be an active member of life to find happiness. You can’t just sit, doing nothing, and wait for it to come to you. Happiness is something we actively have to know and find because you can't find or search for something you don’t know. My question is if you must actively participate in life to find happiness does that mean it is not available for those who do not seek it? Can you stumble upon happiness while living life even if you aren’t' searching? I think it is possible because there is always a small, active part of ourselves that is seeking fulfillment and happiness.
I agree Deanna. I think you can happiness either way, but sometimes when you focus too much on happiness, you lose site of what you were looking for. At the same time everyone can become happy like William Jame's says it is all about perceiving it. So I think you can find it when looking but not too hard, and also when not even trying at all.
DeleteMaddie I agree that if you focus too much on happiness that it can become a problem. If you spend all your time looking for happiness I don't think you can become happy because we never really know what true happiness is so that can lead to a lifetime of wondering. I think if you live your life trying to do what's best for you, you will find happiness along the way.
DeleteI believe you can only find happiness through trial and error, and that is only done through living life. It takes a while to discover what your likes and dislikes are, and what truly makles you happy. It kind of reminds me of an experiment in science or something. You can form a hypothesis for what you think is going to happen, but once you perform the experiment, the results could be far different from what you originally thought.
Delete"In the past or the future, one could be happy, but in the present, only when not fully conscious."
ReplyDeleteI think this is an interesting statement to think about. I agree that thinking about the past one can be happy, but everyone idealizes the past. The future offers how which makes some people happy, but it is also extremely scary at times. The present being a place to be happy only when not fully conscious is something I tend to agree with. That's one of the reasons I think music makes us happy. It takes up a potion of our head and we are not fully conscious of the world around us when we listen to it and so are happy.
I thought about this statement a lot too, and it made sense to me. Everyone's always talking about the 'good ole days' were everything was better. Gas prices were lower, people were kinder, there was more respect in the world, etc. We seem to be of this opinion that, as a whole, the past was better than the present. And as for the future, while it can seem scary, there is always hope that in the future, you'll find yourself in a better place than you were before. So I definitely agree with that. I also agree with this argument that you can only be 'happy' in the present by not being fully present. When you fantasize about the past or future, you're 'happier' in the now because you're not fully dedicated to this present place and time. The same goes with music and with anything that gives you any sort of escape-- I like to use the example of books as well. You leave the world you're in and go somewhere better, oftentimes.
DeleteWhat confuses me about this discussion is that I have heard many times that people are happiest when not anxious about the future or depresses about the past and how great it once was. I have heard that one is only truly happy when we fully live in the present and not worry about how things were or will be. My favorite quote speaks to this "Yesterday is history, tomorrow is a mystery, today is a gift that's why we call it the present".
DeleteI think about this alot too and i agree that it is majorly confusing; however, i do not necessarily agree with the idea that one cannot be happy in the present. An example of being happy in the present would be the last essay we just wrote. Those songs (and seaside) make us happy... right now. It is true that looking back at our past we see that we are happy, however, we are still happy in the present tense when we listen to the songs.
Delete"Sometimes the right isn't compatible or in-line with the good" -Dr. Seanor's explanation of Kant
ReplyDeletePersonally, I found myself agreeing with most of what Kant's philosophy stated. Sure, in the extreme situation of the gunman, I would find myself lying, but in many other situations that I could think of, Kant's philosophy makes pretty clear sense to me. I do believe in this idea that there is only ever one right action with the right reason, and I do believe in this system of universal rules that Dr. Seanor described. The thing that stuck out to me the most though was the above statement about happiness not always being in line with correct morality. If you remember, during our discussion on Christianity, I made the statement that it wasn't easy to be Christian. It was never meant to be easy, and I think a lot of that difficulty comes from trying to follow the right set of morals. You'll have to tell the truth to your parents even if it means being grounded for a month; this consequence might seem painful at first, but you will grow from it. In my opinion, this growth can make you happy as it leads you more towards this ideal sense of a moral person. Also, it makes you into that person, as Kant says, that is worthy of happiness in the afterlife. Because of this, you can hope for happiness, which is very much in agreement with my view when it came to happiness and Christianity, and you can also gain some sort of satisfaction from knowing that you're following the right path.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRelating to your original quote, as a hardcore Christian do you really see a difference between the right and the good? If so, what would it be?
