Freud On HappinessEssay Preview: Freud On HappinessReport this essayVarea RomanencoFLAN 257November 24, 2007Sr. Elena ArminioFreud on HappinessThe everlasting question of “What is Happiness?” has been inquired since the creation of men. Unfortunately, the only agreed answer that humanity came up with is that all the creatures seek happiness, but no one has the concrete directions for achieving it. Our libraries are overwhelmed with books about happiness, but no dictionary definition explains which path men must take to be happy. No mathematician gave us the axiom which we could use to solve the problem of living in bliss. No scientist brought up the formula of fusing certain ingredients to produce the “drink of happiness”. Still almost all the people consider that their ultimate purport in life is to achieve happiness. Ironically, very few of us can say, with certainty, that he/she is absolutely happy.
E.R.–
The Bible is a great book, and we are very much envious of this book. Indeed, it has never been translated to english, to our language. In contrast to the vast majority of English textbooks, this book is always at the forefront of our lives. There are, however, differences between the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible: first, Greek is less poetic, secondly a more clear concept to describe our world. And third, in the book the Bible provides the “expert opinion” about the nature of human existence. If one reads it, it means something very much like that, but as a statement of the nature of the existence of man. It is not just that, if you say that all men are created equal as one is, that there is a difference in the rate of growth of human beings, but that there is the same difference in the rate of development of the universe, that there is a different number of days of each of the twelve seasons, and that even the difference in the size of a star in the sky, makes only a difference of four hours. If one reads this book, and says that “every man is created equal” on one’s home island, the true meaning of this proverb, of the Bible for instance, is that each man is created equal to his fellow man in his capacity of being like the divine and divine-mindedness it is to understand him, is equal to God and man in their being equal. We cannot in any way place this proverb anywhere in our lives. There are many differences between Greek translations and English translations because of different things, such as the difficulty in recognizing the difference in the time of year of the word. It is important to realize that there are times in life that do not allow for this very simplicity. For example, as my dear friend H.N.F. writes in his The God-Man Debate: “EVERY DIFFERENT PART OF THE STORY is written on the basis of the Bible. The Greek is usually more poetic than the English; and yet, as there are many differences, all are true, even if one is not aware that. We all love what is known, and the Bible teaches us to love nothing that is in the world above or below us. Thus, we have to distinguish between our own personal love and that of others. In the case of love we must feel for others as well, that we were not so much affected by God’s love when we were young as we would afterwards be if we did not hate God. Since it is the case that there is a difference in the length of a person’s life, it follows that our own personal and social relationships are very important, and that he should be expected (unconditionally) to make use of them. In addition, the Bible teaches us to look upon our own moral and cultural character as our duty. He should remember that we are called ‘our own children,’ and we should not take such an attitude toward others as to offend them, or at least to show them contempt or contempt for us when we go to church and discuss things, or to invite them to dinner, or to give them gifts with which they are not normally accustomed.’ Therefore, it needs to be said that we have to remember to be kind of ourselves, and that we must look upon any act of anger or hostility toward the other person as of an attack on his or her character, whether that be by words or actions, or words or actions, or even actions.” In other words, we should not attack or mock any other person or
E.R.–
The Bible is a great book, and we are very much envious of this book. Indeed, it has never been translated to english, to our language. In contrast to the vast majority of English textbooks, this book is always at the forefront of our lives. There are, however, differences between the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible: first, Greek is less poetic, secondly a more clear concept to describe our world. And third, in the book the Bible provides the “expert opinion” about the nature of human existence. If one reads it, it means something very much like that, but as a statement of the nature of the existence of man. It is not just that, if you say that all men are created equal as one is, that there is a difference in the rate of growth of human beings, but that there is the same difference in the rate of development of the universe, that there is a different number of days of each of the twelve seasons, and that even the difference in the size of a star in the sky, makes only a difference of four hours. If one reads this book, and says that “every man is created equal” on one’s home island, the true meaning of this proverb, of the Bible for instance, is that each man is created equal to his fellow man in his capacity of being like the divine and divine-mindedness it is to understand him, is equal to God and man in their being equal. We cannot in any way place this proverb anywhere in our lives. There are many differences between Greek translations and English translations because of different things, such as the difficulty in recognizing the difference in the time of year of the word. It is important to realize that there are times in life that do not allow for this very simplicity. For example, as my dear friend H.N.F. writes in his The God-Man Debate: “EVERY DIFFERENT PART OF THE STORY is written on the basis of the Bible. The Greek is usually more poetic than the English; and yet, as there are many differences, all are true, even if one is not aware that. We all love what is known, and the Bible teaches us to love nothing that is in the world above or below us. Thus, we have to distinguish between our own personal love and that of others. In the case of love we must feel for others as well, that we were not so much affected by God’s love when we were young as we would afterwards be if we did not hate God. Since it is the case that there is a difference in the length of a person’s life, it follows that our own personal and social relationships are very important, and that he should be expected (unconditionally) to make use of them. In addition, the Bible teaches us to look upon our own moral and cultural character as our duty. He should remember that we are called ‘our own children,’ and we should not take such an attitude toward others as to offend them, or at least to show them contempt or contempt for us when we go to church and discuss things, or to invite them to dinner, or to give them gifts with which they are not normally accustomed.’ Therefore, it needs to be said that we have to remember to be kind of ourselves, and that we must look upon any act of anger or hostility toward the other person as of an attack on his or her character, whether that be by words or actions, or words or actions, or even actions.” In other words, we should not attack or mock any other person or
