Chapters 8 and 9

 Chapter 8 Persecution Mania was a topic that I’ve heard of before but was not aware that it had an actual term or name to it.

Russell describes Persecution Mania as perpetually the victim of ingratitude, unkindness, and treachery. I honestly believe that we all exhibit layers of particular mania. I think it is “taught” to us from birth that we, in fact, matter and that we are entitled to certain desires, however when we encounter the opposite of unable to achieve or fulfill said desire we are flabbergasted. I think this phenomena varies from collective group to collective group however. Those typically in a more well to do scenario who experienced little hardships, discrimination and such, exude a greater amount of persecution mania than those who have encountered these things. Russell gives the example of a playwright whose lack of success is blamed on a refusal to fawn or some other credible reason and references malicious gossip in relation: Consider malicious gossip. We all do it, but when we learn that others have engaged in this at our expense, we are terribly aggrieved. 

He allocates four categories to this theory.  The first is: remember that your motives are not always as altruistic as they seem to yourself. The second is: don't overestimate your own merits. The third is: don't expect others to take as much interest in you as you do yourself. And the fourth is: don't imagine that most people give enough thought to you to have any special desire to persecute you. 

What I gathered from this chapter is that society is inherently self centered.  Even under the best intentions, we hold ourselves in high regard. When that regard is not reciprocated, we struggle to understand why. Dwelling on that lack of reciprocation can lead to feeling unhappy with one's self and choices. 

As Russell states, “The lack of interest by others suggests conspiracy, at least to the victim, who attaches undue importance to facts which are perhaps exceptional rather than typical.” 

Chapter 9 only adds to the merit of chapter 8. Fear of public opinion seems highly rooted in believing that what you bring to the table or who you represent matters in some aspect,(matters more to others, and not necessarily to yourself) otherwise, fear of public opinion would be a moot point. Russell begins the chapter by expressing how very few people can be happy unless on the whole their way of life and their outlook on the world is approved by those with whom they have social relations. He dates this idea all the way back to the Renaissance era. I digested that it takes a great deal of perseverance to overcome the fear of what others think.  Though we encounter this feeling throughout life, Russell mentions that the youth may experience this sense of fear of rejection more. Perhaps the experience level is that same from youth to adulthood, however, we grow into learning how to manage it more appropriately. Younger people tend to harbor their emotions quickly and openly, sometimes without internal contemplation or processing; and I think that can lead to an increased sense of jumping to feeling inadequate and concerned about what others think. I don’t particularly believe that the level of pressure on an individual decreases over time. Perhaps just changes faces. He says that adolescence is extremely tiring. I don’t remember all the circumstances I went through in adolescence. But I’m sure there was a great deal of drama and angst. Having two younger kids, I am just beginning to witness first hand the constant internal dialog and conflicts that come along with being young boys. They exhaust me from time to time. :)  

We simply tie too much of existing on how others will perceive our existence. No wonder fear of public opinion factors into overall happiness. Fear of public opinion, like every other form of fear, is oppressive and stunts growth. Russell concludes that it is impossible to acquire a spirit of freedom that leads to an amount of happiness. I disagree, while it is extremely difficult “to master”, I do think it is possible to find a spirit of freedom from fear of others' opinions. It takes a raw level of self reflection and patience that many of us are too encouraged to practice or ever shown how to do. 

Chp. 5-7 thoughts

 Russell continues with relating fatigue and envy as other factors that contribute to unhappiness. He correlates excessive fatigue with sound sleep or a good appetite. How both a sufficient amount of sleep and a healthy balanced diet can be good for you, however, an excessive amount of sleep or a poor appetite can be dangerous, so too can fatigue. A certain level of fatigue or exhaustion, the type that we typically experience throughout the day dealing with typical interactions and challenges, leads to a proper amount of fatigue that contributes to a healthy night sleep. However, fatigue, both physical and nervous, can lead to feeling unhappy in many areas of life. He mentions that ‘physical labour carried beyond a certain point is atrocious torture, and it has very frequently been carried so far as to make life all but unbearable; and expresses that  escaping from nervous fatigue in modern life is a very difficult thing.’ 

I agree that nervous fatigue can happen by simply interacting with strangers doing a day-to-day routine. The cycle of constantly giving energy to things is not only physically taxing but mentally. Coupled with the amount of stress and worrying we tap into fretting over things out of our control, leads to bouts of unhappiness. The example he gives is when he has to give a speech. Dwelling on the speech prior to giving it only produces more worry, equating to more nervous fatigue. Russell infers that dwelling on the outcome of a situation does nothing to actually change the situation at hand, for we ultimately have little to no control, however it creates a sense of strain on the mind.  I believe we do this often. That’s why he states men pass through years of strenuous struggle, when sound success comes a man is already a nervous wreck. We don’t often notice the happy successful moments that pass by us because we are too consumed by the strenuous moments. Russell says that Most men and women are very deficient in control over their thoughts, almost implying that this type of nervous wreck mentality is inevitable. 

They are going over and over again in their minds problems about which at the moment they can do nothing, thinking about them, not in a way to produce a sound line of conduct on the morrow, but in that half-insane way that characterises the troubled meditations of insomnia. Something of the midnight madness still clings about them in the morning, clouding their judgement, spoiling their temper, and making every obstacle infuriating.

Russell then suggests that the wise man thinks about his troubles only when there is a purpose in doing so and to cultivate an orderly mind is a crucial way to achieve both happiness and efficiency in life.

In chapter 6 Russell proceeds with tying envy into a cause of unhappiness. He states that next to worry probably one of the most potent causes of unhappiness is envy. Once again, I thought that he was a tad sexist in the chapter saying women fair more towards envy than men. I believe a good amount of enviness resides in both males and females, only presenting themselves differently. I did not agree when he said ‘women regard all other women as their competitors, whereas men as a rule only have this feeling towards other men in the same profession.’ As a rule, somehow now women have inherited default envy towards all other women, yet men, only to play by the rules, are only envious in business settings. (insert eye roll please). However, I do agree that of all the characteristics of ordinary human nature envy is the most unfortunate; Instead of deriving pleasure from what he has, he derives pain from what others have. The grass is always greener quote replays in my head when I read this chapter. It can be tiring to constantly, in a sense, peer over a fence that seems to always be getting higher in hopes to see the other side, or in hopes to in fact, climb over. 

Chapter 7 was interesting. Sin being a counterpart to unhappiness. Or rather, engaging in sin and thus feeling two possible emotions there after, remorse or repentance. Boiling down to how sin affects our overall consciousness. The word 'conscience' covers, as a matter of fact, several different feelings; the simplest of these is the fear of being found out. He goes on to say that man who does not accept the morality of the herd has nothing to hide and thus finds himself at no fault to sin. But the man who entirely accepts the morality of the herd while acting against it suffers great unhappiness when he loses caste, and the fear of this disaster, or the pain of it when it has happened, may easily cause him to regard his acts themselves as sinful. 

I do agree when Russell mentions that sin goes deeper than just the conscious mind. Almost as if man feels bad but is not quite sure why he does so. It goes deeper than fear of disapproval from others. Perhaps it is the fear of disapproval of self. He adds that allied with this feeling is the fear of becoming an outcast from the herd. Subjecting to being different and an outcast in society has always been a cause to do whatever is necessary, despite the means or moral compass. Russell relates the feeling of sin from a religious standpoint, however I feel that shame can be felt whether a person is tied to a religious background or not. Certain mannerisms that we typically learn at a young age can be religious based or bleed over to “just what is deemed normal or upstanding.” Such things include, sexual desires, lying, cussing, to name a few that Russell mention. 

“The sense of sin is especially prominent at moments when the conscious will is weakened by fatigue, by illness, by drink, or by any other cause.”

He later concludes that the aspect of morality, which we tie to sinful natures, is largely self centered. and the conception of sin is part of this unwise focusing of attention upon self. That relates back to the topic of finding happiness outside of ourselves. That true happiness often arises when we focus less on self and the circumstances happening within us, and focus more on connecting with people and places around us. 

Chapter 1-4 Thoughts

Out of the first collections of thoughts from chapters 1,2, and 3 I found that chapter 3 was the most interesting and that both chapter 1, What Makes People Happy and chapter 3, Competition, fared well in companion to one another. 

