25 Kant- #5 Mallory S. #6 MacKenzie McD. #7 Emalee
Bentham- #5 Hoang T. #6 Henry H. #7 Caitlyn W.
Hegel- #_ Juan B. #6 Nergiz J. #7 John D.
Schopenhauer- #5 Abby W. #6 Briley C. #7 Koathar A
FL 19-20 or HWT 20-22-
If you missed your reporting date due to illness or weather (etc.), be prepared to present when we have the opportunity.
LHP
1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
2. What was Kant's great insight? Is this a credible form of "armchair philosophy"? Or does it also depend on experience?
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
4. Kant said you should never ___, because ___. Kant called the principle that supports this view the ____ _____. Have you ever violated this principle? If so, do you regret it?
5. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today? If everyone followed this principle would it be a better world?
6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
7. What did Hegel mean when he spoke of the "owl of Minerva"? What did he think had been reached in his lifetime? What would Socrates say about that?
8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject? What would Kant say?
9. What is Geist? When did Hegel say it achieved self-knowledge? Does this seem supernatural and mystical to you, or could it be naturalistic?
10. What "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?
11. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire? Is that the only way? Is that cycle really universal?
Weiner ch5
- What was teenage Arthur Schopenhauer's worldview? What sort of world (by contrast with Leibniz/Pangloss) did he think it is? Do you, or have you ever, felt the same way?
- What kind of listening mattered most to Schopenhauer? Do you share his attitude about that?
- In what sense was Schopenhauer an Idealist? What analogy (similar to one I've suggested applies to Leibniz's monads) does Nigel Warburton suggest characterizes it? Does it seem reasonable to you?
- What are some different names philosophers have applied to the allegedly more real (than sensations) world of Ideas? What "dark twist" did Schopenhauer add?
- How did Schopenhauer say we can escape Will and "shake off the world"? Do you want to shake it off?
- What did Schopenhauer have in common with Rousseau? Do you think his affection-starved childhood may have contributed to his eventual philosophy?
- How does art differ from pornography, on S's view? What's your view?
- Weiner thinks Schopenhauer's Will made manifest in our time is what? Do you agree?
HWT
1. What one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life?
2. Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on what?
3. What did the late Archbishop Tutu say was "the greatest good"?
4. What omission in western ethics would seem bizarre to the classical Chinese thinkers?
5. What is the most famous Confucian maxim?
6. Virtue is never solitary, said Confucius, it always has ____.
FL
1. How, according to Scientific American in 1915, are motion pictures like drugs?
2. What came into existence simultaneously with America and created the concept of celebrity?
3. What place did film critic Pauline Kael call a "fantasy-brothel"?
==
In the “Critique of Pure Reason,” Immanuel Kant writes that “all the interests of my reason,” theoretical as well as practical, boil down to just three questions: “What can I know?” “What ought I do?” and “What can I hope for?” In these three questions, Kant delineated the whole scope of philosophical thought...
I do understand that when [Prof. Allesandri] writes "Against Cheerfulness," she means forced and phony cheer, the "American way [that] borders on psychosis." I don't think she's against the spontaneous and natural sort of joi'e de vivre that even the gloomiest of Guses can occasionally enjoy. No less committed a Scrooge than Schopenhauer, after all, said"Cheerfulness is a direct and immediate gain, — the very coin, as it were, of happiness… for it alone makes us immediately happy in the present moment, and that is the highest blessing for beings like us, whose existence is but an infinitesimal moment between two eternities. To secure and promote this feeling of cheerfulness should be the supreme aim of all our endeavors after happiness." -The Wisdom of Life
Schopenhauer!--the guy who said “What disturbs and depresses young people is the hunt for happiness on the firm assumption that it must be met with in life" (Schopenhauer also said “We can regard our life as a uselessly disturbing episode in the blissful repose of nothingness”)...
But he also said "It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is impossible to find it anywhere else."
And aren't we in fact, in this present moment, happy to be here and looking forward to learning about feeling better about all kinds of feelings?
Though they were sharp philosophical rivals, they were in the same boat with respect to what Kant said about phenomena (appearances) and an ultimate reality beyond them (noumena): he threw up a stop sign, they ran through it (in their very different ways)...
