Ox Looks At Man

(…) the earth, seems to me a sterile promontory; this most excellent canopy, the air—look you, this brave o'erhanging firmament, this majestical roof fretted with golden fire (…). What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty! In form and moving how express and admirable! In action how like an angel, in apprehension how like

Disgusted, the speaker sees how society has morally degraded itself in exchange for wealth and greed. The frustrated tone of the poem becomes further elevated when the speaker exclaims, "We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!" (4). Blinded by the daily drudgeries of life, people have become impervious to nature, despite some of the grand displays that one can behold. The speaker describes beautiful images of nature such as the sea, howling winds, and flowers that no longer create an emotional response in people. Since the world has become so out of touch with nature, mankind is no longer able to appreciate the drama that takes place between the wind and the moon. Additionally, the speaker claims that society has become so indifferent to nature that, "Little we see in Nature that is ours;" (3).

I believe that one of the ultimate questions that all members of the human species asks is ‘How can I find happiness?’ and reflected in this question is a desire to find a happy, fulfilling, quality life. Many people try to find such happiness through their careers, material possessions, and all manner of other pursuits. What a large portion of these people do not realize is that happiness and the elements necessary to achieve a quality life may not come from place, position, or possession but from attitude. In both Gilgamesh by Stephen Mitchell and Sunny Chernobyl by Andrew Blackwell, the reader can see these ideas explored in great detail.

In the poem “Thou Blind Man’s Mark” by Sir Philip Sidney, the speaker is struggling with his desire for someone or something. They are fighting this feeling for control over his thoughts and mind. It is shown that both the speaker and desire are constantly fighting, with neither fully able to take control. This fact is evident through Sidney’s use of violent diction, personification of desire, and oxymorons.

At this moment, the human civilization is falling apart. The shield that guards the safety of men is broken by wars and conflicts. The hearts of people are injured severely by hatred, inequality, and discrimination. Countries lump into anarchy as laws and orders fall apart. And day by day, promises have been broken so frequently that it becomes a norm, and the meanings of words fall into ashes as people progress on deception. The world is gradually transforming itself into a pure arena, where people disguise as hounds and serpents simultaneously. However, amidst this chaos, there stands supreme thing keeping the pieces of mankind’s civilization together—the Law of Nature.

As human beings we are naturally wired to seek happiness wherever we can find it. When we don’t, we may enter a stage of anger, anxiety, or distress. That’s why it is our personal goal to look for happiness and preserve it once we acquire it. Many have explored ways to find what triggers this feeling of “happiness” and what we can do to keep it; nonetheless, the evidence found is hardly sufficient to make a public statement on how to find happiness. For this reason, most of the time we speculate what might provoke this feeling of contentment. “Happiness is a glass half empty,” an essay written by Oliver Burkeman, highlights the importance of happiness and discloses how we can find delight through unorthodox methods. The prime objective of this piece of writing is to inform the audience about the effect of happiness on their lives and how their usual attempts of becoming happier can sabotage achieving this feeling. Furthermore, he wants to promote the benefits of pessimism and describe how it can help us in the long run. The author utilizes pronouns, logos, and pathos in order to prove his point and draw the audience into his essay, in an attempt of making them reconsider the way they live their lives and adopt this new pessimistic way that would greatly boost their level of happiness.

“We are all frogs or cows; we wander through life in a state of perpetual bafflement because empathy is so hard – harder than anger, harder than pity” (Fadiman, 1988, p. 300).

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

There are certain things that are in the control of the humans, at the same time there are several things, which are not under the human’s control. Thus, to persist a happy life, the humans are required to put an end their desire such that the satisfaction of

Human beings have a need for self-actualization that involves growing towards courage, kindness, knowledge, love, honesty, and unselfishness. When we fulfill this need, we feel serene, joyful, filled with zest, sometimes euphoric, and generally happy. When we act contrary to our need for self-actualization, we experience anxiety, despair, boredom, shame, emptiness and are generally unable to enjoy ourselves. (Singer 327-328).

Auden’s poem is a criticism of human perceptions and how we use them to detect, or suppress human suffering. In the first half of the poem Auden “compares versions of indifference by portraying youth and age, animals, and humans” (Shmoop, 2014). In the first few lines of the poem, Auden comments on the perceptions of the “Old Masters” and how they were never wrong in their discernment of suffering. He then compares the old masters perceptions to the perceptions of children and animals and how they are unaware of,

In today’s materialistic world, the phrase that ‘money can’t buy happiness’ is tending to be proved hence otherwise. Social research and surveys have shown results based on an individuals income, health and the political scenario which is dominant in his or her region. It is quite obvious that the gap between the privileged and the not so is growing into a great divide giving rise to different class and status, thus defining ones social circle. It should therefore be understood how an individuals economic status affects their personal happiness throughout all aspects of life. Many tend to refer to this age-old quote especially when they tend to belong to sector of people who can’t afford the modern day luxuries of life. What they do not

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.

The third component, however, is somewhat difficult to grasp and harder for some to accept; but it is also the most crucial when adopting the attitude of respect. If one fails to accept Taylor’s third element then one cannot adopt the attitude of respect. This is where Taylor is mistaken. Taylor fails, or at least neglects, to consider the importance of his third element. Instead, he places most of the emphasis on moving to deny human superiority and then concludes that by doing so only then can one respect nature. Yet, in order to allow Taylor’s fourth element, one must first concede that all Teleological Centers of Life have equal inherent worth. Therefore, when one accepts and believes the third component of the biocentric outlook only then can they adopt the attitude of respect. Subsequently, I plan to show that the third element and not the fourth is fundamental in adopting the attitude of respect.

However, those people with the means are reluctant to sacrifice an excessive amount that they would descend in status (Mill 89). Those who are of lower faculties #, and thus have less enjoyment, are more easily satisfied (Mill 90). Compared to their inferiors, people of higher classes continue to seek happiness and are never truly satisfied. Mill links this continuous search with dignity (Mill 90). Due to the sense of dignity, “someone will not feel envious of those who bear imperfections because he does not understand the benefits of those limitations” # (Mill 91). In explaining this concept, Mill compares a human being dissatisfied to a pig satisfied and Socrates dissatisfied to a fool satisfied. The pig and fool reason that they are well-off, but the human being and Socrates know they are superior because they are further educated (Mill 91).