"Making a man happy is quite different from making a man good" - Kant (251). The distinction that Kant is attempting to make in this quote is that being happy and being good are not the same thing. In other words, feeling happy, being defined as a pleasureful of good feeling, is not the same as being a good person and doing good, virtuous things. I thought that this was interesting because Kant does not say that doing good things can make you feel good, or feel pleasure, which I believe it can. Instead Kant refers to "feeling good" the same way Johnson does in the story of Johnson and Boswell's conversation about happiness. I think that it is interesting that feeling good (being happy) and doing good, virtuous things are now separated instead of being paired together, as we have seen in previous ages. Also I think it is interesting that happiness is still referred to as something that cannot be sustained on this earth.
In the section we had to read from p 285-311 the poet/writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge is referenced. His work "Dejection: An Ode" is referenced throughout this section. In this poem Coleridge, as well as in his other poems, such as Kubla Khan, he talks about dreams. Exploration of dreams and the supernatural are both characteristic of romantic writing. For Coleridge dreams and other experiences like them, hallucinations, are ways for him to explore what makes him happy and what brings him joy. Do you guys think that dreams can be a way for us to experience our inner desires in a way that makes us happy, and therefore can show us what will truly make us happy? I don't know how much first hand experience anyone has with hallucinations but do any of you think that they can also be a way of finding what makes us happy? Or do they simply act the same way alcohol does by clouding our minds and distracting us from what is troubling us?
I don't think I'm qualified to answer your question about hallucinations because I haven't had any experience with them. I believe our dreams, just as Dr. Bieze said, a coping mechanism to help us deal with our fear and anxiety we face in this world. If you have bad or fear driven dreams, then those dreams will tell you what doesn't make you happy. Therefore, you are able to avoid those things or events in your dreams, in turn helping you find happiness.
You make an interesting point. I think people's answers will vary based on their opinions on the subconscious. Personally, I think we do uncover hidden parts of ourselves in our subconscious. In our dreams, we may experience something that we never knew made us happy or sad before. The dilemma with dreams, as Dr. Bieze was saying today concerning surrealism, is that we can never fully remember or experience our dreams. We can only remember a reflection or simple narrative that provides a semblance of order. If we were son how able to fully tap into our dreams, then I think that we would be able to uncover many things that are sources of happiness for ourselves.
When McMahon discusses Rousseau's new concept of unhappiness, one characterized by, "the guilt and sorrow one experiences for not being happy in a culture that demands it," I was surprised by the relevancy that I think occurs in our contemporary society (250). In a simple sense, it's easy to see how we often feel personally at fault when we don't have the pleasures that everyone else has-- we're lead to jealousy and self-pity, both of which (I think) fall under "unhappiness." Our society presents so many "ideals" that we "should" be striving for- perfect lives, perfect bodies, perfect possessions- and when we can't achieve them, when we can't be society's type of happiness, we feel as if we're letting society (and ourselves) down. On a different level, as someone who has both experienced and witnessed depression, the idea that we feel guilty for our inability to be happy is also one that I can relate to- and I think a lot of other people can too. The way that our society treats people with mental illnesses is hardly ever supportive, and often leaves someone who is depressed feeling as if they're personally responsible for not feeling as happy as they "should"-- even though it's certainly not their decision. So-- on multiple levels, it's easy to see how Rousseau's fear of a new unhappiness that stems from not being happy enough can translate even into our current era.
For Schopenhauer, the only escape from the horrors of this world was through art; be it music, poetry, paintings, etc., the only way out of the bleak suffering of this world was something so beautiful that he could forget the pain around himself. Yet Schopenhauer denied other escapist routes; sexual impulses, drinking, and hedonistic indulgence could not bring him to happiness. In my opinion, art can definitely be an escapist way out of a miserable world (or just a bad day, given the circumstances). Music, Schopenhauer's favorite, is an easy way to forget about outside troubles. But I also find comfort in other people, in comfort food (and if I were to drink, it would probably be an easy way out as well). For Schopenhauer, it seems that art was higher form of escapism, but in my opinion, other things can be just as beneficial-- and just as beautiful. One of the best ways that I've found to escape a hard day/week/existence is through other people. Do you think this kind of escape is less effective/worthy than art? Is art a better way out? Or is Schopenhauer's cynicism keeping him from finding happiness in other ways?
Quote pg 250 "what..is to be expected from our pursuit of happiness, when we find the state of life to be such, that happiness it self is the cause of misery?" I think this relates back to what was said in the pages prior to this quote, in that during this time happiness was now seen as a right. Therefore, every person expected it. It's just like when you expect something or look forward to something and you don't get that one thing and then you feel like you were cheated and you feel disappointed. I feel like this is why people get sad or depressed b/c to us, happiness is seen as a right, and we all deserve it. So do you agree or disagree that this idea of happiness being a right can only lead to misery? Do you think that happiness can only occur in the past (or when reflecting on the past) or only in the future? or both? without occurring in the present
I think you make a really good point. Today, many people take happiness for granted and see it as a right that the have. When happiness is viewed as something that everyone should have, then those who don't or can't find happiness end up feeling worse about themselves. The people that aren't happy feel as if they have either failed and become depressed or feel like they have been cheated and become angry at the world. In a way, establishing happiness as a right makes it sound better and more accessible, but at the same time, it can make people feel much worse about themselves.
This may be a tad dark so... don't read on if you don't want to.
"Of such repressed longings, the most powerful is the sexual impulse, what Schopenhauer considers the "kernel of the will to live" (McMahon 300)
What if we are merely animals seeking out the one terribly crushing urge to follow natures singular guideline. Procreate. It flows through our veins the very chemicals that make us crave seek and execute natures fail safe on self preservation. Are we but a scab on the universe, a thriving parasite seeking to grow in size and consume the host that we have chosen, the gem that is earth. All of the world in a singular holding pattern until the host is depleted. We kill our homes, we rape the very air we breathe and to what end? So that we can spawn more bastardizations of the self justifying race of intelligent and powerful humans. There is a reason that lust is considered a sin. Lust reminds us of what we truly are and that we are not complicated and advanced species. We are, at the heart of it, just machines seeking to spread our breed throughout the world. Sexual drive is our drive because we are driven by the driving forces of a sex driven cause which will drive us into the ground until the ground has been driven out of the earth and the drivers of our urges depleted by lack of existence.
First I have a question. Were you trying to use the word "drive" as many times as possible in that last sentence? I'm not being facetious I'm actually curious because I actually do kind of agree with you. As much as we try to fake the fact that ultimately our only desire is sex and sexual pleasure, it really cannot be denied. Sure, other things may please us to an extent, but they really aren't what we truly want. For example, and this may come across as horrible to some, but why do we do community service or something of the like? Originally, probably to serve God, but as soon as that cute girl from your lit class walks in the door, your priorities change. You will now most likely focus on doing the same activity she is doing. For what? To increase the slim possibility of talking to her? Why? To maybe get to the point of going on a date? Then what? Well, dates....then lust....then sex. It all goes back to sexual desire, and if that cute girl never walked into that community service place? Fine. There are dozens of other scenarios. Ok I realized this may be my pubescent mind running out of control and I probably seem like a horrible person, and if I'm the only who thinks this is somewhat on point ,I'm embarrassed...and so on and so forth. That is assuming anyone will actually read this comment.
"Might man's unhappiness actually increase in proportion as his understanding and his insight grew?"
I can see why it is easy for some people to think that knowledge about the truth leads to unhappiness. The more a man knows, the more he is aware of what he actually is, what can go wrong, or maybe he loses his faith because he figures out there isn't actually something bigger than him ( something divine). 'Ignorance is bliss' comes to mind.
To that, I say: Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is a false-bliss, and leads to misknowledge and superstition, both of which are regarded by many philosopihes as detracting to happiness. 'Ignorance is bliss' is an excuse used by way too many people so they can do nothing, so they can take the easy way out. Oh the cowardice.
Knowledge might lead to unhappiness for some, because they don't have the knowledge to take charge of that knowledge. To change what he actually is. To avoid the impending disaster. To use that newfound power to make the world a better place, rather than its inhabitants hoping for a better place in the next life. Those who know how to take charge of their knowledge, though, are the one's who are truly happy.
