In this paper, I will argue the argument fails because the conclusion is a false dichotomy based upon faulty premises.
The first premise hinges upon the belief that a person, who devotes their life to activities that make them happy, does so out of the narcissism. The author phrases the premise such that it leads to the label of one, “living as a solipsist”. The term solipsist comes from the philosophical belief system known as Solipsism which holds that one owns existence is the only thing which is known or, “extreme preoccupation with and indulgence of one's feelings, desires, etc.; egoistic self-absorption”( Dictionary.com). This begins the false dichotomy that the entire argument hinges upon; a person who lives for what makes them happy is either egotistical or narcissistic. But such a statement is false. Many attempt to define the limits of an argument so that their conclusion will seem rational, but it is only because one is arguing within the parameters in which their opponent phrased the argument. This premise is misleading as well as false, a similar fallacy could be phrased, anyone who votes for X is a Y. Why would this be false? This is false because with humans, blanket statements do not work on generalities. Being happy, is merely a product of circumstance, any human who does not strive towards such ends is more likely a masochist than human. Happiness will never come from without; it will only be derived from within.
Premise One sets up premises Two, which is if one lives a life as a “solipsist’’ then they are not living with the fact that they are not at the center of the universe. Again a false dichotomy: if one lives for what makes them happy the author states the individual must believe, they are at the center...
... middle of paper ...
...id, “if I asked the people what they wanted, they would have asked for faster horses” this “solipsist" believed in his absurd dream and gave mankind something greater than the collective society could have ever imagined, and this made him very happy. For Jobs, Newton, Carnegie their activies were also quite advantageous (good) for them, resulting in untold riches and fame. Camus rhetorical question to such absurd arguments “But what is happiness except the simple harmony between a man and the life he leads”. People who lack courage to do what makes them happy, such as this author, will always find a philosophy to justify it.
The argument is technically valid such that, its premises lead to its conclusion. However, all the premises are built upon false assumptions, which are untrue throughout, as I have shown above, leading one to surmise the argument is unsound.
In chapter ten of the book “Problems from Philosophy”, by James Rachels, the author, the author discusses the possibilities of human beings living in an actually reality, or if we are just living in an illusion. Rachels guides us through concepts that try to determine wiether we are living in a world were our perception of reality is being challenged, or questioned. Rachels guides us through the topic of “Our Knowledge of the World around Us”, through the Vats and Demons, idealism, Descartes Theological Response, and direct vs. indirect realism.
Do not try to cultivate a garden with excessive surplus in order to barter for unnecessary goods or to store up for the future. "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity," Thoreau orders (173). Voltaire would agree that this is the essential key to living well. After traveling around the world and questioning every sort of person, Candide finally finds peace after seeing the simple life of the Turk on his modest farm with his children. "That good old man seems to have made himself a much better life than the six kings we had the honor of eating supper with," Candide remarks (119). At the end of his quest, Candide finally realizes that power, prestige, and all the other things most people seek indeed are not the answer to happiness. Thoreau wholeheartedly supports t...
John Stuart Mills, in chapter five of his autobiography, “A Crisis in My Mental History: One Stage Onward,” (1909-1914) argues that happiness doesn't come from thinking negative it comes from thinking positive and happy. He supports his claim by first explaining that those only are happy who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness then he uses the happiness of others, then on the improvement of mankind, and finally he explains that people find happiness by doing what they enjoy to do. Mills purpose is to try to get the people to see that doing stuff for others can also make you happy. In order to accomplish this he wrote this article. He creates a informative tone for the Harvard students.
People who are successful purchase big houses, go on expensive vacations and live a life of luxury only to realize that they are not happier than the time they had nothing. He gave another example of an unhappy person who is naked, hungry and outdoor in the cold. He is given food, clothing and taken inside and instantly he becomes happy. These examples complement Emerson’s quote “The world is his who can see through its pretensions” because once a person is able to see that the things society values do not bring them true happiness they will be open to sharing with others. True happiness is achieved with the fulfilment of basic needs and wants, and not with the hoarding of
Although we might think we’d have it all, if and when we have it all, Henry David Thoreau and Herman Hesse’s readings show how we don’t have anything until we have next to nothing. A test of perceived happiness versus real happiness was done to the main characters in both readings. The naturally complacent way through life for these two was obviously one that was chosen for them but rich (either by society or by parents). Instead of taking the wealthier and “more fulfilling” ways of life plus short term benefits, they chose to question what they were given and yet somehow stay appreciative. Through doing so, they benefited with skills from endeavors that you, or me the “civilized” could have never accomplished – even with modern technology.
