In his article "In Pursuit of Happiness: Better Living from Plato to Prozac," Mark Kingwell describes how there has been many debates on the meaning of happiness for many years yet still a singular, justifiable definition eludes society. The pursuit to define and understand happiness has invited several debates, questions, arguments, and suggestions alike. In 1996, a hand full of genetic and behavioral studies suggest evidence that one’s achievable degree of happiness is genetically decided, with evidences showing that no achievement will change your happiness, you are either happy or you’re not. Some studies demonstrated a correlation between dopamine levels in the brain and expressions of personal satisfaction, while others indicated that
In Andrew Guest’s, “Pursuing the Science of Happiness” he argues the complexity of happiness and the pursuit in which you follow to gain it. The ultimate objective of life for some individuals all through the world is to accomplish the condition of happiness while doing the activities they cherish the most. Each individual satisfies his or her own particular measurement of happiness in different courses, from practicing their most loved game, being with their families and companions, to making a trip to exciting puts over the planet. Guest uses rhetoric and research to carry on his argument that speaks on the idea of reference anxiety, where people change their dreams based on financial standpoint, and they define financial prosperity with their happiness, which is superficial.
Unruly Happiness In Mark Kingwell’s excerpt, “In Pursuit of Happiness,” he presents information illustrating the challenge of defining happiness. Kingwell utilizes evidence and support from philosophers, authors, and scientists to supply readers with various perspectives on the pursuit of happiness. By the end of the excerpt, Kingwell provides information about happiness, unhappiness, and concludes with his own thoughts about the failing hunt for the definition of happiness, but he never truly expresses his personal opinion about what he believes is the definition of happiness. Many strive to define happiness, but no one has described it sufficiently.
Happiness is a state of mind, and one doesn’t need physical material to be happy, which a majority of people view to be the primary source of happiness. Simply put, a person has the power to control whether they are happy or not. The author utilizes pathos, ethos, and logos to highlight the main ideas, demonstrating his mastery of the material. His usury of pathos, ethos, and logos illustrate to the readers that happiness is primarily a state of mind which isn’t automatically influenced by material things. Ethos is the ethical appeal an author makes to emphasize his authority as a knowledgeable and experienced veteran who corroborates any particular subject matter.
Hedonism and the desire-satisfaction theory of welfare are typically seen as archrivals in the contest over identifying what makes one’s life better. It is surprising, then, that the most plausible form of hedonism is desire satisfactionism. The hedonism theory focuses on pleasure/happiness while the desire-satisfaction theory elucidates the relevance of fulfilling our desires. Pleasure, in some points of view is the subjective satisfaction of desire. I will explain the similarities and the differences between the desire-satisfaction theory of value and hedonism.
Eudemian ethics,came from the word eudaimonia which means happiness,is a fruitful work of Aristotle from Nichomachean Ethics. The greek word eudaimon is composed of two parts:”eu” means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or spirit”. To be eudaimon is therefore to be living in a way that is favor with God. But Aristotle regards a mere substitute for eudaimon as “living well”. Eudemian ethics focuses on man’s way of living well is by appreciation main points of friendship,temperance and virtue.
According to Aristotle, an individual can achieve happiness only by realizing all the works and activities in accordance with reason throughout his lifetime. He claimed that happiness consists in cultivating and exercising virtue and it is the ultimate purpose of human existence, as stated in his work Nicomachean Ethics “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life”. However, such Aristotelian concept of happiness inevitably contradicts the understanding of history as development which maintains that fulfilling the work of human exceeds the limits of an individual and thus can only be achieved in the course of history. Three
People miss the fact that happiness comes from within. In an attempt to find joy – we must also be cautious about over excessive desire to acquire material objects and wealth. There is a delicate balance that must be reached between the pursuit of happiness, satisfaction, and contentment. While there are many conditions that fulfill ones emotional wellbeing, happiness and how we acquired it, depends upon the
The Pursuit of Happiness It is a fundamental aspect of society and of mankind that individuals seek their own happiness. Almost every aspect of life centres on the importance of self-fulfillment, and throughout history, the often selfish nature of man loans itself to the idea that life is about pursuing one’s own happiness. In a perfect world, the search for satisfaction in life would go unheeded, and every man would come to realize a perfect sense of self. Unfortunately, there are often many challenges and compromising aspects of society that inhibit individuals from achieving happiness.
Not many achieve happiness in their lifetime. Either they do not live long enough to witness it or they are not prepared for what their happiness is. Happiness is very subjective. Each person’s version of happiness is different. This version of happiness is universal.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, the concept of happiness is introduced as the ultimate good one can achieve in life as well as the ultimate goal of human existence. As Aristotle goes on to further define happiness, one can see that his concept is much different from the 21st-century view. Aristotelian happiness can be achieved through choosing to live the contemplative life, which would naturally encompass moralistic virtue. This differs significantly from the modern view of happiness, which is heavily reliant on material goods. To a person in the 21st-century, happiness is simply an emotional byproduct one experiences as a result of acquiring material goods.
Aristotle proposes that eudaimonia is the most intrinsically valuable. Eudaimonia is defined as happiness, or well-being. Happiness is probably the best English word to translate eudaimonia, the term also has relations with fulfillment, success, and flourishing. A person who is eudaimon is not just merely enjoying life but is relishing life by living magnificently. One’s reputation and success, different than one’s emotional welfare, can be affected after death, which makes Aristotle’s discussion of eudaimonia after death significantly more relevant.
At the end of everyone’s lives, the goal appears to be about attaining happiness. Describing how to obtain happiness has been an issue that was debated in the past but is still talked about now . In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle expands on his view of happiness and he focuses particularly on how reason helps recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. I feel that Aristotle’s philosophies on happiness are important works within the field of philosophy and he considered one of the………of it . In this paper, I will explore Aristotle’s beliefs regarding happiness then compare and contrast them to those of Martin Seligman.
For Aristotle, happiness is the end and purpose of human existence. To pursue happiness is to go for telos. Happiness is neither pleasure nor virtue, but an exercise of virtue. Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of one’s life. Hence, it is a goal not a temporary state.
In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires
