In our short discussion during class we talked about what we are really trying to say when we talk about the pursuit of happiness and how discordant the definitions can be. For example, if one were to say "I'm as happy as a clam" they are making a similar statement to "my happiness radiates within me like the sunrise" and yet they seem to be expressing two separate things. One can use the word elated to synonymously mean happy and one could also use content, but we would not associate the two words (elated and content) as the same type of happiness.
We came to the conclusion that it is just an expression of degrees, but this can be problematic because the person with the most flowery vocabulary (armed with the metaphors of sunshine) could seem be the most happy if we were judging on words alone. The interpretation of the metaphor also differs based on how one views sunrises or clams. The claim to happiness seems very subjective, but i think we all agreed that if you were going to talk on personal happiness it is important to make some type of definition. Happy just seems to be a large and ambiguous category.
One dfn, or many?
ReplyDeleteDefinitely more than one definition, I think. I think the situation is also a big part of it. For example, someone could ask about a new color you painted your bathroom or they could be asking about your career, and I believe the answer and terminology for each of those questions would be analyzed and responded to differently because of the obvious difference in importance, maybe.
DeleteThe manipulation of language and metaphor definitely makes gauging the spectrum of the degrees of happiness a bit tricky. Happy is well over used in our country, possibly other countries though I wouldn't know as well. With many people, it is seemingly understood that happiness is a black or white thing, with no grey area. You are either happy, or you are not. Though, as mentioned in your discussion Thursday, it is a matter of degrees of happiness. But if someone wants to use a flowery vocabulary to describe their state of elation, epiphonic state, or state of happiness- as important as it is to take the subjective view and objective view- we should let them. When talking face to face, additionally, we can usually gauge through other indicators if a person if genuinely happy(whatever this is to them) by things like a smile with squinted eyes versus open eyes, or body language, tonality/inflections, etc. Or at least I try and pay attention to these indicators being a psychology major. As stated, even at the very nitty gritty of it all, it's largely a matter of pre-established associations with certain words we use to describe our happiness that makes it so subjective. As we grow up, we attach certain memories and meanings to certain words whether it be due to pop culture, something our parents one told us as children, etc. It's very difficult for a person to express their degree of happiness at the objective level in it's purest essence, as it is mostly saturated by the listener's pre-associations with whatever words are being used. So really, your subjective happiness in this scenario is in a way being compared with another individuals perception of your subjective happiness- Making this just a loop of subjectivity. Of course there are words that have universally a relatively close meaning to a lot of people, but there are also a lot of words that do not.
ReplyDeleteFactual question: Seneca, the stoic who shared similar views with Aristotle on wealth, once said to his detractors, "I own my _____, yours own you."
ReplyDeleteAnswer: riches
Discussion question: How influential are material things in your life? Are they tools for temporary or long lasting happiness?
ww.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.glasbergen.com/wp-content/gallery/happiness-cartoons/toon_12.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.glasbergen.com/cartoons-about-happiness/&h=438&w=612&sz=24&tbnid=lS7_DSAoFVdeXM:&tbnh=82&tbnw=114&zoom=1&usg=__ybOikXkr1KqxKuC_-XjIKUAWEjw=&docid=9RsyEixA-YETyM&sa=X&ei=VnQvUu-AKYGa9QTV94DYBw&ved=0CDMQ9QEwAQ&dur=1707
DeleteOn the subject of language:
ReplyDelete"Where words fail, music speaks." - Hans Christian Anderson
:)
Yeah, I think a universal definition of happiness is unnecessarily overreaching.
ReplyDeleteI think there might be some substance to an argument that they all have varying levels of a similar chemical reaction, but other than that, MEH.
Even in terms of chemical reactions during the experience of varying degrees of happiness, there isn't any context taken into account. Somatic markers aside, the whole of the situations within which we are happy helps to shape our overall definition of happiness. At the end of the chapter, Bok talks about using the practicality of these definitions and really looking into HOW they were applied to the individuals that proposed them. I agree with Bok that this is key to understanding both our own and others' happiness. It's necessary to adopt an open-forum pluralism alongside a personal sense of fallibility here. How can we possibly deny another's definition for their own happiness? Further, why would someone think it is more productive to universally apply their own criteria for happiness to everyone? Wouldn't that just widen the gaps in communication?
ReplyDeleteFor next time: Factual Question: Who urged us to wager that God exists because "if you win, you win everything, if you lose, you lose nothing" Answer: Pascal
Discussion Question: How do you feel about this wager? Are you really losing nothing or winning everything?
And a link: http://www.pbs.org/thisemotionallife/topic/happiness/what-happiness
Some PBS stuff.
I'd also like to propose a topic for the group project--Either an analysis of a single self help book or a comprehensive look at self help books in general. How effective are they? To what extent and to whom? Etc. Maybe we could dive into some Chopra...Mind you, I'm not going to be very nice towards them. Just a thought.
ReplyDelete