Swifts Modest proposal was intended to be a mock taking of Britian. Swift was an Irish national who was against the idea for Ireland to become part of the English empire even though it was a very poor nation with many problem both socialally and political. Although England had effectivally ruled Ireland for 500 years with the Stuarts establishing a Protastant governing aristocracy whilst the the country's relatively poor population were Catholic.
Swift tries to make a large political stement with the text which is written in pure satire. Although Swift had made realtions with English politics he became sypatheteic with Irelands needs. He wrote many panphets and leaflets about the dibilitating effect Englands riches were having on the country.
This on first reading felt a very dark text, covering some normally quite taboo topics such as cannibalism and selling children. It is not until you delve into the history of Ireland and have some knowledge of Swifts ways of writing that they become less severe.
At the time of writing Ireland was much less better off than England. Swift proposed a way of feeding the poorer people of the country. The text begins with describing the poverty in which many of the lower classes live. In this description he is telling of the distress that the children live in; starvation and homelessness. He firstly proposes selling them into slavery but reconsiders when knowing that a child under 12 years is useless. from this he then develops his idea to breed children for food. He tries to support this by saying that it will prevent years of misery for the children and provide for both sides of the rich /poor divide. A landlord may be able to charge less by the poor tenants offering children in place of payment.
He claims that he can make these statements as he is in an impartial party : his child is 9 years so past eating age and before the age to be sold into slavery and his wife is past child-bearing age. He talks about the poor and children in a way that appears materialistic and unsympathetic. This is all part of the satire. He writes in a way that would be understood only by the educated parties in Ireland at the time. Although it was written by an Irishman and released to the Irish, it was meant to have the effect of humour and displaying to the governing bodies of England and Ireland how bad life is in the country at the time.
I believe the last statement prevents him from having a valid view and does not mean he will have an unbiased feeling about the issue. The way that he speaks of many issues, I believe makes him appear very materialistic. He seems to see above women and children and only see them to have a role in a business sense.
I do not think that this was particularly successful at the time of writing as only the educated had the text available to them. Also, the style of writing would be hard for many to understand.
My biggest issue with the text is the extent to which Swift takes hos argument supporting cannibalism. For such an in depth review i think that some considerable time must have been spent on the topic. In addition the fact that Swift had the social mobility and ability to move to England and a more prosperous life means that he would be less effected by the issues that he is trying to resolve.
Due to the nature of the article I think that some interesting debates could be started surrounding it. To bring it to a modern day context i think the way that the Chinese only allow for one child per couple is a similar situation. The have been examples of a family murdering the child if it is a girl because males are seen as more valuable to a family name. Is what Swift was describing something not too different? By restricting the number of children a family is allowed can be seen as doing good for the nation; less people crowding already very well populated areas and allowing for the existing community to gain more potential wealth. But, if this was proposed, it may still create the same dismay at such a vile topic as eating children, yet with the way the economy is going with the social divide becoming wider and more obvious would it so far something similar which could work to ease it?
Although satire may be a way to write for a more educated audience, it is not accessible for a wide range of potential readers. Satire may allow for some more taboo topics to become available for discussion yet i feel it is a type of journalism which can not be seen as unbiased in many ways. For the humour to work it must have a view point which is most probably one of controversy.
Friday, December 4, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
After the lecture!!
During the lecture I picked up on some parts that I had missed or taken a different view maybe.
The most interesting part I feel that I hadn't concentrated on was the idea about self-esteem. It is something that the more I think about, the more it makes sense! Rousseau had said that self- esteem is the cause of inequality in men. The concept in its raw state can not be responsible as it is simply a feeling or state of mind, yet it can differentiate a group of people from another very obviously. If a group has low self-esteem they become subservient to the more confident, therefore giving them more power for no reason other than their own self-doubts. In addition if a group have more self belief they will be more willing to take on responsibilities which give them power in any case.
But, where it was said the progress of civilisation makes for miseries, I think it has also made for many advances which bring happiness to many! The formation of organisation such as charities or even things taken for grantadge sometimes, the NHS for example, are very civilised concepts which help and can bring happiness and relief to many.
I find the idea of General Will intriguing. If there is an idea or thought shared by all, it becomes the law. This should mean that as it is agreed wrong or foul practice by the population it should not happen, and if ti should then nobody should be disagreeing in the punishment of it!
