View Against Simple View Of Happiness

Philosophy Es assure Happiness is a genuinely subjective sensation that human beings exhibit. There ar a whole army of reasons and pointors contributing to the gratification of a some iodin. Philosopher joke Kekes puts forward in his novel The Examined Life, ?the simple view of bliss. entirely stated, he believes that gaiety is made up of a ingathering of episodes that form an berth. The attitude in general is what Kekes is concerned with and what his motive flows from. I sh in all indicate that the joy of a hope does on that pointfore lead to happiness even if the happiness is short lived. I also believe to show that in order to action happiness unity must, as Kekes suggests, be satisfied with one and only(a)s life. Kekes puts forward the premise that thither is more to happiness then just a collection of happy events. He stresses that there is an overall attitude that one must achieve in order to say that a happy life is theirs. He goes on to say, the connection amongst satisfying episodes and an attitude of satisfaction with our lives is non simply that if we do and do what we want, then we argon happy. I cypher the locate that Kekes makes here is non legitimate. I would moot that if we do and pass water what we want we are in fact happy. I do not want to over simplify my justification for the panorama that I take but wherefore would fewone want nighthing that wouldnt make him or her happy? Kekes has stated in his composing that it is a mistake to assume that the satisfaction of our wants assures happiness. I do not think that he is correct. If someone relishs something, they are doing so because they think that specific go for provide come them some level of utility. The end result force not be favourable but the intent of the desire was to develop some form of happiness and the achievement of this desire does find happiness. If Kekes on the other hand refined his statement and say that the satisfaction of wants does not necessarily ! lead to long endure happiness then I would agree with him. The subject of the miser under will illustrate this important point. Kekes would, and has, countered my argument by stating the trials of a flush miser who ends up lonely and with a shriveled soul. I think that this rebuttal by Kekes is off the mark. In the case of the recondite miser I do not think that the desire to make up wealthy, and the resultant achievement of obtaining wealth, would cause any(prenominal) real perturb. The trouble that one in this situation office face would go because of other thoughtless actions that the person has let happen.

It should be mention here that the problems I am referring to are large problems, (more socially significant) rather then not discerning where to store your cash for instance. The lively person does not get word bad hazard because they have become rich; I would argue that any misfortune would be caused by the actions of that person. The rich person might become flashy and press robbed, they might argue with family over loans, perhaps they blow their bullion in Las Vegas and become homeless as a result. The negative occurrences stated above do not directly come from the money or wealth. I would concede that money played a part in these damaging events in so utmost as to say that a lack of money would have made these sensitive found troubles mute. But then over again if the rich person was not born at all he would not have had the desire to become wealthy, both points are sensible but uninteresting to my topic. It is entirely potential that the person who desires a something does not have a valid reason. They might desire to blow up an air compressed for instance. ! If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderEssay.net

If you want to get a full information about our service, visit our page: write my essay