During our brief discussion within our groups yesterday afternoon Kathy mentioned the topic of virtue and happiness. Is virtue necessary for happiness? Many of the group disagreed saying that like with any concept, virtue isn't the same for everyone. However, I argue the point that I think virtue IS a concept that could possibly have a definition, but WHAT people find virtuous is the difference.
Since we did not get very long to speak, was there any other interesting ideas in the chapter you'd like to discuss? If so comment below!
Also, we need to start brainstorming for the group project! Any ideas on what we should do/topics we should focus on/philosophers who deserve our attention?
The concept of virtuous is interesting because it depends on how it is interpreted. For some, it may be interpreted as along the same lines as what your religious says is right. But in my opinion, I consider virtuous simply being a good human being, which I know, in itself is a broad and vague term. However I feel that most of us can easily tell right from wrong even though sometimes we might not do the right thing. One could argue though that being virtuous would be to always tell the truth. In many instances, the truth could bring pain to others as well as themselves so in that sense, how can virtue and happiness be one in the same? Altogether, I do agree with the rest of my group in saying that one does not have to have virtues to be happy.
ReplyDeletei find this interesting because of the fact that i am also taking an ethics class and we have been talking about morals and virtue in that class too.
ReplyDeletewe were talking about the exact thing of how to define virtue or morals. Just within our own country there are many different groups of people with different cultures. What is good for one is not for the other. take for example how women dress here in the US. i can go to class in shorts and a t-shirt and not be thought of a person with no morals, but in the middle east it would be completely wrong.
i agree though that virtue or moral behavior CONCEPT could be defined but not the individual tasks.
Krishnamurti says everything better than I can,
ReplyDelete"Can the mind be free from authority, which means free from fear, so that it is no longer capable of following? If so, this puts an end to imitation, which becomes mechanical. After all, virtue, ethics, is not a repetition of what is good. The moment it becomes mechanical, it ceases to be virtue. Virtue is something that must be from moment to moment, like humility. Humility cannot be cultivated, and a mind that has no humility is incapable of learning. So virtue has no authority. The social morality is no morality at all; it's immoral because it admits competition, greed, ambition, and therefore society is encouraging immorality. Virtue is something that transcends morality. Without virtue there is no order, and order is not according to a pattern, according to a formula. A mind that follows a formula through disciplining itself to achieve virtue creates for itself the problems of immorality.
An external authority that the mind objectifies, apart from the law, as God, as moral, and so on, becomes destructive when the mind is seeking to understand what real virtue is. We have our own authority as experience, as knowledge, which we are trying to follow. There is this constant repetition, imitation, which we all know. Psychological authority -not the authority of the law, the policeman who keeps order- the psychological authority, which each one has, becomes destructive of virtue because virtue is something that is living, moving. As you cannot possibly cultivate humility, as you cannot possibly cultivate love, so also virtue cannot be cultivated; and there is great beauty in that. Virtue is nonmechanical, and without virtue there is no foundation for clear thinking."
Factual Question!
ReplyDeleteDoes Seneca believe that wealth can add to the happiness of one's life as long as it does not corrupt or dominate them or is all wealth bad for happiness?
I agree with what has been said before about virtue depending on one's concept and definition of it, however I believe that when truth is what your focus is, virtue is easy to live for.
ReplyDeleteNow, it may not be easy to find truth. This is another matter. What we think is right at the time may not always be right, but as long as we constantly aim to do the right thing as we see it, there is no reason to despair. In fact, at the end of the day, intention is what matters most. One can find a considerable amount of fairly consistent happiness upon living in the light of what we see as virtuous.
If it is a chemical problem, take St. John's Wort ;)
Thanks again for posting for us Megan. I was glad to see the discussion of virtue continue in Chapter 4 with Seneca focusing on virtue as "the only good." ANd I think that while some virtues are likely universal, there also exists "virtue" at a personal level. We also discussed the idea that there are some who seem "happiest" when they live in the absence of what we might recognize as virtue.
ReplyDeleteMy factual question is this: How did Diderot summarize Seneca's message in De Vita beata? "no happiness without virtue." (p.82)
For discussion we might consider if one's best chance for hapiness would be following one of the models designed by the Christian thinkers or if the humanist models are happier?
And for group 3's project I wonder if Matthieu Ricard's book Happiness would be a good choice? He's the Buddhist monk/happiest person who ever lived.
My link for today is for the letters between Descartes and Elisabeth of Bohemia discussing Seneca and happiness:
earlymoderntexts.com/pdf/descelis.pdf
Thanks, Megan! :)
ReplyDeleteLooking forward,
a factual question: What were the 3 rules Descartes set forth as "a guide for achieving contentment without depending on outside factors"?
Answer: 1) we should try to use our mind to know what we must do and not do in all the events of life
2) we should have a firm resolution to carry out all that reason tells us to do without being led astray by passions or appetites
3) we should accustom ourselves not to desire what lies beyond our power to attain
Discussion question:
Descartes "insisted that happiness was possible for all who are willing and able to rely wholeheartedly on reason to guide their lives." To what extent do you agree with this statement and why?
I agree with the sentiments expressed that it is difficult to nail down the connection between virtue and happiness since it is a concept, like happiness, that is interpreted differently by different people. I think Megan's point about virtue has validity as well.
I find the discussion of virtue/happiness interesting though because it lends us the idea that happiness is a kind of identity/something to live into rather than a temporary state of being. Happiness is as much who we are as what we are?
Bok talks more about links between happiness and personalities on page 55.
My link today is just a TED talk that makes me happy (but not really specifically related to happiness).
Meet Benjamin Zander. He's a great guy, and he wrote a book called The Art of Possibility which, I think embodies ideas/principles that tie in well with Frankl and Csikszentmihalyi.
Enjoy!
http://www.ted.com/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html
Comment 3/3: Kant says seeking happiness first and foremost is the wrong approach and instead we should try to live up to moral standards. Bok includes some experiments that have shown people that are happy are more likely to engage in altruism activities and that people who put others interest above their own were found to produce happy response in brain tests. Striving for moral standards can conflict with one’s own happiness, the happiness of others, or other moral duties. Bok puts subjective priority and I think this is partly because more often than not what we experience and know for ourselves is what seems clearest in our mind so it is natural to look at the subjective perspective first. In the example of the women who was absorbed in helping African natives while on the other hand neglected her own children she was acting morally but also in a way that gave her the happiness without considering others around her. That’s why I think Bok stresses the importance of balancing subjective and objective perspectives and why all perspectives are worthy of at least some consideration.
ReplyDeleteDiscussion question for chapter four: Descartes said it is important to know the truth even if is makes one sad that to be cheerful on the basis of self deception. Do you agree with this? Is it better to seek truths or happiness?
Fact question for chapter four: Who was the first Christian to depict the torment in Hell after death as the punishment for self-slaughter? This also contributed to the strength of the prohibition on suicide in later centuries. Answer: Augustine p70
(Maia Lewis)
ReplyDeleteVirtue is not required for happiness. What if one believes one's happiness relies on revenge? One person could be content in his or her work that was done virtuously, while another person might be agitated (to say the least) if they lived the same life.
I'm not sure that saying "virtue is not required for happiness" should be used as such because it looks like an extremely factual statement whereas every individual is different and sees the world in a different light so that to SOME virtue may not be required, but for others it may be. Are we talking a societal level of happiness or individual? As an individual I feel like when I abide by moral codes and virtuous behavior, I am in a state of happiness. If I haven't lived in a virtuous manner, then I feel less happy, or even unhappy.
ReplyDelete