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.

Conquest of Happiness- Chapter 1

I found chapter one of conquest of happiness discussion on what makes people unhappy to be very interesting. Bertrand stated he wasn't born happy and that he eventually came to realize how the interest in oneself, never leads to activity of a progressive kind. Also that learning to have external interests and activities was the way to find true happiness. Even though pain and unhappiness can be found in external interests he believed that you could still have a good quality of life. For people who were overly self-absorbed he believed that external discipline was the only way to happiness. He went on to discuss the various forms of self-absorption ranging from the sinner, narcissist, and megalomanic. In the end he he stated the psychological causes of unhappiness are varied but what they all had in common were that the typical unhappy man was deprived in his youth of some normal satisfaction. And that have a one-sided direction in life that is overly focused on achievement as opposed to the activities connected to it. 

Overall, I can't say that I agree with Bertrand completely on his thoughts but I do agree that self-absorption and being self-critical may definitely be a root cause of unhappiness. When I think about my own life personally some of the times I've been the happiest are when I've been focused on activities and doing something for someone else. The times I've been the most unhappy have been when I've been overly focused on myself and putting to much pressure on not achieving everything I've wanted to achieve or being where I think I should be. 

The secret to happiness? Here’s some advice from the longest-running study on happiness

…As the people got older, they tended to focus more on what's important to them, and didn't sweat the small stuff to the degree they did when they were younger, according to the project's director, Dr. Robert Waldinger. Other research supports this mindset, and has found that older adults are better about letting go of past failures. "They tend to realize how life is short and they are more likely to pay more attention on what makes them happy now," says Dr. Waldinger.

You could do the same. What activities make you happy and what's stopping you from doing them? Think back to your childhood. What did you enjoy when you were younger? Singing? Playing games? Doing certain hobbies? "When you are older you have more opportunity to return to the activities you associate with happiness," says Dr. Waldinger. So begin that coin collection, join a choir, or play poker or bridge.

Stay connected

The Harvard Study has found a strong association between happiness and close relationships like spouses, family, friends, and social circles. "Personal connection creates mental and emotional stimulation, which are automatic mood boosters, while isolation is a mood buster," says Dr. Waldinger. This is also an opportunity to focus on positive relationships and let go of negative people in your life, or at least minimize your interactions with them...

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/the-secret-to-happiness-heres-some-advice-from-the-longest-running-study-on-happiness-2017100512543

The last two chapters

 The last two chapters sum up the authors opinions on happiness, well-being, and a good life. 

He starts off by telling us a little bit about his family history leading into the fact I believe that there are family members who influenced who he is and his views regarding what matters.

First to discusses virtue and again distinguishes well-being of being separate from happiness, as well-being he says he doesn't have to consist of virtue. He says that most parents do teach their children to have virtues. I particularly think that this is an important point to make, because most people do value their children, and the fact that they do teach them to be virtuous; I believe, shows that people must have been also value virtue, for it to be important to them that their children have it. Which mean that most people value morals. He says flourishing life, yet be a bad person; however, goes on to say "to act against those values may be to make ourselves failures on our own terms," and that "a life of immorality probably tends to exact a high price." He is basically saying that because we as humans do put high value on being a good person, then bad people carry a heavy burden of knowing that they lack those qualities, and the cost is that they have to live with the dissatisfaction of themselves.

But then goes on to say that doing what is immoral can sometimes lead a person to benefits which results in happiness for them.  He says that most philosophers would agree that doing what's right and virtuous is far more important than being happy if doing the wrong thing is what it takes to achieve happiness; and then branches off into a discussion of ethics- have sometimes doing the right thing may involve making an otherwise immoral choice.

And then in the whole another section it's time discussing how certain people feel that they are entitled to be happy; and states that no one is entitled to happiness, points out that we are only entitled to the pursuit of it. But then goes on to say that just because someone is given rights to something, for instance a homeowner who knows that the community is unhappy with their decision to build exercising their rights regardless. Validating that doing the right thing even in lieu of one's rights is always the best thing regardless. And says that just because someone has the freedom to choose to be in bad person or do what's wrong doesn't mean that they should. And says that the name for that sort of person, who chooses to do wrong just because they can, we deem as assholes. And says that "one should not be an asshole in the pursuit of happiness." Lol.

In the following section he introduces a important part of living well has to do with meaning, which he says is building connections with people and things that matter to us. And that are pursuits should be worthwhile. That our pursuits should be more about their intrinsic worth to us, and not based purely upon the happiness that we expect to receive from them. That they should be worth doing whether they bring happiness or not. And he uses the example of having children because he says that having children sometimes comes with responsibilities that can result in unhappiness; however, we claim that our children bring us happiness, because we value them, and we see having children as meaningful and worthwhile.

Haybron says that meaning should have a subjective and objective aspect. And says that a meaningful life, "involves appreciative engagement with what you see as having merit or worth." And says that our lives seem meaningful and worthwhile when we appreciate and interact with the people and things that mean the most to us, or that we deem important within them. 

It says the reason why and meaning matters, is because "emotional fulfillment is a mixture of joy and attunement that arises when we appreciatively engage with what we see as valuable." But again says that pursuits that are meaningful do not always make us happier. And basically if we are not able to achieve happiness, that a person could be content with having a meaningful life. And that that meaningfulness in our pursuits often lead to more successful lives; and therefore a greater sense of well-being.