―
“History is not the soil in which happiness grows. The periods of happiness in it are the blank pages of history.” The Philosophy of History
This is Schopenhauer:
"Man can do what he wills but he cannot will what he wills. When we read, another person thinks for us: we merely repeat his mental process. In learning to write, the pupil goes over with his pen what the teacher has outlined in pencil: so in reading; the greater part of the work of thought is already done for us."
When Kant says acting out of emotions does not make you a morally sound person, I immediately think of pathos. Pathos is the rhetorical appeal to emotions. I think of those sad animal commercials begging you to donate money to save the hurting animals. So, if someone were to see that commercial, and let’s say they donated a lot of money to the organization, according to Kant that wouldn’t make them morally sound, because their sense of duty was based on their emotions. This is interesting to me, because like Aristotle, I think if a person feels a level of sympathy and compassion towards a cause and still contributes to the cause, it would make them a better person (because they felt that emotion).
ReplyDeleteI agree! Emotions and morals I feel go hand in hand, you can feel when something is wrong and right, and emotions and logic can also go hand in hand. Whose to say you shouldn't feel emotionally about your morals and what you support, and in fact I think you should.
DeleteI agree with this! He says we should stay strict and follow hard reason, but if it weren’t for our emotions, we couldn’t really build a fair society meant for all. That being said, I can understand how emotions like jealousy or anger, which can make you do rash decisions, comes more in hand to what he was trying to prove.
DeleteI agree! While I do believe that we should generally try to avoid making decisions based on emotions, in the context of morality, I don't see how acting on emotion makes you any less morally sound than someone who just acts on "duty". In fact, I think it's better to involve emotion in this way because I feel as though it is more moral to actually care about a cause rather than to just do something because you feel obligated to do so.
Delete^ I agree with you however, I also disagree that being involved emotionally makes you more just/ moral. I think that if even despite your emotions you chose to do the morally right actions that's better than simply doing them because you feel like it. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, simply that it doesn't make you any more or less moral than another person.
DeleteI agree that emotions do have power in making decisions, and can sometimes uphold or confirm our moral beliefs. However, emotions can be very deceptive. Acting on emotion can lead to damaging events.
Delete“What disturbs and depresses young people is the hunt for happiness on the firm assumption that it must be met with in life" I think this quote highlights how I have felt in the past in regards to my search for happiness. I often would be sad and try so hard to feel happy, but the thought of me not being happy and having to search for it made me much sadder. I think the idea that we must hunt down happiness at times is harmful to us. I say this, because emotions will change, and we shouldn’t be holding on to one emotion and rejecting the others. When we are happy or content we don’t go searching for sadness or anger. We let it come to us, and eventually it will pass and we are happy again. I think there is too much searching for happiness that leads us to being more depressed. Especially with social media, we see everything we could be doing to be happy and that makes us feel worse because our lives don’t reflect that. I am not saying don’t try to pursue happiness, but I am saying: don’t obsess over the emotion, because it will pass… it will come back again always, but no emotion lasts forever.
ReplyDeleteI agree! Sometimes it’s best not to push against our feelings but to take our time and understand ourself . If we were always happy, or always trying to be, we are lying to ourselves and our experiences, because even bad experiences build our character.
DeleteBentham’s Felicific Calculus seems flawed in my eyes. This is mainly because the happiness value of an action will highly vary, because the amount of happiness an action causes is subjective to each person. This leads me to not fully support his theory for a better society. I say this, because there is no true happiness an entire nation can have, there might be a max general happiness, but people will still be miserable in that society because their views on happiness don’t align. I also think you can’t completely erase pain. Pain is what makes pleasure have substance. Without pain, we wouldn’t know the true benefits of pleasure. It might feel good, but if we never felt pain, it wouldn’t matter that it felt good. Pleasure loses its meaning without pain. I honestly like that Bentham was trying to obtain higher levels of happiness for nations, but I think his methods and theories for doing so aren’t plausible.
ReplyDeleteTrue! Everyone will need different needs met for true happiness, and so far it’s seen as impossible, because one person’s needs or wants might cause someone else misery.
DeleteI agree with your view point on this because if someone were to ask me I would call these moments gratification because happiness is not something you can truly obtain.