Chapter 1 begins by discussing what makes people happy. Which by simply questioning, is subjective and impossible to narrow down. I believe this is what happiness is, defining it, classifying it, and figuring out what it entails is a difficult topic of discussion. Russell states that animals are naturally happy, so long as they have food and their health. By contrast, humans are not so simply happy and different types of happiness meet us in every situation. We arrive at each of these situations ‘all determined to be happy’. He relates that determination towards happiness to the same kind of determination a person would have to not make a fuss at a dentist appointment. I found this statement interesting. As if we were born into this world simply, unhappy, and each of our endeavors requires a certain level of effort; determination to essentially fake our way through happiness. Doesn’t that seem exhausting? That level of exhaustion is bound to make anyone perpetually unhappy, uncomfortable, and downright miserable towards any situation. I suppose this is why in the next paragraph he states that drinking and petting are gateways to joy, and that people get drunk quickly. Implying that to feel joy one must indulge in outside delights. These implications to me are established on the basis of mood or personal idiosyncrasies, which are subject to change, rather than established in an overall unimpaired mind. Which leads me to consider that perhaps, we as humans, do not actually possess an overall unimpaired mind, free from the roots of unhappiness. Russell mentions in chapter 1 how man can have diminishing preoccupation with self. Stating that he had the habit of meditating on his sins, follies, and shortcomings. And refers to himself as a ‘miserable specimen.’ This level of self dwelling is limiting, as he goes on to reveal. I know in my own personal life, bouts of unhappiness or discomfort typically happen when I am too self focused on the many tasks that need tending to. It is when I step away from those, or indulge in an outside delight that moments of joy begin to appear. However those outside indulges are not just of drink like he expresses earlier in the chapter. It is also in extending a helpful hand to someone, or being in nature, or being with company. I agree when he mentions that interest in oneself leads to no activity of a progressive kind. Our minds are only capable of so much, housing the bandwidth of our own personal struggles. Internally chasing that wheel inside our minds is unproductive and constrained. I think that is what he meant when he said  “an image of himself as he thinks he ought to be, which is in continual conflict with his knowledge of himself as he is.” When we insistently internalize inside our own minds we are limited by the definition and belief of who we are vs who we think we should be. Again, this continual conflict reverberates exhaustion to me. I think the title of the chapter can be summarized in this quote by Russell, “External discipline is the only road to happiness for those unfortunates whose self-absorption is too profound to be cured in any other way.”

I found chapter 2 a little disorienting. Not that its message was unclear, but for me its message was lost. From this chapter I gathered that Russell concluded ‘the truth is that men are unhappy for reasons of which they are not aware, and this unhappiness leads them to dwell upon the less agreeable characteristics of the world in which they live.’ Being unhappy casts shadow over the ability to witness happiness within the world around them. Furthermore, as Russell continues, asserts that they are proud of their unhappiness, which they attribute to the nature of the universe and consider to be the only rational attitude for an enlightened man. Is this glorifying an unhappy state of mind? Or simply become aware that discontent is a way of life that seldom gets the opportunity to fully be acknowledged, discussed and worked through. To understand what happiness is, we also need to understand what factors into unhappiness. I do agree that in our society today, there often appears to be an aspect of relishing those who can labor through seasons of heaviness or turmoil. We reward those who “work hard”, those who suffer and continue to show up, while often shaming those who cannot do the same or those who recognize that perhaps being proud of unhappiness is a fruitless disposition.  

Chapter 3 summarizes that enjoyment of life concludes with the struggle for life and the struggle for success. I thought this chapter had a narrow view, however, as it left out the struggles and circumstances that females face and placed the burden of the struggle for life and success on the shoulders of men. Both sexes struggle to define what success means for them and have to grapple with finding ways to fulfill that happiness. I believe the competition that this chapter discusses, isn’t just the competition between men, but the competition society places between men and women alike. Happiness itself should not be a competing subject. It is something that all humans desire, I would think, this it is something we could potentially understand and work through together. However, that mindset in and of itself goes against what Russell mentioned in the previous chapter where unhappiness is a sponsor for pride. Unsettledness, and striving go along with the struggle to life. Russell mentions how activities that produce a relaxed mind or a sense of ease are often considered boring. (Chp. 4) Why is it that we are conditioned to struggle, see rest as weakness and effort as strength, when often that effort results in countless hours of discontent…

“The working life of this man has the psychology of a hundred-yards race, but as the race upon which he is engaged is one whose only goal is the grave.”

Personally, This is not one race I wish to run.

Addt'l insight & questions

 I have already posted my reflections and insights, but wanted to add some additional insights, reflect upon in our conversations; as well as some questions.

I mentioned before and that I feel that each individuals version of heaven is different and that it evolves through our life experiences and the people that we meet. I feel that happiness is similar to heaven in these regards. After all, what is happiness, but a piece of heaven on earth?

One thing that I found most insightful from our readings, is the value that autonomy plays on happiness; having a sense of control over ones own life. I believe that a sense of autonomy is probably valuable to most, but I feel that some of us may value it to a higher degree. And losing that sense of autonomy could be detrimental to the happiness of someone who values it to great extremes. I believe Socrates valued his sense of autonomy to a very high degree. Maintained an unaltered state of mindfulness, remaining as calm as could be, even awaiting his own execution. I feel like he thought that if he allowed for them to alter that mindfulness, even during such an ordeal, then he would be allowing them to take away the last thing that was still his- his sense of autonomy over his own mindfulness.

My belief is that a good life is one that contains both life satisfaction, as well as happiness. Although I highly respect Aristotle, his view is that the most pleasant life is filled with virtuous and excellent activity; however, I think that those things without any sense of life satisfaction or happiness, cannot fully make one's life pleasant.

I like how Haybron emphasizes emphasizes authentic happiness, and success and things that you care about (rather than just success,) and values and commitments that shape our identity.

And I agree with him that "to act against our own values may be, to make ourselves failures in our own terms." And that "doing what's right is far more important than being happy." And also that we are "only entitled to the pursuit of happiness, not to happiness itself." And that our "pursuits and have intrinsic value to us." And also that "a meaningful life involves appreciative engagement and what we see as having merit or worth." Not just engaging but appreciatively engaging, is what derives that sense of joy or happiness. In fact meaningfulness I believe is most important in life satisfaction and in happiness. When looking back at our lives to determine if they were good, one must consider if it was worth it. 

And I love Hayron's grandmother's view on life; I have always loved accounting and I've always loved philosophy, and I feel like there's a lot to say for the balance of it all. Nobody is perfect; everyone makes mistakes. We have to use ethics to determine whether we're doing the right thing. The important part is something that my father also taught to me- once you weigh out the things you've done right and the things you've done wrong, does the good outweigh the bad? And did you make up for your mistakes? Did you apologize? Did you admit that you were wrong? Did you make sure that your balance sheet of life was a favorable one?

My questions are:

Both of the authors show empathy for people who suffer through extreme situations that alter their happiness. Bertrand Russell says that in his advice he won't even consider these extreme cases; and Haybron even says "to say someone confused to be happy, is selfish and cruel." Do you think that through some people's life experiences happiness is not possible, at least not on a authentic level? 

Haybron says of the sources of happiness are security, outlook, autonomy, relationships, and skills and meaningful activity. Do you think that these things are interrelated to each other? And in what ways?

What are some virtues that you possess that you attribute to your parents; and how did those virtues shape what you value most in your own happiness? 

Final Reflections and Thoughts

What I feel like I took away most for this semesters reading on happiness are that while we all have different needs to be happy, are basic needs for happiness in our lives is similar. And one of the readings I found most helpful was from Haybron in chapter three. Like I mentioned in a previous blog, I took a lot away from the story of Moreese 'Pop" Bickman. The fact that man spent 37 years in prison for a crime that was self-defense and had the ability to be free of bitterness and was satisfied with his life when he was released. 

For me it was a wake up call and made me think about the things I allow to steal my happiness. If a man imprisoned can find satisfaction in the bleakest of circumstances, I can surely get over the inconveniences in my own life and find satisfaction through trials. By not comparing my life to anyone else's. Like Haybron stated, life satisfaction is a matter of judgements. 

