Happiness

MARRIAGE. “Marriage is the union of two different surnames, in friendship and in love, in order to continue the posterity of the former sages, and to furnish those who shall preside at the sacrifices to heaven and earth, at those in the ancestral temple, and at those at the altars to the spirits of the land and grain. ” —Confucius, As this culture becomes more individual focused, bonds with others for survival becomes less important. We now pay people to do the things we used to accomplish in a partnership. Restaurants and fast food chains, once relegated to occasional family outings, are a main source of nourishment.

There are agencies that will deliver “home-cooked meals” to you or have them ready for pick-up. Cleaning staff, once limited to the rich or to businesses, are being used by the middle-class. Both parents are working, focusing on their careers, their paths toward self individuation, and more tedious tasks like yard work are being hired out. The point, partnerships are less necessary than they were 60 years ago. That is the social reason that the institution of marriage may be outdated. But the social influence does not stand alone. These changes impact individuals and individuals make up a marriage.

So what are some of the individual characteristics that may contribute to marriage being an outdated concept? First, as discussed above, it is the desire for individuation by those in a marriage. More and more often people want to have meaning in their life, beyond raising a family. We are culture whose individuals want to be different. Americans want to stand out. They want to feel they accomplished something for themselves. As such, simply supporting a partner to achieve feels inadequate to many. They also want to achieve, and to be supported in their endeavors.

This alone can contribute to strife in a marriage. Whose needs come first? How long do I put my goals on the back burner to help you attain yours? When can I pursue my happiness? “Is marriage as an institution outdated? ” Discuss According to the most recent statistics, the divorce rate, often quoted (even by this author in classes) as 50% of marriages, is actually closer to the low 40 percentile. (Divorce Rate: It’s Not as High as You Think, By Dan Hurley, The New York Times, and April 19, 2005). But that does not negate the fact that the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world per capital.

The fact that so many American marriages end in divorce leads to the question is marriage an outdated institution? I think the answer is dependent on some of your personal variables. First, let us look at the facts: over 40% of marriages end in divorce. This does not simply infer that the intact marriages are happy. This author attended a lecture by a respected psychiatrist, rabbi, and author who suggested that another half of the in-tact marriages were unhappy. Per capita, the United States has the highest divorce rate in the world. The average duration of a marriage in the U.

S is about 7 to 8 years. And although marriage is an institution which makes childrearing most efficacious, marriages in which there are children end in divorce with a higher frequency than those marriages without children. Yet marriage remains an institution that many would not think of doing away with or even restructuring. Likely even the question of marriage being an outdated institution raises eyebrows. A controversial issue in this country currently is whether gays should have the right to marry, again showing the attachment to this social institution.

Many young people wouldn’t dream of not getting married. In fact, many women have been dreaming about their impending nuptials since they were young children. This is not only true for women, as many men assume marriage and children are a foregone conclusion in their lives. So what is this author’s argument that the idea of marriage might be outdated? Well, beyond the statistics above, I also believe that as the Dali Lama said, “Our purpose in life is to be happy. From the very core of our being, we simply desire contentment. ” This is becoming more and more true today, as more people seek happiness.

Marriage is a source of lasting happiness for some, but for others it is only a temporary high. The first argument that marriage might be outdated is the divorce rate. Marriage has been around as an institution since, well, according to anything found in this author’s research, ancient time. It was reported as necessary for childrearing, property disbursement, and bloodline. In these times it was more necessary to have a partnership to survive. Even more than partnerships, tribes were necessary for survival. As times changed, neighborhoods became like tribes and small communities worked together to enhance the lives of all.

But Western civilization has continued to move toward a more individualistic culture. Today people are less likely to even socialize with their neighbors, let alone rely on them. It is true some areas are bound by their neighborhood, and the community works together to enhance the life of its members. But this is becoming less and less true. As an example, how many “daycare centers” for children were there 50 years ago? As this culture becomes more individual focused, bonds with others for survival becomes less important. We now pay people to do the things we used to accomplish in a partnership.

Restaurants and fast food chains, once relegated to occasional family outings, are a main source of nourishment. There are agencies that will deliver “home-cooked meals” to you or have them ready for pick-up. Cleaning staff, once limited to the rich or to businesses, are being used by the middle-class. Both parents are working, focusing on their careers, their paths toward self individuation, and more tedious tasks like yard work are being hired out. The point, partnerships are less necessary than they were 60 years ago. That is the social reason that the institution of marriage may be outdated.

But the social influence does not stand alone. These changes impact individuals and individuals make up a marriage. So what are some of the individual characteristics that may contribute to marriage being an outdated concept? First, as discussed above, it is the desire for individuation by those in a marriage. More and more often people want to have meaning in their life, beyond raising a family. We are culture whose individuals want to be different. Americans want to stand out. They want to feel they accomplished something for themselves. As such, simply supporting a partner to achieve feels inadequate to many.