Delete1. Kant stated that we can see and know the phenomenal world, but we can't know directly about the noumenal world. What he meant by this was that we will be able to see things in the world for how they truly are. But what we can see is the superficial things or things that meet the eye; however, we will not see what deep down is.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is possible for a person to see past our phenomenal world, but many of us either ignore or by instinct of nature not see the noumenal world because it is what we choose.
I disagree, I believe you cannot see past our phenomenal world. The essence of the world is that it is what can be perceived: our experiences, our lives, etc. The nature of things and the universe is not within the confines of human understanding when regarding the noumenal world, the world that exists because it can.
DeleteThis is actually a fair point, and I can understand your viewpoint. I was wrestling with this question because I like to think that some people can be different, but our world is surrounded and thrives off of perception.
Delete5.) Jeremy Bentham is the formulator of the principle of Greatest Happiness. This principle is the idea that the right thing to do is whatever will produce the most happiness, and this method is a form of utilitarianism, but it was called The Felicific Calculus. You can find Jeremy Bentham today at University College London, per his request. His auto-icon is on display there and is a famous attraction at UCL.
ReplyDeleteIn a modern- day world such as ours, I don't necessarily believe that if everyone followed this principle it would be a better world because everyone's idea of "happiness" is not the best or is not practical or realistic. So, it is good to do what makes you happy but there are limitations.
I agree, I don't think this is entirely practical either. What if the thing that would produce the most happiness for some individuals is to gamble, get into fights, or constantly drink? This would certainly result in a negative outcome. I do like the idea in concept, but it would just never work.
Delete7.) Hegel's view of "the owl of Minerva" means that wisdom and understanding of human life and history will only come in later stages of life, when we are looking on the course of what has happened in the past. Hegel believed that in his lifetime he reached an understanding of freedom and rationality in political life, embodying the principles of his unfolding of our history.
ReplyDeleteSocrates would argue with this thought by asking probing questions in order to expose contradictions and clarify underlying assumptions.
This is a good insight. It would do us well to start searching for wisdom earlier in life by asking questions for clarification. It might be easier later in life, however, where wisdom from experiences will be prevalent.
Delete1. Kant believed that we should never lie under any circumstance. He said that emotions and sympathy do not mix with morality. This is a part of the Good Samaritan principle. I do not agree with Kant on this belief. While telling the truth is important, I think you should always consider a person's feelings when telling the truth. Kant seems very blunt when it comes to telling the truth, I still think you can tell the truth with a consideration of sympathy.
ReplyDelete2.Bentham formulated the Greatest Happiness Principle. This means that the right decision is whatever will provide the most happiness in the end. Unlike Kant, this includes lying. Unfortunately, this would not be a good outcome in society. I think eventually people would try to justify their actions by this principle. If they lied under extreme circumstances and they said it was the happiest outcome if they lied.
3. Schopenhauer says that reality is based on will and representation. The World as Representation is the world that we experience through the senses. The World as Will is the blind driving force of everything. Like the way plants grow. Schopenhauer didn't believe that God gave the Will direction. The Will is a great surge of energy. I understand his concept of Will, though it is hard to explain.
2. I think you could see this idea more like a concept rather than a justification of an action. If someone lied in an extreme circumstance, which resulted in less happiness than the alternative, then that would just be the wrong decision. The GHP is still applicable vice versa.
Delete1. I somewhat agree with your perspective of truth being dependent on the context, however personally I think Kants bluntness is what makes telling the truth a moral obligation. While yes, I agree the skewing truth can be met with factual support, it doesn't negate the position that lying is arguably bad.
Delete1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
ReplyDeleteWe can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. In a way he is right because we can only see some colors but other organisms are capable of seeing more colors. We do not know how many colors are in the noumenal world because our perspectives are so limited but in a way, everything would have the same structure so what we see is very similar that there is no need to see the world any differently.
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
Sympathy is irrelevant to morality according to Kant. I believe this to be to be somewhat correct because often times we perform moral acts because it is what is necessary to do as a person. However, I believe that sympathy is merely a motivator or what intensifies morality because if you never feel the need to help someone, then you would be similar to a robot that could do something like picking up the trash. This does not make the robot a moral entity because it had no reason to do it which emotions like sympathy would do.
5. Who formulated the Greatest Happiness principle? What did he call his method? Where can you find him today? If everyone followed this principle would it be a better world?
