My Cultural Conception Of Happiness

There are several works of literature that can substantiate the preceding thesis. One of the most convincing is Tom Hewitt's article "Learning From Tison" which appeared in The Sun Star. In this piece, the author does well to explain the relative nature of happiness, which he does by presenting the lives of Indonesian villagers

In the article, “Does Trying To Be Happy Make Us Unhappy?” Adam Grant argues that putting too much effort into life changes will actually me people unhappy. Grant point out two countries and how they give the right to be happy to their citizens. The U.S.A grants life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and in the kingdom of Bhutan they have a national index to measure their happiness. Grant then goes on presenting a psychologist study done about happiness, this study reveals that the more pressure people puts on trying to be happy the less happy they are.

Everyone defines happiness differently, but everyone needs happiness. The book Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse talks about how Siddhartha finds happiness through many ways. He leaves home and his friend, Govinda, to find enlightenment. He starves himself, he learns love, he even thinks of suicide… Fortunately, he meets a ferryman, who becomes his best friend, also his “teacher”, and helps him find the ultimate way to achieve enlightenment. Siddhartha abandons his relationships, money, and education which bring him happiness, and in the twenty first century, these still bring happiness as the essential steps to take.

This paper will focus on Aristotle’s claim that happiness is an activity and not just a momentary pleasure. Skeptics claim happiness is a state of mind and Aristotle is wrong to claim that happiness is an ongoing pursuit a person must actively strive for during one’s life. This paper argues that Aristotle is correct when he states that happiness is an activity, the central purpose of human life and a goal in itself that individuals strive for throughout the entirety of their lifetime and ultimately attain rather than a feeling a person experiences at any given moment. First, Aristotle’s view of happiness will be explained and then I will present objections to Aristotle’s claim that happiness is an activity. Lastly, I will address the

I'm Vietnamese American. I came to America twelve years ago. I’d say I am equally influenced by both Vietnamese and American culture. Growing up as a Catholic, I learned that happiness is the life that we receive when we are in union with God in heaven. How do we get there is something I had to learn from both textbooks and experiences. My parents would often talk about growing up, getting a job, starting a family, and live happily. They also talk about how religion leads you to happiness when you values love and kindness. Religion specifically taught me values such as persistence, perseverance, humility, forgiveness, and charity. These values is reflected in the way I speak, think, and view life.

There are no pure states of mankind. Whatever else happiness may be, it is neither in having nor in being, but in becoming. What the Founding Fathers declared for us as an inherent right, we should do well to remember, was not happiness but the pursuit of happiness. What they might have underlined, could they have foreseen the happiness-market, is the cardinal fact that happiness is in the pursuit itself, in the meaningful pursuit of what is life-engaging and life-revealing, which is to say, in the idea of becoming. A nation is not measured by what it possesses or wants to possess, but by what it wants to become” (Ciardi, par. 10). Even though I disagree most part of his article because it seems like only the Americans always un-happy, and don't know what happiness is. I think not only americans but other country can be un-happy in my own opinion. Despite the article, I really like the last paragraph because it “is not measured by what it possesses or wants to possess, but what it want to become” to be happy. Meanwhile, choosing Aristotle theory to help define happiness to support Dalai Lama and John Ciardi's

Happiness is not the same to all people, depending on what kind of morals and ethics they have or what religion they followed. Aristotle’s definition of happiness “is a certain activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue.” (pg651) Aristotle used his power and greatness to influence others on the virtues and benefits of ethics and good morals. Some have different ideas on what happiness is to them. It could be money or possession, honor, pleasure, reason or health.

Despite the differences, each culture has its own way for people to strive to find happiness. Each way must also have some basis because neither country is void of happy and healthy people. This brings the question to mind, how can people find happiness in both ways? While I may not be able to give a perfect answer that can be backed by facts and endless amounts of evidence, I can give my opinion on how this is possible.

In Brave New World, the author suggests that we should seek something else in life other than our happiness by using characters that believe they are happy, and characters who do not. Some characters are happy because they rule over others with dominance and authority. While other characters struggle with internal and external happiness because they are put in a life not suited for natural human functionability. Happiness is defined by the leaders and model citizens of World State by crossing a terror with a false happiness. For example, Mustapha Mond states that “You all remember, I suppose, that beautiful and inspired saying of Our Ford’s:

Happiness is one of the highest regarded human sentiments in moral philosophy. Most ethical theories take happiness into consideration in some way. The Dalai Lama’s proposal of ethics is no exception, as his ideas are based off the principle of achieving happiness. The Dalai Lama asserts that everyone is the same, in that everyone is a human being who wishes to be happy and avoid suffering. As much as happiness is considered in moral philosophy, there are many different interpretations of what happiness is and how it can be achieved.

Our internal world governs our happiness, not conditions put upon us from our external environment or conditions we place on ourselves. To put it another way, our search for happiness is the very reason we’re unhappy (McLeod, 2007). Psychology considers happiness an emotion or mental state and a predictor of how well one’s life is going. Some say that happiness is a choice, and therefore a behavior that one chooses. Happiness is a way of interpreting the world, since while it may be difficult to change the world, it is always possible to change the way we look at it (McLeod, 2007).

Happiness is the fundamental objective of life. This bold statement is unanimously agreed upon among generations of people on every corner of our planet. However, the real question that has been contested for centuries is the true meaning of happiness? The true meaning of happiness is one of the most highly debated philosophy topics in history. Most famous are the writings of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill who both paint very opposing pictures of happiness. Mill believes happiness is obtained through pleasure and the absence of pain. On the other hand, Aristotle insist happiness is obtained through living a fulfilling, virtuous life. This passage will examine Aristotle 's and Mill 's views on happiness as well as give an opinion one which philosophical theory is most convincing.

Cultural values are different for everyone and some people get happiness by abiding their cultural values with different opinions regarding them. As far as I am concerned my cultural values give me happiness because I don’t feel like I am compelled to do anything in any way and I can follow my culture and at the same time I can stand up for what I believe in.

Happiness, to Aristotle, is a term for which much exactitude must be made. He understands that, "Happiness both the refined and the few call it, but about the nature of this Happiness, men dispute." As such, he goes to great lengths to attain a fairly accurate accounting of what he sees as Happiness. He begins by illustrating that Happiness is an End, establishes what he finds the work of Man to be, sets conditions on being happy, and then explains where in Man the cultivation of Happiness is to be sought. The result of all these ideas is his fully developed sense of Happiness, an understanding vital to his conception of Ethics.

It is common sense that all the human beings would like to live a happy life and they will spare no efforts in order to realize the purpose of really living a happy life in the end. However, different people have different definitions toward what a happy life is and they tend to have different standards as for how a life is that can be regarded as a happy life. There is no doubt that people will then try different means in order to pursue a happy life based on their definition toward what a happy life is. Therefore, the following will talk about the pursuit of a happy life from the perspectives of both Dalai Lama in The Art of Happiness and Viktor E. Frankl in Man’s Searching for Meaning, during which the experiences of some characters from the film Forrest Gump will be applied as evidence. Generally speaking, the pursuit of a happy life in the minds of Dalai Lama and Viktor E. Frankl can be achieved via experiencing sufferings and adversity. It is hoped that this analysis can help people understand what a happy is from a different point of view.