... of a much grander scale like running for public office or becoming a doctor. I would clearly be more happy if I were able to win a public office, than be able to pick up a book, because the former is on a larger scale. The Substantive Goods theory is consistent with my beliefs. One's life does go well if he devotes his time to the pursuit of worthwhile things. I am better off writing a novel than taking drugs to get different sensations. Also, I could validly see myself as in a state of Happiness even if I toiled my whole life and my desires never cam to fruition, as long as my pursuits were substantive. Working my whole life writing the best piece of music of all time would not be devalued just because I never finished it; the first part of the composition, which I toiled my whole life for, still exists and is of value notwithstanding my inability to complete it.
Camus starts his main ideals about the connection between absurdity and happiness when he states that “happiness and
...f money could bring happiness, then more money could bring him more happiness. Again, when money is the highest value used in determining happiness at work, other values become over shadowed or ignored. Unsatisfied values eventually reveal themselves when the money value is met. Without being content in all values, happiness at work cannot be attained. Richard Cory probably did not know how to satisfy those once hidden values and found his life very unhappy. Thinking that hard work will lead to financial success and happiness is not wrong as a value, but as Richard Cory finds out, happiness based on only money is not possible unless that value is your only value.
For the purposes of this debate, I take the sign of a poor argument to be that the negation of the premises are more plausible than their affirmations. With that in mind, kohai must demonstrate that the following premises are probably false:
In the analysis of an individual there are three primary methods employed in order to successfully assess and repair his condition- biological, cognitive, and psychoanalytic theory. In the case of narcissism, only the psychoanalytic approach will suffice to structurally repair rather than suppress manifest symptoms of the unfulfilled self. Narcissists must learn to address the needs of their childhood that have not have been satisfied and acknowledge them as the root of their grandiose actions, a facade for their inner sense of shame and insecurity (Kohut, 1978, p. 423). In the case of Mr. Z, he underwent two analyses with a five-year grace period in between, the first analysis unsuccessful in structurally curing his masochistic propensities as they merely shifted to another facet of his life (Kohut, 1979, p.10). This lack of structural change went unnoticed during the first analysis, and was only revealed through examination of the patient's root of disturbance during the second analysis. The agent that assisted the discovery was the change in approach by the analyst within the realm of psychoanalysis, that is the shift from a focus in analysis based upon classical-dynamic structural terms to that of the psychology of the self in the narrow sense. (Kohut, 1979, p. 26).
In this type of argument one can logically determine that if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true too. First step in order for one
For my Final Reflection Essay I attempted to focus on the most obvious adjustments I made from writing high school papers to producing college level essays. This approach compelled me to examine a few of the papers I submitted in high school and look back on the steps I took to write them. By reviewing my previous work I realized that during Dr. Kennedys English 111 class I have effectively learned how to apply an outline, utilize research, and incorporate that research into my final paper. English 111 has helped me to understand the importance of the multiple steps of writing a great college level essay by forcing me to complete each step individually. My overall performance in this class has been above average and I have really demonstrated dedication to improvement.
Working without passion leads individuals down a path of living a long boring life that will never have an impact on the rest of society, just like the extent of a machine’s legacy. “Do not hire a man who does your work for money, but him who does it for love of it” (“Life Without” Thoreau 9). Thoreau does not say that all men should or should not be millionaires who live in ways that others envy. Rather, he suggests that every man should do what makes him happy because a life without principle is not a life that anyone could truthfully enjoy living; even if it meant becoming a millionaire. Thoreau believed that everyone had different kinds of potential, and that everyone should strive to meet their respective
Wren mentioned in his article that happiness can be categorized in two ways. The long term happiness that includes high level of education, accomplishments, jobs, etc. Basically anything that helps us in the long run. The other one he mentioned was the short term happiness, that includes things like personal possessions like cloths or jewelry, automobiles, money etc., anything he says that makes us happy for a short period in our lives. We all can acknowledge a person that can related to such happiness. I work with a architect who learned the business with out going to school for the education, he learned everything hands on in the field. He got a job at a firm for 4 years but was not happy the last year he worked. He ended up taking the leap of faith and started his own business that is now run by his own 3 kids. He doesn 't care about the money like his sons do, he is more proud of his accomplishments he did in his life. Happiness can be appreciated by the big things we have but we must also appreciate the little things as well. Do not let the little thing that make us happy be more important than the greater achievements we
All of us want to make money to gain some status, some comfort and some luxurious. This money has brought; is bringing; and will bring so many differences between some of you and me. These differences will be later named as differences between the rich and the poor. If I ask you ‘Do you know what is happiness? You would thrillingly and pleasingly answer me YES, OF Course Then lets share some examples of the happiest man. One would experience happiness when a leads a luxurious life. One may also experience happiness when he had expanded his business almost across the globe. One may also experience happiness when he had his meal in the most famous and expensive hotel. One may also experience happiness when he attends honorable parties.