Even though I'm only a backup author, I thought I would go ahead and post for my group, as I am wayyy behind on posting on here, and could use this to help me catch up, so the author is welcome to take the night off :)
Today my group discussed measurement, and whether or not we felt it could be used to quantify happiness... overall my group decided that, while there are ways that it could be attempted, there are too many variables at play to get an accurate measurement... the formula would change for each individual person. I, myself, agree with Mill. While happiness seems like a simplistic concept and emotion, it is quite hard to define, or put into words. This is because each individual person has a different criteria for what constitutes "feeling happy" to them, and each person has a different degree of what I would call "resistance to happiness". Some are incapable of being happy, may it be a chemical imbalance, or life experiences that they carry with them that prevent them from feeling the emotion, while others make a daily choice not to be happy. For some, it takes something very medial and insignificant to arose a happy feeling within them, for others it takes winning the lottery! (and honestly, if it takes that, they're probably still not happy, even then) lol. Yet still, there are others who consider themselves to be happy most of the time, but just encounter rare instances of dissatisfaction with life (discontent if you will). Being an accountant, I am a lover of mathematics, and amazed by the things that we have been able to achieve with it as a civilization; however, the realist in me, tells me that, as much as I would love to believe that everything can be measured, there are just some things in this life that are unexplainable, and unmeasurable. Happiness, I believe, is one of those things. As Mill implied, happiness is far too complex for even the most complicated equation. This is why happiness is a topic of Philosophy, I suppose.... It's something everyone desires, everyone has experienced or felt, and while it is an extremely simplistic (natural) feeling, it can't be measured or explained with precision. Why is it that the simplest things in life are the hardest to explain? It is always those things that are not visible to us, or part of the physical world that are the biggest mystery. In my mind, it is a lot like love... you can't really define love, because there are all different types of love, and everyone loves and is loved in different ways, and for different reasons. These feelings that live within each of us is unique to each of us, and the only person who can truly measure your happiness is the person who defined it... you!
Comment on our discussion: I do not think that one can measure happiness on a scale bigger than our own. Individual levels of happiness can fluctuate, and we can measure how happy we are at any given time, but we aren't having to account for more than one person. When dealing with a society, there are so many different ways people can be "happy" that I don't see how one possible measurement can ever be accurate. Maybe scientists can say something about the majoirty, but can never say for certain.
ReplyDeleteFactual Question: Kant links melancholy to what feelings and good-heartedness to what other feelings?
Answer: Kant associates melancholy to a profound feeling for the beauty and dignity of human nature, and good-heartedness with the sanguine temperament.
Discussion Question: DO you think that without the four "hearts" of feeling we are less than human? (Pg 120.)
Link: I decided to post more on Mencius who talked about the four basic qualities of the heart
http://www.iep.utm.edu/mencius/
Thanks for the post, Ashley.
ReplyDeleteFactual question: What are Teilhard's three attitudes on life and happiness that we "all have the germs for within ourselves?"--the tired, constricted view, the approach of the hedonist/pleasure-seeker, and the enthusiast. (p.117)
Discussion question: Is Aristotle right that all geniuses are melancholic? Or is Bok correct that even a genius can "remain capable of responding to misery and joy alike?" (p. 110)
Group 1 talked about change and equality as it relates to happiness. Life is all change and it seems that adaptability to change makes the happy life more accessible. And "equality" always trips me up so I was glad to see that your group viewed it as a variety of opinions/experiences. I think the "equality" that makes for happiness would relate to a sense of personal freedom and self-determination.
Our group discussed that the measure of happiness is an activity best suited to the individual. And we all know those people who seem incapable of happiness, though I prefer to think those people are rare. There was also a side discussion on the idea of joy/happiness alongside grief/sadness and whether it is possible to experience both at once.
My link for today is for a very timely report from the UN released on 9/9 in advance of the UN General Assembly. "The World Happiness Report" looks at happiness as a key measurement to assess economic and social development. It begins, as we did, with the difficulty arriving at a definition. It also looks at what affects happiness (mental health is the single most important factor).
unsdsn.org/happiness
Factual Question:
ReplyDeleteTeilhard described three "attitudes to life and happiness for which we all have the germs within ourselves". What were they?