Could this ignorance be the path to happiness for those who cannot think. Should we really discount the sense of joy these people may fear just because they do not subscribe to a more pensive lifestyle/
Schopenhauer asserts that the world we are currently living in is as close to hell as humanity can get without being snuffed out. He says that this is the "worst of the possible worlds". I cannot imagine the other worlds that he is somehow describing and must know very well. How can we say that there is anything better when all we know is, well what we know. What if this is the only world? What if we really are just fueled by happiness? Is this such a bad thing. Shouldn't we just be grateful for the life that we have here when we have no earthly idea what the grass looks like on the other side and, more importantly, what grass is. Do we have the right to criticize the place we dwell when it is all we know?
Kant believed that happiness comes from doing whatever makes us happy, good or bad, and that in this life, we should do what makes us "worthy of Happiness." If everything we do is already aimed at becoming happy, aren't we already worthy of happiness? If not, how can we become worthy of Happiness?
"What is reason and happiness were ultimately opposed?" -pg 250
I think this quote brings to light a very important concept/question about happiness. When one reaches a point of lucid reason, then wouldn't that person realize happiness is really not viable? Through reason, humans figure things out, solve problems. If one thinks and reasons long enough, I think they will come upon the conclusion that happiness is a problem that cannot be solved, or at the very least has no concrete, singular answer. Like Kant said happiness is not necessarily doing "good" deeds, but doing whatever makes us...well happy! If killing someone makes me happy, the whole concept of living virtuously as a way of achieving happiness is thrown out the window because most would consider murder to be a bad thing to do.
But what if when someone reasoned through the idea of happiness, they found that happiness IS a problem that can be solved? It could go either way, couldn't it?
i agree with Gracie, what i they figure out happiness is achievable. using your example, if someone realized that what would bring them true happiness is murder, they would murder people. looking at it from someone following kant, happiness could come from murder because it doesn't need to come from doing something good.
Right, maybe one can reason through happiness and realize that there is no singular answer to happiness. But perhaps that's the answer in and of itself. Like Kant says, I don't believe happiness comes from goodness as morality is such a ridiculously gray, subjective matter. Though living virtuously is a great and optimistic thought, I'm not sure if that's where I think happiness comes from. I think the initial quote you mentioned alludes to the fact that happiness is such an innate, known emotion that trying to reason through it could totally ruin the spontaneity of it.
I am also somewhat confused by my quote, for if reason and happiness are opposed, then how does all of this work? If one reasons for long enough they will realize happiness is not something one can really achieve? Is that the point being made? A rational mind will not buy into all of this happiness stuff? I would just like the quote to be explained to me so that I can understand better what is being said.
"Virtue, Kant reaffirmed, with an air of common sense, was sometimes painful. And those who were happy, who felt good, were sometimes bad" I like this quote because Kant makes the point that being virtuous does not guarantee happiness. I think this is specifically relevant to the modern world because religion does not seem to have as big of a part in life as it did during the early Christian period. I like that Kant says that making ourselves worthy of happiness should be our duty instead of living a completely virtuous life. It seems a little depressing to think that happiness is not a natural right of human beings but i agree with it. What exactly makes children more eligible for happiness than adults? I know that children are seen as having a better and more lively imagination but i think that adults are also capable of having this insight. Children might be more happy because they are more oblivious to the dark parts of life but wouldnt that mean that they aren't truly happy?
Children's lives are also a lot simpler than adult lives. Adults have to worry about buying groceries, buying gas, paying mortgages, working to pay for all of these expenses, supporting a family, and maintaining their home. Children don't have nearly as much to do as adults: wake up, go to school, come home, play with friends, go to sleep. The ridiculous amount of things adults have to do stresses them out, while children only get to worry about having fun.
Adults also are aware of all the evils of the world. They know there are rapists, serial killers, con men, natural disasters, politics, international affairs, and much more that could affect their lives in any given way at any given time. Children, on the other hand, don't know about these things. Heck, they don't even care about any of these things. All they care about is having fun.
Children are considered happier because they're untainted and innocent, I think. As you said, Ally, they know less about the dark parts of the world, so they are bound to be more positive in their inexperience. Someone who has experienced the world and its hardships can be a very happy person, but someone who has not necessarily had to deal with immense responsibility (because parents protect and shelter their children), is bound to be happier. And I think they are truly happy. Even though they don't really know too much about the world, it's only because it's not their time to learn that kind of stuff yet. In regard to the imaginative aspect of childhood, it would be very difficult for an adult to be able to revert back to this innocent state that children generally experience. Once someone has lived their life and learned so much, it would be difficult to reverse the effects of an unkind world.
The first section of our reading talks about how the idea of happiness shifted from one that was out of human control to one that was completely in human control. Apparently "all reasonable human beings could make themselves happy" (252). In fact, everyone sort of had a responsibility to make themselves happy. That puts the blame on the individual for his own unhappiness. Now, I'm a firm believer in the idea that happiness is pretty much self-chosen. I think happiness is mostly how you react to things and less about what happens to you, and that reactions are self-chosen, so I can see how some people might be blamed for their unhappiness. However, you can't really blame someone for being unhappy because of, for example, the death of a loved one. Moreover you can't blame someone if they are clinically depressed, because that's not really their fault either. And in that respect, how would you be able to tell if someone was depressed or simply choosing their own unhappiness? Is all happiness and unhappiness chosen? Where does one draw the line between chosen unhappiness and unhappiness that cannot be controlled?
I agree with what you are saying. To add to your post, I think that the line between choosing to be unhappy and being unhappy due to means beyond your control is how you react to the happy things that make you happy/happier. What I mean by this is some people look at something and try to find the things in it that make them unhappy, these are the people who choose to be unhappy, others see the things that make them unhappy but also appreciate the things that make them happy as well.
Yes Ryan! Make do with the gifts your given and see the good in all things! If we live a life of thankfulness (although challenging) we are able to focus on happiness instead of complaining.
That's an interesting take on it, Ryan. I think you're right. Someone can enjoy the good things while still seeing the bad things. And someone can see the good things and the bad things, and still be unhappy because they can't control it. But someone who can control their happiness only sees and looks for the negative things. It's kind of confusing, but it makes sense.
The quote, "desire [leads] us onward[s] but seldom to peace" is an important one that I think applies to our world today. People today are focused on material things and what they want right now. It is important to remember that desires can give us temporary happiness and take us a small step forward on our search for happiness, but desires won't lead us to our ultimate goal of happiness or peace. When people focus too much on temporary thing such as money, clothes, etc. they loose sight of their long-term goal. Life can get messy with all the minor, unimportant distractions that most people seem to focus on. If people stop focusing so much on the materials, then they can stay on the right path to ultimate happiness. Now, I'm not saying that we need to get rid of all earthly desires. We should enjoy the things that make us happy, but just remember that they won't bring us ultimate happiness or peace.
After reading about Samuel Johnson, I was wondering: Did he popularize doubting happiness? Johnson seems to have a very pessimistic, sarcastic view on happiness. In the book it says that he was not the first, so I know he didn't start it, but did he popularize it? Did more people start to have a more negative view on happiness after him or did it take someone like Kant to make it really popular?
I'm not totally sure about the answer to your question, but I don't know if he did popularize it. There were some dark times in history--the plague, the famine, wars--when I'm sure people doubted happiness before philosophers got around to writing it down. I think the whole notion of doubting took off in the Age of Reason, personally. After all, as Dr. Bieze showed us, belief + doubt = sanity
Is there really an irreconcilable difference between feeling good and being good? I think there is. If I wanted to be good all of the time, then there will certainly be times when I don't get what I want. If I want to feel good all of the time then I only think about my selfish needs, pushing others away from me and eventually breaking the law at times. The question most intellectuals have faced for centuries is this: How can we please most people while harming the least?
I agree with you. There is definitely a difference between being good and feeling good. However, I do think that being good can lead to feeling good. In a lot of the philosophy that we've studied, doing good works and living virtuously is a step on the path to happiness. Because, in my mind, happiness is a long term thing, even though one doesn't get what one wants all the time when one is being good, one will be in a more pleasant and humble state in the long-run that not only benefits the individual, but others. Being good can relate directly with feeling good. I guess it just depends on how you live your life.
