The Reasons To Love Harry Frankfurt Summary

An individual who’s influenced by power, control and corruption is often the king that chooses how the game is played. In Marele Day’s novel, The life and Crimes of Harry Lavender uses a variety of plots, settings and characteristic features that display how power and corruption can influence an individual’s superiority over an entire city.

Ever since the beginning of time, love has played an enormous role among humans. Everyone feels a need to love and to be loved. Some attempt to fill this yearning with activities and possessions that will not satisfy – with activities in which they should not participate and possessions they should not own. In Andrew Marvell’s poem, “To His Coy Mistress,” the speaker encounters an emotion some would call love but fits better under the designation of lust for a woman. In contrast, the speaker of Robert Herrick’s poem, “To the Virgins, to Make Much of Time,” urges virgins to marry, to make a lasting commitment in which love plays a

Viktor Chemmel sees wanting more as a basic German right. He also thinks that taking “what is rightfully ours” is a right. He says, “No crime in wanting a little more… Wanting more is our

We are meant to become our truest selves by finding meaning in our lives, which, according to Frankl, can come from three places: work, love, and our attitude in the face of horrific suffering or difficulty. And at the center of this meaning is our responsibility and human right to choose. In Frankl’s theory, we all strive to fulfill a self-chosen goal, from which meaning has the potential to be found. And if no meaning is found, there is meaning yet to be found, or meaning to be drawn from the apparent lack of meaning. Whatever the case, Frankl viewed man’s lack of meaning as the greatest existential crisis, the stress of this meaninglessness giving life and shape to all of our neuroses.

She, on the contrary, argues that meaningfulness is the predominant reason of a meaningful life. The Fulfillment view and the Larger -than -Oneself view act as a positive catalyst for constructing her own theory of meaningfulness. She continues, ‘According to the conception of meaningfulness I wish to propose, meaning arises from loving objects worthy of love and engaging with them in a positive way. …One might paraphrase this by saying that, according to my conception, meaning arises when subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness, and one is able to do something good or positive about it’ [2010:8-9]. The former view provides the subjective side of the meaningfulness and the latter view provides the objective side of the meaningfulness. Wolf has argued that all meaningful lives have two sides; a ‘subjective’ and an ‘objective’. These can be categorize into three elements ;(i) subjective attraction, (ii) active engagement, and (iii) objective worthiness. The aforementioned two sides have formed together the meaning of life. She names her concept The Fitting Fulfillment view that requires for experience meaning a person should relate to the object of his passion to the objective value of that object. Only good or positive passion can be act as a

Firstly, premise one sets out that the Desire-Satisfaction Theory’s basic consideration is that in order for something to increase our welfare, it must be something we “want, like or care about.” In other words, for something to truly benefit us, it must be something we desire and have a genuine attraction to. To define, the desire-satisfaction theory holds that when something we desire is fulfilled, we receive satisfaction, thus, we benefit. Welfare is defined by Heathwood as things that make us better off, or “fare well.” Similarly, by “benefit” Heathwood is referring to things that make our lives better in themselves. This means that the question of what benefits

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

People usually hear the word goal and they immediately consider their pursuit of happiness. Often, this goal has been in pursuit of a relationship, wealth, or great notoriety that they want; then they will be content. Although many may argue that pursuing happiness as a goal does not have detrimental effects, psychologists, previous wars, along with immigration all illustrate that pursuing happiness has more inimical consequences than advantageous.

“There is nothing wrong with seeking pleasure in material goals, but individuals for whom it becomes the main reason for living are not going to grow beyond what the genes have programmed them to desire.”

Frankfurt begins with several crucial definitions. First, he defines "first-order desires" as desires to act,

Horney’s “Moving Toward” suggests that people are always attempting to make others happy, gain love and to secure that approval and

The major criticism of this argument lays in premise three, its “factual premise” as James Rachel calls it in his book. Opponents of this argument and Rachel being one of them, imply that it is wrong to say that satisfaction is one’s only goal because satisfaction doesn’t even have to be a goal. Satisfaction is the presumable state that results from ob-taining a goal. Thus premise three is wrong. One can say that you can make satisfaction your goal if you will feel bad if you don’t do something, but this is not always the case. Satisfaction can result from something else. And it is also incorrect to say that one makes satisfaction his goal then chooses his desires to fulfill the satisfaction. (J. Rachels p. 82)

Freud proposes the Principle of Satisfaction when aiming to be happy, in other words "a problem of satisfying a person's instinctual wishes (Freud 263)." Consequently, he concludes that because our "appetite" can never be fulfilled, the attainment of happiness will be nothing else than pessimistic. Also, he notes, that not all pleasures or wishes can be satisfied as soon as they are conceived. Freud presents the example of a baby, who, initially, believes that all his/her wishes should be gratified, and only later learns, form the Reality Principle, the harsh truth, that the wishes can not be satisfied instantaneously. More than that, life teaches men that in order to experience happiness one must sacrifice the instant gratification of his/her desires in order to achieve happiness in future. A simple example would be when a businessman decides to work overtime in order to receive more money and, thus, receive more pleasure, of course temporary and in future.

In this paper, I will argue that actual desire theory is the best theory of well-being because it gives people what is truly good for them in life, based off of the satisfaction of their desires. So basically ones’ life goes well to the extent that they get what they want, and the more they get what they want the better their life is. Not only does everyone get what they want, no desire is more important than another desire and everyone gets a good life. Where as in objective list theory your life is good based on an intrinsically valued list that is fixed independently of ones’ desires and opinion on what is important. Most people would think that objective list theory is better because it is good for you even if you don’t want it, but actual desire theory provides you with what you really want in life,

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).