DeleteIn the gunman example, Kant would refuse to lie to the gunman, because it is right to never lie. The good thing to do (at least in terms of the good of humanity), would be to lie to him, to preserve human life. As a Christian, wouldn't you see lying to the gunman in that situation as both good and right? I can't think of an example where you would have to separate the two. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just can't think of one off the top of my head. Maybe this is just semantics and I'm over-thinking all of it.
I agree that the right and good are separate entities. The good could be telling your sensitive friend she looks good in that dress but the right would just be being honest. When considering the good we put our own personal convictions and beliefs into consideration. I do wonder if there is a universal right. I think Kant would say yes to that?
Delete"Desire led us onward but seldom to peace." (247)
ReplyDeleteThis "ignorance is bliss" ideology leads to a different view of being unaware of what we are missing. Does the fact that the common NASCAR fan does not always enjoy a high-scale club as much a say a wealthy CEO have to do with a different upbringing or is the fan truly missing out on happiness and vice-versa. Putting the whole "happiness is objective" aside, there is something that gives different people different views on happiness. Are people missing out on what could possibly make them happy just because they are ignorant?
I think it's a possibility, but not always true. Of course there are going to be things people haven't tried before that could make them happy, but people are just different. Someone who was raised around NASCAR and is a fan of it now probably isn't going to like a fancy party with nice clothes and that does not mean he's ignorant he just simply enjoys different things. Now it is probably because of the fact that he grew up around NASCAR but I don't think that makes it ignorance just the fact that people grow up with different opportunities.
DeleteI interpreted this quote as humans are never really content. As it says in our reading, "human beings display an undeniable tendency to quickly accomodate themselves to their pleasures--to grow bored--and then become anxious or uneasy in their satisfaction". In desires, we will always become anxious because we will never truly be satisfied in them. We will all enjoy different things, but in these different things, we will still become bored eventually.
Delete"Happiness isn't part of natures plan"- Dr. Seanor's explanation
ReplyDeleteIf Happiness isn't part of human nature, than what is the point of life? What is a world where naturally you might not be happy?
I might be taking what Dr. Seanor said about Kant a little too far...but after class today, these questions rattled around in my head. I really struggled with believing that naturally we aren't going to be happy or at least that nature doesn't push us to be. He made it sound like happiness is by chance, that for you to be happy you have to be doing the right thing for the right reason which might sometimes make you happy. but you could only be happy because you are following the golden rule.
I don't really see this being true, because I do think happiness is part of natures goal. that's why humans have emotions. I think that if we always did the right thing for the right reason maybe life would be a lot easier, but then you would just be gambling for happiness, it would be almost by luck that you'd be happy. I strongly feel that happiness is something that naturally we are suppose to feel. it's just something we sometimes forget how to obtain it. I think that by sometimes doing the wrong thing for the right reasons might make you happy. For example, the girl with Julliard, I think that if she has no interest in pursuing a life as pianist, it might be wrong thing because she is passing up a once in a lifetime opportunity but right reason because she doesn't think she will be happy doing it, so she should do what she thinks what will make her happy and not just gamble it on the right thing..
I might need to explain further but I'd like hear what you all think about this...
I don't really know if we are naturally supposed to be happy, like it's our purpose or something like that. To me that sounds nice but it isn't true. My personal belief is that we have the option to choose to be happy kind of like our latest philosopher. We have the ability to control our own happiness and happiness is an option for us but would tend to agree that happiness is not part of nature's plan. I don't think nature has much of a plan besides letting the strong survive and the weak die out. Instead, happiness is an option in our lives that we can choose to accept or try and reach or we can choose to ignore it. For me we are what we make ourselves. You can choose and make yourself miserable or you can make yourself happy. Happiness might not be in plan but it is an option for life that has to be chosen.