The comparisons to Hobbes and Locke I also found useful to look at. Hobbes' thought that passions will equal a mess of a society. he though that a leader must be elected but he did not discus God in the choosing of the leader. The people must elect their own leader. Locke believed the only reason we would need a leader would be to protect people. Problems will happen and the leader will be responsible for making sure that public will be defended. He had an idea that we are rational, our brain is from God and we will discover natural rights and ways of behaving.
Rousseau's ideas that we are born free then society distorted us. although the society which was responsible for this was a necessary evil, and it was in search of a return to passion.
The most interesting part I feel that I hadn't concentrated on was the idea about self-esteem. It is something that the more I think about, the more it makes sense! Rousseau had said that self- esteem is the cause of inequality in men. The concept in its raw state can not be responsible as it is simply a feeling or state of mind, yet it can differentiate a group of people from another very obviously. If a group has low self-esteem they become subservient to the more confident, therefore giving them more power for no reason other than their own self-doubts. In addition if a group have more self belief they will be more willing to take on responsibilities which give them power in any case.
But, where it was said the progress of civilisation makes for miseries, I think it has also made for many advances which bring happiness to many! The formation of organisation such as charities or even things taken for grantadge sometimes, the NHS for example, are very civilised concepts which help and can bring happiness and relief to many.
I find the idea of General Will intriguing. If there is an idea or thought shared by all, it becomes the law. This should mean that as it is agreed wrong or foul practice by the population it should not happen, and if ti should then nobody should be disagreeing in the punishment of it!
The comparisons to Hobbes and Locke I also found useful to look at. Hobbes' thought that passions will equal a mess of a society. he though that a leader must be elected but he did not discus God in the choosing of the leader. The people must elect their own leader. Locke believed the only reason we would need a leader would be to protect people. Problems will happen and the leader will be responsible for making sure that public will be defended. He had an idea that we are rational, our brain is from God and we will discover natural rights and ways of behaving.
Rousseau's ideas that we are born free then society distorted us. although the society which was responsible for this was a necessary evil, and it was in search of a return to passion.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Russell on Romantism and Rouseau..before the lecture
These are some of what I think the main points to take from the chapters of reading for this week, but before the lecture. I thought this may be interesting to make as ti could show how different things can seem significant to different people.
The main points I felt were that from the later 18th century until now, art, literature, philosophy and politics are all influenced by the Romantic movement. Even those people who did not enjoy the way of thinking found themselves taking note of the ideas and being more affected by it than they first wished to be or though they were. Politics, through Rousseau, was connected to the movement from the beginning. In it's essential form, it is a revolt against ethical and aesetic standards.
The Romantic movement is the cultural background of most philosophical thoughts in this era, yet the beginnings of the movement were not philosophical in the slightest. Romanticism can be characterized mainly by its artistic and intellectual trends. The morals of Romanticism have aesthetic motives. The preference for Gothic architecture is an example of this. Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling. Romantics seemed to lean against a Catholic views, yet seemed Protestant in their individualisation outlook.
Romantics did not aim for peace and quiet, but a passionate life. By the time of Rousseau people were tired of safety and wanted excitement. A revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to philosophy , politics and sentiments in the Romantic movement. Love became conceived as a battle, with each attempting to destroy the other by breaking through protecting walls of ego. This was seen in the writings of Strindberg and D.H. Lawrence who wrote in this time.
The main figure to look at in the movement is Rousseau. He has been described as the father to the Romantic movement. Although, he is now not called a philosopher, he had great influence over literature, taste, philosophy, manners and politics. Since his time those who see themselves as reformers found either following himself or Locke. Sometimes the ideas would co-operate, other times have no connection at all. When writing about himself he liked the idea of being a great sinner and exaggerated this. Evidence shows he was destitute of all ordinary virtues.
He was born in Geneva and educated as an orthodox Calvinist. he had a poor father who worked as a watch maker and a dancing master. his mother died when he was young so was brought up by his aunt. He then left school at 12 years old to become an apprentice at various trades. When 16 he moved from Geneva to Savoy and visited a catholic priest asking to convert to his religion.
Most of his early years were spent as a vagabond and travelling on foot. But, in 1743 he became secretary to French ambassador to Venice who left all of the work to Rousseau but would not pay him. Rousseau preferred simple people, he married a simple woman who he then taught to read and write. He also sold his watch saying ' I no longer need it, I do not need to know the time.'
