For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?
I definitely feel that it is possible to be happy! After all, Adam Curtis had portrayed Edward Bernays as a man who could make the masses happy and feel good about themselves after they had purchased products and performed actions that were symbols of freedom, such as women smoking cigarettes in public. But the real question is what is happiness? What makes us experience that feeling of happiness?
In Sigmund Freud's "Civilization and It's Discontents", Freud argues that happiness was the result of the avoidance of pain and the pleasure experienced by that individual after they have that feeling of accomplishment. Freud believed that these actions and their corresponding feelings were part of the human psyche and were literally natural instincts, insinuating that humans were "hardwired" to seek and experience happiness not just once, but multiple times in their lifetime, even going so far as to make it their goal in life. I agree wholeheartedly with Freud regarding this explanation of happiness and the reasons for what makes us want to pursue happiness. So according to Freud's definition of happiness, it is possible to achieve happiness.
In fact, after watching Adam Curtis, portrayal of Edward Bernays' work and his efforts to make humans constantly experience happiness through materialism, leads me to believe that it has become even more easier to pursue happiness and experience it more often.
Humans now live in societies where happiness has manifested in the form of material goods such as clothing, cars, electronic gadgets and jewellery. When people buy clothes that are part of the latest trends, they feel really happy and good about themselves because they can now feel "stylish" and "cool". These people are again following their basic instincts of trying to attain happiness by buying these material goods and as a result, modern societies have made it easier to be happy by widening the sources of where happiness can be attained from.
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Monday, October 10, 2011
A just prosecution. For that point in time.
1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?
I do believe that these charges were legitimate and that this was a fair trial. Before the age of enlightenment, society was largely based on worshiping the gods. They also largely believed in the fact that the gods would either reward or punish you for your actions, depending on whether they were good or bad. So as a result, the members of society at that point of time felt that laying these charges on Socrates were totally legitimate and not putting him on trial for corrupting the youth and inventing new gods would be an insult to the current gods, punishing anyone who did not take action against Socrates.
The first charge that was laid upon him was of corrupting the youth. Meletus was the individual who had brought forth this charge to the court. The reason why Meletus had laid such a charge upon him was because Socrates had conversations with many of Athens' youth about why worshiping the gods was necessary and questions such fundamental and sacred foundations as what constituted a just or unjust action. Meletus and many of the elders who happened to overhear these conversations felt quite angry and most of all, threatened. They felt that Socrates had no right to challenge these fundamental and long practiced teachings, and especially felt that making Athens' youth question these teaching were a total blasphemy because it would undermine the future generation of leaders. During this time period, worshiping and pleasing the gods was the most vital objective in a human being's life and questioning this was a big taboo that Socrates was not at all scared to bring up and confront. So yes, to this particular society, this charge was definitely legitimate.
The last charge that was placed upon Socrates was that of creating new gods. The people of Athens felt that this was a much more serious charge than the previous one because, he is ultimately insulting the current gods, implying that they are not sufficient and that they are not worthy of being called gods. The people of Athens were definitely angry at this because they believed that Socrates was being an arrogant fool who had no right to tell the people what god to worship and what god to neglect.
Essentially, Socrates questioning and undermining a religious system and a legal system that was revolved around the gods. He was questioning long held practices and beliefs of a society. So as a result, I do believe that from that particular society's point of view that these charges were legitimate and that the people were justified in bringing him to court.
The second part of this questions asks whether or not that this was a fair trial. Again, if I looked at this issue through that society's point of view, I would say that this trial was a fair one. Socrates was given a chance to speak and defend himself in front of a jury and a panel of judges. This is just how our modern day courts operate in Canada. He was given a chance to argue his case and defend himself (albeit with a bit of shouting from the audience and the jury) and the prosecutors were also allowed to explain why they could bring Socrates to court on these charges. Unfortunately the verdict wasn't a desirable one for Socrates (sentenced to death). But they way they reached their verdict was totally fair, since everyone was given a chance to speak and the judges had actually listened to what Socrates had to say, But again, Socrates' arguments were just not solid enough to stir the people's beliefs in their religion and so he was sentenced to death.
I do believe that these charges were legitimate and that this was a fair trial. Before the age of enlightenment, society was largely based on worshiping the gods. They also largely believed in the fact that the gods would either reward or punish you for your actions, depending on whether they were good or bad. So as a result, the members of society at that point of time felt that laying these charges on Socrates were totally legitimate and not putting him on trial for corrupting the youth and inventing new gods would be an insult to the current gods, punishing anyone who did not take action against Socrates.
The first charge that was laid upon him was of corrupting the youth. Meletus was the individual who had brought forth this charge to the court. The reason why Meletus had laid such a charge upon him was because Socrates had conversations with many of Athens' youth about why worshiping the gods was necessary and questions such fundamental and sacred foundations as what constituted a just or unjust action. Meletus and many of the elders who happened to overhear these conversations felt quite angry and most of all, threatened. They felt that Socrates had no right to challenge these fundamental and long practiced teachings, and especially felt that making Athens' youth question these teaching were a total blasphemy because it would undermine the future generation of leaders. During this time period, worshiping and pleasing the gods was the most vital objective in a human being's life and questioning this was a big taboo that Socrates was not at all scared to bring up and confront. So yes, to this particular society, this charge was definitely legitimate.
The last charge that was placed upon Socrates was that of creating new gods. The people of Athens felt that this was a much more serious charge than the previous one because, he is ultimately insulting the current gods, implying that they are not sufficient and that they are not worthy of being called gods. The people of Athens were definitely angry at this because they believed that Socrates was being an arrogant fool who had no right to tell the people what god to worship and what god to neglect.
Essentially, Socrates questioning and undermining a religious system and a legal system that was revolved around the gods. He was questioning long held practices and beliefs of a society. So as a result, I do believe that from that particular society's point of view that these charges were legitimate and that the people were justified in bringing him to court.
The second part of this questions asks whether or not that this was a fair trial. Again, if I looked at this issue through that society's point of view, I would say that this trial was a fair one. Socrates was given a chance to speak and defend himself in front of a jury and a panel of judges. This is just how our modern day courts operate in Canada. He was given a chance to argue his case and defend himself (albeit with a bit of shouting from the audience and the jury) and the prosecutors were also allowed to explain why they could bring Socrates to court on these charges. Unfortunately the verdict wasn't a desirable one for Socrates (sentenced to death). But they way they reached their verdict was totally fair, since everyone was given a chance to speak and the judges had actually listened to what Socrates had to say, But again, Socrates' arguments were just not solid enough to stir the people's beliefs in their religion and so he was sentenced to death.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)