"In the past or future, one can be happy, but in the present, only when not fully conscious."(page 245). This particular line struck a chord with me. It reminds me of a quote from The Office finale in which Andy said "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them". In Johnson's view, we can always look to the past and remember the good times, and we can look to the future and hope for better times, but the present only holds uncertainty when we move from pleasure to pleasure. When we focus on the present, it is hard for us to pick out the good things while they are happening, those things may be easier to see in retrospect.
that's a really interesting idea. I think that Bieze touched upon this when he said that art teaches us to live in the present and become out of the conscious state. Also, he said that when he looks at art of the past he gets that tingling sensation. Overall, I think its generally hard to live in the present because of everyday distractions. and by the way: the office is the best show ever. nice reference
This is a cool idea and makes you kind of wonder how we will view the present in the future. This is especially hard to pick out injustices in our world when in the present. For example, slavery and discrimination against African Americans, as we now know, is awful and totally unacceptable in today's age. However, during the time period, this was seen as normal and the way of life. It'll be weird to see what things in our society now are going to be unacceptable in the future. We might be completely unaware of this issue now, which is weird to even think about.
My essential question is, does it matter? Kant asserts that "Making a man happy is quite different from being good" which is diametrically opposed to the Socratic philosophy in happiness in which virtue is absolutely necessary for happiness. But in the end, does the intent of the action or desire matter if the end result is the same? I agree, realistically, with Kant. It's a bit idealistic and optimistic to say that being a good person who helps others and values patience yadda yadda yadda is what leads to true happiness. Plenty of people take the opposite of the high road (the low road?) and find themselves wealthy or royal or famous or successful. So in the end, does virtue really matter to happiness?
"All could be happy. All should be happy. All would be happy" (248). Reading this quote is really exciting to me. There has been so much negative philosophy on happiness-- happiness can only be found in death, or suffering, or that it is only for the special few. Now, happiness seems more positive, and more available to all. Maybe I just like it because this is how our society views happiness today, but nonetheless, this is a drastic, exciting change to the philosophy we have studied in the past.
definitely! I think its cool that you noticed that. I think that the spirit of the Enlightenment really helped people to believe that man is able to achieve anything so therefore he can achieve happiness. After disproving old Greek philosophers that were previously idolized during the Renaissance, they believed anything is possible.
I agree with you completely! We've been talking and focusing on somewhat pessimistic views on happiness and that only few can truly achieve this state. However, I love that this is refreshing and uplifting for a change. Maybe this is because I was raised in a Catholic family, but I believe that everyone can change for the better and ultimately find happiness.
Kant seems to argue that our happiness really comes down to different sections of our brain. I find it pretty interesting that you can compartmentalize parts of your personality or emotions based on different parts of your brain. Kant says that "those who were happy, who felt good, were sometimes bad". I like how Kant brings in the idea that maybe happiness is not based on what you do, but how your brain works. So does happiness all come down to the way that our brain works? I find it a bit discouraging that all the work that people do to be happy may not even matter simply because of the way their brain is. Is there a way to train your brain to be happier?
In a way, it seems like you are saying you are unattracted to this compartmentalization because Kant is sort of desensitizing happiness, making it more mechanized. I agree with you that this notion sort of turns me off to Kant and his ideas on happiness. I do believe that may to some extent one can train their brain to be happier, simply be attempting to look at things in a more positive light. However, having said that, your "dark passenger" will always be present, no matter how hard you try to suppress it, but I do believe some self control can be attained.
In the reading, there was much talk about Beethoven, poems, and other forms of art using and expressing the word "joy". In my opinion, the word joy comes from when you are overwhelmed with happiness from a extravagant, fleeting moment such as winning a contest. I believe that this word tends to lean towards the physical world instead of our mental being.
I think that the point they were trying to get across is that joy is a fleeting thing that does not last very long, and does not give you happiness but instead takes you away from the bad things in your life in the form of a blissful distraction.
"Making a man happy is quite different from making him good"
In this quote, Kant explains that man can be happy in other ways than from being good. Also, he explains that not all virtue leads to happiness. Some people who are bad are happy. In my opinion, this is sometimes true, or at least on the outside. Some people who are "bad" can posses a facade that tricks others into believing they are happy. I have seen many people who do the wrong thing that seem like the happiest people ever. Therefore, I think that if you are true to yourself, you could still be happy if you are bad and possibly don't know better.
Schopenhauer depresses me, and I think that's what he aims to do with his assertions anyway. It seems to me that his whole world view is cynical to the enth degree in that the most intense pleasure (fulfillment of sexual desire) is counteracted by sadness of the moment when it stops/is taken away. He claims we live in the "worst of all possible worlds" because we are constantly searching for some happiness that, when we find it, is only temporary. I'm not sure I can even truly wrap my mind around Schopenhaur's world view as mine is so seemingly diametrically opposed.
I agree that Schopenhauer's mindset is dark and definitely extreme, but I can also see it as somewhat beautiful. Sometimes (but maybe not constantly, as he asserts) the world really does suck. A lot. And it's easy enough to see people driven by wrong ambitions and desires. But the idea that something so intrinsically human and beautiful, something as simple as human expression through art is our way out-- the idea that art can be our saving grace, is a beautiful one, at least for me. And perhaps it's the poetic tendencies to romanticize darkness that draws me to Schopenhauer, but I love the idea that art is the light for those of us stranded in the labyrinth. How will we ever get out? Through art, through beauty, through human emotion in its purest form. And, especially given the way Dr. Bieze discussed art today, I'm pretty okay with that.
Kant says that happiness is based on different sections of your brain and how your brain functions. If Kant argues this, then is there no one path to happiness? I kind of like his thoughts on happiness, because he takes the uniqueness of everyone into consideration. However, is Kant arguing that some people simply cannot be happy based on the way their brain is mapped?
Also, Kant argued that people need to do whatever makes them feel happy or good. So what if one's moral compass is off and finds joy and pleasure in doing what most would consider as "bad"? What would happen then?
"We frequently shut our eyes to the truth... that suffering is essential to life, and therefore does not flow in upon us from outside, but that everyone carries around within himself its perennial source." (299)
In this quote, Schopenhauer acknowledges that suffering is an inevitable part of life, just as ancient philosophies (such as Homeric Greeks and ancient Christians) have stated before. Schopenhauer really seems disgusted with the earthly world, claiming that it is "worst of the possible worlds" and "a form of hell" (303). Unlike the Greeks, he did not believe in escaping from suffering by drinking and having sex and participating in festivals, etc. In fact, he really despised those things. He, instead, believed in escaping suffering through music and art.
Did Schopenhauer really only believe that people could find happiness through the arts? And did he believe that all people had to find happiness through the same way? There must have been some people who did not appreciate the arts in the same way that he did, and there must have been people who found joy in other ways.
I think that Kant's view on happiness being an nonexistent thing and that we should obey an unbending moral code is impractical. We as humans could not follow the rules we set up without breaking some of them. When we look at Schopenhauer "..That suffering is essential to life, and therefore does not flow in upon us from outside, but that everyone carries around within himself its perennial source" (299) It goes saying that we look for outside causes to rationalize why we suffer. Was Schopenhauer right in saying that we suffer not because of outside forces,but rather mainly from an ever flowing fountain? it differs much from the Christian aspect that is present for western Europe and adapts something more similar Buddhist than anything else really.
So does Kant believe that we create our own suffering or that we have a source inside of us that causes us to "suffer?" I think that my first analysis makes more sense, because I find it hard to believe something inside of us causes us to suffer. On the other hand, if something inside of us causes us to suffer, I would guess that it's our emotions that cause us to suffer. Our emotions will conflict with our actions, causing us to make unfavorable actions that will thus make us unhappy.
Wanting to be be God, man falls lower than his real nature.293 In this quote, Baudelaire acknowledges that we cant just buy something for happiness, there are all ways the consequences that make us unhappy. this is alost the idea of earthly happiness that while can make us kind a happy cant fully quench our thirst. My question is this, if you could have an endless supply of a drug like opium and never ran out and always stayed in the bliss, would you. it would have affects on health, you would just constantly be high. is this a path to happiness? i think it is. the bliss that one would feel is almost the idea of forgetting all the problems. a fractional happiness where we have no problems and no wants so therefore we are happy
That's a very interesting question. I don't think being doped up 24/7 is an ideal happiness. Other than it being a way too idealistic scenario, I can't imagine being in a sort of vegetative state for my entire life. Sure you can maybe forget about your worries, but I see this as an empty life. Personally, I need to be active and mentally challenged at times because I find joy in that.
i can see how you would think it would be an empty life, but itis really just the full embodiment of fractional. in this idealistic situation you would forget all of your needs completley and would have the ability to just think about life for their entire life
I agree with Conor. Think about it: in your everyday life, you're constantly troubled by everyday worries, such as homework, tests, relationships, etc. There's really no way to be happy in a world where you would be troubled by such trivial matters, thus making you unhappy. While being doped 24/7 probably isn't in everybody's best interest, it's an interesting take on happiness. While you are "doped," your worries will be gone. You'll see everything in a new light, a light that you probably wouldn't have been able to see in a world where obstructions always got in the way of your and your happiness.