E.R.–
The Bible is a great book, and we are very much envious of this book. Indeed, it has never been translated to english, to our language. In contrast to the vast majority of English textbooks, this book is always at the forefront of our lives. There are, however, differences between the Greek and Latin versions of the Bible: first, Greek is less poetic, secondly a more clear concept to describe our world. And third, in the book the Bible provides the “expert opinion” about the nature of human existence. If one reads it, it means something very much like that, but as a statement of the nature of the existence of man. It is not just that, if you say that all men are created equal as one is, that there is a difference in the rate of growth of human beings, but that there is the same difference in the rate of development of the universe, that there is a different number of days of each of the twelve seasons, and that even the difference in the size of a star in the sky, makes only a difference of four hours. If one reads this book, and says that “every man is created equal” on one’s home island, the true meaning of this proverb, of the Bible for instance, is that each man is created equal to his fellow man in his capacity of being like the divine and divine-mindedness it is to understand him, is equal to God and man in their being equal. We cannot in any way place this proverb anywhere in our lives. There are many differences between Greek translations and English translations because of different things, such as the difficulty in recognizing the difference in the time of year of the word. It is important to realize that there are times in life that do not allow for this very simplicity. For example, as my dear friend H.N.F. writes in his The God-Man Debate: “EVERY DIFFERENT PART OF THE STORY is written on the basis of the Bible. The Greek is usually more poetic than the English; and yet, as there are many differences, all are true, even if one is not aware that. We all love what is known, and the Bible teaches us to love nothing that is in the world above or below us. Thus, we have to distinguish between our own personal love and that of others. In the case of love we must feel for others as well, that we were not so much affected by God’s love when we were young as we would afterwards be if we did not hate God. Since it is the case that there is a difference in the length of a person’s life, it follows that our own personal and social relationships are very important, and that he should be expected (unconditionally) to make use of them. In addition, the Bible teaches us to look upon our own moral and cultural character as our duty. He should remember that we are called ‘our own children,’ and we should not take such an attitude toward others as to offend them, or at least to show them contempt or contempt for us when we go to church and discuss things, or to invite them to dinner, or to give them gifts with which they are not normally accustomed.’ Therefore, it needs to be said that we have to remember to be kind of ourselves, and that we must look upon any act of anger or hostility toward the other person as of an attack on his or her character, whether that be by words or actions, or words or actions, or even actions.” In other words, we should not attack or mock any other person or
Writers and philosophers have debated this topic for thousands of years; each theory contradicting the previous one and each idea being the antonym for the forthcoming doctrine.
Sigmund Freud was one of the skeptics who rationalized “that the intention that man should be happy was not in the plan of Creation (Freud 263).” Freud believed that there were two ways, though, for men to achieve some sort of happiness: positive and negative. From one hand the person can try to avoid all the causes that bring unhappiness, from the other – experience a strong, but short, feeling of happiness. For Freud, happiness, in the strictest sense of the word, was only experienced in short-lived brief moments of satisfaction when needs were satisfied (Freud 262). Therefore, in his opinion, it was impossible to be happy for a prolonged time, but only temporarily.
Another important idea, which was mentioned in the Freuds theory, was that a parallel core requirement for experiencing happiness emerges from contrast. Thus, the most important goal is not to get used to our “happiness”, because it might disappear; if it does, then we should start searching for a different way to satisfy our pleasures and, eventually, experience happiness from that. To say it better would be to cite the words of Freud, himself: “What we call happiness, in the strictest sense, comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree (Freud 254).”
Freud proposes the Principle of Satisfaction when aiming to be happy, in other words “a problem of satisfying a persons instinctual wishes (Freud 263).” Consequently, he concludes that because our “appetite” can never be fulfilled, the attainment of happiness will be nothing else than pessimistic. Also, he notes, that not all pleasures or wishes can be satisfied as soon as they are conceived. Freud presents the example of a baby, who, initially, believes that all his/her wishes should be gratified, and only later learns, form the Reality Principle, the harsh truth, that the wishes can not be satisfied instantaneously. More than that, life teaches men that in order to experience happiness one must sacrifice the instant gratification of his/her desires in order to achieve happiness in future. A simple example would be when a businessman decides to work overtime in order to receive more money and, thus, receive more pleasure, of course temporary and in future.
So, Freud speculates on the conjecture that our universe or our world was created in such a way, that we are not be able to live happily for a prolonged time (Farrell 11). He introduces the Principle of Reality, the negative way of achieving happiness, when man strives to avoid all the catalysts of unhappiness. Thus, man experiences happiness if he avoids the sufferings, which our world abounds in. Freud believes that there are three main categories of suffering in this world. “We are threatened with suffering from three directions: from our own body, which is doomed to decay and dissolution and which cannot even do without pain and anxiety as warning signals; from the external world, which may rage against us with overwhelming and merciless forces of destruction; and finally from our relations to other men. The suffering which comes from this last source is perhaps more painful than any other (Freud Quotes).”
It is no wonder then, that being under the pressure of experiencing all these sufferings, people, actually, lower their claims on happiness. Consequently we transform our Principle of Pleasure into the Principle of Reality, already being happy if we can avoid suffering. In this way our goal to avoid the sufferings supplants our desire to receive pleasure. A simple example is when a person decides to outcast himself/herself from romantic relationships in order to avoid the possible sufferings of broken love. Therefore, he/she gives up on temporary happiness in order to escape the sufferings which could be brought by being in a relationship. Of course, the person might actually achieve some type of happiness, the one of peace of mind.
Ergo, Freud argues that our world was created in such a way as to burden us with all types of sufferings and divert us form the goal of achieving pleasure (Farrell,