In regard to Bertrand's texts what I really enjoyed was how the author broke down all the basic needs for human happiness and satisfaction. While I didn't agree with all of the author's viewpoints, I did agree with many of them. For instance, I really enjoyed how he talked about how self-centeredness is a big cause of unhappiness. In my own life when I've been overly self-preoccupied and only focused on myself, I've had the least satisfaction in life. But when I've been focused on doing things for others I've found the most satisfaction. On the flip side of that, unlike the author I do believe that some form of self-centeredness is necessary for self-satisfaction. Like not self-sacrificing your physical or mental health for others who drain you or for things that are not worth the effort. 

Overall the study of happiness helped to open my eyes to things that contribute to overall happiness and unhappiness in my life as well as those I love. While some chapters did feel a bit like common sense knowledge it was still an interesting read. Some books I may possible read on the topic of happiness in the future are: The book of Joy: Lasting Happiness in a changing World and The Art of Happiness: A Handbook for Living. 

SL

Conquest of Happiness: Final Chapters And Thoughts

Some of the final chapters that stood out to me in the conquest of happiness are chapters thirteen, fourteen, sixteen, and seventeen. Bertrand discussed the family in chapter thirteen and described the family as having the ability to be the greatest source of happiness for parents and children. But he also said in present day circumstances that in 9 out of ten situations family relationships are a source of unhappiness for parents and children. 

I personally may be particularly biased when it comes to this topic. Because while I love my parents dearly and I have a decent relationship with them it has never been a great source of happiness for me. So I do agree with Bertrand's view a bit here. Growing up I never felt I was quite good enough for my parents and that they needed me to measure up to everything they didn't accomplish in life. As an young adult this behavior continued a bit and ultimately I think is a bit of a factor of why I chose not to have kids myself. Then there's my husband on the other hand who has a pretty solid and happy relationship with his parents. They supported him growing up which I feel has led him to a more positive and well adjusted individual in many ways. But I still wouldn't say his relationship with them has a big impact on his happiness or unhappiness. 

In chapter fourteen Russell discusses work and it's likeness of increasing or decreasing happiness. He stated that even the dullest work generally produces less pain in life than idleness.  He then goes on to talk about the advantages of work and how when people are left to there own devices don't typically know what to do with themselves. And how work is desirable in order to fill boredom in our lives. I personally agree and disagree here. I whole heartedly agree that having successful work and the ability to provide for ourselves and our families is extremely important. At the other end I can think of a ton of things I can personally fill my time with other than a standard dull or boring job. Working on my home, spending time with my husband, traveling, reading etc. While work does enable to enjoy these other areas in my life, I personal need a career that utilizes my skills. Anything less would make me very unhappy. 

Bertrand opens Chapter sixteen discussing how the world is full of avoidable and unavoidable misfortunes. In this he explores effort and resignation and how in order to be happy men and women must explore and find methods to cope with unhappiness. While some of us are born into better fortunes than others, most of us will have to deal with varying levels of struggle in our lives. Bertrand describes effort as a means of achievement inward or outwards. For example, the effort we put forth in marriage, raising children, our careers and so forth our important in our conquest of happiness. But exceeding our effort in certain areas of life can also lead to unhappiness if it's causing us to overly stress and worry. 

This is where resignation comes into play. Bertrand said that one form of resignation is good because it's rooted in hope. While the bad form of resignation is rooted in despair. For example a man that has given up all hope of achievement in life and believes he is defeated will ultimately lead to unhappiness. While the person who's resignation is rooted in hope will remain happy and still believe no obstacle is too big or hard. And then there is also having the resignation to see ourselves clearly. Betrand said while this form may cause pain at first, but in the end it requires more effort to believe things that aren't true. 

Overall, I found chapter seventeen to be the most interesting in the conquest of happiness. Russell believed that happiness was determined by partly external circumstances and the person's attitude. And to truly find happiness some simple things needed to be aligned in a person's life. Things like food, shelter, love, health, successful work, respect and even parenthood for some. He believed without this things that only the exceptional could reach happiness. He also stated that as long as our passions and desires were self-centered they could give us in a prison of constantly dwelling within ourselves. A prison that could render us incapable of exploring and experiencing the fullness of the variety of life. 

I found this interesting because I my experiences in my own life. The times were I've been more self-centered and only focused on own desires and interests have been some of the most unhappy moments of my life. Where as when I've been volunteering, developing great relationships, trying new things and fulfilled in my career I've been happier. Sure there have been ebbs and flows in all of those things, but those are the times in my life when I've felt happier on a more consistent basis. Overall, I think most important thing to take away from Russell is saying is that attitude is everything. Regardless of everything lining up in our lives just having the right our attitude can contribute or destroy or happiness in life.

SL

Reflections/ Insights

 What new insights into happiness do you take away from your reading and reflection this semester?

I have found some commonality, not only amongst the two texts; but even between the different accounts of happiness used as a psychological term: being hedonism, the life satisfaction theory, and the emotional state theory. And I have learned that the major dispute among these is the significance of happiness for a good life. And that well-being and flourishing are not the same as happiness but separate in and of themselves. As I originally said I feel that happiness could actually be a combination of state of mind as well as the life gone well. But agree with Haybron, that happiness has prudential value. And as I had originally stated after reading his encyclopedia entry, I'm believed individuality plays a big role in one's own definition of happiness. And as I said upon first reading the encyclopedia entry, I think that one could have similar morals religious upbringing and still value the attributes to happiness at different levels. And as I also stated, I feel that there could be a different tiers of happiness, as I feel that things that make us happy could potentially create additional happinesses within us; for instance I mentioned happiness creating talents in us that we did not know that we possessed. Although I have a lot to say with regards to whether or not I feel that Bertrand was actually a happy man, upon writing the book to instruct others on how to achieve happiness, there was a part in the book where he mentioned love, and how it can make even music more enjoyable to someone (if reciprocal and other intrinsic values of course.) 

I mentioned some similarities between the text, and actually in regards to philosophers alike. Haybron mentions how we feel towards other successes and misfortunes, and discusses envy; which is a chapter in Bertrands book, in which he attributes envy to a cause of unhappiness. And both men seem to agree with aristotleans at least when it comes to virtuous activity, and human capacity; however, I concur with Haybron; that a happiness must consist of more than just a life of virtuous activity, and using one's mind to its full potential. 

I agree that life could be a balance of pleasant and unpleasant experiences; but I also lean towards the last satisfaction theory, which gives affirmation of happiness one feels as a whole. And as I mentioned in the earlier post I feel that happiness is component of life satisfaction but does not come in material form. As I mentioned a homeless person could actually be happier than someone very wealthy. But like Haybron says, happiness cannot be evaluated on an external basis; but as intrinsic value. Judging somebody's happiness externally is not a good measure, in that perspective can sometimes be deceiving.

I started to think about what the texts had in common, in so far as virtues and morality go. And I started to think about situations such as I mentioned above; and asks myself questions, what makes the homeless person more happy? And the answer that I came up with was their morals and their virtues. And then I asked myself where do these morals and virtues come from? That answer is obvious- they come from our parents. Both men talk about the importance of parenting, but Bertrand dedicates the whole chapter to it. I don't think that either of them differ in their idea of what makes a good parent. Haybron, for instance, talks about his grandmother, whom just stopping to give him attention when he spoke; which is a sign of showing mutual respect to him. He even accredits his final words of wisdom to his grandmother. And in similarity, Bertrand, discusses what he considers a mother who is pure, whom shows to her child a sense of mutual respect, and doesn't try to keep them dependent of her by hindering their learning experiences, from a young age. Although it's apparent that Bertrand had a unfortunately not so good bond with his parents, I believe that he accredits his knowledge and virtues and interest to his nannies and teachers, possibly. He mentions that mothers should leave some duties to those trained and skilled in those areas such as teachers and nannies. I don't feel that Bertrand was truly a happy man; although one wouldn't be able to know for sure, however I feel that he lays more emphasis on human capacity, then Haybron does; and I personally feel that he uses his interests to cover up his unhappiness. To make up that balance as Haybron might say; to make his balance sheet of life come out in the good. 

The two different a couple other ways as well, such as their views on mindfulness. For instance one of Bertrand's chapters regarding what contributes to unhappiness, discusses boredom; but his solutions for boredom, lean towards learning and reading, etc. Where as I believe Haybron would lean more towards a mindfulness in oneself. This is just what I perceive by some of the texts that he quotes, such as Ron Haybron's "island," where he describes the birds upon the water. Where he is concerned with studying how small we are by observing nature, Bertrand focuses his studies upon the people he encounters. Just by reading these books I perceive Haybron having much more enjoyment in life.  

