More handpicked essays just for you.
Breastfeeding argumentative essay
Reading and writing for argumentative essays
Breastfeeding argumentative essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In contrast to Aristotle, Roko Belic’s documentary “Happy” provides a fresh perspective that takes place far more recently. The film sets out to similar goals of Aristotle in defining the nature of happiness and exploring what makes different people happy in general. Unlike Aristotle, however, the film’s main argument refers to makes people happier. In this case, the film argues that merely “doing what you love” is what leads to happiness (Belic). The argument itself appears oddly self-serving, considering that message is what underlines the foundation of happiness, yet there is a subliminal message that a simpler lifestyle is what leads to what the film is trying to convince you of. The message itself is obviously addressed to Americans, considering …show more content…
that the film uses many instances of non-Americans enjoying their lifestyle while simultaneously comparing them to statistics relevant to American citizens. Of course, film documentaries have several inherent weaknesses. Firstly, their relevance and impact rely mostly on the time their are presented. Next, their biases are easier to spot, and harder to counteract. Third, the audience typically must devise the argument and rhetorical strategies used themselves, as it is not as clearly presented as what a written account can divulge. Regardless of these preconceptions, I will assess the film to the same extent and standard of the other authors used in this paper. The argument itself holds promise despite its shaky foundations, but the evidence presented to solidify its standing is questionable. The film begins by journeying into India where it examines the lifestyle of a Rickshaw Driver Manoj Singh, who “was found found to be as happy as the average American” (Belic). While it is an interesting comparison and perspective in terms of lifestyle, the comparison itself is faulty because the documentary does not account for how American culture and Indian culture hold massive differences between each other. India is known for splitting its citizens into different “castes” by their birth status, while America allows its citizens equal opportunities regardless of their birth. For Singh, he cannot aspire to be much more than a rickshaw driver in India because he was born into a low caste. In contrast, an American with nothing but their clothes and proper ambition could eventually build their own business to the point of incredulous wealth. Now, the film counters this point through the American man in the swamps of Louisiana, who also appears to enjoy a simple lifestyle by “enjoying nature” (Belic). This provides a qualifier for the previous point in terms of a comparison to an American living a simple lifestyle. Despite that, another dilemma props up in regards to the man’s age and lack of clarification of economic standing. Singh is clearly of a working class, yet the film does not provide context to the louisiana man’s situation. We can assume that he is retired, and thus is afforded the opportunity and time to enjoy nature, but that does not account for the countless others in America who still have to work for a living and provide for their families so they can survive. Despite these missteps, the film does discuss some meritable points and presents information crucial for understanding happiness alongside with some strong rhetorical strategies.
The use of definition when it comes to dopamine, for example, is an excellent rhetorical strategy for those unfamiliar with the chemical and its effects on happiness. This comes to light when the film describes dopamine as “a chemical in the brain called a neurotransmitter that’s necessary for feelings of pleasure and happiness” , and then explains the intricate details of its process in the brain (Belic). Considering how dopamine is the fundamental chemical for happiness, it is essential that this documentary set in modern times touch upon it. When it comes to rhetorical strategies, the documentary does hold an advantage over written pieces in terms of imagery. Obviously, to use one image or vivid description would be a discredit to the others it presents, but where its imagery holds the most power is when the film demonstrates people “doing what they love” while talking about it, such as the surfer who describes his passion as the camera shows him curving over a wave (Belic). This particular usage of imagery allows the audience to visualize and connect with what the surfer is describing, and almost allowing them to experience it in the same fashion. This works particularly well in combination with the sound effects of the waves and wind combined and the soothing soundtrack to provide an element of …show more content…
“bliss.” To truly analyze “Happy’s” effectiveness, one must understand the differences between writing and film, and consider the weaknesses and strengths of each.
“Happy” would have you believe that happiness comes from “doing what you love”, and though the ideal is nice it holds some questions in regards to specifics. While “Happy” provided some truly breathtaking rhetorical strategies, much of its evidence lacked explanation in terms of context, and discussion in regards to relevance. With a lack of explanation comes a lack of connection to the film’s intended audience, which in the case of American viewers potentially causes disjoint communication of claims. Perhaps this is attributed to a limited run-time, and that an hour and fifteen minutes of film was not enough to go in enough depth on the evidence. Suffice to say, Belic did a fairly adequate job in his film. Had he given background and clarification to the personal accounts used in the film, his claim of “doing what you love leads to happiness” would be infinitely
stronger.
