Raw Emotion

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

Sigmund Freud claims that “The goal towards which the pleasure principle impels us - of becoming happy - is not attainable: yet we may not - nay, cannot - give up the efforts to come nearer to realization of it by some means or other”. I do not agree that happiness is unattainable, however I believe it is very rarely achieved. There is a big difference between the happiness one receives when they purchase a new pair of shoes, and the happiness one receives from being in love with their life. True happiness is a long lasting emotion that can only be received when one enjoys the absolute base of live; living.

            The reason true happiness is so rarely achieved is because of social strain. Society places expectations upon us that pressure us to achieve certain standards living. Basically, we are told that enjoyment will come with money, a big house, fancy clothing, and a nice car. This is not true happiness. What this would mean is that those who do not have access to such items can never be happy. Also, those who do obtain these items will only receive a short lived rush of excitement, not happiness. This is because very rapidly these products will become old, out of date, and devalued. You cannot put a price tag on happiness; it is not tangible.

            In order for happiness to be obtained, it must be based upon raw emotions. Emotions, while they may feel flakey at times, can never be stripped from us. One can crash their car, lose their home, or go bankrupt, but they will always have love, hope, trust, and other emotions to bring them happiness. I believe that too many people sub consciously follow their id’s in chasing after materialistic items. They spent so long trying to keep up to their desire that they truly begin to believe that happiness is derived from their physical possessions. It becomes easy to get caught up in the consumer competition. Once you’re in, the raw values with true potential for happiness become shadowed by the desire for tangible luxuries.

            Freud talks about the “Pleasure Principle” and states that humans will do whatever they can to maximize pleasure. I believe this to be true, however I do not believe that the majority of humans honestly know what brings them happiness. When one is detached enough from their materialistic possessions that they would not be emotionally devastated with the loss of these things, then they are susceptible to true happiness. In this state, when physical items have very little significance in comparison to emotions, one can truly discover what happiness is.

            I do not agree with Sigmund Freud when he claims that “The goal towards which the pleasure principle impels us - of becoming happy-is not attainable”. I believe it is extremely hard to achieve absolute happiness. I believe that true happiness is rare, but it is definitely possible. Take for example, the moment when a Mother gets to hold her newborn child for the very first time. The child looks up to the mother, and at that time, in that place, ultimate happiness has been achieved.

Socrates: A Man For His People

Question 2: Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

Socrates: A Man For His People

Defining Socrates as either a Martyr or simply a man who is willing to die for his beliefs is an impossible objective. Claiming that Socrates was a Martyr is an understandable proclamation when his methods of proposing ideas are analyzed and considered. The first sign of this was his discussion of piety and impiety with Euthyphro. It appears as though Socrates uses trickery and wit to transform, or corrupt Euthyphro’s mind frame towards his own beliefs. Without further investigation, the charges of “Corrupting the Youth” would seem to be legitimate. However, Socrates’’ intentions require a more in depth analysis to reveal their true reason.

Was Socrates a corrupt man, attempting to employ his corruption upon the youth? Or was Socrates a man who realized the importance of, as he said himself: “Stinging the lazy horse that is Athens, provoking it into action”? I believe Socrates realized he possessed philosophies that were vital for the future of Athens, and his true intentions were to spread this wealth of knowledge with his society for the benefit of the whole. Claiming that Socrates was either a martyr or a man willing to die for his beliefs can be proven incorrect for the same reason. That reason was his intent behind his actions.

 Defining Socrates as a martyr is understandable, especially when he claims that: “If the punishment were just he would be celebrated as a hero”. While on the surface this sounds a lot like the actions of someone seeking sympathy and admiration, this definition is broken when taking into mind his real intentions. Socrates’ push for educating Athens would portrait that he is worried about the people and not himself, and therefore not a martyr. When claiming him a man willing to die for his beliefs, the same principal can be applied to separate Socrates from this description. Death would only prevent Socrates from his ability to inform, and to teach the people. There is a large difference between corrupting, and educating. Socrates was a man of great knowledge, who had the power to educate, and to evolve Athens. He knew this, and realized that he must stay alive in order to carry out his teachings. For this reason, it is not adequate to say that he was willing to die for his beliefs.

The main point that removes either of the two labels from Socrates was the intentions behind his actions. He knew what Athens needed to become successful in the future. And although some of the things he said or did throughout the trials would say differently, he was a man living for his people.