What do you find most/least helpful in Haybron, Russell, ____?

Reading the two texts, helped me to confirm that I am a good parent, and that I have done well by my son. 

Have you come across other texts/sources you intend to pursue after the semester ends?

The other texts that you suggested as a 3rd reading source for us.

[Add your own questions...]

Chapters 14-17

 In chapter 14 he discusses work, and says that it can either be a cause of happiness or cause of unhappiness. She says that even the most boring of work would be less painful than boredom from idleness (doing nothing at all.) And that even work that is an interesting has advantages, by filling hours of our day with something to do without the stress of us having to decide what to do with that time. He says that when people have that time to do whatever they want they don't use it sufficiently in choosing something worthwhile. And then they dwell on the thing that they should have chosen something else more worthwhile. He basically says there's a art of choosing how to fill up leisure Time intellectually. And says that rich people suffer from the boredom caused from being in idle, however says that the most intelligent of them decide to work just as hard as if they were poor (in some way or another,) at least he says that men do. He says that rich women that are of high intelligence choose some involvement with a cause of Earth shaking importance that they can be a participant of. 

He says that the second advantage aside from preventing boredom is that working "gives people chances for success and opportunities for ambition." 

And says that "continuity of purpose is one of the most essential ingredients of happiness in the long run."

And that "when work is interesting it's capable of giving satisfaction of a far higher order."

He says the two elements that Network interesting are the exercise of skill and construction.

And construction he basically defines as work and which at the final state something was achieved or accomplished. I suppose this would mean that factory work etc would not have the element of construction in that even after you get through working on the line of products at the end of the day there is a new line piled up.

In chapter 15 he talks about impersonal interests. And he describes impersonal interests as smaller interest that are individual to the person, in contrary to major interests which our lives are built upon. He says that for instance a man of science could read about something that is separate that is separate from his line of work but still involves science and because he has a love for science he can read it with ease and relaxation. He says that this impersonal interest need to be unconnected with a person's responsibilities and bring about a form of relaxation. He says "the world is full of things that are tragic or comic heroic or bizarre or surprising and those who fail to be interested in the skeptical that it offers are forgoing one of the privileges that life has to offer." And basically that by having these interests that are separate then our work in our relationships, we create for ourselves a balance within our lives (or that our lives are proportioned rather in the way that they are supposed to be.)

And chapter 16 he discusses effort and resignation. I like how his son many things are believed because they're interesting even if they lack evidence in their favor. He says the effort and resignation are two separate doctrines that are often argued over but that each hold some truth. He says the reason that effort must play a role is because not everyone is born of fortunate situations like being good looking or being born into money for having a natural good nature or fortunate enough to have good health etc. And that efforts is even sometimes necessary to maintain a good marriage, and to successfully rear children. 

By resignation he means that when small things go wrong one should not waste a lot of energy that's unnecessary and being upset about it. I like how he says "the wise man though he will not sit down under preventable misfortunes will not waste time and emotion upon such as our unavoidable and even such as are in themselves avoidable he will submit to if the time and labor required to avoid them would interfere with the pursuit of some more important object." 

And in the last chapter chapter 17 which he titles the happy man, Bertrand concludes his book by summing up what he had attributed to making up unhappiness in a person and what he had attributed to what plays in to a person's happiness. He also says that he has written this book as a hit edonest and that he regards happiness as the good. He also says that of course being a hedonist he factors the happy life to the same extent as the good life. And then he goes on to talk about virtue and morality and basically is saying that they should be naturally a part of the individual to be really considered a virtue and gives the example of someone deciding whether to help a drowning child and basically says that if the person thinks to themselves that they should jump in because it's the right thing to do before they actually jump in then they're not actually virtuous in that act because they had to think about it but the person who instinctively jumps in out of their interests to save the child is the one who actually possesses the virtues. That says he differs from other moralists in that they would tell you that love should be unselfish but he feels as though love should contain a certain degree of selfishness, and that your own happiness is a part of its success. 

Conquest of Happiness: Chapters 7-9

In chapter seven Russell discusses the sense of sin and how he believes that it is the the most important cause of physiological unhappiness.  He talks about how if a man is tempted to be sinful his conscience  will experience one of two feelings: remorse or repentance. He goes on to talk about how today the word conscience can cover meaning different feelings and then gives a few different scenarios of sin and what feelings of unhappiness can take place as a result. Yet he describes the sense of sin of something much deeper that is rooted in unconscious and doesn't appear consciously because if the fear of other people's disapproval. 

In the end he didn't believe that the sense of sin was the best method to arrive at a better way of life. He believed that the sense of sin could cause a man to feel inferior and hold a grudge against those who make him feel so. As well as prevent them from enjoying happiness and cause him to be disagreeable.

In chapter eight the author goes on to talk about persecution mania and stated it was recognized as a form of sanity. Basically people who are experiencing this believe that other people wish to hurt them in so manner and therefore feel that it's necessary to use some sort of violence to protect themselves. He said that milder forms of this issue often cause unhappiness. Russell believed because they were not totally insane that the issue could be dealt with by the patient himself. But overall it will be impossible for a person to feel happy if they are continually ill-treated by others. 

One thing I thought was really interesting in this chapter was how he stated that persecution mania is often rooted in the exaggeration of our own merits. And how we can not expect others to think better of us than we think of them. I found this interesting because I think there is some truth to it. It made me think about my relationship with my in-laws, fake friends and so on who have often not been the kindest to me. While I initially tried to be nice to this people over time behaviors caused me to think very poorly of these people to the point I want nothing to do with them. While I'm not a fan of gossip like the Russell talked about in this scenarios, but I can see the truth in this concept. 

I found chapter nine interesting because fear of public opinion and others opinions has been something that has definitely taken away from my own personal happiness at times. Russell described the fear of public opinion as needing your personal outlook on life to be approved by those who you have social relations to feel happy in life. He talked about how a person with different outlooks and opinions could find himself being an outcast which can cause him a great deal of unhappiness. 

Overall, Russell believed when you fear others opinions it could possible stunt your growth and make it difficult to achieve any type of greatest because the fear keeps it's hold on you. This hit a cord with me because in my own life I've been fearful of many things. But the times when I've overcame that fear and worrying what others think I've been able to accomplish whatever I've set my mind to.

Chapter 13 the family

Since the start of this book, I had developed a feeling that the author did not have a very good relationship with his parents. There were subtle clues throughout all of the chapters leading to chapter 13. He had hinted throughout the book of his parents not being supportive of his career aspirations and Life choices. Chapter 13 really affirms that not only by his strong conviction towards parenting affect on their child's happiness even into adult life, but also you can observe how much the subject matter is important to him on a personal level, because this is the longest chapter in the book.

This chapter, he titles the family however his focus throughout the chapter is really on parenting and it's effects on a child and who they grow into as an adult. 

While I don't agree with everything that Bertrand feels about parenting, probably due to his unfortunate experiences with his own parents, there are other parts in which I do strongly concur with his opinions on the matter. 

I also think that some areas where my opinions may differ a little then his probably have something to do with the era in which he lived and the lifestyle he was accustomed to; such as having servants and nannies at his disposal etc.

However I feel a stronger agreement with his arguments regarding the subject matter on pages 183 and 184. Although I don't agree on his views about a parent having power over their child. I do agree with him that if a child has reached an age in which they are able to do something on their own, a parent that continues to do these things for them, rather than encouraging them to learn on their own, is selfish in wanting to hold on to their child's need for them, and in doing so is only hindering their child from the joy of those learning experiences. 

Although those milestones can be bittersweet, for me I know that the rewarding them was seeing my child grow and learn and become his own person; and they were times of immense pride in my son for accomplishing something on his own.

I really like how he says that this parent who genuinely desires the child's welfare is one who is pure and heart and that they will be guided by impulse and that the relationship between that parent and child will be harmonious from the first to last. And that parents of a child who was raised like, will not have to worry about rebellion in adolescence, because of the respect that is established between the parents and the child. I also agree with him that a mutual respect is also necessary and marriage and in friendships. He says there is a need for this kind of gentleness and all aspects of life but most of all where children are concerned.