I really enjoyed Dr. Beize's lecture today, and I liked that he talked about simplicity - not multitasking and sometimes just listening to your surroundings/being present. Way too many people go through life worrying about the past or the future, and a big part of happiness is being in the present. If you are always on your phone or distracted by something, how can you fully appreciate the beauty around you? If you're not present, you can miss important things in your life and end up regretting it in the long run. The same goes with art, and I think this is a big factor in why art can bring us happiness. If you are just focused on the art piece, without distractions, you can appreciate the simplicity and beauty of it, which can bring you pleasure.
Yesterday was my first time hearing about multitasking being a false concept. I never really thought about having to compromise doing something to a certain satisfaction in order to do another action. But now that I think about it, it's true that doing more than one thing at once often takes out the full on satisfaction it brings. When I listen to music while doing homework, I don't hear the lyrics of the music at all. Most of the time, I forget it's even playing. If I focus on the music, my concentration on the homework slips. I think this is why Dr. Beize's lecture goes so well with the past philosophers like Aristotle who taught to choose one thing and focus on that, and that'll bring you happiness.
I was struck most by one of Dr. Beize's offhanded comments about his own happiness- the difference between the blissful isolation of Buddhists and happiness from being in a community. I'm inclined to side with him on the matter, and I'm so glad that something finally brought this idea up, because I think happiness usually has a communal aspect to it. Personally, other people make me happy. I don't think I (or most people) could be happy all alone in an ideologic contemplative state (feel free to dispute). Like Dr. Bieze suggested, I think that contemplative bliss is different from happiness. I tend to associate isolation and loneliness with depression and sadness, not some lofty ideal to strive for. Other people are an integral part of my happiness- what about you guys?
I agree with you. I associate loneliness with being unhappy. I know some who probably enjoy just keeping to themselves and being in their own mind, but even introverts have to be around people every once and a while. Communities and other people bring about a sense of inclusiveness and support that you really can't get when you're all alone. The experiences you have wouldn't be nearly as special if you didn't share it with someone else. It's sort of like watching a funny movie at home by yourself. I don't know about you guys, but I don't laugh nearly as much at that movie when I'm alone, but I laugh a ton when I'm watching it with other people. I think the same goes with happiness. When you get to share your good (or maybe even bad) experiences with someone else, it makes it that much more special and memorable.
I definitely agree with you, as well. I think a large part of my own happiness comes from intentions with other people, especially the people that l love. And I also believe that it's better and more fulfilling to be able to share my happiness with other people too. Feeling happy without other people always feels rather lonely to me. So I agree with you completely; my friends and family are an integral part of my happiness too.
Dr. Beize was probably my favorite guest speaker we've had so far. His presentation was really good, but the best part was the side notes and offhanded comments that Beth mentioned in her blog post. He raised the question of "can you be happy when you're distracted", and went on to explain how art helps us focus, be present, and attend the moment. I feel like this really relates to life in a way, sometimes we're so unhappy and disatisfied with our lives because we really just have too much going on. We are thinking too much about the past or future and it doesn't allow us to focus in on the things that are important to us. If we have too much on our hands, we aren't able to attend the moment because our minds are too busy somewhere else. Art has the power to make you focus and almost lose yourself in the world around you. It's similar to finding a hobby or sport that allows you to take a step away from stress and the craziness of the world and just be in the here and now. I think that's why happiness is so personal and there's no one path to find it, because it all depends on what makes you let go of the world around and just live in the present.
I really enjoyed when he talked about the correlation of being present and happiness, too. I know that I, personally, think about my future far more than I am present, and typically, thinking about the future brings about a lot of anxiety and stresses me out. When I actually attempt to stay present and focus on the "now" instead of the future, I feel a lot better mentally and physically. So I think it's fair to say that staying present does bring about a sense of happiness. Sometimes just letting go of all my anxieties and worries (even just for a few minutes) can completely change my mood for the better. Observing art puts you in the moment. You can just focus on looking at it, and it allows you to just be present for a moment. So, in a way, observing art can bring about happiness, because you're allowing yourself to focus on the art, instead of stressing out about other things.
happiness for me is also due in large part to the people I surround myself with. I find myself being less happy when I am lonely, and I usually use my family and friends to make me happy when I am sad
I agree that Dr. Beize was the best speaker. I found it interesting how he differentiated between happiness and bliss. Earlier, I stated that I believed happiness was being content with the way things are. I want to modify that to say that happiness is more like being proud of where you are. Dr. Beize used the example of going to the art museum and having the tingling experience. To him, that's more of a blissful experience rather than happiness. The concept of intertexuality adds levels to the concept of art and happiness. When I was younger, I could go to museums and read books that meant nothing to me except they were entertaining or drew my interest for a short time. As I grow older, I catch different themes and different words jump out at me. As I'm reading an "old" book, it takes on a new meaning to me. I think this is why people can find happiness in their situations because their experiences change, so they learn to be proud of what they have at the moment.
I agree with zuri. I think dr bieze did a good job explaining the difference between happiness and bliss and it never really occurred to me that they were different things. I like what dr bieze said about past, present and future. It is usually hard to just focus on the present and not worry about the future but I have noticed that when I do that I am more calm and happier. dr bieze also talked about how we are always changing, and he used the example of a reading the same book at different times in your life because you will look at it in a different way. this makes me think that happiness is not a destination but rather a journey. if you considered yourself happy at one point in your life does that mean you cannot be happy when you grow an change as a person? I think not.
"Schopenhauer affirms repeatedly, pain is "positive" and pleasure "negative," meaning that we feel the one as an intense presence, but the other predominately only by default, as the absence or removal of discomfort, desire, or pain" (301). Does this sound like ataraxia to anyone else? I was kind of surprised, I would have thought that romantics would feel pleasure more intensely because of the focus on art, music, etc. Then again, the basic definition of Romanticism on wikipedia is characterized as a period that "placed a new emphasis on emotions such as apprehension, horror and terror." This is much different than views like the Buddhists', where they strive to be free of suffering, instead of emphasizing it.
Dr. Bieze was my favorite speaker this term. The way he speaks so eloquently is almost sounds like an art in itself. He had a very interesting approach to the art that he discussed and brought up. For example, his take on photographs capturing the light of a person in a specific moment was really cool to think about. Whenever I think of a picture and why I enjoy looking at pictures so much, I just thought it was because I like remembering certain events. However, the way Dr. Bieze described pictures made it seem like the picture captures the aura and emotion radiating out of people. I have never really seen people in this way, and honestly, it changed the way I look at people and especially pictures.
Also, another thing I found intriguing about Dr. Bieze's presentation was how he mentioned that some art intentionally wants us to judge the piece at the first impression. Like the Polluck piece for example, Polluck directly challenges his viewers and shatters any previous assumptions that they may have. It allows for creativity and past experiences of the individual viewer to choose what he or she wants to see in the painting. It is freeing and challenges people to drop all assumptions when viewing the piece, which is something that is so cool to think that a piece of clothe with paint on can do.
"Making a man happy is quite different from making a man good" - Kant (251).
ReplyDeleteThe distinction that Kant is attempting to make in this quote is that being happy and being good are not the same thing. In other words, feeling happy, being defined as a pleasureful of good feeling, is not the same as being a good person and doing good, virtuous things. I thought that this was interesting because Kant does not say that doing good things can make you feel good, or feel pleasure, which I believe it can. Instead Kant refers to "feeling good" the same way Johnson does in the story of Johnson and Boswell's conversation about happiness. I think that it is interesting that feeling good (being happy) and doing good, virtuous things are now separated instead of being paired together, as we have seen in previous ages. Also I think it is interesting that happiness is still referred to as something that cannot be sustained on this earth.
