Hayley,
I thought that you started your piece very well, it had a strong intro that showed how the way you feel now is not the way you always have and it is not the way you will always feel, which I thought was a perfect way to show how interpretive the entire subject is.
Basically it seemed to me as though you were talking about how in contrary to what Banach theorized, happiness is not entirely found from oneself, but rather from interactions with other people too. Happiness according to you is still based on oneself, but it can also have to do with how other people see you.
In an earlier post, you said that you felt that freedom came from within, eluding to happiness as well in some parts of your post. I feel that since you changed your opinion here, saying it is not solely from one source, you are partially contradicting yourself, but also revising your thoughts. Now you have a better sense of the way that concepts such as this can be explored
I agree with your view on happiness, that it cannot be truly from oneself. If it were possible, then everybody would live alone, isolated. I am reminded of an episode of Scooby-Doo from my childhood. In the episode, the gang is looking for clues and run into an old hermit who lives alone in a cave. He is crazy, craving the attention of everybody. Not particularly happy now, is that? In contrast, good ol' Mystery Inc. is close nit and help each other, and they seem happy 99% of the time, even having some fun while running away from ghastly ghouls. This supports your proposal and disposes Banach's, all at one time.
This makes me think about my own friends and family in addition to everybody else I interact with and how they all affect my happiness. You know how sometimes just being with one person can be better than a whole party of people, so how does that connect? I think that quality of relationships should always come before quantity, much like how the "popular" kids can have so many friends and be so upset while the "unpopular" kids can have better friends and be way happier as a result.
As always, thank you for the words of wisdom,
Henry
Ali:
Ali,
I really liked your introduction, it was a great rebuttal to Banach's statement and was a great dismissal of his very point in writing this lecture and even his being.
Basically you dismiss everything Banach says about happiness, saying that it is for the individual to determine what makes them happy, and I agree with you there. You also argue that individuals cannot do this on their own, that the interactions they have determine mood as well, instead of complete self-reliance.
I can see the gradual trend in how your opinion starts to veer away from Banach's since the beginning of the lecture. Where Banach proposes contradictory arguments that effectively say nothing, you stay on one path that leads to one conclusion, that everybody can decide for themselves how they feel on all of these subject Banach is talking about. I think that this is a solid conclusion, and it also ties into the arguments Banach made in the earlier sections of his lecture.
I think that you could extent this though, or come up with situations in which happiness is shared between people, like a shared experience causing happiness for multiple parties.
This makes me think about my own life and how people are trying to constantly press their opinions onto me or make me feel the way they think I should, or even put me in a certain direction. I feel as though your argument and opinion here is somewhat like the kid yelling at their parents about their freedom using the parents argument against them, which is always the perfect touch. This makes me think about freedom and individuality a lot, and what they mean and how we are each our own person to come to any conclusion we see fit.
Thank you for the posting,
Henry
No comments:
Post a Comment