False Happiness

#1 For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy?  Why? 

 

What's your definition of HAPPINESS?

Well, most people will agree that people “strive after happiness; they want to become happy and to remain so.”(p42) However, there is no certain information that directly tells how to become happy or whether one has successfully achieved pleasure. Besides, the definition of what happiness is as well as the process of being happy will vary amongst people. For me, happiness is a mixture of feelings of satisfaction, warmness and optimism. According to Sigmund Freud's Civilization and Discontent, "happiness... comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree, and it is from its nature only possible as an episodic phenomenon."(p43)

Then, for him, can humans actually be happy? From what I have known, he denies that people experience true happiness. Also, Adam Curtis who has made a documentary called "Happiness Machines" based on Freud’s idea agrees with Freud.

Freud states that “the intention that man should be ‘happy’ is not included in the plan of ‘Creation’.”(p43) It means that people are not intended to feel any joy because they are born not to be content. Based on the concept, automatic assumption, which is people’s belief that one absence means the other, unhappiness is part of the ‘Creation’ plan since happiness is not applied. Then, it is innate thing to everyone to feel displeasure.
Furthermore, “our possibilities of happiness are already restricted by our constitution. Unhappiness is much less difficult to experience.”(p44) However, this statement encourages that people are ABLE to feel happiness which, in his opinion, is rarely found. It is thankful that even tiny portion of the feeling of pleasure exists in human although it is much easier to acknowledge displeasure. He explains that the effort, which people put in to achieve happiness, “aims... at an absence of pain and unpleasure”(p42). It means that people constantly feel discontent so they try to remove as much of pain as possible. It appears that there is no room for happiness; there might be, but it will be a small portion.

Yet, this little hope fades away as soon as Freud claims that "any situation that is desired by the pleasure principle is prolonged; it only produces a feeling of mild contentment.”(p43) Does he mean that that enjoyment people feel is not joy, but is, in fact, a satisfaction?
In my opinion, his statement applies to the modern society if a feeling of happiness, indeed, equals a feeling of contentment. As greed is powerfully positioned in human, people never satisfy with what they have. For example, a little girl, who wants red shoes, asks her mother to buy them for her. The girl would smile, then. After obtaining those shoes, she asks her mom for another one when she sees shiny yellow shoes. Then, her mother would ask, "Honey, but you've already have a new pair of shoes." Then the girl would respond, "Now, I want those yellow ones as well!"
Similarly, people are not satisfied when lack of emotions are present, especially, "love". Babies desire for attention from their parents. If parents make an eye-contact with their babies, they need to hug them as a next step; the babies are expecting more love from their parents. In a relationship, it will never be satisfied of just saying "I love you" to one's boyfriend or girlfriend. They would like to hold hands and hug each other. Like above, people feel satisfaction(happiness) only for a certain period of time. The feeling of pleasure doesn't last long enough, but it will fade away soon.

Overall, both Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud believe that it is hard to feel true happiness.

Socrates' and Plato's /Apology/: The Unjust Trial

1.    Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

How do you think of the trials existed in the past by observing Plato’s The Apology? Didn’t you feel awkward? I don’t feel like the judges make valid decision where they should stand neutral, and make a logical judgment. I understand that the court system in the past had a different societal environment which functioned as one of the influences in juries’ decision. However, I think that no matter which time period it is, the court must be fair to everyone and stand to protect one’s right. Comparing the judicial system of nowadays and the past, I have noticed a vast difference; a long ago, people could accuse someone regarding “any” reason whereas people living in the present have to state reasonable motives. In my opinion, in the text, Socrates receives unjustifiable charges: guilty of being the only harmful influence to the youth and of being impious.

There are several effects which exert influences on youth both directly and gradually: friends, family, society, etc. However, Meletus lays a charge on Socrates of being the ONLY harmful impact to the youth. According to Socrates(the teacher), he, himself, has not affected his students adversely. He acknowledges that the teacher’s main duty is to educate students properly. Then, why would Socrates do such a thing like that? Well, to confirm his point, he calls out Meletus to show how wrong Meletus is, accusing him with illogical statement. Surely enough, Meletus struggles to respond Socrates’ simple questions which demonstrate his purity. What does Meletus do? Well, he rigidly agrees that Socrates “alone corrupt[s] [the youth]”(25-XIII) while all the Athenians exert good spirit in them; beside, he states that Socrates “willingly” has affected the young men with evil influences. If he provides them with strong supports, I would understand his point; yet, he proves weak points. Obviously, if someone hurt the other, the victim might avenge in return, which may contain violence, however, it doesn’t happen very often (I mean they don’t always put into real action). Alongside, people mostly try to just ignore it if it has small impact. Although humans may be sinned, they are not innate to be evil or harmful to the others with no reasons. Here, in Socrates’ case, he proves himself that he definitely doesn’t possess any feeling of revenge nor antipathy towards the youth; therefore, he would not attempt to put adverse effect to his students.  If the students act badly, it doesn’t mean that Socrates has the single responsibility for it, but there will be other causes.

The other charge is that Socrates is blameworthy of being impious. Basically, in Euthyphro, before The Apology, Socrates explains the true meaning of piety and impiety. What piety means is that “which is loved by the gods.”(15-XIX) On the other side, then, impiety means something that is not loved by the gods. Then, I can conclude that if Socrates is to be charged for being impious, Socrates should have done something that makes gods unpleasant, which might be NOT believing in gods. Thus, Meletus claimed Socrates as an “atheist.” This doesn’t make sense because Socrates did believe in the gods. Plus, Meletus knows it that Socrates does have beliefs. What is more surprising is that Meletus changes his previous statement into the other that Socrates is guilty of believing “in other new divinities”(24-XI) rather the gods of Athens. Does this make sense to you? At first, Meletus accuses Socrates of being an atheist, then of having different beliefs. How can someone not have any belief while believing in divine things and teaching them? It is comprehensibly shown that Meletus struggles corroborating his point by reluctantly changing his statement and imprecisely providing reasons of why Socrates should be sentenced to death. However, the juries hold up Meletus rather Socrates who evidently verifies his purity with facts and truths.

Overall, the trial is illegitimate as the judges support ridiculous statements of Meletus. The first charge is mistaken as Meletus claims the Socrates, “alone”, is responsible for the youth’s bad behavior. I know that I keep emphasize on “alone” but it is unjustified to put every responsibility on one innocent person while there are other factors and causes that influence the youth. Also, it is absurd thing to be issued on the trial in today’s society. In addition to that, nowadays, people have a right to select religion amongst various ones, and people all respect them. Living in the present society, I cannot think of blaming someone of having dissimilar religion compared to mine. Therefore, I think that Socrates has faced unfair trial, and died unfortunately.

(Well, what should I say more? Let’s blame what time period Socrates was born in. If he were to be born in the present, he would be rewarded for his great works rather than being accused of something that are so incongruous.)