In the section we had to read from p 285-311 the poet/writer Samuel Taylor Coleridge is referenced. His work "Dejection: An Ode" is referenced throughout this section. In this poem Coleridge, as well as in his other poems, such as Kubla Khan, he talks about dreams. Exploration of dreams and the supernatural are both characteristic of romantic writing. For Coleridge dreams and other experiences like them, hallucinations, are ways for him to explore what makes him happy and what brings him joy. Do you guys think that dreams can be a way for us to experience our inner desires in a way that makes us happy, and therefore can show us what will truly make us happy? I don't know how much first hand experience anyone has with hallucinations but do any of you think that they can also be a way of finding what makes us happy? Or do they simply act the same way alcohol does by clouding our minds and distracting us from what is troubling us?
ReplyDeleteI don't think I'm qualified to answer your question about hallucinations because I haven't had any experience with them. I believe our dreams, just as Dr. Bieze said, a coping mechanism to help us deal with our fear and anxiety we face in this world. If you have bad or fear driven dreams, then those dreams will tell you what doesn't make you happy. Therefore, you are able to avoid those things or events in your dreams, in turn helping you find happiness.
DeleteYou make an interesting point. I think people's answers will vary based on their opinions on the subconscious. Personally, I think we do uncover hidden parts of ourselves in our subconscious. In our dreams, we may experience something that we never knew made us happy or sad before. The dilemma with dreams, as Dr. Bieze was saying today concerning surrealism, is that we can never fully remember or experience our dreams. We can only remember a reflection or simple narrative that provides a semblance of order. If we were son how able to fully tap into our dreams, then I think that we would be able to uncover many things that are sources of happiness for ourselves.
DeleteWhen McMahon discusses Rousseau's new concept of unhappiness, one characterized by, "the guilt and sorrow one experiences for not being happy in a culture that demands it," I was surprised by the relevancy that I think occurs in our contemporary society (250). In a simple sense, it's easy to see how we often feel personally at fault when we don't have the pleasures that everyone else has-- we're lead to jealousy and self-pity, both of which (I think) fall under "unhappiness." Our society presents so many "ideals" that we "should" be striving for- perfect lives, perfect bodies, perfect possessions- and when we can't achieve them, when we can't be society's type of happiness, we feel as if we're letting society (and ourselves) down.
ReplyDeleteOn a different level, as someone who has both experienced and witnessed depression, the idea that we feel guilty for our inability to be happy is also one that I can relate to- and I think a lot of other people can too. The way that our society treats people with mental illnesses is hardly ever supportive, and often leaves someone who is depressed feeling as if they're personally responsible for not feeling as happy as they "should"-- even though it's certainly not their decision.
So-- on multiple levels, it's easy to see how Rousseau's fear of a new unhappiness that stems from not being happy enough can translate even into our current era.
For Schopenhauer, the only escape from the horrors of this world was through art; be it music, poetry, paintings, etc., the only way out of the bleak suffering of this world was something so beautiful that he could forget the pain around himself. Yet Schopenhauer denied other escapist routes; sexual impulses, drinking, and hedonistic indulgence could not bring him to happiness.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, art can definitely be an escapist way out of a miserable world (or just a bad day, given the circumstances). Music, Schopenhauer's favorite, is an easy way to forget about outside troubles. But I also find comfort in other people, in comfort food (and if I were to drink, it would probably be an easy way out as well).
For Schopenhauer, it seems that art was higher form of escapism, but in my opinion, other things can be just as beneficial-- and just as beautiful. One of the best ways that I've found to escape a hard day/week/existence is through other people. Do you think this kind of escape is less effective/worthy than art? Is art a better way out? Or is Schopenhauer's cynicism keeping him from finding happiness in other ways?
Quote pg 250 "what..is to be expected from our pursuit of happiness, when we find the state of life to be such, that happiness it self is the cause of misery?" I think this relates back to what was said in the pages prior to this quote, in that during this time happiness was now seen as a right. Therefore, every person expected it. It's just like when you expect something or look forward to something and you don't get that one thing and then you feel like you were cheated and you feel disappointed. I feel like this is why people get sad or depressed b/c to us, happiness is seen as a right, and we all deserve it. So do you agree or disagree that this idea of happiness being a right can only lead to misery? Do you think that happiness can only occur in the past (or when reflecting on the past) or only in the future? or both? without occurring in the present
ReplyDeleteI think you make a really good point. Today, many people take happiness for granted and see it as a right that the have. When happiness is viewed as something that everyone should have, then those who don't or can't find happiness end up feeling worse about themselves. The people that aren't happy feel as if they have either failed and become depressed or feel like they have been cheated and become angry at the world. In a way, establishing happiness as a right makes it sound better and more accessible, but at the same time, it can make people feel much worse about themselves.
DeleteThis may be a tad dark so... don't read on if you don't want to.
ReplyDelete"Of such repressed longings, the most powerful is the sexual impulse, what Schopenhauer considers the "kernel of the will to live" (McMahon 300)
What if we are merely animals seeking out the one terribly crushing urge to follow natures singular guideline. Procreate. It flows through our veins the very chemicals that make us crave seek and execute natures fail safe on self preservation. Are we but a scab on the universe, a thriving parasite seeking to grow in size and consume the host that we have chosen, the gem that is earth. All of the world in a singular holding pattern until the host is depleted. We kill our homes, we rape the very air we breathe and to what end? So that we can spawn more bastardizations of the self justifying race of intelligent and powerful humans. There is a reason that lust is considered a sin. Lust reminds us of what we truly are and that we are not complicated and advanced species. We are, at the heart of it, just machines seeking to spread our breed throughout the world. Sexual drive is our drive because we are driven by the driving forces of a sex driven cause which will drive us into the ground until the ground has been driven out of the earth and the drivers of our urges depleted by lack of existence.
Just a thought.
Written while listening to Gnossie number two by Eric Satie.
DeleteFirst I have a question. Were you trying to use the word "drive" as many times as possible in that last sentence? I'm not being facetious I'm actually curious because I actually do kind of agree with you. As much as we try to fake the fact that ultimately our only desire is sex and sexual pleasure, it really cannot be denied. Sure, other things may please us to an extent, but they really aren't what we truly want. For example, and this may come across as horrible to some, but why do we do community service or something of the like? Originally, probably to serve God, but as soon as that cute girl from your lit class walks in the door, your priorities change. You will now most likely focus on doing the same activity she is doing. For what? To increase the slim possibility of talking to her? Why? To maybe get to the point of going on a date? Then what? Well, dates....then lust....then sex. It all goes back to sexual desire, and if that cute girl never walked into that community service place? Fine. There are dozens of other scenarios. Ok I realized this may be my pubescent mind running out of control and I probably seem like a horrible person, and if I'm the only who thinks this is somewhat on point ,I'm embarrassed...and so on and so forth. That is assuming anyone will actually read this comment.
DeleteBut I think some will find some truth in this.
Delete"Might man's unhappiness actually increase in proportion as his understanding and his insight grew?"
ReplyDeleteI can see why it is easy for some people to think that knowledge about the truth leads to unhappiness. The more a man knows, the more he is aware of what he actually is, what can go wrong, or maybe he loses his faith because he figures out there isn't actually something bigger than him ( something divine). 'Ignorance is bliss' comes to mind.
To that, I say: Knowledge is Power. Ignorance is a false-bliss, and leads to misknowledge and superstition, both of which are regarded by many philosopihes as detracting to happiness. 'Ignorance is bliss' is an excuse used by way too many people so they can do nothing, so they can take the easy way out. Oh the cowardice.
Knowledge might lead to unhappiness for some, because they don't have the knowledge to take charge of that knowledge. To change what he actually is. To avoid the impending disaster. To use that newfound power to make the world a better place, rather than its inhabitants hoping for a better place in the next life. Those who know how to take charge of their knowledge, though, are the one's who are truly happy.
Yes, peppercorn.
DeleteWhat?
DeleteFrank, did you even read the passage? Peppercorn was referenced multiple times.