They also want to achieve, and to be supported in their endeavors. This alone can contribute to strife in a marriage. Whose needs come first? How long do I put my goals on the back burner to help you attain yours? When can I pursue my happiness? Another aspect of this is the drive toward excitement and experience. For some people, experience is more important than possessions. Some people just enjoy experience, for its own sake. They may be thrill seekers, or may just place a high value on novel experiences. These people just enjoy doing new things and meeting new people.

At one point in time these characters might have been explorers, adventurers, or other types of risk takers. It seems though, that this is becoming much more common as a character trait these days. And folks with this character trait are likely to find the routine of marriage stifling. There are other reasons that marriages may fail that are related to society. For one, despite many marriages failing or being unhappy, we live in a culture that romanticizes marriage. People are constantly told they will find their soul mate, that if this relationship doesn’t work out; another will come along who might be “the one. In reality, how often are you able to accurately predict who your “one” is? Most people getting married believe they found the one. And when that doesn’t work and they remarry, they often believe this time they found the one. And this isn’t limited only to those who marry. How many people did you get romantically involved with who at some point you thought were probably “the one”? Perhaps this concept, which shows no signs of dying despite the evidence against it, is at worst mere wishful thinking, or at best, a long-shot. Along with this idea of marriage being romanticized is the desire to simply have a wedding.

First, a wedding is a beautiful thing. The pageantry, the pomp, and the beauty of it all results in it being majestic. Everyone should have one. It just doesn’t seem they should have to stay together forever as a result. In a recent discussion with a colleague who was discussing marriage, she reported she wanted to get married. It wasn’t that she necessarily wanted to marry the guy she was with, but that she wanted to get married to someone. She discussed the beauty of a wedding, and how it would be a shame to miss out on that. Everyone wants to be Cinderella or Prince Charming for a night.

This is not uncommon thinking. But does the expectation have to be that they will stay together for a lifetime? (There was an article two years ago about a politician in a European country advocating a law that marriages expire after seven years, with the opportunity to renew. Of course she was mocked and ridiculed). Another point of discussion for why marriages may fail focuses on the fact that many people get married before having been on their own. Recently one of my students, when discussing her relationship, actually said she didn’t want to be alone for the rest of her life.

She couldn’t have been more than 27, although early 20’s is more likely. For some reason this is a predominant fear in our culture (this could evolve into an existential discussion, but that is better placed in another article). There seems to be a myth that if you don’t find someone, and latch onto them, you will be lonely and miserable, possibly for the rest of your life. Many people seem to settle so they don’t have to face this fear. Ultimately, this fear becomes less predominant, and the person may leave the marriage. But the real culprit was the fear leading to settling.

Too often, marriage is an attempt to posses another. When humans love someone, they are afraid to let them go. People are afraid of loss. And what better way to secure someone than marriage? Marriage provides a {false} sense of security. It definitely makes ending the relationship more difficult. But beyond just the fear of being alone is the fact that if you haven’t been on your own you are used to a cycle of dependency. First people are dependent on their caregivers. And if they go from this state to one of marriage, they have never really been independent. There has always been someone else helping out.

Outside of simply being dependent, there is a level of maturation that comes from living on your own and not being in a romantic relationship. One learns to nurture oneself, to care for oneself, to be independent in the truest sense of the word. Unfortunately, many who enter marriage have never really experienced this. This discussion of personal growth leads me to another point regarding how the changing times have altered individual’s character. These days more people are interested in their own personal growth. As people grow and change the risk of growing apart increases.

When most people in their forties think of what they were like in their twenties, they can usually see the tremendous changes that have occurred. This is even truer when personal growth is a goal. And with one or even both partners growing and changing, the potential for growth in opposing directions is a possibility. And even if you don’t grow apart, there is the possibility of a loss of attraction for your partner, and growing attraction for others you meet on your path. Attraction is one of my favorite areas of psychology. The reason one individual is attracted to another is rich with possibility.

For some, there is a reminiscence of something deeply enjoyed in the past. A client recently discussed how the attraction to each of her recent relationships related to two important men in her life. This is excellent evidence of this phenomenon. For some people they believe this person they are with is the best they will ever be able to get. Sometimes this comes from feelings of low self esteem, but this is not always the case. Often there is a bargaining process which goes on inside of us when considering a romantic partner. We have this much beauty, smarts, financial potential, humor, etc, and we want equal value.

Too much value and we might be insecure. Too little, and well we are getting the short end of the stick. But beyond all of this is the most common reason one individual is attracted to another: early childhood memory. This article is not the appropriate place for this discussion, so I refer the reader to “A General Theory of Love” by Lewis, Amini, and Lannon. In short the above book systematically provides a theory that purports that all experiences, but most importantly early childhood experiences, affect the choices we make in close relations.