Some people dream of wealth, happiness, or genius, but is any of that easily attainable? An intellectual young man from the movie Good Will Hunting has an unusually high IQ that is shrouded by emotional problems. Will Hunting is arrested after yet another case of physical assault in Boston, and this time it was a police officer. When he is arrested, his genius is discovered by a college professor, Gerald Lambeau, who sees potential in Will despite his flaws. Instead of jail time, Labeau offers him a fair bargain. As long as Will attends mandatory therapy, he will be allowed to work alongside the professor. But education isn’t everything, because under Wills sarcastic wit and mathematical genius, he hides his true self. Will scares off five different therapists before he finds himself stuck with Sean Maguire, who ends up using personal and profound forms of therapy to crack Wills shell. Sean delivers this speech to help Will realize his ignorance of his insecurities and other people by using ethos, logos, and pathos appeals; Sean addresses that true knowledge and perspective can only
Mothers always want the best for their daughters, it’s a given feeling for a mother. Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mom is written in her perspective as the mother. In The Joy Luck Club, Amy tan writes the novel through her eyes as the daughter of the relationship. Both passages portray the harsh emotions between the mother and her daughter. These emotions are caused by the mother pressuring her daughter to achieve expectations. The two excerpts have similar stressful tones but Amy Tan’s novel is much more intense and displays a uglier relationship.
The society uses one’s happiness to seek their own. Starting with the ancient Adam Smith’s theory of a market economy where commodities are sold and bought in a market freely, where sellers and buyers exchange to achieve profit, and happiness is derived from profit. Thus “happiness is both produced and consumed” (Ahmed 3). Happiness is a matter of research for corporates of big companies. They try to figure out which product makes the buyers feel the happiness they need, so that they can produce more for their own profit. So, they cunningly make commercials with people having a good time. Which when watched by the buyers they get the false sense that their life would be so much better if they bought that small bottle of happiness. Once they buy their “Pandora’s box” they hope that underneath all the unnecessary objects there will be happiness, but they are dispirited at the end. Unknowingly the markets are making the society a more dull and sad place rather than distributing
Begley introduces sources such as Ed Diener, a University of Illinois psychology professor, who has studied happiness for twenty-five years, to further the point of her claim. In the article, she accounts an interaction Diener had with Scotland's Parliament and business leaders on the value of using traditional measures to compare what policies makes the country happiest. The Scottish were all in favor of increasing policies that increased wellbeing, but not because they make people happier. "They said too much happiness might not be a good thing, they like being dour, and didn't appreciate being told they should be happier" (555). Diener later concludes that levels of happiness coincide with longer, healthier, relationships. He contrasts this conclusion with an article he cowrote with, stating “once a moderate level of happiness is achieved, further increases can sometimes be detrimental to income, career success, education, and political participation” (556). Diener believes that negative emotions make you “more analytical, more critical, and more innovative” to help direct your thinking. Diener gives much evidence and experience towards Begley’s claim of happiness not being the best for you. Another source Begley uses to back up her claim that
In “Paradise Glossed,” from Stumbling on Happiness, Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard, discusses how happiness is not simply quantified or measured, but rather, results from how people interpret the numerous events that make up their lives. His main claim is that each event could be seen from a myriad of different angles, and thus could end in varying degrees of happiness for each person. Gilbert also explains how people often lean more toward the optimistic side of things: upon experiencing an event, people tend to find the positives in the situation. Gilbert’s argument is reasonable, clear, and backed by evidence. But in spite of this, he fails to clearly define happiness, and his logic is somewhat flawed.
Oliver Burkeman, author of The Antidote: Happiness for People Who Can’t Stand Positive Thinking and column writer for The Guardian, explores the human need to seek for happiness and its connection to the Museum of Failures in his article Happiness is a Glass Half Empty. Burkeman’s purpose to writing this essay is to give readers a new view on how to seek happiness – embrace negativity and expect the worst. Burkeman’s use of a friendly, almost informal tone to help relate to his readers is a brilliant attempt to catch his reader’s attention and hold it, therefore enabling the delivery of logic seem almost effortless.