DeleteCould this ignorance be the path to happiness for those who cannot think. Should we really discount the sense of joy these people may fear just because they do not subscribe to a more pensive lifestyle/
DeleteSchopenhauer asserts that the world we are currently living in is as close to hell as humanity can get without being snuffed out. He says that this is the "worst of the possible worlds". I cannot imagine the other worlds that he is somehow describing and must know very well. How can we say that there is anything better when all we know is, well what we know. What if this is the only world? What if we really are just fueled by happiness? Is this such a bad thing. Shouldn't we just be grateful for the life that we have here when we have no earthly idea what the grass looks like on the other side and, more importantly, what grass is. Do we have the right to criticize the place we dwell when it is all we know?
ReplyDeleteKant believed that happiness comes from doing whatever makes us happy, good or bad, and that in this life, we should do what makes us "worthy of Happiness." If everything we do is already aimed at becoming happy, aren't we already worthy of happiness? If not, how can we become worthy of Happiness?
ReplyDelete"What is reason and happiness were ultimately opposed?" -pg 250
ReplyDeleteI think this quote brings to light a very important concept/question about happiness. When one reaches a point of lucid reason, then wouldn't that person realize happiness is really not viable? Through reason, humans figure things out, solve problems. If one thinks and reasons long enough, I think they will come upon the conclusion that happiness is a problem that cannot be solved, or at the very least has no concrete, singular answer. Like Kant said happiness is not necessarily doing "good" deeds, but doing whatever makes us...well happy! If killing someone makes me happy, the whole concept of living virtuously as a way of achieving happiness is thrown out the window because most would consider murder to be a bad thing to do.
But what if when someone reasoned through the idea of happiness, they found that happiness IS a problem that can be solved? It could go either way, couldn't it?
Deletei agree with Gracie, what i they figure out happiness is achievable. using your example, if someone realized that what would bring them true happiness is murder, they would murder people. looking at it from someone following kant, happiness could come from murder because it doesn't need to come from doing something good.
DeleteRight, maybe one can reason through happiness and realize that there is no singular answer to happiness. But perhaps that's the answer in and of itself. Like Kant says, I don't believe happiness comes from goodness as morality is such a ridiculously gray, subjective matter. Though living virtuously is a great and optimistic thought, I'm not sure if that's where I think happiness comes from. I think the initial quote you mentioned alludes to the fact that happiness is such an innate, known emotion that trying to reason through it could totally ruin the spontaneity of it.
DeleteI am also somewhat confused by my quote, for if reason and happiness are opposed, then how does all of this work? If one reasons for long enough they will realize happiness is not something one can really achieve? Is that the point being made? A rational mind will not buy into all of this happiness stuff? I would just like the quote to be explained to me so that I can understand better what is being said.
ReplyDelete"Virtue, Kant reaffirmed, with an air of common sense, was sometimes painful. And those who were happy, who felt good, were sometimes bad"
ReplyDeleteI like this quote because Kant makes the point that being virtuous does not guarantee happiness. I think this is specifically relevant to the modern world because religion does not seem to have as big of a part in life as it did during the early Christian period. I like that Kant says that making ourselves worthy of happiness should be our duty instead of living a completely virtuous life. It seems a little depressing to think that happiness is not a natural right of human beings but i agree with it.
What exactly makes children more eligible for happiness than adults?
I know that children are seen as having a better and more lively imagination but i think that adults are also capable of having this insight. Children might be more happy because they are more oblivious to the dark parts of life but wouldnt that mean that they aren't truly happy?
Children's lives are also a lot simpler than adult lives. Adults have to worry about buying groceries, buying gas, paying mortgages, working to pay for all of these expenses, supporting a family, and maintaining their home. Children don't have nearly as much to do as adults: wake up, go to school, come home, play with friends, go to sleep. The ridiculous amount of things adults have to do stresses them out, while children only get to worry about having fun.
DeleteAdults also are aware of all the evils of the world. They know there are rapists, serial killers, con men, natural disasters, politics, international affairs, and much more that could affect their lives in any given way at any given time. Children, on the other hand, don't know about these things. Heck, they don't even care about any of these things. All they care about is having fun.
Children are considered happier because they're untainted and innocent, I think. As you said, Ally, they know less about the dark parts of the world, so they are bound to be more positive in their inexperience. Someone who has experienced the world and its hardships can be a very happy person, but someone who has not necessarily had to deal with immense responsibility (because parents protect and shelter their children), is bound to be happier. And I think they are truly happy. Even though they don't really know too much about the world, it's only because it's not their time to learn that kind of stuff yet.
DeleteIn regard to the imaginative aspect of childhood, it would be very difficult for an adult to be able to revert back to this innocent state that children generally experience. Once someone has lived their life and learned so much, it would be difficult to reverse the effects of an unkind world.
The first section of our reading talks about how the idea of happiness shifted from one that was out of human control to one that was completely in human control. Apparently "all reasonable human beings could make themselves happy" (252). In fact, everyone sort of had a responsibility to make themselves happy. That puts the blame on the individual for his own unhappiness. Now, I'm a firm believer in the idea that happiness is pretty much self-chosen. I think happiness is mostly how you react to things and less about what happens to you, and that reactions are self-chosen, so I can see how some people might be blamed for their unhappiness. However, you can't really blame someone for being unhappy because of, for example, the death of a loved one. Moreover you can't blame someone if they are clinically depressed, because that's not really their fault either. And in that respect, how would you be able to tell if someone was depressed or simply choosing their own unhappiness? Is all happiness and unhappiness chosen? Where does one draw the line between chosen unhappiness and unhappiness that cannot be controlled?
ReplyDeleteI agree with what you are saying. To add to your post, I think that the line between choosing to be unhappy and being unhappy due to means beyond your control is how you react to the happy things that make you happy/happier. What I mean by this is some people look at something and try to find the things in it that make them unhappy, these are the people who choose to be unhappy, others see the things that make them unhappy but also appreciate the things that make them happy as well.
DeleteYes Ryan! Make do with the gifts your given and see the good in all things! If we live a life of thankfulness (although challenging) we are able to focus on happiness instead of complaining.
DeleteThat's an interesting take on it, Ryan. I think you're right. Someone can enjoy the good things while still seeing the bad things. And someone can see the good things and the bad things, and still be unhappy because they can't control it. But someone who can control their happiness only sees and looks for the negative things. It's kind of confusing, but it makes sense.
DeleteThe quote, "desire [leads] us onward[s] but seldom to peace" is an important one that I think applies to our world today. People today are focused on material things and what they want right now. It is important to remember that desires can give us temporary happiness and take us a small step forward on our search for happiness, but desires won't lead us to our ultimate goal of happiness or peace. When people focus too much on temporary thing such as money, clothes, etc. they loose sight of their long-term goal. Life can get messy with all the minor, unimportant distractions that most people seem to focus on. If people stop focusing so much on the materials, then they can stay on the right path to ultimate happiness.
ReplyDeleteNow, I'm not saying that we need to get rid of all earthly desires. We should enjoy the things that make us happy, but just remember that they won't bring us ultimate happiness or peace.
After reading about Samuel Johnson, I was wondering: Did he popularize doubting happiness? Johnson seems to have a very pessimistic, sarcastic view on happiness. In the book it says that he was not the first, so I know he didn't start it, but did he popularize it? Did more people start to have a more negative view on happiness after him or did it take someone like Kant to make it really popular?
ReplyDeleteI'm not totally sure about the answer to your question, but I don't know if he did popularize it. There were some dark times in history--the plague, the famine, wars--when I'm sure people doubted happiness before philosophers got around to writing it down. I think the whole notion of doubting took off in the Age of Reason, personally. After all, as Dr. Bieze showed us, belief + doubt = sanity
DeleteIs there really an irreconcilable difference between feeling good and being good?
ReplyDeleteI think there is. If I wanted to be good all of the time, then there will certainly be times when I don't get what I want. If I want to feel good all of the time then I only think about my selfish needs, pushing others away from me and eventually breaking the law at times. The question most intellectuals have faced for centuries is this: How can we please most people while harming the least?
I agree with you. There is definitely a difference between being good and feeling good. However, I do think that being good can lead to feeling good. In a lot of the philosophy that we've studied, doing good works and living virtuously is a step on the path to happiness. Because, in my mind, happiness is a long term thing, even though one doesn't get what one wants all the time when one is being good, one will be in a more pleasant and humble state in the long-run that not only benefits the individual, but others. Being good can relate directly with feeling good. I guess it just depends on how you live your life.
Delete"In the past or future, one can be happy, but in the present, only when not fully conscious."(page 245).
