Robert Nozick : The Ideal Life Of Happiness

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

David Sosa, author of The Spoils of Happiness, creates a new perspective to the “what is happiness?” conundrum. As we all pondered at the idea, I, for one never went into much depth. Sosa, intrigues us with a theoretical question based off a movie, The Matrix. Would you plug into an artificial intelligence that makes you think you are living a happy life? Well, after reading this article, Sosa himself would not. His thesis is: happiness is more like knowledge than a belief. In the following paragraphs I will discuss Sosa’s thesis and give my arguments.

Happiness is an essential goal for most people. From books and expensive classes that teach people how to achieve happiness to the fundamental right of “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, the importance of happiness is evident in society. This causes the rise to two fundamental questions: “How does one attain happiness?” and “,How does happiness create a meaningful life?” Both happiness and living a meaningful life are achieved simultaneously. The search for happiness and the factors that make it brings meaning to life. Happiness can stem from several factors such as wisdom and knowledge, savoring life and its experiences, and even suffering and pain. Analyzing these factors brings meaning to one’s life.

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.

“God grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference” (Lyubomirsky, 194). There are certain things in life that are uncontrollable and there is nothing anyone can do to change that, however there is a handful of things that are by choice. In her essay, How Happy Are You and Why?, Sonja Lyubomirsky proposes that everyone has a “genetically determined predisposition for happiness (or unhappiness) accounts for the differences between” each person (186). Lyubomirsky theorizes that everyone has a “set point” that is predetermined by genetics which represents the level of happiness a person experiences. In an attempt to offer people a way to gauge their own “set point,” she suggests a questionnaire that she has created to determine this number. The problem with this theory is that the questionnaire is subjective and reliant on circumstances. Her argument is problematic because she does not account for both happiness and

In “Happiness: Enough Already,” Sharon Begley argues that happiness is overrated and it should not always be a priority in your life.

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

As humans we are constantly in search of understanding the balance between what feels good and what is right. Humans try to take full advantage of experiencing pleasure to its fullest potential. Hedonism claims that pleasure is the highest and only source of essential significance. If the notion of hedonism is truthful, happiness is directly correlated with pleasure. Robert Nozick presented the philosophical world with his though experiment, “The Experience Machine” in order to dispute the existence and validity of hedonism. Nozick’s thought experiment poses the question of whether or not humans would plug into a machine which produces any desired experience. Nozick weakens the notion of hedonism through his thought experiment, claiming

Happiness. It is not tangible, measurable or even understandable. Yet, above all other things, it is what people seek the most. Individuals draw happiness from a number of different sources,presumably causing the confusion as to why happiness can not be traced back to a specific object. Still, how can you possibly meet the expectations of being happy? This article will attempt to demystify the subject of happiness.

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

The purpose of the lecture is to encourage people to understand the true phycology of happiness. Most people do not understand the way of thinking or how the brain works. Dan Gilbert states the understanding of thought as an unknown bias because of the “psychological immune system”(4:30) making humans have a preconceived notion about happiness. People subconsciously divide happiness in to two categories: natural happiness and synthetic happiness. Natural happiness occurs in the brain when someone gets what they want.

What is Happiness? Well, In Brave New World, by Aldous Huxley (great book by the way), the people that lived in this dystopian world, called World State, had a motto/goal that they believed that it provided them happiness; “Community, Identity, and Stability.” Which basically meant that you have no individuality, so that your community has stability. In addition to that, all they did was have sex and drugs which made them oblivious to how their “perfect” society is not so perfect. They also scientifically altered how humans reproduced, so instead of being born from the womb, people were being “born” from tubes, and in those tubes, they prepare you for the job or role you will be forced to do for the rest of your life. The best part? They use

The rhetorical factors in the article “Buying Experiences, Not Things” written by James Hamblin are clear and easy to decipher. The article discusses the psychological factors in a human of being happy. Psychologists and scientists are constantly doing research and studies trying to determine how the brain works, and how people’s minds function every day of their lives. Whether its sleep, knowledge, substance abuse or functions of each part of the brain, every little piece of information gathered helps complete the bigger picture. Emotions are a popular study in psychology. Psychologists are trying to find a way to measure the emotions of people that occur on a daily basis. Research is also being done in search of a form of measurement to measure people’s happiness. Happiness is considered to be an important factor in life.

Robert Nozick is a philosopher who seeks to disprove the utilitarian notion of hedonism through a thought experiment that he has entitles “The Experience Machine” (Nozick 646). I will first explain the concept of utilitarianism and hedonism, then the experience machine before I give a reply about the inclusion of a third category of pleasure which I have called “meta-pleasure”. Finally, I will show how technology may be disproving the entire experience machine thought experiment altogether.

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).