discussion, rather? -- please read

Date: Fri, 2 Jul 2004 04:26:59

hi everyone,

i couldn't help but noticing that since monday the emails i've been getting from this yahoogroup are either someone's essay or someone asking for help. so i thought i should propose this.

can't we use this to informally discuss the readings? rather than simply sending essays that answer prof. diem's questions. maybe it's just me, but what is the point of posting something publicly, open to everyone for reading, if most of the content seems like oriented only for grading? on post 1, where prof. diem asked everyone to describe what makes them happy, the answers are great, like sharing, almost. but on the critique and analysis it seems like most of the answers are only for grading. no offense to anyone. i myself find it hard to make informal posts that is not prof.diem oriented since the posts are simply meant to answer an existing questions. but can we talk about the readings informally instead? like saying things such as "aristotle is overcomplicating things and in the end it doesn't make sense anyway." after all, a philosophy class should be discussion based, not just answering essay questions.

since i'm the one proposing, i'll start:

in four words:

i don't get aristotle.

okay, so it makes sense a little bit that happiness should be from something virtuous, and to know what is virtuous, one must use reasoning, and therefore, happiness should be reasoned. but why can't happiness come from something that can NOT be reasoned? like me, i'm happy if someone close to me is happy. it's that simple and it does not require reasons or definition of virtue. now is aristotle saying that i'm actually NOT happy?

in the intro section of chapter 3, page 21, bottom line, it says that virtue refers to the excellence of things. like virtuous knife cuts really well. i'm really good at drawing, but i choose to be a physics major because i like physics more than art, even though i'm not really that good in physics. now according to aristotle's definition of virtue, that means what i'm doing is not virtuous, because i'm not doing something i excel at. but i'm happy. i'm fully content (truth, i swear) at being a physics major. friends are great, faculties are awesome, i couldn't ask for more. i'm in a state of complete happiness. at this moment of life, i'm fully content with my life despite the lack of fullfillment of my desires. is that not happiness? i can't reason why i'm happy, and i can't find anything virtuous in things from which i extract my happiness, like a smile, if you read my post #1. but i'm happy. i think i have obtained happiness. will aristotle rise from his grave, fly all the way down to glendora and yell in front of my face that i'm actually not happy?

here's what * I * think about happiness. happiness is a state of mind. whether you're happy or not, it's all up to you. the choice is yours. you don't need to seek virtuous things like aristotle said. i agree that the final good in happiness, that everyone seeks happiness. who wouldnt? but how do you find happiness? well, the easiest way is to accept your current situation and wash away your wants. not needs, WANTS. if you have what you need at the very least, you should be happy. that is the fastest way to achieve happiness, to NOT want things. there's an old saying that goes "what i want is what i've got," truly i say to you, if that old saying is true for you, you are in a state of perfect happiness. no need for anything virtuous or fancy like what aristotle said.

another thing i'd like to say about aristotle's take on happiness is when he said "to examine all the opinions that have been held were perhaps somewhat fruitless," in regards to different people having different definition of happiness. why fruitless? why is it not right if people want their own happiness? i hold firmly to my belief that every individual is unique. they have complete control over their actions, their destiny, their choices, their definition of things, namely happiness. if one wants to define happiness as money, why can't he? as long as he lives up to it and puts effort to obtain his happiness, i see nothing wrong. i do not see the necessity to generalize a definition of happiness that is true for everyone, since even if we DO have a general definition of happiness that is consistent and EVERY SINGLE LIVING BEING on this earth agrees with, i still think they will all be living their own way of life. one who defines happiness as money will keep chasing money. one who defines happiness as career success will continue being a workaholic. one who defines happiness as being with the children will continue to be with the children. one who defines happiness as seeing his friends and family happy will still strive to help them to be happy. the general definition will then be something extremely vague and cannot be protested. like astrology. "you will have a financially rewarding opportunity." who can argue with that? anything from one extreme to the other can be considered as "financially rewarding."

i think a general definition of happiness that applies to everyone is not needed. as long as one understands the reason why he defines happiness the way he defines it, nothing could be wrong.

follow ups? flames? i hope that's controversial enough to start a long discussion. =P