Friday, September 26, 2014
Is Happiness Permanent or Temporary?
As we discussed Sosa a few classes back, a comment was made that really stuck with me and helped tie everything about happiness together. Someone said that if one is truly "happy" then one or a few bad experiences cannot alter their happiness. We talked about it in the context of a boy talking to a girl he thought was attractive and thinking it went great, when in reality the girl did not enjoy his company. This is a very minuscule experience, but I wanted to know if people thought that this perception of happiness has its limits or if that experiences cannot alter that state of happiness. So, is happiness, once achieved permanent or temporary. Will one experience like a loved one passing away change that state of happiness?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Although happiness is based on our experiences, I believe that this idea of happiness is not truly what we are striving to achieve, but is only a temporary state of pleasure/ enjoyment. I believe that happiness is permanent once achieved, but it is impossible to reach this state of happiness from small experiences such as the one mentioned above. Happiness from Aristotle’s perspective is determined only at the end of one’s life by a culmination of experiences. Therefore, I believe that even a traumatic experience cannot determine one’s ultimate happiness, because their state at the time of this event is only temporary and will only define their fate if the individual choses to let it.
ReplyDeleteJaclyn, along your point, I think the experiences themselves show/tell a lot about a person. For example, the sociopath who is rejected by the love of his life then becomes a crazy evil villain (to put it lightly). This may seem like a result of only one action, but it is important to see that, as was discussed in class today and Wednesday, there is no such thing as one. I really don't think one isolated experience can define happiness, because of the key word "isolated." Surely, the aforementioned sociopath has had strange experiences throughout his life, but when he loses the one thing he loves, he snaps, partly because he lost that one thing he loved, and partly because of his past experiences as a....well sociopath.
ReplyDeleteSo, to answer the question, it seems unlikely that one isolated event can alter a person's happiness drastically. That being said, I don't think these experiences should be looked at in an isolated manner.
My issue with the objective outsider view of someone's happiness is how does a bystander judge another's life? Sure, there are some universal things that make most people happy but many things are individualized. For example, a person could be a strong political figure, which would be considered a "happy" life but maybe this life means limited sleep due to long work days and no time to spend with family or friends and so the person is actually miserable. If a person chooses to live a life of solitude does that make the person unhappy? Even if there are no tragedies that could cause the person to lose the happiness, would that person have achieved the happiness in the first place?
ReplyDeleteTo follow up on your last thoughts, you address three different claims. First, you discuss the issue of an outsider's judgment of being in a position that would be associated with living a "happy life". In my opinion, the “outside” cannot be the judge whether the individual is living a happy life solely on the actions they see because happiness takes in account more than what is external. Though as previously mentioned in class, if the politician were to tell the "outsider" everything about his life, his family, and his issues the “outsider” would then be qualified to be the judge of whether or not the politician is in fact living a happy life.
Delete-Janine
I feel as though Sosa contradicts himself in his article. He says that happiness is not a state of mind, it's not a pleasure. Yet he also says happiness is "enjoyed after you've worked for something, or in the presence of people you love, or upon experiencing a magnificent work of art or performance". All these things imply temporary moments, which implies that happiness is a state of mind. You can be happy when you are with your loved ones but you can also be unhappy when you are not with them. He implies that you can be pleased by these things. So, happiness seems like a state of mind.
ReplyDelete- Johnny
The way we described happiness in class made it seem as though happiness was nearly impossible. It is part of human life to experience grief, death, sickness, etc. While outside factors trigger the extremes, I believe that happiness is mostly internal. In order to live a happy life, you must have a natural base happiness. I really do believe that even after someone experiences a tragic event, they can still maintain that basis happiness.
ReplyDeleteSomething I really disagreed with was Professor Vaught's opinion that a person's happiness can be determined by others based on facts of his or her life. Some of the happiest people in the world are those that have less then perfect lives. Money, fame, a nice car, etc...does not assure happiness by any means. Without getting in that person's head or maybe being extremely close to him or her, it is nearly impossible to determine how happy he or she may be.