Cultured people of the 18th century still looked to him for his ideas though. In France he was greatly admired . La sensiblite, meaning proneness to emotion and emotion of sympathy, bu emotion must be direct and violent and quite uninformed by thought. Rousseau was democratic in his theories and tastes. He appealed to the already existing cult of sensibility and gave depth and scope it may not otherwise have.
Rousseau was known for having the tastes of a tramp. he disliked Parisian society. Romantics learnt contempt for trammels of conversation- first in dress and manners, then in art, love etc. Intellect was valued as the most effective weapon against subversive fanatics- manners are a barrier against barbarism.
So, what i am taking form these chapters is the idea that the value we place on the arts, literature and feelings has come from this era. It tried to go against the emphasis placed on the scientific thoughts placed on nature. The fact that we are all so social now is thanks to this this movement and the ideas of Rousseau. The movement in essence is aimed at liberating human personality from fetters of social convention and morality. Man is not a solitary animal.
The main points I felt were that from the later 18th century until now, art, literature, philosophy and politics are all influenced by the Romantic movement. Even those people who did not enjoy the way of thinking found themselves taking note of the ideas and being more affected by it than they first wished to be or though they were. Politics, through Rousseau, was connected to the movement from the beginning. In it's essential form, it is a revolt against ethical and aesetic standards.
The Romantic movement is the cultural background of most philosophical thoughts in this era, yet the beginnings of the movement were not philosophical in the slightest. Romanticism can be characterized mainly by its artistic and intellectual trends. The morals of Romanticism have aesthetic motives. The preference for Gothic architecture is an example of this. Romanticism emphasized intuition, imagination, and feeling. Romantics seemed to lean against a Catholic views, yet seemed Protestant in their individualisation outlook.
Romantics did not aim for peace and quiet, but a passionate life. By the time of Rousseau people were tired of safety and wanted excitement. A revolt of solitary instincts against social bonds is the key to philosophy , politics and sentiments in the Romantic movement. Love became conceived as a battle, with each attempting to destroy the other by breaking through protecting walls of ego. This was seen in the writings of Strindberg and D.H. Lawrence who wrote in this time.
The main figure to look at in the movement is Rousseau. He has been described as the father to the Romantic movement. Although, he is now not called a philosopher, he had great influence over literature, taste, philosophy, manners and politics. Since his time those who see themselves as reformers found either following himself or Locke. Sometimes the ideas would co-operate, other times have no connection at all. When writing about himself he liked the idea of being a great sinner and exaggerated this. Evidence shows he was destitute of all ordinary virtues.
He was born in Geneva and educated as an orthodox Calvinist. he had a poor father who worked as a watch maker and a dancing master. his mother died when he was young so was brought up by his aunt. He then left school at 12 years old to become an apprentice at various trades. When 16 he moved from Geneva to Savoy and visited a catholic priest asking to convert to his religion.
Most of his early years were spent as a vagabond and travelling on foot. But, in 1743 he became secretary to French ambassador to Venice who left all of the work to Rousseau but would not pay him. Rousseau preferred simple people, he married a simple woman who he then taught to read and write. He also sold his watch saying ' I no longer need it, I do not need to know the time.'
Cultured people of the 18th century still looked to him for his ideas though. In France he was greatly admired . La sensiblite, meaning proneness to emotion and emotion of sympathy, bu emotion must be direct and violent and quite uninformed by thought. Rousseau was democratic in his theories and tastes. He appealed to the already existing cult of sensibility and gave depth and scope it may not otherwise have.
Rousseau was known for having the tastes of a tramp. he disliked Parisian society. Romantics learnt contempt for trammels of conversation- first in dress and manners, then in art, love etc. Intellect was valued as the most effective weapon against subversive fanatics- manners are a barrier against barbarism.
So, what i am taking form these chapters is the idea that the value we place on the arts, literature and feelings has come from this era. It tried to go against the emphasis placed on the scientific thoughts placed on nature. The fact that we are all so social now is thanks to this this movement and the ideas of Rousseau. The movement in essence is aimed at liberating human personality from fetters of social convention and morality. Man is not a solitary animal.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Addisison...quite a funny chap
The seminar reading this week were a few of Addison's short, and rather humorous essays. The first I read was The Spectator. The main points I picked from this were that ordered, and structured writing is of benefit to writer and reader. Addison believed that the printing press was a major development in the Field of writing and getting messages around educated people.