ReplyDeleteThis particular line struck a chord with me. It reminds me of a quote from The Office finale in which Andy said "I wish there was a way to know you're in the good old days before you've actually left them". In Johnson's view, we can always look to the past and remember the good times, and we can look to the future and hope for better times, but the present only holds uncertainty when we move from pleasure to pleasure. When we focus on the present, it is hard for us to pick out the good things while they are happening, those things may be easier to see in retrospect.
that's a really interesting idea. I think that Bieze touched upon this when he said that art teaches us to live in the present and become out of the conscious state. Also, he said that when he looks at art of the past he gets that tingling sensation. Overall, I think its generally hard to live in the present because of everyday distractions. and by the way: the office is the best show ever. nice reference
DeleteThis is a cool idea and makes you kind of wonder how we will view the present in the future. This is especially hard to pick out injustices in our world when in the present. For example, slavery and discrimination against African Americans, as we now know, is awful and totally unacceptable in today's age. However, during the time period, this was seen as normal and the way of life. It'll be weird to see what things in our society now are going to be unacceptable in the future. We might be completely unaware of this issue now, which is weird to even think about.
DeleteMy essential question is, does it matter? Kant asserts that "Making a man happy is quite different from being good" which is diametrically opposed to the Socratic philosophy in happiness in which virtue is absolutely necessary for happiness. But in the end, does the intent of the action or desire matter if the end result is the same? I agree, realistically, with Kant. It's a bit idealistic and optimistic to say that being a good person who helps others and values patience yadda yadda yadda is what leads to true happiness. Plenty of people take the opposite of the high road (the low road?) and find themselves wealthy or royal or famous or successful. So in the end, does virtue really matter to happiness?
ReplyDelete"All could be happy. All should be happy. All would be happy" (248).
ReplyDeleteReading this quote is really exciting to me. There has been so much negative philosophy on happiness-- happiness can only be found in death, or suffering, or that it is only for the special few. Now, happiness seems more positive, and more available to all. Maybe I just like it because this is how our society views happiness today, but nonetheless, this is a drastic, exciting change to the philosophy we have studied in the past.
definitely! I think its cool that you noticed that. I think that the spirit of the Enlightenment really helped people to believe that man is able to achieve anything so therefore he can achieve happiness. After disproving old Greek philosophers that were previously idolized during the Renaissance, they believed anything is possible.
DeleteI agree with you completely! We've been talking and focusing on somewhat pessimistic views on happiness and that only few can truly achieve this state. However, I love that this is refreshing and uplifting for a change. Maybe this is because I was raised in a Catholic family, but I believe that everyone can change for the better and ultimately find happiness.
DeleteThanks for the comments! I'm glad to know you guys agree with me. This quote just really gets me going!
DeleteKant seems to argue that our happiness really comes down to different sections of our brain. I find it pretty interesting that you can compartmentalize parts of your personality or emotions based on different parts of your brain. Kant says that "those who were happy, who felt good, were sometimes bad". I like how Kant brings in the idea that maybe happiness is not based on what you do, but how your brain works. So does happiness all come down to the way that our brain works? I find it a bit discouraging that all the work that people do to be happy may not even matter simply because of the way their brain is. Is there a way to train your brain to be happier?
ReplyDeleteIn a way, it seems like you are saying you are unattracted to this compartmentalization because Kant is sort of desensitizing happiness, making it more mechanized. I agree with you that this notion sort of turns me off to Kant and his ideas on happiness. I do believe that may to some extent one can train their brain to be happier, simply be attempting to look at things in a more positive light. However, having said that, your "dark passenger" will always be present, no matter how hard you try to suppress it, but I do believe some self control can be attained.
DeleteWhat is joy?
ReplyDeleteIn the reading, there was much talk about Beethoven, poems, and other forms of art using and expressing the word "joy". In my opinion, the word joy comes from when you are overwhelmed with happiness from a extravagant, fleeting moment such as winning a contest. I believe that this word tends to lean towards the physical world instead of our mental being.
I think that the point they were trying to get across is that joy is a fleeting thing that does not last very long, and does not give you happiness but instead takes you away from the bad things in your life in the form of a blissful distraction.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete"Making a man happy is quite different from making him good"
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Kant explains that man can be happy in other ways than from being good. Also, he explains that not all virtue leads to happiness. Some people who are bad are happy. In my opinion, this is sometimes true, or at least on the outside. Some people who are "bad" can posses a facade that tricks others into believing they are happy. I have seen many people who do the wrong thing that seem like the happiest people ever. Therefore, I think that if you are true to yourself, you could still be happy if you are bad and possibly don't know better.
Schopenhauer depresses me, and I think that's what he aims to do with his assertions anyway. It seems to me that his whole world view is cynical to the enth degree in that the most intense pleasure (fulfillment of sexual desire) is counteracted by sadness of the moment when it stops/is taken away. He claims we live in the "worst of all possible worlds" because we are constantly searching for some happiness that, when we find it, is only temporary. I'm not sure I can even truly wrap my mind around Schopenhaur's world view as mine is so seemingly diametrically opposed.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Schopenhauer's mindset is dark and definitely extreme, but I can also see it as somewhat beautiful.
DeleteSometimes (but maybe not constantly, as he asserts) the world really does suck. A lot. And it's easy enough to see people driven by wrong ambitions and desires. But the idea that something so intrinsically human and beautiful, something as simple as human expression through art is our way out-- the idea that art can be our saving grace, is a beautiful one, at least for me.
And perhaps it's the poetic tendencies to romanticize darkness that draws me to Schopenhauer, but I love the idea that art is the light for those of us stranded in the labyrinth.
How will we ever get out? Through art, through beauty, through human emotion in its purest form.
And, especially given the way Dr. Bieze discussed art today, I'm pretty okay with that.
I love that Beth!
DeleteKant says that happiness is based on different sections of your brain and how your brain functions. If Kant argues this, then is there no one path to happiness? I kind of like his thoughts on happiness, because he takes the uniqueness of everyone into consideration. However, is Kant arguing that some people simply cannot be happy based on the way their brain is mapped?
ReplyDeleteAlso, Kant argued that people need to do whatever makes them feel happy or good. So what if one's moral compass is off and finds joy and pleasure in doing what most would consider as "bad"? What would happen then?
"We frequently shut our eyes to the truth... that suffering is essential to life, and therefore does not flow in upon us from outside, but that everyone carries around within himself its perennial source." (299)
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Schopenhauer acknowledges that suffering is an inevitable part of life, just as ancient philosophies (such as Homeric Greeks and ancient Christians) have stated before. Schopenhauer really seems disgusted with the earthly world, claiming that it is "worst of the possible worlds" and "a form of hell" (303). Unlike the Greeks, he did not believe in escaping from suffering by drinking and having sex and participating in festivals, etc. In fact, he really despised those things. He, instead, believed in escaping suffering through music and art.
Did Schopenhauer really only believe that people could find happiness through the arts? And did he believe that all people had to find happiness through the same way? There must have been some people who did not appreciate the arts in the same way that he did, and there must have been people who found joy in other ways.
I think that Kant's view on happiness being an nonexistent thing and that we should obey an unbending moral code is impractical. We as humans could not follow the rules we set up without breaking some of them.
ReplyDeleteWhen we look at Schopenhauer
"..That suffering is essential to life, and therefore does not flow in upon us from outside, but that everyone carries around within himself its perennial source" (299)
It goes saying that we look for outside causes to rationalize why we suffer. Was Schopenhauer right in saying that we suffer not because of outside forces,but rather mainly from an ever flowing fountain? it differs much from the Christian aspect that is present for western Europe and adapts something more similar Buddhist than anything else really.
So does Kant believe that we create our own suffering or that we have a source inside of us that causes us to "suffer?" I think that my first analysis makes more sense, because I find it hard to believe something inside of us causes us to suffer. On the other hand, if something inside of us causes us to suffer, I would guess that it's our emotions that cause us to suffer. Our emotions will conflict with our actions, causing us to make unfavorable actions that will thus make us unhappy.
