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...]
I also agree that individuality plays a large role in a person's overall happiness. We all have different things that make us happy in life so like you I don't believe there is only one thing that determines happiness. I also think that it was interesting that you said that Haybron uses his interests to cover up his unhappiness. In what ways do you think Haybron should be more mindful? Also, why do you perceive him to have more enjoyment in life?
ReplyDeleteNo, it's Russell that I believe does so, not Haybron. I perceive Haybron to have more enjoyment in life, than Russell; because it seems that Haybron finds his mindfulness and discovers how small that we really are in the grand scheme of this big world, through observation of nature. For instance enjoying the beauty of the ocean while acknowledging that due to the size of it we are merely a speck. Whereas Russell finds his sense of mindfulness through observing the lives of others in passing, rather then going out and enjoying the beauty of the world himself, and then spends his time trying to obtain more knowledge, because it seems that he enjoys learning very much so. But I believe the reason that he leans on learning more, is because it's the only thing that takes his mind off of how dissatisfied he is with life. He mentioned realizing his unhappiness in life at age 5 and said it's a teenager he contemplated suicide and that the only thing that kept him from doing it was his desire to learn more about mathematics. He talks a lot about drinking and the evils of it and mentions that his parents were very well off so much so that he had nannies and tutors, mentions having bad relationships with his parents, which makes me wonder if maybe both of them drank, coming from a well to do family. I think they are both mindful men but that they achieved their mindfulness and different ways. I understand what Russell means about stopping to observe people around you and studying their behaviors but I don't think that he gets the same reward from it, someone who really enjoys life, for instance my father is someone who is very observant of people and their feelings (my son sometimes reminds me of a miniature version of my father LOL;) my dad is someone who would literally stop and talk to a homeless person for an hour, just to spread joy to the person and to inquire about how they came to be in such a situation. I don't feel by reading Russell's descriptions of observing mankind that he did so in quite the same type of fun-loving manner.
ReplyDelete