Jeremy Bentham is the man who created the principle. He called his method the Felicific Calculus. Bentham can be found at the University College London in a glass box that used to have his body until it was replaced by a wax figure. I do not believe everyone would be happy because there are often obstacles that are present everyday that limit us from experiencing much pleasure so it wouldn't work in that regards. There is also the fact that many people might have high standard for their pleasure that they cannot always achieve due to these limitations.
6. Who created a thought experiment that seems to refute Bentham's view of how pleasure relates to human motivation? Would you opt for the machine? Why or why not?
1. What one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life?
ReplyDeleteHarmony – The ideal Chinese way of life is characterized by harmony, which emphasizes balance in relationships, society, and nature.
2. Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on what?
Individualism and equality – Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on the ideas of individualism and equality, which challenge traditional structures of authority.
3. What did the late Archbishop Tutu say was "the greatest good"?
Ubuntu (a sense of shared humanity) – The late Archbishop Desmond Tutu described Ubuntu as “the greatest good,” meaning that a person is a person through their relationships with others.
4. What omission in western ethics would seem bizarre to the classical Chinese thinkers?
The importance of family and social roles – Classical Chinese thinkers emphasized family and social obligations, which are often overlooked in Western ethics that focus more on individual rights and duties.
5. What is the most famous Confucian maxim?
“Do not impose on others what you do not wish for yourself.” – This is the most famous Confucian maxim, similar to the Western Golden Rule.
6. Virtue is never solitary, said Confucius, it always has ____.
Neighbors – Confucius said, “Virtue is never solitary; it always has neighbors,” meaning that moral character is cultivated within a community.
What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
ReplyDeleteKant believed that emotions are irrelevant to morality. This is a very difficult question to answer because every individual operates on the own beliefs, shaped by their own experiences. As humans we are all biologically the same, but we all have very diffrent minds. Within these minds we have different thoughts and ideas of what good and evil is.
I also agree that the answer of this question just depends on the answer's beliefs. I personally believe that certain emotions make us human for example having empathy for another person.
DeleteI do really agree with your position here. I think its important to remember where our sympathy and emotions do come from and it is our experiences. I think this was a good way of putting that belief to words and in my response I followed the same ideas.
DeleteWhat "blind driving force" did Schopenhauer allege to pervade absolutely everything (including us)? Could anyone really know that?
ReplyDeleteThis blind driving force was known as the "will". Will can be defined as a force that drives all living beings to strive, desire, and struggle. It is very difficult to know ones self. First we have to process our actual place in the world and where we desire to be. To find ones will one would have to do deep self reflection and try to understand ones own purpose.
Responding directly to your position on if one could truly know everything about themselves
DeleteI agree with the point that it is difficult to make this attribution in its entirety, knowing oneself is by far much more difficult than knowing what a color is. However, 'the power of will' is a saying for a reason. I genuinely believe there is a presence of will power in every person whether they truly know themselves or not.
11. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire? Is that the only way? Is that cycle really universal?
ReplyDeleteHe believed that one could escape this cycle through art, self denial, and philosophical insight. Through art one could achieve a state of peace and escape from stress. By self denial he means to not accept the cycle, to not accept the past. He also believed by exploring oneself they could discover who they are.
I had no idea that Schopenhauer had that kind of view on the morning, I wholeheartedly agree. It’s something that I hold dear in my life, to keep my mornings quiet for as long as I can. Apart of my morning routine is to start my day without a screen and time in silence
ReplyDeleteThis is so wholesome. Something magical about quiet morning allows it to transcend time and that genuinely so cool. It is wild that that little bit of life every morning Schopenhauer experienced, is something we still experience every day.
DeleteWestern suspicion of hierarchy is built on what? Western suspicion of hierarchy is often built on individualism and egalitarianism.
ReplyDeleteWhat one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life? The one word that most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life, particularly in traditional Chinese philosophy, is "harmony."
Western suspicion of hierarchy is built on what? Western suspicion of hierarchy is often built on individualism and egalitarianism
McKinsley Slicker 005
1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal but not the noumenal world. To an extent, he's right. there are many things that cannot be seen because of biological limits as well as sounds that cant be picked up. there is also phycological factors that can affect that.