Delete"The more people try to attain happiness, the further they get from true contentment."
ReplyDeleteSo is happiness something you just happen upon in the course of your life, and not something to strive for?
I'm not sure how I feel about this idea. I truly believe that you cant go out looking for happiness because happiness you'll never find it, or you're use the wrong means to attain it. However, I think you can study and through trial and error, you can discover exactly which things make you happy. I think you can, as we are doing in this class, see what great thinkers had to say about happiness, and through their voices, discover what it means for ourselves. So maybe, I believe happiness is something that happens over a period of time. You cant force it like this quote implies, but if youre patient and willing to learn, happiness will come about for you.
yeah, but being patient/willing to learn does not entail thinking: "@#$% when is happiness going to come already? We are studying philosophy in this class, not explicitly TRYING to be happy. There is a difference. Those people who literally sit down on a daily basis and think "why am I not happy" and "surely this will make me happy" tend to be unhappy...so ponder philosophy, just don't spend time thinking about your own happiness too much.
DeleteI agree. It's a total cliché, but people always say that if you're too focused on succeeding in your job, you don't 'smell the roses' and you miss out on the little, happy things. It's the same way with happiness. If you're focused too much on this lofty end goal, you miss so much along the way. So I'd agree with Kant in saying that it's more important to just focus on being a good person, and then, maybe happiness will come now. And if not now, it'll come in the afterlife.
DeleteThere are some areas Kant brings up that I certainly agree with (I do feel like you don't deserve to feel good about yourself for an action if you did it for the wrong reasons), but I find his insistence on absolutes to be a tad problematic. (You all know my stance on relativism). Also, the way he essentially blanches all emotions from his decisions...I suppose it could be more practical, but as a human being with a soul and a conciense, I simply couldn't do that...Finally, to those who say that "well Kant's idea is good, there's just a few exceptions," then they are not following Kant. His whole point is black and whites: no exceptions, even if a masked gunman is in the picture.
ReplyDeleteWilliam, I agree with you on your second point, about the exceptions to the rule. To quote one of my friends (Thomas Seitz), "if you can't take an argument to the extremes, then it doesn't work anymore". Obviously it would be easier to believe Kant's model if we had a few exceptions to it (like the gunman example), but those exceptions are what make him different from everyone else.
DeleteI agree with both of you, but I think I struggle with believing the whole Kant idea because nothing in life is truly black and white, there is always grey. I personally like it that way, and I don't think we can truly be a Kantian because we naturally will make exceptions, it is really hard to fight it.
DeleteI agree. Personally my goal in life is to follow what my soul tells me to do because logic can sometimes be the wrong path.
Deletei think that the simplicity of Kant's principle is that it has no exceptions because in order for it to work, it must be a universally accepted practice. Think about it with the gunman example. If society appealed to the Kantian ideas, there would be no gunman in the first place because he would understand the fact that his actions would be inhibiting his talents: shoot kids, go to jail, not see fulfillment of talent. I can hear the wheels spinning in your heads but please understand that this is a stretch... but it makes sense ONLY if everyone embraces it. Otherwise, i think that it wont work.
Delete"People respect those who do the right things for the right reasons."
ReplyDeleteThis gets into the grey area that most of us believe exists. While doing the right thing for the right reason sounds great, most of us have agreed that in today's society, determining the right thing is more difficult than Kant describes using his categorical imperative. According to this, I agree that the right thing can be easily distinguished, but I simply do not agree with Kant's method. For example, I would not respect a person who tells a gunman where a large group of people are. The condition that one should never lie cannot be an absolute. If I followed this rule, I would feel more guilty telling the gunman the truth than lying to him. I believe that simply never lying does not make you a morally better person because some situations either require a lie or are unharmed by a small, trivial lie.