##s Of Love In Karen Armstrong's 'Homo Religiosus'

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.

The second great force at the turn of the century is itself global: the emergence of women in the public sphere, including the public face of religion. This is in part a function of women's growing economic and political power, but also a result of religion itself coming into the public sphere in new ways. Many aspects of religion have long been considered private and relegated largely to the context of home and family, where women have often been the primary practitioners, though men might dominate in institutional leadership positions. As both religion and women move out of the private into the public sphere, new challenges arise. For example, central facets of family and home – particularly love and sex – which have more traditionally been the purview of women and of religion have entered the realm

Thesis: Many people assume the things we are attracted to will relieve suffering and bring happiness

Happiness is a euphoric state, it is the light at the end of the tunnel, it is what individuals seek to achieve. Human beings inherently want to be happy. Happiness is unique because it has seven billion different definitions. In his book Immune to Reality, Daniel Gilbert argues that individuals are only as happy as the subconscious function of their brain allows them to be. Additionally, he questions the state of happiness by citing the psychological immune system. The psychological immune system is a subconscious process of the human brain, which favorably rationalizes human decisions whether they were right or not, regardless of outcome it always finds something favorable to take away. In Barbara Fredrickson’s Love 2.0, she introduces the vagus nerve as a biological apparatus to increase loving potential; Fredrickson links higher levels of loving potential to increased overall health. Most importantly, Fredrickson establishes the relationship between love and happiness as an interdependent one, “Having at least one close relationship like this is vital to your health and happiness” (108). Fredrickson believes that humans have the power within them to biologically alter themselves and to shape their own identity. Inversely, Malcolm Gladwell proclaims that human identity is shaped by the environment an individual is subject to in his book The Power of Context. Gladwell affirms that humans have the power to shape their identity, however only by changing the

People travel through life with what seems like a single goal: to be happy. This may seem like a selfish way to live, however this lone objective is the motivation behind nearly all actions. Even seemingly selfless deeds make people feel better about themselves. That warm feeling experienced while doing charitable acts can be described as happiness. But what is authentic happiness? There is an endless possibility of answers to this question, and man seems to be always searching for the solution. Although one may reach his or her goals, there is always still something one strives for in order to be happy. In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert takes the reader through

It causes the body to release endorphins, chemicals that can help you feel more energized, peaceful, and happy.

Love can be whatever one makes it out to be. From basic science to a complex philosophical or mystical idea. A person’s own unique experiences with love make it a concept that is so widely perceived and interpreted. Throughout her piece, Selections from Love 2.0 Barbara Fredrickson tries to broaden her audience’s understanding to a new idea of love. Overall, she claims that love is a biological need. The claim that longevity and quality of life might have lots to do with not only ‘clean air and nutritious food’ but also ‘your supply of love’ are accurate to a certain extent. A constant supply of love is needed for a better quality of life but it is not necessarily needed to live a long life. If the claim is taken to be true, then a weak supply of love would result in a person just existing and not living life to their fullest or connecting to other human beings; therefore, they would be incomplete without it.

According to the classic sense, a life full of happiness is a life that manifests wisdom, kindness, and goodness. However happiness has been twisted by a secular culture and the classic sense has given away to “pleasurable satisfaction”. Pleasurable satisfaction depends on external circumstances going well. Moreland points out that because of this the modern sense of happiness, “pleasurable satisfaction”, is unstable and varies with life’s circumstances. Pleasurable satisfaction becomes increasingly addictive and enslaving if it becomes the dominant aim of one’s life. By contrast, classical happiness brings freedom and power to life as one ought, as one increasingly becomes a unified person who lives for a cause bigger than one’s self. Western culture has been disillusioned into seeking happiness as their main priority in life. Although, happiness is important, when its importance becomes exaggerated, it leads to a loss of purpose in life, and even depression. What Western cultures need to realize is that true happiness can never be achieved. Over the past 50 years, levels of health, wealth, and liberties have increased, but levels of happiness haven’t.

If you’re not paying attention, the mind can be a tricky labyrinth. The less you know about it, the more inexplicable and frightening it becomes. For example, why do seemingly benign elephants wreak havoc upon villages? In “An Elephant Crackup,” Charles Siebert explores the aberrant nature of these elephants and correlates them to their traumatizing upbringing, deprived of community and kinship. The biochemistry of the human mind, analyzed in “Love2.0” by Barbara Frederickson, serves as a worthy addendum to Siebert’s conjecture. “Love2.0” explains that the brain, hormones, and nerves work in unison to build emotional fortitude, stimulate oneself, and express positivity resonance. Siebert’s ideas of elephant culture and trans-species psyche can put Frederickson’s theory of emotions into practice. The absence of certain hormones within elephants, provided their fragmented community, can explain their volatile outbreaks. Alternatively, the reinstitution of human parental roles into elephant culture can help reconstruct their broken emotional states of elephants and rebuild their resilience; this healing process can also extend to humans.

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

Conceived in eras of uncertainty and strife, many people weave through the contradictions and inner struggles within communities, while also indulging themselves in the broad concept of redefining themselves just to feel accepted by the society around them. In “Homo religiosus” Karen Armstrong brings out the materialized definition of an “individual” through concepts such as religion, activities like yoga, the artistic features of caves, and most importantly the image of Brahma. The detailed notions placed on each concept yields the reassuring meaning that religion symbolically is a safe harbor, in which individuals can feel comforted and relieved. However the question that always comes up is if an individual is willing to exclude themselves from the harsh realities of society. As the essay progresses, Armstrong 's usage of words such as kenosis—emptying—, junzi—maturity—, and anatta—dethrone—broadens the idea on how an individual’s illusion of an identity can be renewed and reached (14,17). However with the brutish imagery that is brought up throughout the essay a sense of isolation and hopelessness, making for a mood of muted panic and dread questions the truth behind the meaning of a “being”. Yet in the end the idea that there is a world outside the circles of human existence, gets the individual going as they search for something worth living for.

Carson McCullers’s The Heart is a Lonely Hunter is a novel about loneliness and the path in which the protagonist, John Singer, takes in order to fulfill his sense of self-identity through a specific form of worship. Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” is a short story about a man’s who seeks to be accepted by all but remains alone due to his constant struggle with self-identification, as he attempts to find himself through others religion. With this in mind, I have come to the inquiry of How does the use of worship symbolism in both Carson McCullers’s The Heart is a Lonely Hunter and Nathaniel Hawthorne’s “Young Goodman Brown” show that ultimately

helps reduce the negative effects of stress, but also leads to a better sense of

The everlasting question of "What is Happiness?" has been inquired since the creation of men. Unfortunately, the only agreed answer that humanity came up with is that all the creatures seek happiness, but no one has the concrete directions for achieving it. Our libraries are overwhelmed with books about happiness, but no dictionary definition explains which path men must take to be happy. No mathematician gave us the axiom which we could use to solve the problem of living in bliss. No scientist brought up the formula of fusing certain ingredients to produce the "drink of happiness". Still almost all the people consider that their ultimate purport in