ReplyDelete2. According to Kant, emotions are irrelevant to morality. He believed that moral actions must be based on duty and reason and not on feelings like sympathy or compassion. If someone is only acting on an ulterior motive because they think they can benefit from it, then it is immoral, but feelings like sympathy and compassion is what drives people, most of the time, to act and do things for the sake of others.
4. Kant said you should never lie, because lying violates the moral law and cannot be universalized as a principle for everyone. Kant called the principle that supports this view the Categorical Imperative. Id mostly agree, even in situations where you think lying is beneficial, its better to avoid lying and speak the truth. But in some extreme cases, the only option you have, is to lie sometimes.
4. What did Kant say you should never do, and why? What principle supports this view? Have you ever violated this principle?
ReplyDeleteKant said you should never lie, because it violates a moral duty and undermines trust in society. He called the principle that supports this view the Categorical Imperative, which states that one should act only according to a rule that could be universally applied. As for whether you've violated this principle—have you ever told a lie, even a small one? Would Kant consider it justified?
1. What distinction did Kant make between the types of worlds we can know?
Kant said we can know the phenomenal world (the world as we perceive it) but not the noumenal world (the world as it exists in itself, independent of our perception). Whether we truly can separate these is still debated—do you think we can ever know reality as it is, or are we always limited by our senses and minds?
8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject, and what would Kant say about that?
Hegel rejected Kant’s strict separation between phenomena and noumena, arguing that reason and history allow us to grasp reality more fully than Kant believed. Kant, in response, would likely argue that human understanding is still constrained by the limits of perception and that Hegel was too optimistic about reason’s ability to uncover absolute truth. Do you think Hegel was right to push beyond Kant's skepticism?
1. What one word most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life?
The one word that most characterizes the ideal Chinese way of life is "harmony" (和, hé). It represents balance in personal conduct, relationships, and the natural world, deeply rooted in Confucian, Daoist, and Buddhist traditions. Would you say this ideal is similar to or different from Western philosophical ideals?
To answer your first question, I think we all have lied at some point in our life. Though some may argue that lying can be justified in desperate circumstances, many of us have not been in a situation like that. Therefore, I believe lying is not justifiable, if practiced often, will weaken our credibility.
Delete1. Kant said we can know the ____ but not the ____ world. Can we?
ReplyDeleteKant said we can know the phenomena (the way we percieve the world with our own senses) but not the noumena (reality of the world). I think I agree because we never know what we don't know, and there is a lot about the world that we don't know. For example, there are some things that humans cannot percieve with out 5 senses that certain animals ARE able to percieve, or there are places we have yet to discover.
3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
According to Kant, emotions, culture, and consequences are irrelevant to morality. He believed morality shouldn't be based on personal feelings and instead be reasonable. He also believed they should be universal and shouldn't differ based on culture. He believed that morality should be judged based on whether an action is done because of your duty and if it follows the universal laws of morality that he believes in.
8. What Kantian view did Hegel reject? What would Kant say?
Hegel rejected Kants idea that we can know the phenomena but not the noumena. He instead believed in absolute idealism, that everything is connected as one process that develops over time. Kant would ultimately reject this and explain that we can never truly understand reality.
Do you believe it is your rational duty to help someone out regardless of emotions, or lack of?
ReplyDelete1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. In my opinion nobody can experience the noumenal world because we will all see the world from our own perspectives.
ReplyDeleteComment 1:
ReplyDeleteKant said we can know the _____ but not the _____ world. Can we?
Kant said we can understand the world through our own senses and experiences, but the true reality of the world. And no I don't think we can. I think by the time were old enough to even perceive this philosophy, we can never truly see and feel the word for what it is. I think it's beyond our learning and we are limited in what our brains will allow us to feel.
Comment 2:
ReplyDeleteWhat, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
He said your sympathy is irrelevant to your morality. No, I don't think it is irrelevant. I think your sympathy while attached to your character does come from what you believe is right or wrong. In my mind it like how we have no sympathy for starving ants raiding our kitchen and how we do for a lost dog looking for scraps. I think our sympathy comes from our morality and what we've been taught as right or wrong.
Sidney Shaw ^
Delete3. According to Kant, consequences are irrelevant to morality, but if that were the case, how come some still face the consequences of an action?
