Pessimism In Herman Hesse's 'On The Suffering Of The World'

When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong

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.

“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human

Many theorist believe that happiness is the only important in people's life, and all that should matter to a person is being happy. The standard of assessing a good life is how much or quantity of happiness it contains. This openness of happiness, its generosity of spirit and width of appreciation, gets warped and constricted by the claim pretending to be its greatest friend—that only happiness matters, nothing else. Robert Nozick does not on the side of hedonistic utilitarianism, he gives several examples to show that there are other elements of reality we may strive for, even at the expense of pleasure. In this essay, I will focus on Nozick's opinion of the direction of happiness and the experience

Famous actor and comedian, Robin Williams, was very well known and lived a life with richness and supporting loved ones, but it must not have been all it was looked to be. He must not have been truly happy with his life because he committed suicide. Similarly, in the book, Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse, Siddhartha is not able to find true happiness. Siddhartha leaves his family in the beginning of the book because he wants to find himself. Then he ends up with the Samanas and is there for a while, but then he decides he has not truly found himself yet. So, he leaves again and meets this man on a ferry boat that encourages him to find enlightenment. Siddhartha then meets this woman named Kamala and they fall “in love” and he becomes wealthy and believes that he is happy. But after a while, he leaves Kamala and all of his wealth and social honor behind because he has not found enlightenment. All this shows the reader that Siddhartha does not find happiness with wealth and social status, as shown when he leaves Kamala and everything he has to go find himself and is only able to find enlightenment as a ferryman, which is not a wealthy position or rank in life.

Sacrificed the truth, beauty and the right to think, happiness and comfort is just indulgent, it is the discomfort brought by the misery, responsibility and the bonding give us the weight of life. The world is full of people who try hard to gain happiness, and we all have at least one time the idea of living in a perfect world, a world without pain, without misery, without getting old and without cancers. We always ignored the importance and the beauty of uncomfortableness, just as a quote in this book said, “Stability isn’t nearly so spectacular as instability. And being contented has none of the glamour of a good fight against misfortune, none of the picturesqueness of a struggle with temptation, or a fatal overthrow by passion or doubt. Happiness is never grand”. After read this book, I started to be more objective at those bad things I used to hate, to understand the significance of art and to be grateful to this imperfect world we are

Ursula le guin's the ones who walk away from Omelas brought us an issue about happiness: could the happiness built on the suffering of the other be called as happiness? morally speaking, this utilitarianism mind-set of majority's interest over the sacrifice of individuals idea is wrong because human beings can not be evaluated like an object: the life of every individual is meaningful and it is the freedom of himself to decide his own destiny. however, in the daily practice, we find that people keep calculating the strength and weakness in order to achieve the best outcome. unfortunately, we have to reluctantly admit that life is a trade-off itself.

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

The short story, “The Happy Man” by Naguib Mahfouz, discusses the human condition, presenting existentialism as its central theme. Specifically, the story seeks to illustrate unhappiness of the common man and the effect it has on his life. It is an allegorical piece, in which the unnamed protagonist showcases the state of the human as unhappy; only scarcely finding joy. Indeed, the euphoric feeling the protagonist feels is contrary to what he usually feels and has adverse effects on his lifestyle. Mahfouz uses happiness to show that people are intrinsically unhappy as the protagonist ultimately seeks to remove his euphoria. He

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.

In addition, both touch on the topic of absolute happiness and its connection to existentialism, both sharing a somewhat grim look on the subject matter. First of all, absolute happiness “implies total and all consuming happiness. You are nothing but happy all the time, and as such have no understanding of other counter feelings.”[1],

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

In “On The Sufferings of the World,” Arthur Schopenhauer has a pessimistic outlook on life. He believes that suffering is a part of life and that without suffering, the world would be an even more miserable place. As many people may assume, life gets better as you grow older. Schopenhauer however disagrees with this statement and claims that life continually deteriorates. Before reading this piece I strongly believed that I was an optimist. I always like to see the bright side of situations but, Schopenhauer really gave me a different outlook on life, a pessimistic view, and I surprisingly agreed with many of his ideas. Although this is true, at the end of the reading, I disagreed with more ideas than not. Therefore, I do not think that Schopenhauer’s account on life is a good proposal to live by because not everyone is continuously miserable in their life and it is perfectly reasonable to have a positive outlook on life.

The concept of happiness has eluded philosophers and intellectuals since the beginning of mankind’s ability to reason; though many have attempted to create overarching theories regarding the phenomenon, all have fallen short of grasping the dual nature of its formation: both demanding of hard work and of faith in some higher, seemingly transcendent force. Giorgio Agamben’s piece “Magic and Happiness,” an excerpt from his work Profanations, is no exception. The passage argues in favor of a belief in “magic,” a divine and all-encompassing force that presents, in his opinion, the solitary path towards true happiness. His argument, formed around the notion that persistent effort and achievement ultimately cannot yield happiness in the long

What is happiness? What is existence? What is real? What means and ends drive human action and existence? Philosophers have speculated and explored these types of questions for centuries in efforts to answer them. Interestingly, children’s books too, explore such questions and act as a fundamental tool in the teaching of philosophical concepts and ideas. Specific to Sylvester and the Magic Pebble, this reading response will briefly illustrate how William Steig tackles the philosophical and metaphysical matters of human nature, existence, and happiness.