Locke's thoughts in this essay developed a discussion in the (very small) class of how we ourselves structure our writing and the different ways in which a piece may be best written. It was interesting to hear opposing points of view and how others write. I feel that Addison can become very bias, almost ignorant, of other people in his writing. He does not shy from making comments on different ways of doing things which are not the same as his, and being critical of them.
My favourite of the essays was The Shilling. I found it fun to read and clever in how he had described the trade scene well and managed to put in lots of description. Yet, it did not sound laboured or boring to the reader. This is another example of how I think he may slyly makes comments on other races, cultures and belief systems but tries to make them less offensive by with the use of humour.
I think we may have been asked to read these essays as they show a way of writing where you can show some bias, which as a journalist you may have to do sometimes, in a clever way which is less likely to cause upset in a community. Addison could sometimes also be called the first modern journalist. His works in Tattler and The Spectator would be among the early texts to be publically available to a wide audience.
Locke's thoughts in this essay developed a discussion in the (very small) class of how we ourselves structure our writing and the different ways in which a piece may be best written. It was interesting to hear opposing points of view and how others write. I feel that Addison can become very bias, almost ignorant, of other people in his writing. He does not shy from making comments on different ways of doing things which are not the same as his, and being critical of them.
My favourite of the essays was The Shilling. I found it fun to read and clever in how he had described the trade scene well and managed to put in lots of description. Yet, it did not sound laboured or boring to the reader. This is another example of how I think he may slyly makes comments on other races, cultures and belief systems but tries to make them less offensive by with the use of humour.
I think we may have been asked to read these essays as they show a way of writing where you can show some bias, which as a journalist you may have to do sometimes, in a clever way which is less likely to cause upset in a community. Addison could sometimes also be called the first modern journalist. His works in Tattler and The Spectator would be among the early texts to be publically available to a wide audience.
Friday, October 23, 2009
Locke, Epistle to the reader
The opening few paragraphs appear to me to be saying that he hopes the reader has pleasure in reading it as he did in writing it. It seems to say that he enjoyed writing it and he is proud and pleased with the finished work. But, later in the text '...may be long but I may be too busy, or lazy, to shorten it' could connote a different stance.
One of the key points i took from the text was the idea that we are all born with a blank slate; when born we have no innate conceptions. Locke believed that we learn everything through experience and gain information by practice. I do not completely agree with this theory as I think that there are some things, such as the ability to breathe underwater for the first few minutes after birth. This is not learnt through practice but is done innately. The same as learning to walk. It does take practice to do competently but we will attempt to do it without pushing from parents.
Another point which I gathered from the reading was that we all will take a different approach and meaning to things. This was written by Locke as ' Everything does not hit alike upon a man's imagination. We have an understanding no less different than our pallets, and want to season our meat differently. I took this as to meaning: needing a different seasoning is needing the same point explained in a altered way to another. This also fits with the idea that two could have the same experiences yet take opposing meanings and therefore create their own morals and feelings about a situation.
The statement ' The age we live in is not the least knowing, therefore it is not easy to be satisfied' I took as implying that due to the fact that we are so knowledgeable and learned we find it hard to be contempt with what we know.
His points do make sense but I would still like to disagree with the points that we are born with no concept of any knowledge. The fact that he kept adding to and amending the text tells us that he also had changing ideas and thoughts about what he knew. Although, this would agree with this theory that we learn through experience?!
One of the key points i took from the text was the idea that we are all born with a blank slate; when born we have no innate conceptions. Locke believed that we learn everything through experience and gain information by practice. I do not completely agree with this theory as I think that there are some things, such as the ability to breathe underwater for the first few minutes after birth. This is not learnt through practice but is done innately. The same as learning to walk. It does take practice to do competently but we will attempt to do it without pushing from parents.
Another point which I gathered from the reading was that we all will take a different approach and meaning to things. This was written by Locke as ' Everything does not hit alike upon a man's imagination. We have an understanding no less different than our pallets, and want to season our meat differently. I took this as to meaning: needing a different seasoning is needing the same point explained in a altered way to another. This also fits with the idea that two could have the same experiences yet take opposing meanings and therefore create their own morals and feelings about a situation.
