Is it truly possible to be happy? Well, I think it’s obvious the answer is yes. However, In Sigmund Freud’s point of view, it is not possible. I can see what he means because we often associate happiness with pleasure. If you look at happiness in that sense, then it is not possible to be completely happy. As we discussed in previous lectures, a key component to pleasure is duration. I think Freud believes that one can never truly stay happy.
In his book, “Civilization and it’s Discontent,” Freud discusses how it is necessary to have rules in society. He believes that humans are animals and that without rules civilization would go out of control. For this reason, rules are necessary. However, can one truly be happy if rules and regulations are enforced upon them? Well, either way, one could say that without rules everyone would suffer in a chaotic world. Ironically, In Freud’s opinion a society with rules restricts individual freedom. Can an individual really be happy if they can’t do whatever they want? In some cases yes, but often times no.
An example of this can be found at work. I work in the fast food chain, and after running around all day I get hungry! To be honest, If I had the freedom, I’d go in the back and eat when it’s not busy. However, that would be against the rules. This restricts my notion of happiness. (A satisfied stomach is happiness to me) Although I’m making money, and enjoy the interactions with customers, I’m not truly happy. Or at least…my happiness doesn’t last long after my stomach grumbles.. Sometimes I do feel like my manager is unfair, and this would further prove Freud’s opinion that society is run by greedy administrators.
Being a hockey fan I can’t resist making a hockey analogy to this whole question of “Can one truly be happy?” Let’s draw back to the 2010 Winter Olympics. I recall watching Ryan Miller, the goaltender of the USA hockey team being disappointed and discontent with himself. He had just received the silver medal around his neck, yet he didn’t smile for a second. Finishing second place out of all the countries doesn’t constitute happiness I suppose. One might ask why? Well, I guess if you were to look at it in Freud’s perspective…one will never be satisfied with what they achieve. Miller wanted that Gold medal, and was discontent with his consolation prize.
Ultimately, if you forced me to view happiness through Freud’s eyes, I would say that it is not possible to be happy. I think that Freud associates happiness with freedom, and success. In that sense, of course nobody can ever be happy forever. However, I happiness CAN be achieved. Remaining happy is another story.
Monday, 24 October 2011
Friday, 14 October 2011
Monday, 10 October 2011
Socrates, a brave man indeed.
"2. Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him a martyr?"
I most certainly think Socrates is a man willing to die for his beliefs. I also believe that he has characteristics of a martyr as well. After reading the passage, my head was definitely throbbing. Although it was a difficult passage to read, I do remember Socrates giving me an impression of being a brave man, willing to die. He was a man who wouldn’t change his beliefs in exchange for freedom.
Socrates clearly states he is willing to die for his beliefs. If the jury told him that he would go in peace, as long as he stops preaching, Socrates said he would decline the proposal. “As long as I have breath and strength I will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you…” (Apology 29 d) Socrates would rather die than change his beliefs. This is because he chooses to serve God, rather than serving the jury. This to me, is a strong characteristic that all martyr’s share as well. When faced with death, a martyr would choose to follow God’s command, rather than anyone else’s command.
On the other hand, some may say that Socrates is not willing to die because he does not bring his argument into assemblies or to the state. Instead he only works and preaches privately to people. In my opinion, Socrates does this because he’s sensible. Of course he wouldn’t go preaching towards the assembly or state! He knows he would surely be trialed and be put to death immediately. To compare to modern day society, would it seem sensible for a person who loves the Boston Bruins to go preaching about their team in a Vancouver Canuck pub? (I would assume that the fan would face some form of abuse.) Although this is a bit of a stretch for comparisons, you get my point right? It doesn’t make the Boston fan a coward for not doing so. The bruin fan is just sensible, and doesn’t want to die on the spot... Likewise, it does not mean Socrates isn’t willing to die for his beliefs. It just means he’s sensible, and not suicidal.
When I think of a martyr, I think of a brave person who dies for their beliefs. Socrates is exactly that. He chose not to bring his family to help his plea because he was brave. Socrates did not want to appeal to the jury emotionally by bringing in his three kids. Instead he wanted to stand alone, and be judged by his own actions and words. He didn’t want to hide behind his family. (Apology 33 d-e) To me, this is bravery. Socrates would rather face death than appeal emotionally to the jury. If he was judged to be a person corrupting the “young minds,” Socrates was willing to accept his punishments.
After Socrates had been condemned to death, he still remained firm with his beliefs. If he had the choice, he wouldn’t have defended himself in any other way to escape death. “I would very much rather defend myself as I did, and die, than as you would have had me do, and live.” (Apology 38 e) This clearly illustrates how Socrates was a man willing to die for his beliefs. He didn’t weep or beg for mercy from the jury after they sentenced him. Instead, he accepted his fate bravely.
To me, Socrates is a man willing to die for God. He felt that it was God’s wish for him to discover who was wise and who was not. This would make him a martyr. Although he was accused for corrupting the young minds, Socrates accepted the charges. He did not fear his punishment. He did not change his beliefs when facing death. Instead, Socrates stood up for his beliefs in the face of the jury, and ultimately accepted his death sentence bravely.
I most certainly think Socrates is a man willing to die for his beliefs. I also believe that he has characteristics of a martyr as well. After reading the passage, my head was definitely throbbing. Although it was a difficult passage to read, I do remember Socrates giving me an impression of being a brave man, willing to die. He was a man who wouldn’t change his beliefs in exchange for freedom.
Socrates clearly states he is willing to die for his beliefs. If the jury told him that he would go in peace, as long as he stops preaching, Socrates said he would decline the proposal. “As long as I have breath and strength I will not give up philosophy and exhorting you and declaring the truth to every one of you…” (Apology 29 d) Socrates would rather die than change his beliefs. This is because he chooses to serve God, rather than serving the jury. This to me, is a strong characteristic that all martyr’s share as well. When faced with death, a martyr would choose to follow God’s command, rather than anyone else’s command.
On the other hand, some may say that Socrates is not willing to die because he does not bring his argument into assemblies or to the state. Instead he only works and preaches privately to people. In my opinion, Socrates does this because he’s sensible. Of course he wouldn’t go preaching towards the assembly or state! He knows he would surely be trialed and be put to death immediately. To compare to modern day society, would it seem sensible for a person who loves the Boston Bruins to go preaching about their team in a Vancouver Canuck pub? (I would assume that the fan would face some form of abuse.) Although this is a bit of a stretch for comparisons, you get my point right? It doesn’t make the Boston fan a coward for not doing so. The bruin fan is just sensible, and doesn’t want to die on the spot... Likewise, it does not mean Socrates isn’t willing to die for his beliefs. It just means he’s sensible, and not suicidal.
When I think of a martyr, I think of a brave person who dies for their beliefs. Socrates is exactly that. He chose not to bring his family to help his plea because he was brave. Socrates did not want to appeal to the jury emotionally by bringing in his three kids. Instead he wanted to stand alone, and be judged by his own actions and words. He didn’t want to hide behind his family. (Apology 33 d-e) To me, this is bravery. Socrates would rather face death than appeal emotionally to the jury. If he was judged to be a person corrupting the “young minds,” Socrates was willing to accept his punishments.
After Socrates had been condemned to death, he still remained firm with his beliefs. If he had the choice, he wouldn’t have defended himself in any other way to escape death. “I would very much rather defend myself as I did, and die, than as you would have had me do, and live.” (Apology 38 e) This clearly illustrates how Socrates was a man willing to die for his beliefs. He didn’t weep or beg for mercy from the jury after they sentenced him. Instead, he accepted his fate bravely.
To me, Socrates is a man willing to die for God. He felt that it was God’s wish for him to discover who was wise and who was not. This would make him a martyr. Although he was accused for corrupting the young minds, Socrates accepted the charges. He did not fear his punishment. He did not change his beliefs when facing death. Instead, Socrates stood up for his beliefs in the face of the jury, and ultimately accepted his death sentence bravely.
Sunday, 2 October 2011
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)