''Our life is a series of meaningless actions culminating in death''.
So then why even bother living if this is the statement one chooses to live by? If in the end nothing we do will count for anything then why waste your time trying to decode humanity and giving an answer-- not necessarily a right one to every question that is posed?
So clearly if I chose to believe this statement that would not only pessimistic but it would make life pointless. Why make the effort to live a "good" life if in the end it won't matter because we are all going to die? I think that living your life by those thoughts are counter-productive and just a waste. Living is a gift that not all are granted, so why waste the little time that we do have on this earth questioning why we are here and thinking so negatively?
Happiness, what is it? Is it just endorphins that my brain sends gets in waves when something I like happens. Is being truly happy a constant state of euphoria and you feel like nothing could ever possibly touch you? Is the emotion happy the same for everyone? Probably not, so then why does David Banach yet again talk as though he knows what exactly everyone else feels?
To be "happy": "'One must lose all hope of external value before seeking value within.'' I'll admit that the concept of this is nice, only extracting "happiness" within our selves. However, what happens if a material object or something along those lines allows you to realize what makes you happy. Music makes me happy, so by saying that is that just not genuine, are we incapable of having anything make us happy? Am I happy? I couldn't tell you. Happiness is a fleeting emotion and I think emotions run really high so if I'm feeling happiness I feel like nothing could touch me, and if I am not feeling so optimistic, I want to wallow in my own self pity for a while until I snap out of it. Well, is anyone really happy all of the time? I don't care what someone tells me the answer is no.
If suppose we do find our happiness within ourselves entirely, will it last? :"one must lose the promise of external value, but they find a more real happiness, one that cannot be taken away by the external forces beyond their control." I think as well that the concept of that is nice but the effectiveness of it is not realistic. So if something was to happen with my family for example and it is not a "happy" thing, am I still happy anyway because I initially allowed myself to be happy alone? If I do become sad which most would, does that mean I was never really happy in the first place? No, it is normal for emotions to vary, someone can not be in a state of happiness all of the time. Our brains do not work that way.
I am "happy" most of the time, and I think that what allows me to achieve this happiness is genuine. In the first part of the lecture doesn't it state: "No one else can feel what we feel", so then why is Mr. Banach saying now what it takes to be truly happy, when he in fact does not know how I feel? If feelings are so one-sided, why does he insist on telling others how to be happy? I think he should just stick to his initial thoughts and stop flip flopping.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The quote that you picked definitely brings up a point that is relevant to anyones life. I agree that you should not waste your life thinking about what will happen after death. Appreciate what you have now and don't worry about something that you have no control over. If you really need consolence about the fact that life will eventually end, just think about how the memory of you will live on in other people's lives.
ReplyDeleteI explain in my blog that happiness is just something that happens in your brain. Our whole life revolves around our brain so this does not mean that happiness can't be important or meaningful to you. It also doesn't mean that one's happiness is not related to other things in the world; it's just not as direct as one would normally think it was.
I also agree that happiness is not something that one can always have. If we did not have bad times, we would not be able to appreciate the good times. This is why it is good to have a healthy balance of emotions. This is one of the main ideas in the book, "The Giver." After experienceing both a life with very little emotion and a life with a lot of happy moments, but also many sad moments, the protagonist would rather have the latter; he did not realize what he was missing.
I agree that there is no point of living a good life all we suppose to be thinking about is death. Everything that we have done will be pointless if we are just going to die. i believe that you should just try your best in life so when you die you won't regret anything that you have done.
ReplyDeleteA question that comes in my mind is if we are happy all the time are we really "happy"? How would we know if we are? Will we ever have any other feeling?
I really like the way you question their ideas. Your questions were really good and I really enjoyed reading this. :-)
Ali,
ReplyDeleteI laughed at little at that last part because it sounded so sarcastic, I loved it. I also agree that you said no one can be happy all the time, it’s true after all. If something truly horrible happens to you or someone you’re close to you’re not going to walk around all smiles and giggles. Last thing, I completely agree with you, in parts three and four of the lecture, Banach pretty much contradicts his most of his earlier points, which sort of irritated me but also made me ask “Does Banach even really know what he believes, or what he is saying?” To make a point then go back and contradict yourself, surely you must be confused. It’s always great reading your blog, your ideas always make me think about Banach’s ideas on a deeper level.
Ali,
ReplyDeleteI 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