Then he discusses how meaning can be tricky in our modern society and how it's better to be an appreciator than a consumer. Basically it's better to be a giver than a taker. I think what he is getting at here is that his suggesting that merely appreciating the meaningfulness of one's life can lead to a certain sense of happiness. He gives the example of fast food which is something that you basically consume, and then an example of a well cooked meal that he enjoyed and appreciated the art and craftsmanship of the person who cooked it. Indicating that the quality- a life abundant of meaningful things and people in which you value, is what makes it happy. That value and appreciation is what brings the value and makes it happy, by giving it meaning. He is basically showing that appreciativeness is the opposite of claiming entitlement to happiness.

He says that he can't specify exactly what makes a good life but his suggestion is that happiness is only a part of well-being. And reiterates that doing what's right and exercising virtue still trumps well-being. Any form of well-being basically with or without happiness isn't meaningful I believe is what he's saying if it lacks virtue.

Then in the final chapter he asks again what makes a good life. And basically says that you can experience happiness throughout life and different forms- short-term or long-term; but at the end of it all, we all die. So what he is trying to say I think is that what is more important than happiness is whether or not you can die and feel as though you've lived a good life- of meaning, and a virtuous one. What's the life that you could be satisfied with. And did you have a sense of well-being. And even says it's not necessarily important whether you're actually satisfied with it as a whole, but rather if in hindsight you can see reason to have been satisfied with- basically you see and appreciate the meaning within it. And then basically says you didn't even have to necessarily have a life of well-being or necessarily feel it was a happy one; but rather, just perceive it as a life that was worth living- that you don't wish that you wouldn't have lived it. And then goes back to virtue and morals again, specifying that in life they are the most important aspect to get right. I think he is trying to get at the fact that if you have done the right things in life, and been a good person; then it's pretty hard to look back at your life and not have seen that it was worth living, or as a life that lacked meaning. 

He then says that a good life is one within our own control, indicating that we have control of our morality, what we place value on, and are pursuits of happiness and well-being, and the meaning that we place on those things basically.

Then he asks what our priority should be and ultimately it says there's no right or wrong answer but he offers some suggestions which are: connect with people and things that matter, relax (in essence to not forget to appreciate those things that matter,) avoid debt (as he terms as "unfreedom,") and his final bit of advice is to make it come out even (advice that he learned as a result of his great-grandmother teaching it to his father, who taught it to him.) He describes life in the form of a favorable balance sheet, with the side being equal. This analogy appealed to me, being an accounting major, naturally. He describes the idea of making it come out even in terms of karma or moral balance- did you do more giving than taking, can you justify the reasons for the things you did and the way you lived, great people fairly and respectfully, did you act with honesty and integrity, etc. Basically was there more good than bad. He says that we all have regrets and make mistakes, but did we at some point in our lives make up for those mistakes. And he ends the book with another accounting reference, by saying that if we are able to make amends for the parts that we did wrong, then "in the end, our balance sheets are in the black." Being an accounting major I understand this final quote; as in accounting, if your number is in the negative, it shows up as red rather than black.

Chapter 6

 In chapter 6, I agree with Haybron, "whatever else self-fulfillment involves, I would suggest it includes authentic happiness. Perhaps it also involves success in the things you care about- the values or commitments that shape your identity." In chapter 6 he mentions how parents tend to say that all they care about is that their child is happy but then he asks if that is truly the only thing of importance that a parent should wish upon their child's life. I can relate to this as I often say that I only wish for my child to be happy and healthy. He then asks what it means to thrive or flourish. And reminds us that well-being should not be confused with happiness or one's emotional state. Instead of looking at why happiness is not well-being as in some of the earlier chapters, he instead is looking at why well-being cannot merely just result from being happy. He then delivers three cases that create a problem in that consideration. The three cases that he mentions are deception, impoverishment, and deprivation. He is basically saying that if your happiness is based on a lie then you're not doing too well,and even if you feel like you're happy with living an unproductive life then again you are not too well off, and if you are deprived of things that are considered in conjunction with a full well lived life then even if you consider those aspects that you were deprived of as unimportance within your happiness then you still cannot chalk that up to well-being (for instance people who are born with disabilities that restrict them from the same human experiences of others.) He then talks about what ultimately benefits people and notes that Aristotle accredited well-being with a "complete life of virtuous activity." He says that Aristotle did not simply view this as moral virtue but actually as basically human excellence. Basically that you strive for and achieve to do your best in whatever you choose to do- not someone who just lives from day to day and strives for nothing. But then goes on to say that Aristotle's view has some objective facts about what's good for you and don't rely fully on what a person likes or cares about. And says that many people are not satisfied with that standpoint because they feel as though well-being of an individual should be subjective to that individual. I like that he mentions Ferdinand the ball from the popular children's book because that is one of mine and my son's favorite books. Ferdinand is happy doing things unlike other bulls; it doesn't bother him that he doesn't fit in, because he enjoys being himself and having autonomy over his own life and happiness. Haybron then recaps for the readers what the foremost influential approaches to well-being are:

Hedonism, desire theories, list theories, you the eudaimonistic nature fulfillment theories.

He says that hendonism and Aristotle's nature fulfillment theory are at two opposite ends of the spectrum, as one only takes into account our pleasure, whereas Aristotle theory does not take into account our pleasure at all.

He says that LW Sumner define well-being as authentic happiness- grounded in your own life and reflecting who you truly are as a person. 

He then reiterates that he leans towards the life satisfaction theory and agrees that in self fulfillment, authentic happiness would need to be present.

And as I said I completely agree with him that authenticity of one's happiness definitely matters. And that within the authentic happiness it also matters to be successful in the things that you care about and value, and that make you the person that you are.