Possibilities.

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?

According to his book, Civilization and its Discontents, Sigmund Freud states that is far easier to be unhappy than happy. It requires more effort to experience happiness as opposed to unhappiness. We are vulnerable to suffering via our own bodies, our environment and our relations with other people. However, simply because Freud states that it is more challenging to be happy, it does not mean it is unmanageable to feel joy. Difficulty is not synonymous with impossibility.

                Freud mentions in Civilization and its Discontents, that because there is so much opportunity for displeasure in life, that men have begun to lower their standards on what constitutes the feeling of ‘happiness’.  He goes on to say that some men will confuse happiness with simply escaping unhappiness. I am glad to say that I am not nearly as pessimistic or analytical (however you choose to see it) as Sigmund Freud and believe that humans, as a species, do not suffer a great deal from searching for happiness.

Through our lives, we try to find purpose or a calling. We run into obstacles which cause us grief and misery. Perhaps Freud is correct to say that it is easier to feel unhappiness as we are often encompassed by it in our lives. Nonetheless, despite all obstacles, every time we overcome one, we feel a sense of pride and accomplishment. I know that I myself find joy in even the little things, such as when the weather is sunny as opposed to rain or when I just make the bus instead of waiting half an hour for the next one. This sensation, the feeling of triumph, pulls us through and we continue. If we didn’t – if all humans couldn’t withstand the hurdles of life – our species would’ve died out thousands of years ago.

Freud does discuss in his work that happiness is possible. He emphasizes that unhappiness is more likely and he alludes that living a blissful life "means putting enjoyment before caution" (Freud, pg. 44-45) and thus "brings its own punishment" (pg. 45). Regardless of whether or not Freud is correct about the ability to feel happiness throughout human life, I find that his view is far too negative for me. It would be beneficial for the spirit to not spend so much time considering all the ways in which we indulge in unhappiness.

Cited Works:
Sigmund Freud, Civilizations and its Discontents.

Socrates.

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate? Is this a fair trial?

Impiety. Were this all to take place during a modern day and age, there would be many reasons to call the charges illegitimate and prejudiced. However, at the time that Plato and Socrates lived in Athens, I suppose that it was a great wrong to be impious. However, even then, I do not believe that the charges laid against Socrates were fair. He says to Euthyphro that Meletus is prosecuting him on the grounds that he is “inventing new gods and for not believing in the old ones” (Plato, pg. 2). The way the charges are presented in Plato’s Euthyphro gives one the impression that Meletus is simply singling out Socrates because he does not agree with the teachings of Socrates and does not want them to be spread. The legitimacy of Socrates’ impiety does not seem to be a main factor in the prosecution.

Due to his conversation with Euthyphro, it is evident that no matter what the circumstance, Socrates is always prepared to mentor other people. Instead of truly preparing for his case, he instead takes the time to question Euthyphro as to why he would want to prosecute his own father. He then continuously questions Euthyphro on the definition of piety and impiety – pointing out flaws in each definition that Euthyphro gives. Through this method, it seems that Socrates truly wants him to figure out what piety and impiety is (although, by the end, Euthyphro just seems frustrated by the constant correction and questioning).

I can’t imagine that the trial against Socrates would be a fair and just one. One receives the impression from the text that the men of power in Athens simply want to suppress change amongst the youth. As stated by Socrates (and supported earlier by Euthyphro), “as soon as they think he [a clever man] makes other people clever, they get angry, whether it be from resentment, as you [Euthyphro] say, or for some other reason” (Plato, pg. 2).  This kind of case would not even make it to a modern-day court. if Socrates were to be found guilty today, with as little evidence as there was back then, it would put the whole justice system into refute. When the charges have a weak validity, more often than not, the trial will not be impartial.

The charges and trial against Socrates does not seem to be fair and unbiased. The men of Athens appear to be angered at the teachings of the great philosopher and to want to put an end to the spread of his beliefs. Throughout the entire text of Euthyphro, he does not appear to corrupt the mind of Euthyphro with his beliefs in deities different than those recognized by the state. In fact, Socrates’ inquiries can be interpreted as trying to lead Euthyphro to his own correct definition of piety and impiety – as opposed to Socrates simply answering the question himself. 

Works Cited:

Plato, Euthyphro.