If we had dysfunction in our home, we continue this pattern in other relations. This leads to another reason marriages may not remain intact as they used to, and hence may be an outdated concept. Bluntly, pathology is less accepted now. In the past, abuse, issues of control, alcoholism, addiction, and mental illness were hidden in a closet. These days’ people are more psychologically informed. They are more aware that being mistreated is not acceptable, that it is not a reflection on them. They are less likely to tolerate behavior which contributes to their unhappiness.

And furthermore, they are more likely than their predecessors to read self-help books, engage in therapy and resolve the issues that result in staying somewhere they are unhappy. They are even more likely to resolve the issues that lead to the attraction to begin with, which would result in the attraction dissipating. So is marriage an outdated concept? It is possible after reading this article you may think this author believes so. And for many people, I do believe marriage is an outdated concept.

And I am not alone, although likely in the minority (judging from the comments posted on the article “On Marriage: Let’s Call the Whole Thing Off” posted on MSN June 228, 2009). But I do marriage counseling, and believe marriage is right for many other people. The goal is to find if you are right for marriage. And ultimately whether marriage is an outdated concept or not is a personal decision. Some of the things you might look at before making the decision are your motives for marriage. Are you buying into a preconceived notion of what is supposed to be, without evaluating your values?

Have you been planning your wedding since you were young and do you just refuse to give up on the dream, regardless of how your personality might affect long term commitment? Are you devoutly religious, and believe that pleasing God comes before personal happiness? If you believe marriage is for you, and you have evaluated your motives, then far be it for any article to sway you. Just realize marriage is work, and it will be important to forgo your happiness at times to maintain the marriage. And keep your hope. Even if marriage is an outdated concept, everyone has the right to make the choices they make. Good luck on your path.

Unit 4 assignment instructions This week, our writing assignment focuses on individual definitions of happiness. For this writing assignment, you will prepare and conduct interviews with two people about their definition of happiness, how they gained this view, and whether they feel happiness is achievable. Choose two people who vary in age and experience. Only one of the subjects can be someone you know well. This is an opportunity to learn about acquaintances and strangers as well. These should be face-to-face interviews.

Introduce this assignment by introducing each subject one at a time. Who are they? What is the nature of your relationship? Next, ask a variety of questions to get them to consider not just their definition of happiness, but its origins and development. You can use these sample questions to get you started, but should add more questions or change the interview as it develops: Has your definition of happiness changed over time? What experiences have influenced your definition? Do you expect the definition to change again?

Follow the Unit 4 template for this assignment in DocSharing. It includes submitting a transcript of your interviews, including your questions, so take notes or record the discussion. Finally, you should draw conclusions about the process and the answers that were given. Compare and contrast the results of the interviews. Discuss what was similar or different in the replies, whether the subjects were honest, or if the concept of happiness was difficult to define. The essay should be at least 750 words and should employ terms from the text.

The assignment should be completed in Microsoft Word and should follow the template provided for the sample transcript, essay, and reference page. CLA assessment: This unit 4 assignment corresponds to the CLA rubric for HU300-02; please review the CLA rubrics document available under Course Home. APA formatting: Incorporate APA citations throughout the analysis as well as a references section at the end of the analysis. (The references section does NOT count towards the required word count for the Unit 4 assignment. ) Review the APA quick reference guide on the left-hand sidebar under course home for APA formatting guidelines.

Brave New World Analysis on Characters “The world’s stable now. People are happy; they get what they want, and they never want what they can’t get… they are so conditioned that they practically can’t help behaving as they ought to behave” (Huxley 198). Many people speak and dream about a perfect world, for the problems which we face in the present world to simply just go away. Brave New World is a novel which shows an example of what life would be like in a utopian society.

Read also Analysis of Characters in Flannery O’Connor’s “”

It shows the differences that civilization has against the savage world, which is how we live in present day. The characters in Brave New World all experience the controversy between nature vs nurture ultimately leading to their unhappiness. An individual can be given everything they need but yet still live unhappy. This especially can be seen with one of the main characters in Brave New World, Bernard. He was an Alpha Plus, the highest class in civilization, but unfortunately didn’t look like most Alphas (69). Despite his class, he was an outcast and spent most of his time alone.

The narrator in the novel explains, “The mockery made him feel an outsider; and feeling an outsider he behaved like one, which increased the prejudice against him and aroused hostility about his physical defects… which increased the sense of being alien and alone” (68). Although he had a high title it didn’t make him feel happy. He felt like there was more to life than a set routine they were all given in civilization. Bernard felt himself different; he wanted to feel emotions and not just live day by day on fake happiness.

Bernard expresses his frustration to be feel different when he states, “ But wouldn’t you like to be free to be happy in some other way, Lenina? In your own way, for example, not in everybody else’s way” (90). Bernard was tired of being enslaved by his conditioning. The people of the New World were all taught to think, act, and see things a certain way. No individuality. Living in a controlled world doesn’t cause happiness, it just numbs people of actual feelings. Lenina is a “pneumatic girl”, very popular, and has spent a night with almost all of the men in civilization. Pleasure was key in the controlled world.