ReplyDelete3. What, according to Kant, is irrelevant to morality? Is it really?
ReplyDeleteKant says emotion is irrelevant to morality. I suppose this is true because what is moral is moral no matter how you feel about it.
7. What did Hegel mean when he spoke of the "owl of Minerva"? What did he think had been reached in his lifetime? What would Socrates say about that?
Hegel meant that wisdom comes later in life as we reflect back. He thought that Spirit had reached self-awareness. Socrates would say that we don't know that to be certain.
11. What did Schopenhauer say could help us escape the cycle of striving and desire? Is that the only way? Is that cycle really universal?
Schopenhauer said that we could escape the cycle of striving and desire by never allowing ourselves to indulge in what we want and to live in poverty with no possessions. This is not the only way, the only way is through repentance of our human nature and acceptance of God. The cycle is universal because all humans have the desire for more.
Hey everyone! As I wasn't able to present my discussion questions in class, I wanted to make them available here in case anyone wanted to discuss, answer, or ask questions now. Here they are:
ReplyDelete1. Kant argues that moral actions must be guided by duty rather than by consequences. Do you think this "duty-based" approach is practical in modern-day ethical decision-making, or does it oversimplify complex moral situations?
2. Kant’s ethics emphasize the importance of autonomy and rational will. To what extent do you think people have full autonomy in making moral decisions, given the influence of society, upbringing, or emotions?
3. Can any moral principle truly be universalized? Are there cultural or individual differences that make this impossible?
1. Kant said we can know the phenomenal world but not the noumenal world. The noumenal world, as described by Kant, are the aspects of the world beyond what we as humans can sense. Therefore, if the noumenal world does exist, we will never be able to grasp it as by definition it is a world beyond our senses.
ReplyDelete3. Kant believed that sympathy was irrelevant to morality. In Kant’s definition of morality, I can understand his argument. If morality is doing what’s right because it's right and not for self-benefit or at the sway of your emotion, then yes, sympathy is irrelevant to morality. In my own perception of morality, I do think sympathy and emotions can play a part. If you feel sympathy for a person in need, then I believe you are more likely to be morally good as a person. On the flipside, however, if like in Kant's example you still help someone in need, that is just as morally good as feeling sympathy and doing good.
Lilian Michel
Delete2. Philosophers prior to Kant believed our reality and what shapes it was beyond us entirely. Consequently, their efforts were focused on discovering how we as humans could unlock the secrets of said reality. Kant, however, had a different approach, one that was admittedly much more effective. Kant determined that we could find these long sought answers within ourselves through the use of synthetic a priori knowledge. What this means is, just by taking a moment to deeply reflect within our own minds, we could make informative discoveries without having to prove them by definition. This is because of Kant’s logical conclusion that we all view the world under the perception of our human senses and what we had left to learn was just how these senses colored our experience. I do believe this could be a credible form of armchair philosophy because it allows for us to make informative discoveries without necessitating research, only observing our inner dialogue. Though I must also agree that the results could vary from person to person.
ReplyDelete4. Kant said you should never lie, because you couldn’t make a general principle that everyone should always lie when it suited them. Kant called the principle that supports this view the absolute duty. I highly doubt there are many people who have never lied in their life. Oftentimes, I have told white lies, bends of the truth, mostly to appease the adults in my life. For example, saying I have made more progress in my work than I actually have or saying I have done things that I have yet to do. I also sometimes struggle to be direct when saying no or that I am unable to do something, which causes its own problems in interpersonal relationships. Overall, I do regret lies that were for myself gain. Lies I have told for the sake of others and to protect them, however, are lies I do not regret.
The quote "It is difficult to find happiness within oneself, but it is impossible to find it anywhere else" resonates with me deeply. I am young, in my early twenties, as are my two best friends. As friends do, we often complain to each other and lament our woes. We have each found ourselves feeling as though “if we just had this one thing, then we could be happy.” But time and time again, we must remind each other that nothing can ever make you truly happy if you are not able to find it within yourself first. That meaning, if you cannot be content in yourself, then you will not be content even if you have everything you want. For example, a poor man who has nothing being happier and more fulfilled than a wealthy man who has everything. It is not an easy journey, as the quote admits, but I believe it is worth it.
ReplyDelete