5-Jun-14
Philosophy of Happiness
Philosophy of Happiness
The presented book, "Classical philosophical question" is an explicit piece of art that presents scholarly opinions and arguments over human and the fundamentals of human sociology. The book presented opinion over the aspects of free will, abortion, metaphysics, pornography and ethics. The referred features are discussed from numerous dimensions to study the social, political and religious aspects of the element of study in the light of scholarly professors as senior. These include Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, Sartre, Camus, Hanson, Grimshaw, Nietzsche, and many others. Hence, the preposition presented in the work is supported by authentic theories and concepts presented by literary scholars in the field of investigation. Likewise, the scholars to argue over the essence of the element that arouse have explored the element of happiness from the basics in ethics. Thus, it could also be regarded that the study presents an explanation of theories to investigate the fundamentals of ethics over the spectrums of happiness and its obligations. In this reference, numerous scholars consider the element from different dimensions. For example, Aristotle considers the basic in ethic as happiness which is to live virtually. Jeremy Bentham depicts happiness as the greatest pleasure for a greater of number, Immanuel Kant refers happiness is superseded by duty, Friedrich Nietzsche regard and happiness as power. Hence, in the book " Classic Philosophical Questions" "the single factor of happiness is observed by four different scholars in the distinct opinionanddimensions.
An indepth review of the presented opinion elaborated in the book have greatly assisted in the retrospection of the origin of happinessandit’s attributes, casting it’s impact over ethics. Though almost all the Literary supports presented by the scholars, are strong enough to divert the observation. Even then my opinion over the element of the philosophy is a bit different. As says Aristotle, "ethics becomes obligation or happiness. While, as Aristotle mentions it " the feeling of living virtuously". It doesn’t mean that "those who does not live virtuously are not happy". So, if they are not happy, then why they do not change their mode of action to attain happiness. The point of my argument is that happiness of each individual is distinct in its perception and varies greatly from philosophical aspect. As Jenny Bonthom regards happiness as "greatest pager for the greatest number of people", it is not necessary that every individual do have do practice the same kind of understanding /attitude. Particularly in prevailing era, the more exclusive the pleasure is, the more happy people become. Than says a man referring is happiness an element that comes after duty. To some extent, I agree to the point as duty brings the satisfaction which eventually leads to happiness. However, in particular, happiness in itself is distinct in reference to the source for each individual, which is interlinked to the personal nature of an individual rather than fixed model of assumptions. In my opinion, the primary observation to gain an insight over the source of happiness should be curtailed on the ground of human attributes rather than the philosophy of situational considerations and observations. However, the observation of the source of happiness from secondary point of analysis is fair enough to be studied under the projected definitions of the scholars.
Reference;
Gould, J. A. (1977). Classic Philosophical Questions, 9/e. South Florida: Prentice Hall Humanities/Social Science.
