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.