Answer: the tranquility that comes from cutting back on needs, feelings and desires; the approach of the hedonist or pleasure-seeker, enjoying each moment and each thing for their own sake; and the enthusiast's conception of living as an ascent and a discovery, for whom the happy man is one "who, without any direct search for happiness, inevitably finds joy as an added bonus in the act of forging ahead and attaining the fullness and finality of his own self."
Discussion Question:
Bok discusses Teilhard's conception of "zest" on page 117 as, "that spiritual disposition, at once intellectual and effective, in virtue of which life, the world, and action seem to us, on the whole, luminous--interesting--appetizing." She also explains that Teilhard believed it to be "our own responsibility" to feel and develop that zest. "We need to cultivate ourselves, bringing more order and unity into our ideas, feelings, and behavior, become capable of uniting with others and of love in all its forms, and attach our lives to something larger than ourselves." Do you see evidence of this kind of "zest" in your own life, and how does it contribute to your happiness? Do you think "zest" is something which is "cultivated" or that you are born with?
On the subject of measurement: The question that still plagues my mind is: What's the point of measuring happiness? What's the point of measurement period? The discussion of happiness/measurement made me think of grades. You get grades in school. A numerical based measurement of your academic performance... but what does that 'number' say about what you actually learned in the class? I do not think it is impossible to make a D or an F in a class and still walk away having learned more than the A student. We learn by making mistakes, right?
So why do we need this numerical measurement of our academic performance? For comparison, right? It provides a numerical/unbiased way to compare students' performance.
So with happiness, if we could devise some way to measure it, we could advantage by having a way to compare our happiness with others? Our group talked about the possibility of a happiness formula even?
I mean, that's the only advantage I see in being able to measure happiness, and I don't even view it as an advantage personally because I'd rather not spend my life caught up in a comparison game.
That's my two cents.
Bertrand Russell says some more things about zest in his book:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Conquest-Happiness-Bertrand-Russell/dp/0871401622
"Suppose one man likes strawberries and another does not; in what respect is the latter superior? There is no abstract and impersonal proof either that strawberries are good or that they are not good. To the man who likes them they are good, to the man who dislikes them they are not. But the man who likes them has a pleasure which the other does not have; to that extent his life is more enjoyable and he is better adapted to the world in which both must live. What is true in this trivial instance is equally true in more important matters. The man who enjoys watching football is to that extent superior to the man who does not. The man who enjoys reading is still more superior to the man who does not, since opportunities for reading are more frequent than opportunities for watching football. (Russell did not live to see ESPN.) The more things a man is interested in, the more opportunities of happiness he has and the less he is at the mercy of fate, since if he loses one thing he can fall back upon another. Life is too short to be interested in everything, but it is good to be interested in as many things as are necessary to fill our days."(Russell, The Conquest of Happiness, pp. 125-6)
I don’t think we can accurately measure our own happiness on a numerical scale because so many things factor into it including things we may not even notice. It seems impossible to quantify the effect of all of these things which could even change with each experience. I can’t even imagine a scale for all of humanity.
ReplyDeleteFact Q: What are the four dimensions of value that lives can have according to philosopher Wayne Sumner?
A: 1. Prudential value, how well one’s life is going for the individual whose life it is
2. Aesthetic value
3. Perfectionist value, when lives exemplify excellence of different kinds
4. Ethical value
Diss Q: Bok states that intense aesthetic experiences can contribute to the experience of happiness for some and should not go without question. Sir Thomas Browne claimed to experience reality differently than most and that he could withstand tempests and every hardship. Sir Leslie Stephen wrote that no matter what skepticism his claims might evoke, they deserved to be taken seriously. Do you believe along these lines that all claims of happiness should be taken into consideration no matter how extreme they may be?
Zimbardo's quick spiel on time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YuzfwZlTJ0
ReplyDeleteComment on Discussion: Thanks for the post Ashley and I completely agree with you. Everyone's perception of happiness varies. Some people would call themselves happy people even though they might be having a bad day. That single bad day doesn't constitute who they really are. As for people who chose not to be happy, maybe thats what makes their happiness. (?) Although their happiness probably isn't a textbook example of happiness, it may be what makes them content.
ReplyDeleteFactual Question: What philosopher taught that cheerfulness was the highest goal in life?
Discussion Question: To you, what does it mean to be melancholic? Is it the opposite of happiness? Or something entirely different?