Don’t chase happiness. Become antifragile | Tal Ben-Shahar | Big Think

https://youtu.be/e-or_D-qNqM

Chapter 12 affection

 Bertrand says that one of the main causes for lack of zest is the feeling of being unloved. And he says that to the contrary the feeling of being loved promotes zest more than anything else. 

He says that a man may feel unloved for a variety of reasons because of his character and that he knows he's not worth loving or maybe his childhood was lacking love in some way; or that he felt less loved maybe then a brother or sister. 

He is a little man who feels this way reflects it in a variety of ways such as trying too hard to win affection of others for one. And I agree with him that it is human nature to give love More readily to those who demanded it least (speaking of the man that he describes that tries to win affection through exceptional acts of kindness.) Although that fact is unfortunate it is also true and so this is actually a discussion that I've already had with my son to help him in his future relationships. I didn't teach him that he should just be a jerk to women or anything; on the contrary, I have taught him to be a gentleman and to open the door for ladies and to show acts of kindness towards a girl that you like; I have just taught him that there needs to be a extent and a balance to how you distribute those acts of kindness and love. And of course I explained to him why, which was similar to what the author is saying here, that sometimes is acts of kindness can be overwhelming to your significant other, and can lead them to value your love for less than what it's really worth. So I have taught him that you have to show a girl attention if you like her but basically not spoil her with it. That love is a give and take. That you have to give some; and then wait for her to give some back. And like bertrands said neither side can be demanding of it. 

Bertrand goes on to discuss the feeling of security, and that those who feel more secure are generally more happy. He also discusses fear and how if you're in a dangerous situation the person who feels less fear is usually the one to make it out safely. But says that it's actually affection that we receive and not the affection that we give, that is attributable to the sense of security one receives from affection, towards life and it's obstacles. I agree with him 100%, that the greatest sense of security and zest for life, arises most of all when that affection is reciprocal. 

I think he's also correct in saying that a child who is well loved by his parents, begins to accept their affection as a law of nature. This is also a discussion that I've had with my son. I have seen both him and his friends at times do this, in forgetting to appreciate the parent that does so much for them (from time to time.) It's not something that young minds usually stop to think of, so I just wanted him to be aware of the fact, that sometimes when you come to expect love from someone, you can subconsciously forget to appreciate their efforts in some things; because I believe it's important for him to be aware not only of the fact that I love him; but aware of the fact that there are less fortunate children who don't have the satisfaction of feeling loved by their parents every day, and to be considerate of the other persons feelings, and to not to forget to be thankful for the unconditional love that he and his friends are fortunate to have. Actually having that discussion with him, I do believe had a positive impact on him. He's a wonderful kid, and very considerate of the feelings of others. And if he sees me struggling with something, like for instance carrying in the groceries; he stops to think about what I'm contributing to our family, and offers to lend a helping hand. 

And I definitely see eye to eye with the author on the type of affection a child receives from their parent being a deciding factor and the effect it will have on encouraging the adventurousness within them which is vital, I believe, for a successful and happy adulthood. He says the affection should be robust rather than timid, and then it should desire from the child excellence even more so than their safety. I couldn't agree more. A mother who is continuously showing the child to be scared of everything in life, or being weirdly possessive of them, or depending upon the child to basically raise them (take care of the responsibility that the parent should be taken care of,) is by no means the right route for encouraging that adventurousness; and is not the ingredients for creating a confident adult, that feels secure in themselves, in their relationships, and strives for excellence, with a strong sense of morality. These are the things which I try to instill in my child, and matter most to me for him to take from his childhood.

He says men whose mother's were lacking certain maternal qualities look for those qualities in their significant others. I think that this is true and that when a couple can both discovered those qualities in each other, that their hearts desired most, and when that feeling of admiration and love is reciprocal, that can actually be one of the strongest bonds of all. 

He also goes on to talk about how fear is often camouflaged by possessiveness. And that a lot of times men are more attracted to timid women because in protecting them they tend to feel some kind of ownership over them. This could be true to an extent. 

He describes sex as one of the greatest shows that life has to offer. He says that women tend to love men for their character whereas men often love women based more upon their appearance. Again I think this could have some truth but only to an extent. 

But he can't think that that is completely true in every case either, as he goes on to describe two different kinds of love that a person can give intimately; one of which has an essence of fear, which is not desirable; and the one that he describes as given out of love for someone's intrinsic qualities, which he describes this time as the most important expression of zest for life. 

And he says that the best type of affection is reciprocal life-giving, where each receives affection with joy and gives it without effort and each finds the whole world more interesting, as the consequence of the existence of this reciprocal happiness. And I agree with him that obstacles the psychological and social to the blossoming of this type of reciprocal affection are a grave evil! It is very sad and unfortunate for such a love to be intruded upon, especially since it is obviously very hard for this type of love to be found. Not everyone finds it in life, unfortunately; but it shouldn't be taken from those who do.

In my 38 years of life I have experienced two types of love that he describes. The love where the other person takes desperate efforts to win my affection; and the other, was the reciprocal one. And he's right, that feeling of loving someone, and knowing that their love for you is reciprocal, can create a zest for life unlike any I've ever experienced; and it can diminish fear; and it does create a feeling of security, and confidence; and promotes an interest in the world; and in my opinion puts a spark in talents, and passions that may have already lived in you. 

Ch 11

 In chapter 11 Bertrand describes the most distinctive part of a happy man being his zest for life. And then he discusses the different types of eaters in terms of how people enjoy their meals. And he says what hunger is in relation to food zest is in relation to life. Basically saying that they enjoy life for the reasons in which it should be enjoyed. He also said that there should be a balance in life between the things that you enjoy. And that anything in excess is not good. I have always tried to stress this fact to my son. And and in fact used it to describe to him just last year when he was asking and further detail about what makes the seven deadly sins a sin and I used what I could relate to to describe it to him, by telling him that the thing that distinguishes them from the lesser definitions of them is the word excess. For instance gluttony is an excess, but just getting a little too full one night at dinner because you really liked the meal isn't a sin. Lol.

Chapters 8 9 and 10

 Bertrand in chapter 8 discusses what he calls persecution mania which he defines as a recognized form of insanity. He says that that is an exaggerated term for attendancy and people that is not uncommon among someone we would count as normal usually. But it's basically when someone blamed the bad events that are going wrong in their life on "the supposed hostility or unkindness of others." He says that one thing that can lead to this is people assuming that other people don't gossip about them when he says that they should basically assume such as they too gossip about their friends and acquaintances. I'm not sure if I agree with him. Maybe to some degree. However I don't feel like everybody talks about their friends behind their backs. Kind of like how we were discussing that there is a selective group of women that do choose to build other women up rather than tell lies about them and make them look bad. I feel like the same is true for this there are a selective group of people that choose to be an all-around good friend and wouldn't say anything bad behind their friends back. That's not to say that they wouldn't think something about their friends to themselves that they may not be comfortable sharing with that friend. Or that they've never experienced a frustrating time where they thought something bad about their friend to themselves that maybe they didn't truly mean but they were just going through something hard of their own. As for persecution mania I do believe that it occurs; I would say that it's for the most part like he describes it, and the person is just reaching and into thin air, because they can't figure out why else something in their life is happening. Other times it could be that they are just very in tune with their own environment and kind of one with the Galaxy if you will and so they can just feel when something is not right in the bubble, and in those rare occasions there may actually be an outside force that has been meddling in their affairs, which is always a very unfortunate event. Especially when it is someone close to you and the relationship cannot be repaired.

In chapter 9 he talks about the fear of public opinion. I full heartedly agree with him that a great deal of unhappiness especially among young people is caused by this. I try to teach my son to worry more about what he needs to do unless about what other people think about him because the ones that matter will like you the way that you are and the ones that don't, don't matter. I just trying to teach him to "be his own person," as we call it. I can count numerous times throughout his childhood where I heard him say these words "I am my own person." It's very gratifying to a parent at least to me to know that my son is confident but not cocky or arrogant; and that he recognizes himself as a separate entity, with different values and different interests and different outlooks than anyone else.

In chapter 10 Bertrand starts his discussion on what makes people happy as opposed to what makes them unhappy. And attributes the secret to happiness as showing interest and as many things as possible; and simply that whenever possible choose friendliness over hostility. And then he moves into chapters 11 through 17, where he will go into more detail about what makes up a happy person, rather than what makes one unhappy.