She found herself wanted by men, and like most women enjoyed having sex with men. When Lenina began talking to Bernard, she didn’t agree with him on wanting more to life. She’d rather be on soma, a drug that would numb them from any true emotions, whenever she felt a little uneasy, just like everyone else. Lenina’s unhappiness comes when Bernard takes her into the Savage world and she sees how John and Linda and everyone else is living. Her immediate reaction was to find some soma. She couldn’t believe how people grew old, suffered, and had to deal with everyday problems.

Lenina began falling for John and quickly realized that she wanted something specifically with him that most men couldn’t satisfy. Lenina states to her friend Fanny, “And what about a man– one man. Hes the one i want… and in intervals I still like him. I shall always like him” (171). Lenina had never felt like this before, therefore she didn’t know how to handle it. The only thing she knew of about men was to have sex with them. When John rejected sleeping with her, she was completely taken by surprise. The narrator explains, “ Drying her eyes… she pulled out her soma bottle… hers had been more than a one-gramme affliction” (157).

Never being in the position, she immediately turned to soma to help her cope with what she was feeling. She has been living numb to emotion and for the first time she was forced to feel unwanted and ached for an escape. Linda was a Delta in a civilized world who went on a trip with the Director to the Savage world. Unfortunately for her she had fell and bumped her head, causing her to get lost and be taken in by Native Americans (112). The Director searched for her but was never able to find her. To her dismay she was pregnant and had a baby named John. Linda only knew how to act like a civilized person.

She was very promiscuous and like the controlled world, began to sleep around with different men. This was strange to the Savage World and they then began to call her names and make her an outcast. Linda stated, “I was so ashamed. Just to think of it; me a Beta– having a baby” (114). Having John was very difficult for her. Linda had no idea how to be a mother, how to nurture, or even how to be a good role model for the child. Linda thought of how perfect her life would be if she were to return to the civilized world, returning to soma. She was willing to do whatever just to be back in the New World, “… here was her appearance… so the best people were quite determined not to see Linda. And Linda, had no desire to see them. The return to civilization was for her the return to soma” (142). Linda thought all her problems would be solved by going back to the controlled world, but in fact they made her even more depressed and unwanted. She had nobody except for John and she would rather be numb and not feel anything than deal with civilization. Where would she find true happiness if in the Savage World she is discriminated for her ways, and in civilization she no longer fits in.

Living in the Savage world, one can only imagine how perfect the civilized world could be. Unfortunately, having came from the savage world John had something to compare the controlled world to. Being the son to a women in the civilized world, he had heard nothing but wonders about it. On the other hand, having been raised in the Savage World allowed John to learn morals and want to find a purpose in life. When John reached the civilized world he was completely disappointed on how fake everything and everyone was. “ How much I love you, Lenina… or always… to make a promise to live together for always” (174). John had seen his mother sleep with so many men and get teased by it that he did not want to just sleep with the women he liked. He wanted to marry and be with just that one. For Lenina this was just nonsense, and that just made John not want anything to do with her. He wanted to feel a special connection with Lenina that she had never had before. By the end John decides to be isolated because he would rather deal with his emotions than live in a “perfect” world numb and unhappy.

Ultimately, the utopian society didn’t mean solving all problems and people forever living happy. If a civilization is all an individual knows, how is it that they still manage to be unhappy? There is no happiness when people are living numb from what is really going on. When it comes to the topic of a utopian society vs the kind of society in which we currently live in, I think there is really no solution. We are human and as much as they can try to condition human beings, there is still going to be some kind of downfall.

A very popular question in today’s society is whether money can buy happiness. Happiness has been shown to be related to many things. It is found to be related to social class, success, power, health, valued belongings, religious beliefs, companionship, being employed in a secure job, having a full social life, and more or less accumulation of money.

Research shows that money does not buy happiness but it comes indirectly from the higher rank in society that money brings. “The rank-income hypothesis” was tested and found that the ranked position of an individual’s income predicts general life satisfaction. Once someone has a large amount of money they may become part of a different social group which brings more confidence and satisfaction. A persons’ satisfaction and self-esteem will increase if his social rank increases or if those who once had the same social rank him decreases. People naturally feel better and more satisfied if they are better than others. People dedicate so much energy in trying to make more money when having more money does not make them that much happier. People may be happy with their current level of wealth and stop trying to accumulate more if not for the urge humans have to compare themselves with others in every way possible: attractiveness, intelligence, height, weight, and crucially, financial success. The writer H. L. Mencken said, “A wealthy man is one who earns $100 a year more than his wife’s sister’s husband. This frustration of seeing someone “better” than you become a huge motivator when it comes to making more money. People are very concerned with the phenomenon of “Keeping up with the Joneses. ” Hollywood made a movie about a wealthy and good looking American family and the effects they have on the people living in their neighborhood. The movie presents us with “conspicuous consumption” and comparing each other’s expensive possessions and social rank. People will always try to move ahead of as many of their friends as possible in order to” improve” themselves.