Lucia
I would like to agree with Lucia's view of happiness being something determined by the individual because that truly does make it seem more achievable. Perhaps, however, happiness is something which is not determined by the individual or by others, but rather, is something determined by a creator or higher power at the end of a life. My issue with happiness being something which is achievable on an individual level is that the concept becomes difficult to define. Normally when I describe happiness, I am describing an emotional state, but if it happiness is truly some fantastic, otherworldly experience, how can we possibly know when we are truly happy? There therefore must be some universal standard of "happiness" not on a purely emotional level, but on this much more sacred level which we seem to be discussing in class.
ReplyDelete- Lexi
ReplyDeleteToday we discussed in class how one’s morals, reason, and faith are mutable. Similar to these aspects that make up a person, I believe happiness is also something that is changeable based on our circumstances and life experiences. I don’t agree with Augustine in that happiness is something that is not of this world; however, perhaps there is an ultimate happiness that is immutable, and we achieve this happiness in heaven. To take a balanced stance on happiness in reflecting on Aristotle’s and Augustine’s beliefs, happiness could be something of this world insofar that is dependent on the pleasure we derive from our worldly experiences. One must recognize that Augustine would argue that this is a false sense of happiness since it is based on material conditions. To reference Freud, we are naturally pleasure seeking creatures, and we receive happiness by reducing tension and increasing pleasure. This is concept of happiness is in harmony with Aristotle’s view of happiness as the end goal. But for Augustine, worldly happiness is false; happiness can only be achieved in heaven once our soul rests eternally with God in heaven. I do think Augustine’s stance is a bit extreme since I do believe happiness can be achieved during our mortal lifetimes. Although it may not be a fluctuating happiness, I think Augustine raises awareness to the fact that a sense of spirituality and faith is instrumental in influencing how we perceive unfortunate events.
Based on our class discussion it seems that it would be difficult to label happiness as either temporary or permanent. However, I think it is important to establish the idea that true happiness is not fleeting. To use the example of the boy from class, if he felt great after the interaction this would be an example of pleasure not happiness because the feeling would go away pretty quickly. If he did actually find out that the encounter did not go as he believed it did we could expect that he would react in one of two ways, either he would feel down or laugh it off and move on. If we are to assume that he is truly happy he would laugh off the situation and move on. The reason for this is that it would seem that true happiness requires one to be satisfied with themselves in addition to the external factors that affect happiness. If the boy is content with himself the opinion of one person will not damage him to any great degree. The passing of a loved one may certainly make us feel sad or even distraught for a time but it likely wouldn't make us permanently unhappy. The passing of a loved one would only affect a particular segment of the whole happiness which is why, in my opinion, happiness should not be measured in a snap shot in time but rather in a larger and greater scope.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, very few things in this world, if anything, are permanent. However, I do believe that happiness can be described as a general state of sorts. If overall you are a happy person and you have a few hiccups here and there, you are still generally happy. Similarly, if you are miserable, one or two good things probably wont change your state, depending on the scale and influence of those things.
ReplyDeleteAdding to my previous comment, there can be events significant enough that take place in our lives that can completely alter you state, for better or for worse. I believe this is just proof that happiness, as well as sadness, are very frail and can change in an instant. That is why, when we are happy, we have to cherish every moment. Similarly, when we are sad, we have to have faith that something can come along any second and change that.
ReplyDeleteIn agreeance with Nick, I think what we came to acknowledge through our discussion is that happiness is neither emotional or a state of mind. By saying that happiness can be temporary or permanent would be stating that experiences affects the emotional state. We must realize that while we use pleasure and happiness interchangeably in our society, they are in fact very separate. Happiness can only be examined once someone has lived fully in both years and experiences. Happiness is the culmination of those experiences grooming/shaping the person he/she is by the end of his/her years.
ReplyDelete