Conquest of Happiness: Chapters 5-6

 In chapter five Russell goes on to discuss fatigue and it's affects on happiness. He talks about the differences in purely physical and nervous fatigue. While physical fatigue has to do more so with physical labor and it's affects. Nervous fatigue he says is commonly found in the businessman who is splitting his time between work and home and learns not to hear consciously. Even more so he says that the constant contact with strangers also can lead to fatigue because of having to determine if we should be friendly or treat others with hostility. He gives the example of taking the train to work or being in traffic and how the hostility of dealing with others can frazzle are nerves before we even get to where we are going. He says this can cause us to see the human race as a burden. 

While I don't agree with all of his views on this manner. I do agree that dealing with people at times can feel a bit overwhelming. Especially in traffic and with the hustle and bustle of daily living and clashing of personality. Dealing with people you don't know and even some you do know can sometimes take the enjoyment out of living. Yet at the same time people and strangers can also do a lot of good an bring a lot of happiness and joy to others. 

Chapter six is where Russell begins to discuss envy and he stays that next to worry, envy is the greatest threat to happiness. He goes on to say that envy is something that is often seen in children before they are even a year old. Interestingly enough he's says that children are only slightly more open in their expressions of envy than adults which I can definitely see. In my adult life I have to say I've experienced just as much if not more jealous from adults than as a child. And as an adult I've had to be conscious to monitor those feelings when I have them myself way more than when I was a child. Interestingly enough I sometimes think children are better at controlling their emotions than fool grown adults. 

Something that hit a cord with me in this chapter is where he talked about how envy plays a large part with the average respectable woman. And how women judge other women based on their clothing and make assumptions and gossip regardless of the evidence they have on that person. Ultimately he says that women see all women as competitors, and men only see men who are in the same profession as competitors. I also think this is true to an extent but I also think as a society today there are circles of women who prefer to lift other women up than tear them down. Even with that I still believe that as a whole woman can still have the tendency to be highly competitive but I think it varies person by person rather than a generalization of all women.

Conquest of Happiness- Chapters 3- 4

One chapter that really stood out to me was chapter three, when the author discusses how the struggle for life is the one area that interferes with happiness in our lives. In this chapter I liked how he broke down the struggle for life is really about our struggles for success and how the never ending need to be successful career-wise can distract a man from the things that are really important in life like his family.

While I also think Russell's view were a bit sexist at this point, I do agree that the climb for success could have the ability to take away from any man or woman's level of happiness or enjoyment in life. Especially when we combine the high cost of living and the need to gain more substantial salaries. While we would think that having a more abundant amount of resources would bring happiness, I often think having less brings more contentment and less worries. 

The authors discussion about boredom in chapter four was another interesting topic. Russell discussed in chapter four how boredom is a common human emotion that creates the desire for excitement. He also stated that this need is deeply rooted in human beings, especially males who need the thrill of the hunt or chase to feel gratification. He goes on to say we are less bored than our ancestors but we feel the need to avoid boredom at all costs by vigorously searching for excitement. Russell didn't believe that boredom was completely evil but he did believe that their were two essential types off boredom in life. The first one fructifying which occurs from the absence of drugs and stultifying because of the absence of vital activities. Who goes on to talk about the constant need for excitement in your life can lead to an exhausting life that dulls are ability to perceive true pleasure. He believed that to endure life we should be taught at a young age that there is a power in being able to enjoy boredom. 

I personally agree with his thoughts on the subject of boredom. I think it's important at young age to be taught to entertain ourselves and not always need to constantly be doing something or need excitement. I think that if an individual constantly needs to be on the go or doing something they may miss out on rest and reflection which is an essential part of life.

Chapters 5-7

 I'm starting to find more agreeance with the author, as I proceed through chapters 5 through 7. 

In chapter 5 he describes fatigue as an obstacle to happiness. As with anything else that we experience in excess rather than moderation; I can agree with him that a certain degree of fatigue is healthy, whereas experiencing fatigue beyond a healthy level, can cause a barrier that prevents a person from achieving happiness. I agree also that some fatigue is experienced through social interactions that are required through day-to-day work activities and our efforts to appropriately respond them. He basically is saying that this can be expected but that the problem is that people need to address those moments in which that fatigue is inevitable and then basically not dwell on them later or bring those problems home with them- that's the true fatigue that happens in excess is a result of when those things don't get addressed and we spend additional unneeded energies worrying about them in times that we don't need to. And that if we remove those fears and anxieties that cause us to feel that unnecessary fatigue, then we can remove that barrier from our stride towards happiness. He gives the example of when he used to get worried about how well he would speak prior to giving a speech; until he realized finally that I didn't matter if he spoke well or badly; basically if the speech went bad it's not something that he couldn't live on past, or that would greatly affect him in the grand scheme of the future. He says that people spend a great deal of time concerned with the what ifs of a situation, instead he suggests that they just concentrate on the worst case scenario and come to terms with it, and then just move on about what they need to do; if the worst case scenario should occur then they've already consciously dealt with it and have moved it to their subconscious to be addressed only if need to be. 

In chapter 6 he describes envy as another potential cause of unhappiness. He says the democracy gives to us equality; however sometimes when people spend too much time comparing their lives to the lives of others, they develop a feeling of envy. The description that he gives of a well dressed woman walking by another group of women, and that group of women immediately within their own minds trying to come up with derogatory thoughts towards her; being a woman I can concur that this unfortunately is the reality of how many women compare themselves to one another. I do not partake in this type of judgmental behavior myself. Perhaps because the way I was raised or perhaps because I was raised by a man; but I feel that instead it's much more rewarding internally to just appreciate the fine detail of the woman's clothing, and feel good for her that she has been able to put herself together so well, and maybe even compliment her on it. I can very much so relate to what he is saying on page 81 about how an envious person "instead of driving pleasure from what he has, he derives pain from what others have."If he can, he deprives others of their advantages, which to him is as desirable as it would be to secure the same advantages himself." He says that these people will even make up lies about the person that they envy, in order to rob them of these advantages; because basically robbing them of their advantages, in essence removes the pain that they feel out of envy for not possessing the advantages themselves. I am unfortunate to have had an experience with a family member of mine that was very similar to this; she had acted hateful and envious of me since we were kids, even though I did not act in the same way to her. And I made a mistake of sharing with her some talents and aspirations of mine, and the things that matter to me within my life to make those aspirations achievable. And this person did everything in her power to remove those things from my life that make those aspirations possible. In the end it robbed me of happiness, but I doubt that she gained any true happiness through it, and in the end, if you believe in things like karma, then I don't she will benefit from it in the grand scheme of life.

I also agree on his conversation regarding modesty; while it is a virtue, I believe that it is best to have in a balanced moderation. Too much modesty as he says can cause people to grow up to think that they need more reassurance than they actually need, in order to do their job for instance. Whereas if we instill confidence within our children as I try to do to a balanced degree, well also teaching them to achieve some form of modesty, they grow up to be better rounded individuals, who can provide reassurance for themselves of their own capabilities.

Then in chapter 7 which is titled the sense of sin, he describes feeling a sense of sin being one of the most important causes for unhappiness. He says that in large the sense of sin that people feel, is based upon things that they were taught were vices when they were children by their parents, and the nurturing that they received from their parents upon doing what is good or right. I like his discussion on morality and rational ethics, and the counterbalancing of the pain that those vices inflicts upon you or others. I also like his example of when he had encountered a tired fox upon his last stages of life, still forcing himself to run. When he came across the hunters that asked him which direction the fox had went, although he would not normally lie, he did. He respected the foxes last fight for life. And that type of lie to him did more good than harm. It was a lie that he could live with. I also strongly agree with him that if a child is educated to only see sex as a bad thing, or worse if the subject is avoided completely, it can affect his sexual interactions as an adult, and lead to unhappiness and his marriage, and unsatisfying sexual experiences. I also agree with what he gives as the right method of educating children on such a thing, and have educated mine in the same way- it says that until a child is nearing the age of puberty, you should wait to teach them about the subject; and wants you do teach them about it avoid and stealing the idea that there is anything disgusting about something that is a natural part of life. I took the same approach with my son as he was showing sons of puberty now at age 11, and I did not want him to experience puberty, thinking that there's anything wrong with him; I wanted him to understand that it is natural part of life and a rite of passage for which all young men will experience.