The philosopher Aristotle once wrote, “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence.” This famous quote compels people to question the significance of their joy, and whether it truly represents purposeful lives they want to live. Ray Bradbury, a contemporary author, also tackles this question in his book, Fahrenheit 451, which deals heavily with society's view of happiness in the future. Through several main characters, Bradbury portrays the two branches of happiness: one as a lifeless path, heading nowhere, seeking no worry, while the other embraces pure human experience intertwined together to reveal truth and knowledge.
Humans, throughout recorded history, have searched for a proper way of living which would lead them to ultimate happiness; the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of lecture notes on the subject written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, is one of the most celebrated philosophical works dedicated to this study of the way. As he describes it, happiness can only be achieved by acting in conformity with virtues, virtues being established by a particular culture’s ideal person operating at their top capacity. In our current society the duplicity of standards in relation to virtue makes it difficult for anyone to attain. To discover true happiness, man must first discover himself.
Happiness plays an important and necessary role in the lives of people around the world. In America, happiness has been engrained in our national consciousness since Thomas Jefferson penned these famous words in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson). Since then, Americans have been engaged in that act: pursuing happiness. The problem however, as Ray Bradbury demonstrates in his novel Fahrenheit 451, is that those things which make us happy initially may eventually lead to our downfall. By examining Guy Montag, the protagonist in Fahrenheit 451, and the world he lives in we can gain valuable insights to direct us in our own pursuit of happiness. From Montag and other characters we will learn how physical, emotional, and spiritual happiness can drastically affect our lives. We must ask ourselves what our lives, words, and actions are worth. We should hope that our words are not meaningless, “as wind in dried grass” (Eliot).
Many people value the tangible over the complex. However, viewing the world solely through this definite lens is an oversimplification. Yevgeny Zamyatin’s We explores this flaw in a society founded solely upon its government’s definition of the “ultimate happiness.” To reach utopia, it eliminates inefficiency, crime, and despondency, by promoting state-led happiness. Despite these admirable goals, the One State’s methods sacrifice freedom, individualism, and, ironically, happiness itself, ultimately failing its mission. Zamyatin explores the emotionless routine within the One State to assert that happiness cannot exist when controlled and rationalized.
The society of thoughtless happiness is not as much of an exaggeration as some may think in America. We use happy pills, both legal and illegal, and have cosmetic surgery to make us pleased with our appearances. We are surrounded by entertainment technology to a degree Huxley would laugh at. “Cleanliness is next to fordliness” We have a horror of aging so we deny it (Posner).
Classical philosophers and rhetoricians theorized whether eudemonia was a matter of luck (up to the daimons) or whether humans in fact had agency. They also defined happiness in relation to an ethical framework, often requiring virtue as a prerequisite. My exam area reads into these many incarnations of happiness as an idea(l) that Richard Weaver calls a “God-term” in its “inherent potency,” woven deep into the fabric of our constitution with ‘obvious’ discursive patterns and powerful institutionalized effects. Materialized through discourse, happiness is necessarily relational and socially persuasive, imbued with ethical assumptions, and embodied in knowledge and beliefs. At times this awareness is either lost or left implicit, but by bringing this critical perspective to the historical trajectory, I situate distinct rhetorics of happiness.
In the book, The How of Happiness, author and researcher Sonja Lyubomirsky sets her book apart from other self-awareness books by being the first to utilize empirical studies. She uses data gained through scientific method to provide support for her hypothesis. This hypothesis consists mainly of the idea that we have the ability to overcome genetic predisposition and circumstantial barriers to happiness by how we think and what we do. She emphasizes that being happier benefits ourselves, our family and our community. “The How of Happiness is science, and the happiness-increasing strategies that [she] and other social psychologists have developed are its key supporting players” (3).
Bowman, James. "The Pursuit of Happiness." The American Spectator. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
Contrary to belief, genuine happiness is very rarely found at the bottom of a shopping basket or on the leather seats of a brand new car. Often we hear the cliché saying “Money can’t buy happiness” but this is in fact true. Whilst the elation and delight brought from finally owning a wanted item is extraordinary, you must remind yourself that your happiness should not become dependant upon your ownership of this item. Being happy is not something you can purchase from a shop or car dealership, it is the way you take on life. Unfortunately, happiness does not have its own aisle at shops and never will.