The statement ' The age we live in is not the least knowing, therefore it is not easy to be satisfied' I took as implying that due to the fact that we are so knowledgeable and learned we find it hard to be contempt with what we know.
His points do make sense but I would still like to disagree with the points that we are born with no concept of any knowledge. The fact that he kept adding to and amending the text tells us that he also had changing ideas and thoughts about what he knew. Although, this would agree with this theory that we learn through experience?!
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Semiotics...this is my signifier?
To begin with we were introduced to Umberto Eco, he has been called the thinking person's Dan Brown. But the main people were to focus on for the lecture were Saussure and Pierce.
So, semiotis. Can be described as thew major technique for studying the media. Language and words are a form of semitotics and devolpments occured in areas of linguistics and social theroy. It was said that language is a reflection of of reality. It gives voice to deep personal intentions and allows them to be articulated and perfomed.. This is the externalist theory of language.
Saussure, a Swiss philosopher, gave courses in general linguistics. But, he also had new ideas. He had ideas that language ios constucted. It is an agreed set of meanings and objects. Dog for example is known to us a certain breed of animal with 4 legs, but is different to all other 4 legged species in some ways. The meaning of the word exsits because it has been shared and negotiated: an agreement has been reached to its relevance to the world.
In finding the meaning of a somthing there are three steps. The signifier is the sound, image or design on the paper. The signified is then the concept or implies (this can varyu due to cultural associations). Then the referent is the real item that is being refered to in the statement. The heart was used as an example in the lecture. A picture of a heart on the front of a card has the signified meaning of love, but has the referent of an actaul human heart.
Saussure stated that our perception of reality id sturctered and shaped by the words and signs we see. We do not simply label the wprld but 'construct' meanings through the words and that gives the association we have from word to object. there is no implict meaning on any object.
Words were compared to parts of a car. You cannot understand a word until you know the context. This is described as structerlist; can not understand part of socity without grasping at all of the picture. Socities hidden laws will determine how words work and stuctuelism work. Signs themselves make no sense, only when they are part of a sytem do they become understood.
Some important words, few I had come across before whilst studying A-level media, were explained to us. Thes included denotation and conotation: denotate the actaul meaning of a sign ( a heart as a human organ) or to conotate the associated meaning (heart meaning love). We learnt that there a re differnt types of sign. An indexical sign is an indicator of something else. a casual link to something else. For example smoke is an indexical sign to fire. Iconinc signs are signs which resemble a meaning or referance, an example of this could be the face of the Queen on a £20 note.
More difficult ideas were paradigmatic analysis and syntagmatic analysis. Paradigmatic is the interchanging of meanings within a sentence. Syntagmatic analysis is the order of how things happen.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Hobbs..not only the one i enjoy reading about..reminds of a rather good biscuit...
Thomas Hobbs (1588- 1679) is described in Early Modern Europe, H G Koenigsberger, as being “the greatest political writer of the period”. He is remembered today for his work on political philosophy. A book he wrote in 1651 (Leviathan) created the foundations for most of todays Western political philosophy from the perspective of social contract theory. Social contract is covering lots of theories which try to explain the ways people create states and maintain a social order. It implies that people surrender some of their rights in order to recieve or maintain a social order through the rule of law. A simpler explaination would be to think of it as an agreement between them and rules set out by the ones that govern them.
The starting point for many of the theories was the theoriy of 'State of Nature'. This is where an individual’s actions are bound only by their conscience. From this common starting point, the various componants of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they have in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society.
The social contract was an idea where individuals came together and gave up some of their rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up its right to kill person B if person B does the same). From this social/ conscience agreement the establishment of society came about, and by extension, the state. Society was thus no longer anarchic.
But, states now acted in their own interests: in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were bound to be in conflict because there was no rule over an above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws.
I think that I would get along with Hobbes. My merit may be good but yet to be placed first! He came to his conclusions in a logical manner, i enjoy order and hate confusion.
The starting point for many of the theories was the theoriy of 'State of Nature'. This is where an individual’s actions are bound only by their conscience. From this common starting point, the various componants of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom they have in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.
According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were "nasty, brutish and short", a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the 'social', or society.