Serenity at 70, Gaiety at 80: Why You Should Keep On Getting Older by Garrison Keillor

Ch 4 boredom and excitement

 In chapter 4, the author states that even when we're unhappy he doesn't think that we're bored; basically because we're doing things to remove ourself from that unhappiness. And he says "we are less bored than our ancestors were, but we are more afraid of boredom." He says that people seek out excitement to avoid boredom however. I can understand where he's coming from when he says "wars, pogroms, and persecutions have all been part of the flight from boredom; even corals with neighbors have been found better than nothing." He says that "boredom is there for a vital problem for the moralist, since at least half of the sins of mankind are caused by the fear of it." I have seen this in my own life, through observing people around me; concentrating on their own life seems to be boring to certain people and focusing on someone else's seems to alleviate that boredom for them. The reality of that is that focusing on issues with yourself or within your own life can lead to improvement, but focusing on other people and intruding upon their lives out of boredom, leads to arguments, and sometimes even quarrels that cannot be resolved. I believe that people's predisposition and matters that do not concern them, is certainly a means to evil and sin.

He says the boredom of self is not a evil though and that there are two types of boredom: one that he terms fructifying, people experience as an absence of drugs. And the other key terms stultifying, and the funds as the absence of vital activities. He says that he's not talking about certain opiate prescriptions that are wisely prescribed by physicians for people who actually need them, but instead drugs of other kinds. I would agree that those kinds are often very vital to those who need them, to maintain a balance, that their body is naturally lacking (of the results of ADHD or other learning disabilities,) and that such prescriptions allow them an equitable chance at succeeding in work and school environments as those who do not suffer with such disabilities.

He compares too much excitement and one's life to a drug, in that the more you take it, the more you need. He says that a life with too much excitement leads to exhaustion, because you are always looking for the next big thrill, basically. The more you have of something the less you appreciate it. I believe this to be true also. I always tell my son that without bad in the world we can't appreciate good and for instance without the rain we can't appreciate the sunshine. The author is basically saying the same thing in that some levels of boredom are necessary in which to appreciate thoroughly those excitements in life. He also goes on to say that we should teach our children to appreciate the little things in life while they're young, and to enjoy simple pleasures with a tolerable amount of boredom, allowing for their imaginations to bloom- rather than clogging their imaginations with a life full of business and amusements and an unrealistic amount of excitement; excitement that they will later become to expect in adulthood, which will ultimately lead them to unhappiness, unachievable expectations, failed marriages, etc. I also very much so agree with this. In today's ever busy society, families are constantly moving, to get to work, to get to a vacation destination, to get to social and school activities. How many families anymore just sit and spend time together, and for instance talk about life, and what truly matters and the grand scheme of it. I know that those times have just sitting and talking about those things with my own parent, is a fond memory from my childhood, that surpasses any Joy that I felt from some short-lived vacation. And I, in turn, try to provide my son with those same types of conversations, which mattered very much to me, both then, and even now, appreciating them, as a building block, in the type of person that I have come to be, which understands and reflects upon the smaller things in life having a larger value in actuality within it, than the larger than the other people spend unnecessary effort in attributing to its importance.

Ch 3 competition

 Chapter 3 started off good, with the author describing a wealthy business man, who seems to spend his work life on a never-ending treadmill, towards success; and goes on to list the things that his focus on success takes away from him in the long run, such as not really knowing or spending time with his wife and children. Although the author seems to have more of a sexist outlook; I would agree that sometimes the higher paying job leads to less life satisfaction, for either a man or a woman.

But then the author seems to contradict himself again in this chapter, after saying all of that, he then says that a man who makes a lot of money is "a clever fellow," and "a man who does not, is not." He says that "money made, is the accepted measure of brains." He says someone to stock market goes down men feel like adolescents do during an examination." I take it he means scared of failure. Lol.

He does some of his thoughts on driving for success however by saying that the issue lies and putting too much emphasis on competitive success. I do very much agree with him here: I feel that one should only be competitive within oneself- striving for your own personal best, rather than competing to be better than someone else. Comparing your accomplishments to your own standards and previous levels of achievement, not only sets realistic goals, that are achievable; but also there are vices that come along with trying to be better than someone else, such as envy & greed, and I don't think those are ingredients of happiness.

And he does clarify his earlier comment on money by saying that it is capable of increasing happiness, but only to a certain extent; which we have already read that studies have proven, and we can all agree on.

I really like how he says that success (not necessarily money,) "can only be one ingredient in happiness;" and that "if all other ingredients have been sacrificed in obtaining it," then basically, it came at too high of a cost.

He says; and again kind of contradicts his earlier measurement (using money to measure how smart someone is,) and says that money does not necessarily measure success. I would agree with that as well. He says that we would not view a respected general admiral or sergeant of the armed forces as poor. As I would agree their success lies in the respect for the position in which they hold. I do also strongly agree with him that professors although I would not call them hired servants of businessmen but would agree that they are not accorded the respect in which they deserve, in terms of salary. I always tell my son that I believe teachers should make more money. 

He says that education used to be consumed as training in the capacity for enjoyment. It says in the 18th century it was one of the marks of the gentleman to take a interest in a pleasure like literature, pictures, and music. He says that today is rich man is different, and that he does not partake in things like reading, and that he doesn't even know what to do when it comes to leisure; and says that basically the man becomes so busy in modern society, that when he finds he has five extra minutes, he can't even figure out what to do with it.

I start to view him as a little more of a hypocrite again. Throughout this whole book, he criticizes others for being pessimistic; and then on page 54 he says "there are two motives for reading a book one is that you enjoy it and the other is that you can boast about it." I feel as though that's a very pessimistic outlook. I feel as though people probably read he's right to enjoy it, but the second would probably be to learn from it. But I feel like his outlook on this comes from personal experience probably and observation. He said that it became popular for women to read in America and that they have these books laying about their house but that they only read the first chapter or maybe the reviews- maybe being a reader himself he had come across some people along his journey and found that this was the case for them; maybe he asked them about the book and judging by their answers, it was apparent to him that they had not read it. Lol.

He goes on to talk about how the art of good conversation has died out in society as well as the knowledge of good literature. And then he describes the time in which he received a tour of the campus that was filled with exquisite wildflowers except he says that the tour guidance did not know the names of the flowers (so I take it he had asked them lol;) and he accredits this lack of knowledge about a small detail, as something that the campus should value but because that particular detail does not bring in income, it is unfortunate that it's overlooked as something important for the tour guide to know. He attributes this monetary goal of the institution to the contest and competition within our society for instance amongst other institutions to gain applicants and therefore more money. It says that our society has chosen power over intelligence, and other societies too mimic us in that sense. He called these people of power and wealth modern dinosaurs of their prehistoric prototypes; and says that the actual prehistoric dinosaurs ultimately killed each other out, and that the intelligent bystanders inherited their Kingdom. He says that these modern dinosaurs as he calls them on average do not have more than two children per marriage and don't enjoy life enough to wish to have children. He says that you don't wish to have children are in biologically doomed. I am guessing because he doesn't believe that there is a heaven, so he believes that your only way to live on is through your children. Which regardless of religion, most do with to carry on their bloodline when they are gone through their children, and hope that they will carry out their lives by using at least some of what we taught them.

Chapter 2 byronic unhappiness

 After reading chapter 2, I got a better understanding of why the author (in chapter 1,) had said that he was able to quit focusing on his sins, and had attributed that to his ability to find happiness; in chapter 2, he seems to indicate that he is an atheist (at least it seemed as such, through some of his comments; for instance on page 43, where he says "the anonymous author of these lines was not seeking a solution for atheism or a key to the universe; he was merely enjoying himself." By saying this, he seems to indicate to the audience that he is pleased that the author wrote the text in a way that he is appreciating and enjoying love, and does not attach to it any reference of God. I also kind of got the same vibe from him on page 44 when he says "God and man and nature had all somehow dwindled in the course of the intervening centuries, not because the realistic creed of modern art led us to seek out mean people, but because this meanness of human life was somehow thrust upon us by the operation of that same process which led to the development of realistic theories of art by which our vision could be justified." He talks a lot in this chapter about the old world and the new world; and modern day philosophers versus the earlier ones. And here, by saying that God and man and nature had somehow dwindled in the course of intervening centuries, indicated to me that in this modern world that he speaks of, with modern views on philosophy; the idea of God does not exist in that world.