People try to enhance their social hierarchy by making unnecessary investments in order to satisfy their preoccupation with their relative social standing which the socio-economic class isn’t Ariella Dayan  Quantitative Research Methods- Shani Greenp to do, although we can see this form of competitiveness in the socio-economic class as well. A recent study shows that a group of people in the US who are most opposed to an increase in the minimum wage are those who make just above the minimum wage. Because of the minimum wage increases, these people will now be in “the last place”, along with all the people whom they used to feel superior to. Another reason why money translated to happiness often is that money has a property that many other things that matter in life do not. Money is something that can be counted. When people reflect on whether they are better off this year than last, they cannot always give an exact answer. A person cannot say that their life is 32 percent more meaningful. This is not a calculation we are accustomed to making. Salary, on the other hand, is measurable.

If a person is making a better salary they will think that they are doing better in their life. This also may explain why people are always buying larger houses and larger televisions. As people become richer, they quickly grow accustomed to bigger houses, flashier cars, and designer garments, but their possessions don’t actually make them much happier. Studies show that even lottery winners, after an initial period of adjustment, don’t become much happier. The reason for this is because the faster people try to get ahead, the quicker they end up back where they started. Another research conducted at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver asked people to predict how happy they would be if their annual income was anywhere from $5000 up to $1 million. After this, the people were asked how much money they really earned and how happy they were with their lives. It was found that people generally overestimated the impact of money on happiness. Those who earned $25,000 a year predicted that their happiness would double if they made $55,000. But when we measured the happiness of people at these two levels of income by having them rate their satisfaction with life on a call from 1 to 10, it was found that the wealthier group was only 9 percent happier.

On the other hand, people who make very little money do become significantly happier when they earn more. But a large survey of people in the US showed that the impact of additional income on happiness Ariella Dayan Methods- Shani Greenp tends to fade around an annual salary of $75,000. There is no data suggesting that making more money makes people less happy but it does stop making them much happier. What people can do in order to gain happiness in a better manner is by doing something unusual with it or “giving it away”. It turns out that spending money on yourself does not make you any happier, but spending on others does. Donating to a charity or buying coffee for a friend is an efficient way of turning cash into happiness. A worldwide survey was created in 2006 by Gallup. He asked people to imagine themselves on a ladder with steps numbered from zero to 10, with the bottom of the ladder representing “the worst possible life for you” and the top representing “the best possible life for you. The respondents were then asked to say which step they were standing on. If you instruct people to think about the best possible and worst possible lives they could be living, you are surely inviting them to compare their living standards with those of people elsewhere. This methodological quirk alone could easily explain why residents of poor countries report low scores and residents of rich countries report high ones, and it wouldn’t have anything to do with money-making people happier.

The conclusion is that happiness and money do correlate but only to a certain extent. People are more concerned with their social class, “getting ahead” and where money can get them in life than the actual amount of money. This topic should continue to be researched in order to find it in today’s generation a person can actually be happy with what he or she has without comparing themselves to their peers and surroundings.

References

1. Boyce, C. Christopher J. 1 Brown, Gordon D. A. 2 Moore, Simon C. (2010). Money and Happiness: Rank of Income, Not Income, Affects Life Satisfaction.
2. Psychological Science, Vol. 21 Issue 4, p471-475, 5p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. ac. il/ehost/detail?sid=daeaee80-c08b-433b-84c3-094cde8b9e7c%40sessionmgr10;vid=1;hid=13;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h;AN=62587809
3. Norton, M. I. (2012). The more money, the merrier Cassidy, J. 2008.
4. Happinness is…. Conde Nast Portfolio; Vol. 2 Issue 7, p36-36, 1p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc.ac.il/ehost/detail?sid=ab06d568-bb15-434e-b357-a6330d98f4a5%40sessionmgr4;vid=1;hid=13;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=bth;AN=38013329 Buchanan, M. (2009)
5. Money in Mind. New Scientist Vol. 201 p26-30, 5p http://web. ebscohost. com. ezprimo1. idc. ac. il/ehost/detail?sid=81a76105-82e3-428d-8827-47f8203d01bc%40sessionmgr111;vid=1;hid=126;bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h;AN=37249111

The Philosophy of Man “What is man that You take thought of him, And the son of man that You care for him? ” (NASB1995) This verse is taken from Psalm 8:4, I cited this verse on the account of my wonder and curiosity on what really is man? I guess this question has already been brought up years ago by scribes, teachers, politicians, scientist and even philosophers. Even David, the man after God’s own heart has also asked on what is on this man that even the God of universe is so fond of him. With all reasons, judgments, questions has been clashed, I have no better answer than other great philosophers.

But let me try to expound my idea on this notion truthfully. There are many definitions of man. Some says that man is a rational animal. Others would say that man is a being and has a special place in the universe on the account of their abilities and level of reasoning. While others argued that one thing to observe that humans are but a tiny aspect of the universe and even of life on our own planet. Whatever their justifications may be, I hold unto this one truth that I believe in, Man is created in the image and likeness of God.

