Pursuit of happiness..?

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

         What is true happiness? Well, one approach can see it as being in a physically and mentally stable position where you see yourself as living the “good life”. Adam Curtis brilliantly argues by showing how Edward Bernays influenced the lives of so many just by the way people thought and acted; it gave the masses a sort of freedom to express themselves and act out their aggressions and desires. A perfect example being the females in society smoking and wearing shorter skirts— a clear attempt to gain a form of freedom, by crowd pleasing attention. I was surprised when I realized how much society has been shaped and influenced do to the works of so few. It makes you think if we really are happy and content with our lives today, or if we are just sewing our ego on our shirt and pretending that we are truly happy with what we have.


         I would agree beforehand that I was truly happy and living in a position where I had many benefits in my favor such as educational funding and health care. This, however, didn’t last long as questions arose after reading Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents.  Freud argues that what we deem as happy is actually a temporary fix of happiness to fill the void that we can not truly be real. In other words, we hold back our true ambitions and desires to be happy because society’s norms have deemed it as such. Freud describes this as the pleasure principal: We cannot just run around and do as we please, but instead we act out in certain ways to please ourselves temporarily and convince that we are truly happy with it. Are we actually experiencing happiness or are we tricked into a false consciousness? 


         This false consciousness, could be due to the material desires and labels we so much desire in our day to day lives. Freud quotes Schiller saying, that “hunger and love are what moves the world” (Freud, 104). Hunger is defined as an ego-instinct (satisfaction of internal needs), whereas love is directed toward objects external to the ego. Would marriage be an appropriate label to measure and fill in the love/sexual satisfaction? From personal experiences, the materialistic drives and wants of my self happiness essentially put me in a position Freud argues that happens to so many of us. We make ourselves believe that we are truly happy, when in fact we are just a product of society and not happy at all. Thus, concluding that it is possible to be happy, but only temporarily.

Legitimacy of Theories

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial?

In Plato's Euthyphro, Apology, & Crito translated by F.J. Church, it can be argued whether the charges against Socrates were legitimate and if the trial against Socrates was conducted in a fair manner. I believe the charges laid against Socrates were legitimate; Socrates was initially being accused of corrupting “the young men growing up” and claiming that he [Socrates] is “a maker of gods” (Euthyphro, pg.2). I agree due to the period of time that this thought would be considered unjust (impious) and unsettling with the rest of Greek society. The trial on the other hand, was unfortunately one sided where Socrates knew his ideas would not be favored by the elders of Athens. Socrate ideas were new and went against the morals and previous beliefs that the society had believed in, which landed him in the trial in the first place.

During the Euthyphro and Apology, the argument of what is right (pious) and what is believed to be pious by the gods is constantly being criticized. Through the attempted teachings to the youth, the argument allowed room for accusations to be laid out. Specifically in the Apology, Socrates and Meletus engage in arguments whether Socrates believes in god or not. Socrates tells Meletus that he himself does in fact “believe in divinities” (Apology, 33) when Meletus’s main base argument was to prove that Socrates does not believe in any god and ultimately Socrates himself is a “complete Atheist” (Apology, 32). As a counter argument Socrates states that if one man believes in the children made by the gods then how can they not believe in the gods themselves? 

In turn, to refute the prejudice arisen by accusations that Socrates was impious in the fact that he went against the religious beliefs, Socrates goes on and explains that the Oracle had foretold him that he was the "wisest of men" (Apology, 26) further ensuing his pursuit of knowledge and clarification of his ideas and the ideals shrouding the society. And it was under this notion that Socrates was compelled to have a healthy criticism towards any aspect retaining to Athens, even if this meant flirting with a controversial subject such as religion.  In the end, the trial was unfair because before Socrates' argument he knew he had persuaded some of the elders and youth, the one’s that had constantly “attacked” Socrates’ theories from the start were the one’s feared the most. Socrates reconciliation with the link between his views of god and what the Greek society believed in was solidified by stating that, “piety and what is pleasing to the gods are different things” (Euthyphro, pg. 13). In the end, Socrates willingly accepted death with open arms.