He also basically tells the reader on page 32 by saying that his point of view has been set forth, by another modern philosopher named Krutch; and quotes him saying "ours is a lost cause and there is no place for us in the natural universe, but we are not, for all that, sorry to be human." This quote is basically saying that although there is no place for us to go after Earth, we should still enjoy the life that we have.

I pride myself on being an open minded person, especially in difference in ones beliefs. We are each free to have our own. I am a believer in God, myself; however, I don't feel that is the only area, in which I will have differing views from the author, after finishing this chapter. However, I'm able to listen and understand the views of others, while still being affirmed in my own. Although I definitely cannot understand his feelings on page 44, where he agrees that parental feeling is powerful but says that it is, "at best, the result of love, between the parents." I can respect his views there; however, being a mother that loves her child more than life; and according to his father, never loved him back, to the extent that he loved me; I can say with certainty, that is not a realistic view, of parental love is comprised of. Lol.

Other ways in which I do not agree with the authors views, for instance, when he was critiquing, some works of art, written by earlier philosophers; unlike Bertrand, I feel that these quotes, do hold some validation and justification. For example: the quotes by Byron: "There's not a joy the world can give like that it takes away; when the glow of early thought declines in feelings dull decay." Bertrand calls Byron a pessimist. I, myself, tend to lean towards optimism (within my outlook on life and troubling situations.) However, I feel that sometimes one could lose something so valuable to them, that any other outlook, becomes almost impossible. That loss can cause the feelings within them, to seem as though they are literally decaying. Also, another quote he gives by Byron: 

"and I gave my heart to know wisdom, and to know madness and folly: I perceived that this is vexation of spirit; for in much wisdom, is much grief: and he that increaseth knowledge increaseth sorrow." I also see the logic and value within this quote. While knowledge is typically a wonderful tool; having certain wisdoms, can cause the person whom acquired them, to feel they would have been better off in not acquiring them. And furthermore, I feel that the wisest of people, has often experienced the hardest of lives, in order to achieve that wisdom. And, that the wiser the person, the more unfortunate they are, to be aware of, and affected by (empathetically,) the ills of the world. And also, I feel, that the smarter the person; the more they're able to identify things, such as "real love," and what sets it apart (from what others consider real love,) for instance; and being in tuned with oneself; and with things of such nature, could cause them grief (that would normally be avoidable by others- through particular methods of self-denial, and through sex with no emotional attachment.) 

I also have a hard time being an agreeance with the author, because I see several instances in which he seems to contradict himself. For instance he criticizes the first quote that I mentioned of Byron's, that talks about the loss of the joy, and feelings of decay; but if you look at that quote in relation, to say love; you might (like me,) begin to wonder if the author himself has ever been in love at all. But then, if you continue to read, it does become apparent that he must have experienced love (at some time in his life;) for instance, if you were to read on to page 43, he says that "love is to be valued because it enhances all the best pleasures, such as music, and sunrise in the mountains, and the sea under the full moon." 

I also see a contradiction on the last page of the chapter; there he says, that basically to be a good writer you have to have acquired feelings of a certain "seriousness and depth, in which both tragedy and true happiness proceed." Then basically says his advice if you've had an easy life, is to not write at all; and to go out into the world, and force yourself to live a hard life; at this point he says: only then, writing; to you, will be effortless; so much so, that you won't be able to refrain from it." If you take into account his description of how love "enhances the best pleasures in the world," then if you enjoy writing; and say, for instance, that you lose someone that you considered to be your true love; the grief of such a loss (in and of itself,) could potentially take the pleasure, out of something that you had once enjoyed (such as writing.) And also, going back to the first quote he criticized of Byron's, is a quote of a person who has evidently experienced a hard life, and loss. So, theoretically, Byron basically did exactly what the author is suggesting, that others should do, in order to be good at it; he went out, and experienced both life and loss; and then, he wrote about it. 

Chapter one what makes people unhappy

 Bertrand starts off in chapter 1 by comparing animals to people. Saying that animals are happy so long as they have their health and enough to eat, and basically indicates that people should be the same way. He says that "if you are unhappy, you will probably be prepared to admit that you are not exceptional in this." Basically saying that people are aware of their unhappiness. He goes on to say that there is an art in reading faces; basically that if you pay attention to those around you or even to the faces of complete strangers as you observe them in passing, the happiness or unhappiness rather is easily detectable.

He then gives a quote by Blake, but doesn't indicate who Blake is: "A mark and every face I meet, marks of weakness, marks of woe."

Bertrand states that "unhappiness meets you everywhere." He says that if you empty your mind and let go of your own ego then you can absorb the personalities of people around you wherever you go and that at each of these places you are sure to find people facing troubles.

He describes a scene in which there is a road full of cars, each concentrating on their own destination; and to the road ahead of them, and therefore unable to remove their concentration to the scenery surrounding them or to other cars who have had accidents along the way. I believe he is using this analogy to show how people are so involved in their day-to-day life, that they fail to recognize the lives of others around them. He is not saying that you should take your focus off the road while driving and cause an accident; however, he is saying that people should stop and pay more attention to what's going on in the world outside of their own bubble, because doing so could teach us a lot about happiness. 

He describes drinking as a way that people use as a gateway into happiness; but that it actually does the opposite. That it takes the focus off of unhappy relationships, and basically; instead of removing oneself from the unhappy relationship, is the temporary Band-Aid to help you forget how unhappy you are within it. He also says that can sometimes bring grown men to tears because when they drink they reflect on where they are lacking morally or otherwise.

He goes on to say that our social system is the cause of unhappiness in our society. 

He says that in his book the guidance that offers as a cure to unhappiness, will not take into account those who are "subject to any extreme cause of outward misery"- that have not suffered "great catastrophes, such as loss of all of one's children, or public disgrace." And that he will "assume sufficient income to secure food and shelter sufficient health to make ordinary bodily activities possible." His cure he says, is for the day-to-day unhappiness from which most people in civilized countries suffer."

He says that he was not born happy and that even as early as age 5, he could foresee a long life of boredom ahead of him "to be almost undurable." I think that if that is the case it's really good that he found an outlet such as philosophy and writing in which to minimize that boredom that he foreseen. He says as a teenager he hated life and the only thing that kept him from suicide was his desire to know more about mathematics. I found this both sad and funny, being someone who really enjoys the philosophy and mathematics myself. But he does go on to say that he upon writing this book had found a way to enjoy life very much so. 

He accredits his ability to enjoy life to discovering what he desired most and "acquiring many of those things;" and another part to dismissing some of his desires as "unattainable."

But says that in larger part, the way that he found enjoyment in life, is due to a "diminishing preoccupation" with himself.

He says that he used to concentrate on his sins and what he's doing wrong in life and that that concentration led to misery for him. That when he was less hard on himself and started focusing on the world outside of him and the state of the world and became interested in learning about different branches of knowledge, that misery within him was relieved.

He says the bad things happen in life such as losing loved ones and war; but that even through the bad, quality of life is still obtainable. That "disgust" with oneself, is what makes it unattainable.

He says self-absorption is bad, and that "external discipline," is the only cure for those who wish self-absorption is too profound. He gives three types of people that fall in that category: the center, the narcissist, and the megalomantic.

The sinner, he says is not someone who is sinful but someone who is "absorbed in the consciousness of their sin." Is basically saying that even if the person is religious, they dwell on their sins, rather than seeing them as forgiven (in the eyes of God.)

Narcissism, he defines as "admiring oneself, and wishing to be admired." He says that up to some point we all wish to be admired but says that in excess it becomes an evil. 

Hey defines the megalomantic as similar to The narcissist but instead of wishing to be desired he says they wish "to be more powerful rather than charming."  He says "to this type of long many lunatics and most of the great men in history," which I found to be rather funny. 

He says that all forms of unhappiness have one thing in common, and that the person was "deprived in youth, of some normal satisfaction;" and therefore values that satisfaction within their adulthood over all others.

He thinks most people would choose happiness over unhappiness, if they see a way of achieving it. He says that the narcissist and the magalomanic at least "believe that happiness is possible," just have "mistaken means," for achieving it. But that someone who chooses intoxication in any form, indicates that they've given up any chance at happiness.