The social contract was an idea where individuals came together and gave up some of their rights so that others would cede theirs (e.g. person A gives up its right to kill person B if person B does the same). From this social/ conscience agreement the establishment of society came about, and by extension, the state. Society was thus no longer anarchic.
But, states now acted in their own interests: in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were bound to be in conflict because there was no rule over an above the state (i.e. more powerful) capable of imposing social-contract laws.
I think that I would get along with Hobbes. My merit may be good but yet to be placed first! He came to his conclusions in a logical manner, i enjoy order and hate confusion.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
So everyone in Norway is happy?
Britain is ranked 21st best place to live. 1st is Norway, followed by Australia and Iceland. Japan which is ranked 10th has the highest life expectancy at 82.7 years - in UK it is 79.3 years.
How did they come to this conclusion then? Are these people genuinely happy or have they been told they are?
Diogenes believed in a philosophy called cynicism, to be happy you live as simply as possible, looking at the way that dogs live. He said that he would live like a dog and had no care of manners at all. I could say from this that I think he is wrong. Norway has a very civilised population. Although ,these countries are known for their relaxed attitude to life (stereotype 'Aussie' life as work for the morning- not a stressful job you understand- then surf all afternoon).
What questions could have used in order to find the conclusions of this servey? A simple "Are you happy?". Different people may find happiness in different ways though.
Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born over 2300 years ago. One of his major concerns was discovering how to achieve happiness. His basic theory is that all good and bad things come from sensations. All pleasure is good, and all pain is bad. Therefore, in order to achieve happiness, we should try to maximize the amount of pleasure we experience.
Aristotle gave a detailed desciption of how he perceived true happiness. Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Genuine happiness lies in actions that lead to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Therefore, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete.
Does this servey then mean that all in those countries are happy? Does it mean people outside those countries are generaly unhappy? Is it the situations that they find themselves in or their state of mind in the same situations is different to thos in higher ranked countries?
I'd say I'm happy when busy yet also when relaxed. When im with friends and alone i can find a state of happiness. These may all vary to some degree but still, I would call my emotion happy.
Who is ever in a high enough intellectual state to give a definition of happiness that covers all aspects of the emotion?
How did they come to this conclusion then? Are these people genuinely happy or have they been told they are?
Diogenes believed in a philosophy called cynicism, to be happy you live as simply as possible, looking at the way that dogs live. He said that he would live like a dog and had no care of manners at all. I could say from this that I think he is wrong. Norway has a very civilised population. Although ,these countries are known for their relaxed attitude to life (stereotype 'Aussie' life as work for the morning- not a stressful job you understand- then surf all afternoon).
What questions could have used in order to find the conclusions of this servey? A simple "Are you happy?". Different people may find happiness in different ways though.
Epicurus was a Greek philosopher who was born over 2300 years ago. One of his major concerns was discovering how to achieve happiness. His basic theory is that all good and bad things come from sensations. All pleasure is good, and all pain is bad. Therefore, in order to achieve happiness, we should try to maximize the amount of pleasure we experience.
Aristotle gave a detailed desciption of how he perceived true happiness. Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated with their own distinctive pleasures. Genuine happiness lies in actions that lead to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Therefore, Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and complete.
Does this servey then mean that all in those countries are happy? Does it mean people outside those countries are generaly unhappy? Is it the situations that they find themselves in or their state of mind in the same situations is different to thos in higher ranked countries?
I'd say I'm happy when busy yet also when relaxed. When im with friends and alone i can find a state of happiness. These may all vary to some degree but still, I would call my emotion happy.
Who is ever in a high enough intellectual state to give a definition of happiness that covers all aspects of the emotion?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
First blog?!
Hi! My names Beth Roots, I'm from Suffolk and doing a combined Law and Jounalism degree course.
So we were told " Say what you like about Russell". Well I'm sure what to say really. I could use a syllogistic method to get to my conclusions on him: All biased opinions should be discredited. Russell seemed bias in some views to me. Russell should be discredited? Clearly not so what am I to think now!
This is going to call for serious epstimology....so more to added later!!
So we were told " Say what you like about Russell". Well I'm sure what to say really. I could use a syllogistic method to get to my conclusions on him: All biased opinions should be discredited. Russell seemed bias in some views to me. Russell should be discredited? Clearly not so what am I to think now!
This is going to call for serious epstimology....so more to added later!!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)