I’m not saying this because I am a Christian but because I have learned not to depend solely on the knowledge of this world but on the wisdom from God. By simply understanding that man is created in the image and likeness of God, then surely man has a great value. Therefore, every human being is bestowed with dignity and his sense of being. I believe that we are all equal here; sinners or saints, rich or poor are all given by dignity. Thus, one cannot say that I am better off with the others. Man is a spiritual being because of the spiritual acts that he does.

This includes intellection and reasoning. Indeed, man is a rational animal. Man is formed as the highest creation since being rational, he can think more, he is free to choose and decide, he can explore, and he can do all things according to his goal that will lead him to happiness as well as to see the good. Moreover, by its uniqueness, soul is the source of the things of man can do what other cannot do. Each one is unique and thus each one can be distinguished by each soul that describe who you are. Taking up Philosophy of Man subject has been subject to my queries before.

Why do we have to take up this when our field is on medical and nursing. It was later then that I realized that this course subject is vital because it gives us a thorough understanding on our patients especially the dignity of humans. Astounding as it was, I found this subject to be a challenging one because it harnessed the way we think and reason out. It taught us to examine ourselves, to look beyond one perspective and to dug deeper. Another essential attribute of man is his freewill. Freewill is the capacity to choose.

If by the word “free” one means that people have the ability to make certain choices on their own free from compulsion, force, or coercion then the answer is “yes. ” For example, people have the ability to choose to go to the store or stay home, to buy a newspaper or not, to eat beef or to eat fish, etc. such choices are within the natural capacity of human beings. People are free to act according to their nature. We humans are moved not by instinct but ideas. I think that this is one of the greatest attribute in man.

We are not robots controlled by any manual operations or animals driven by instinct. Yes, we are creations but our creator never imposed on us but give us freewill. I have also pondered out that man is a seeker of happiness. We are all different but we also have something in common and that is our pursuit of happiness. We study hard, get a decent job, find a partner, start our own family, these are all means to gain happiness. Happiness, we all know, comes with the possession of some good; but where, or, in the possession of what good is perfect happiness to be found.

However, there’s one thing that I’ve realized, no matter how happy we could be in this world, we would not be content because we are made for something eternal. To be loved is to be known and to be known is to be loved. Man is called to love and communion. I guess this is the basis of our morality everything which is governed by love. Man is not made to be alone. That is why Eve was created for Adam. I truly believed that there is no greater joy to love and be loved in return. Love enables a person to be good and self-giving which creates the good of persons and of communities.

The Pursuit of Happiness In the book, “You Learn by Living,” Eleanor Roosevelt notes: “Happiness is not a goal; it is a by-product”(Roosevelt 95). When one’s specific desire is fulfilled, feelings of happiness flourish. Therefore, happiness is the ultimate goal in life for many people in today’s society because their life revolves around desire. That said, everyone’s interpretation of happiness varies. Some may believe wealth and power will bring them happiness, while others might argue that beauty and popularity will keep them happy.

Whatever the recipe of happiness may be, the product is universal—they all generate feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Temporary pleasure and satisfaction, that is. What if the word “eternal” was inserted into the definition of happiness to say that it was a state of eternal well-being and contentment? How would one sought to pursue this form of happiness? At the start of Book One of The Consolation of Philosophy, Ancius Boethius, a learned official of the Roman Empire who awaits execution for unjust accusations, desolately rests in his jail cell, writing poetry and contemplating on life with the Muses of Poetry.

He is soon interrupted by Philosophy, who appears to him in the form of a lovely woman that is “full of years, yet possesses a vivid color and undiminished vigor” (Boethius 2). As a physician treating a patient would, Lady Philosophy diagnoses Boethius with a serious illness, which she says she is here to cure, unlike the Muses she calls “hysterical sluts”(Boethius 2) who is only here to take Reason away from him. When asked to “discover his wounds”, Boethius begins to moan about the loss of good fortune: his wealth, his power, his friends, and even contact with his family.

He goes on to complain that he is suffering unjustly in a state of complete innocence, blaming Fortune for taking away these goods. As for Lady Philosophy, whether or not Boethius is a “victim of Fortune” (Boethius 4), as he calls himself, is simply not important. The fact that Boethius has fallen under Fortune’s spell, and forgotten three important things: his true nature, the end and purpose of things, and the means by which the world is governed (Boethius, 10), seem to be the bigger issue since they are the main causes of his illness.

Throughout all five books of The Consolations of Philosophy, in her intent to cure Boethius’ disease, Lady Philosophy corrects Boethius of the errors that caused his illness–the main error being his misconception of how happiness can be achieved. When told of Boethius’ sudden reversal of fortune, rather than feeling pity and empathy, Lady Philosophy scolds Boethius for mourning over tangible and earthly things like fame, wealth, and power. These “goods”, or rather “false goods” can deceive to bring happiness, but it fails to satisfy the true, eternal soul.