DeleteWanting to be be God, man falls lower than his real nature.293
ReplyDeleteIn this quote, Baudelaire acknowledges that we cant just buy something for happiness, there are all ways the consequences that make us unhappy. this is alost the idea of earthly happiness that while can make us kind a happy cant fully quench our thirst. My question is this, if you could have an endless supply of a drug like opium and never ran out and always stayed in the bliss, would you. it would have affects on health, you would just constantly be high. is this a path to happiness?
i think it is. the bliss that one would feel is almost the idea of forgetting all the problems. a fractional happiness where we have no problems and no wants so therefore we are happy
That's a very interesting question.
DeleteI don't think being doped up 24/7 is an ideal happiness. Other than it being a way too idealistic scenario, I can't imagine being in a sort of vegetative state for my entire life. Sure you can maybe forget about your worries, but I see this as an empty life. Personally, I need to be active and mentally challenged at times because I find joy in that.
i can see how you would think it would be an empty life, but itis really just the full embodiment of fractional. in this idealistic situation you would forget all of your needs completley and would have the ability to just think about life for their entire life
DeleteI agree with Conor. Think about it: in your everyday life, you're constantly troubled by everyday worries, such as homework, tests, relationships, etc. There's really no way to be happy in a world where you would be troubled by such trivial matters, thus making you unhappy. While being doped 24/7 probably isn't in everybody's best interest, it's an interesting take on happiness. While you are "doped," your worries will be gone. You'll see everything in a new light, a light that you probably wouldn't have been able to see in a world where obstructions always got in the way of your and your happiness.
DeleteI really enjoyed Dr. Beize's lecture today, and I liked that he talked about simplicity - not multitasking and sometimes just listening to your surroundings/being present. Way too many people go through life worrying about the past or the future, and a big part of happiness is being in the present. If you are always on your phone or distracted by something, how can you fully appreciate the beauty around you? If you're not present, you can miss important things in your life and end up regretting it in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes with art, and I think this is a big factor in why art can bring us happiness. If you are just focused on the art piece, without distractions, you can appreciate the simplicity and beauty of it, which can bring you pleasure.
Yesterday was my first time hearing about multitasking being a false concept. I never really thought about having to compromise doing something to a certain satisfaction in order to do another action. But now that I think about it, it's true that doing more than one thing at once often takes out the full on satisfaction it brings. When I listen to music while doing homework, I don't hear the lyrics of the music at all. Most of the time, I forget it's even playing. If I focus on the music, my concentration on the homework slips. I think this is why Dr. Beize's lecture goes so well with the past philosophers like Aristotle who taught to choose one thing and focus on that, and that'll bring you happiness.
DeleteI was struck most by one of Dr. Beize's offhanded comments about his own happiness- the difference between the blissful isolation of Buddhists and happiness from being in a community. I'm inclined to side with him on the matter, and I'm so glad that something finally brought this idea up, because I think happiness usually has a communal aspect to it. Personally, other people make me happy. I don't think I (or most people) could be happy all alone in an ideologic contemplative state (feel free to dispute). Like Dr. Bieze suggested, I think that contemplative bliss is different from happiness. I tend to associate isolation and loneliness with depression and sadness, not some lofty ideal to strive for. Other people are an integral part of my happiness- what about you guys?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I associate loneliness with being unhappy. I know some who probably enjoy just keeping to themselves and being in their own mind, but even introverts have to be around people every once and a while. Communities and other people bring about a sense of inclusiveness and support that you really can't get when you're all alone. The experiences you have wouldn't be nearly as special if you didn't share it with someone else. It's sort of like watching a funny movie at home by yourself. I don't know about you guys, but I don't laugh nearly as much at that movie when I'm alone, but I laugh a ton when I'm watching it with other people. I think the same goes with happiness. When you get to share your good (or maybe even bad) experiences with someone else, it makes it that much more special and memorable.
DeleteI definitely agree with you, as well. I think a large part of my own happiness comes from intentions with other people, especially the people that l love. And I also believe that it's better and more fulfilling to be able to share my happiness with other people too. Feeling happy without other people always feels rather lonely to me. So I agree with you completely; my friends and family are an integral part of my happiness too.
DeleteDr. Beize was probably my favorite guest speaker we've had so far. His presentation was really good, but the best part was the side notes and offhanded comments that Beth mentioned in her blog post. He raised the question of "can you be happy when you're distracted", and went on to explain how art helps us focus, be present, and attend the moment. I feel like this really relates to life in a way, sometimes we're so unhappy and disatisfied with our lives because we really just have too much going on. We are thinking too much about the past or future and it doesn't allow us to focus in on the things that are important to us. If we have too much on our hands, we aren't able to attend the moment because our minds are too busy somewhere else. Art has the power to make you focus and almost lose yourself in the world around you. It's similar to finding a hobby or sport that allows you to take a step away from stress and the craziness of the world and just be in the here and now. I think that's why happiness is so personal and there's no one path to find it, because it all depends on what makes you let go of the world around and just live in the present.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed when he talked about the correlation of being present and happiness, too. I know that I, personally, think about my future far more than I am present, and typically, thinking about the future brings about a lot of anxiety and stresses me out. When I actually attempt to stay present and focus on the "now" instead of the future, I feel a lot better mentally and physically. So I think it's fair to say that staying present does bring about a sense of happiness. Sometimes just letting go of all my anxieties and worries (even just for a few minutes) can completely change my mood for the better. Observing art puts you in the moment. You can just focus on looking at it, and it allows you to just be present for a moment. So, in a way, observing art can bring about happiness, because you're allowing yourself to focus on the art, instead of stressing out about other things.
Deletehappiness for me is also due in large part to the people I surround myself with. I find myself being less happy when I am lonely, and I usually use my family and friends to make me happy when I am sad
DeleteI agree that Dr. Beize was the best speaker. I found it interesting how he differentiated between happiness and bliss. Earlier, I stated that I believed happiness was being content with the way things are. I want to modify that to say that happiness is more like being proud of where you are. Dr. Beize used the example of going to the art museum and having the tingling experience. To him, that's more of a blissful experience rather than happiness. The concept of intertexuality adds levels to the concept of art and happiness. When I was younger, I could go to museums and read books that meant nothing to me except they were entertaining or drew my interest for a short time. As I grow older, I catch different themes and different words jump out at me. As I'm reading an "old" book, it takes on a new meaning to me. I think this is why people can find happiness in their situations because their experiences change, so they learn to be proud of what they have at the moment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with zuri. I think dr bieze did a good job explaining the difference between happiness and bliss and it never really occurred to me that they were different things. I like what dr bieze said about past, present and future. It is usually hard to just focus on the present and not worry about the future but I have noticed that when I do that I am more calm and happier. dr bieze also talked about how we are always changing, and he used the example of a reading the same book at different times in your life because you will look at it in a different way. this makes me think that happiness is not a destination but rather a journey. if you considered yourself happy at one point in your life does that mean you cannot be happy when you grow an change as a person? I think not.
Delete"Schopenhauer affirms repeatedly, pain is "positive" and pleasure "negative," meaning that we feel the one as an intense presence, but the other predominately only by default, as the absence or removal of discomfort, desire, or pain" (301). Does this sound like ataraxia to anyone else? I was kind of surprised, I would have thought that romantics would feel pleasure more intensely because of the focus on art, music, etc. Then again, the basic definition of Romanticism on wikipedia is characterized as a period that "placed a new emphasis on emotions such as apprehension, horror and terror." This is much different than views like the Buddhists', where they strive to be free of suffering, instead of emphasizing it.
ReplyDeleteDr. Bieze was my favorite speaker this term. The way he speaks so eloquently is almost sounds like an art in itself. He had a very interesting approach to the art that he discussed and brought up. For example, his take on photographs capturing the light of a person in a specific moment was really cool to think about. Whenever I think of a picture and why I enjoy looking at pictures so much, I just thought it was because I like remembering certain events. However, the way Dr. Bieze described pictures made it seem like the picture captures the aura and emotion radiating out of people. I have never really seen people in this way, and honestly, it changed the way I look at people and especially pictures.
ReplyDeleteAlso, another thing I found intriguing about Dr. Bieze's presentation was how he mentioned that some art intentionally wants us to judge the piece at the first impression. Like the Polluck piece for example, Polluck directly challenges his viewers and shatters any previous assumptions that they may have. It allows for creativity and past experiences of the individual viewer to choose what he or she wants to see in the painting. It is freeing and challenges people to drop all assumptions when viewing the piece, which is something that is so cool to think that a piece of clothe with paint on can do.