Wealth and power were merely gifts from Fortune that temporarily visited him by the wheel of Fortune. Moreover, Lady Philosophy is able to prove that they are in fact false goods because they were taken away from Boethius; they did not belong to Boethius. Lady Philosophy tells Boethius, “Be not overcome by your misfortunes, for the gifts of fortune are fleeting and happiness is not to be found in temporal goods”(Boethius 21). The things that are thought to make us happy, wealth, honor, and power, have no actual value or power and therefore cannot truly make someone a happy person.

Lady Philosophy further explains how these false goods only evoke feelings of negativity. Wealth only leads oneself to greed and further protection of himself, honor creates jealousy, and power is meaningless because it does not last. Lady Philosophy explains: “Why, the prefecture, which was once a great power, is now but an empty name”(Boethius 23). These lesser goods, which hold less power than mankind, cannot drive one to live a happy life; only a greater good that is more powerful than man possesses that power. This leads to the next question: How is true happiness achieved?

In Book Two of The Consolation of Philosophy, Lady Philosophy thoroughly explains true happiness: “If I ask you whether there is anything more precious to you than your own self, you will say no. So if you are in possession of yourself you will possess something you would never wish to lose and something Fortune could never take away”(Boethius 23). She says that happiness can’t consist in things governed by chance because true happiness cannot be taken away. She goes on to explain that nothing on earth can bring true happiness—not one that is eternal.

The common belief of all mankind agrees that God, the supreme of the Heavens and the Earth is the highest good. True happiness comes from the desire for the perfect itself and the perfect Good—God. Therefore, one can only attain true happiness through the pursuit of God through intellectual and spiritual means. On page 23 of Book Three, Lady Philosophy says: “Only by being like God, who is the highest good, can lasting happiness come to man. ” Everyone desires happiness, and happiness is identical with the good, therefore God and true happiness is of neness. She also says that the good gain their reward automatically, since by being good, they attain the good, which is happiness. Furthermore, only our spirit and intellect can lead us to the true good—the true happiness of the soul, God. As a strong believer, and child of God, it is only sensible that I agree with Lady Philosophy on her reasoning that only one higher power offers true happiness. The all-powerful Creator of humankind motivates man to live a good, virtuous life under Him, which, according to Lady Philosophy defines true happiness.

Seeking God, in many ways, is parallel to seeking true happiness. The bible, which quotes the words of God, in many cases, teaches the man in God to strive for the higher goods that make up true happiness and, to keep away from what are the evils of false happiness in not only religious terms, but also philosophical terms. In Psalms 37:4 of the New International Bible, it says “Delight yourself in the Lord and He will give you the desires of your heart. ” The desires that the bible verse refers to are not casual wants that nature longs for, but innermost desires that satisfy the inner soul—the true goods.

The bible disfavors certain desires, in which Lady Philosophy would consider “false goods” and the Bible refers to “lusts. ” These desires are often described as cravings that long to satisfy physical appetite, like food, alcohol, sex, money, and pleasure. Once man rids himself of desire, he begins to be carefree, letting the mind be emotionally free, free of worry, confident, and at inner peace, reaching a state of happiness under God. Lastly, God rules the universe for the highest good, so man works to move toward that good according to their own will to be obedient towards the highest good, God.

As I have begun to discuss above, I strongly believe that living a life for a higher power, rather than oneself, creates an optimistic state of mind, resulting in a more satisfied, happier person. Research shows that that religious people are happier and less stressed. Once one understands that the world is not governed by Fortune, but by a reasonable Creator, unhappiness becomes absent because he is agreeing to Divine Providence. Giving reason to everything that happens makes life less distressful.

Rather than staying in a state of despair, only a person in God understands that suffering leads to the sanity of reason and therefore, with suffering, happiness will be awarded at the end. It can also be said that the person in God is not only happy, but also virtuous because being “good” consists of being virtuous. In relation to what Lady Philosophy defines as false happiness in The Consolation of Philosophy, someone who seems to have everything that most people desire, often times, suffers from severe depression. Marilyn Monroe is a great example.

She had everything that many seem to think brings happiness—beauty, wealth, fame, sex appeal, and popularity—but she ended her life in suicide. It can be further argued that happiness consisting of anything other than the one God, cannot be everlasting. While these so-called “false goods” temporally satisfies one’s self, the one real true good, the Creator, provides consolation that is eternal. In comparison to lesser goods, faith is a consistent element of happiness and good health. In explaining happiness to Boethius, Lady Philosophy says, “Why, then, O mortal men, do you seek that happiness outside, which lies within yourselves? True happiness cannot be found through the senses. Happiness comes from within one’s soul. It is not external. It is a by-product of an inner condition. It is not simply a temporary indulgence of pleasure. If one lives only for personal happiness, he will probably never find it. As American social writer and philosopher, Eric Hoffer said, “The search for happiness is one of the chief sources of unhappiness. ” Getting rid of the longing for false goods, or evil desires, is the first step of achieving true happiness—one that will last forever!

Emotion and Human Destruction In both 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) and Mary Shelly’s Frankenstein, man tries to create something more advanced than mankind. But, even though they are more advanced, they are less developed. The creations in both of these works have one major flaw, and that is that they cannot control their emotions. The creation called HAL 9000 in 2001 is a supercomputer designed to learn at incredible speed and calculate thousands of important facets on the voyage of Discovery.

The monster in Frankenstein created by Victor Frankenstein also had the capability to learn at incredible speeds, had superhuman abilities, and became so smart that he could have rivaled his creator. However, neither HAL nor the monster had the mental capacity to control the amount of power their creators had given them. This becomes the main conflict in both of these works. From the emotional decay of these powerful creatures, we come to an ambiguous conclusion: Emotions will always lead to the destruction of humanity.

Happiness is one of many human emotions. Oftentimes, life events stimulate how happy we become. Furthermore, the need to find happiness and overcome obstacles is a need all humans have. There are a certain number of attributes that acute for a humans overall happiness. To name a few, things like living conditions, overall health, wealth, and relationships with other humans. The monster in Frankenstein had none of these things. He quotes, “Here then I retreated, and lay down happy to have found a shelter, however miserable, from the inclemency of the season. (Shelly 94). And later it quotes, “I possessed no money, no friends, and no kind of property. ” (Shelly 101) The monster had terrible living conditions; his diet consisted of nuts and berries, he had no money, and he had no friends. This led the monster to be extremely unhappy. And when humans are unhappy, they become jealous of others happiness. With happiness come jealously, an emotion we all pretend we never experience. But, when a human sees someone who is happier than they are, they instantly become jealous.

They want what that person has, and they will do anything to get it. The monster is a pure example of this . He quotes, “”I lay on my straw, but I could not sleep. I thought of the occurrences of the day. What chiefly struck me was the gentle manners of these people; and I longed to join them, but dared not. ” (Shelley 93) The monster wanted human companionship, but he felt the humans would not accept him since he was ugly. This is why he talked to DeLacey first. DeLacey was blind, and could not discriminate against him.

The monster basically pleads for acceptance quoting, “This, I thought, was the moment of decision, which was to rob me of, or bestow happiness on me forever…I sank on the chair, and sobbed aloud…`Now is the time! –save and protect me! You and your family are the friends whom I seek. Do not desert me in my hour of trial! ‘” (Shelly 111) When the rest of the family came in, Agatha fainted, Sophie ran, and Felix beat him with a stick. This robbed him of his chance to be happy. He was jealous of the fact that every human could have friendly interactions, but he was doomed to loneliness forever.

The monster now realized he could never be happy. This enraged him, and hatred became his fueling emotion! Hatred is the most prevailing emotion. It consumes people and turns them into the violent human beings who they actually are. The monster cursed the human race, and vowed revenge quoting, “My feelings were those of rage and revenge. I could with pleasure have destroyed the cottage and its inhabitants and have glutted myself with their shrieks and misery. (Shelly 113) The monster did in fact get his revenge. He hated the fact that Victor had close friends and loved ones, yet he had nothing.

This made the monster turn to violence, and he killed everyone close to Victor. 2001’s creation, HAL, has a different emotion which leads to his downfall. That is the emotion of pride. You see, pride is a feeling of pleasure from one’s own achievements. HAL was very prideful. You can glimpse it from this shot conversation HAL has during an interview: INTERVIEWER: HAL, you have an enormous responsibility on this mission. You’re the brain, and central nervous system of the ship, and your responsibilities include watching over the men in hibernation.

Does this ever cause you any lack of confidence? HAL: Let me put it this way, Mr. Amor. The 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the words, foolproof and incapable of error. Here, HAL takes pride in the fact that his 9000 series model has never made an error. But when HAL predicts a communication relay to go down, a 9000 computer on Earth says HAL is wrong with his prediction.

HAL quickly disbands this as human error, since HAL now sees himself as better than human. HAL also thinks that he is better capable to carry out the mission than anybody onboard. When HAL hears he may be disconnected, he goes berserk and kills everyone onboard until David Bowman shuts hit down. HAL’s downfall was because he had too much pride. We see this in the modern world all the time; people thinking they are better than others because of their achievements. In the pursuit of happiness, somewhere along the way, people will become jealous of others.

They will want something someone else has, and they may not be able to get it. This in turn will cause them to hate or resent that person. They may lash out against them with words, or like the monster, will do whatever they can to strip that person of their happiness. But suppose you do become happy and rise to the top? The people in power almost always become prideful and abuse that power. Take dictatorships for example. They end up abusing their power, and think they are better than others. Ultimately, emotion is humanities greatest weakness.