Question: For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy? Why?
I have always been a firm believer that happiness is a choice. I have also been a big believer in the fact that although we don't always have control over our circumstances, we have control over our attitude towards them and ultimately, control over our own happiness and unhappiness. However, watching Adam Curtis' depiction of humans as "happiness machines" and reading Freud's strong sentiments regarding civilization and our many discontents does make me think. Is it possible to be truly happy? Why or why not? To some degree, I don't think that Curtis and Freud find it possible to be happy. Or at least, not for long.
Both Curtis and Freud emphasized that humans are driven by the "pleasure principle". We want to do things that'll make us happy. And we want to avoid all situations that'll make us unhappy. And it's very true. For example, if we buy a burger (random example) that we've been craving for a while, we're happy. But let's say we wanted to buy a milkshake to go along with that. If we didn't have enough money to afford it, we can't deny that we'd probably experience a slight feeling of dejection or sadness. Perhaps this isn't a very good example. Ultimately, their point is that in spite of how much happiness we "attain", there will always be some reason why we will find ourselves unhappy.
Freud says that one of the biggest reasons why we find ourselves "discontent" are because of the rules and regulations instilled by society. For example, we can't totally satisfy our sexual desires all the time because there are many reasons as to why it could be dangerous and it could also make us look like animals. And as people, we do fear looking bad to others, and it does make us unhappy. Also, if someone did something to upset us, it is frowned upon to justify it through violence. No matter how much resentment or anger we might feel, we are discouraged to act upon those feelings because it is wrong. Does that make it right? Does that mean we are truly unhappy because we can't act upon these instinctual feelings? Maybe what Freud and Curtis mean is that we're not always going to be ecstatic, peppy human beings because we won't always get what we want. The question may not even be whether it is possible to be happy, but do we really know what we want? I don't even know if Freud and Curtis have the answer to that.
It's funny because I think the reason why Freud and Curtis think that we as human beings will never be happy (to some extent) is because there will never be a time when we will have exactly what we want. At the same time, I don't think we as people will ever know exactly what we want, other than to be happy.
I think that Freud and Curtis are realists in the sense that maybe they believe that happiness is shortlived. But I think it's too presumptuous to say that they don't believe it's possible at all.
Your posts show a deep and truly profound view of what many would call the "problem" of modern humanity. I would agree with Sigmund Freud's theory of a pleasure principle, but a more modern incarnation of said theory would be the idea of instant gratification. We as humans have become set on getting what we want immediately.
ReplyDeleteYour idea that Freud's theory on discontent is due to rules set out by society seems flawed, at least in my opinion, because I would argue that it is not society that sets out to regulate us, but rather it is our own ingrained sense of morality that has always pushed us to protect our last shred of dignity, that being morality.
One of the finest examples of insight I can read in your writing is this, and I quote: "...The question may not even be whether it is possible to be happy, but do we really know what we want?" Your inclination that Freud or Curtis would not know is quite true, because even a brilliant mind such as Freud's would not know what he truly wanted from life, but rather he dedicated his life's work to try and improve humanities understanding of the mind and its complex and varying inner workings.
My final piece of disagreement lies with your ending comment that Freud and Curtis would be presumptuous to say that happiness is not possible, or achievable. I would not agree that happiness is impossible to find, but would you not also agree that if happiness is only short-lived would it not then be merely a state of mind, and thus something that we choose to control in our own lives? In the end I was say that we can quite easily be happy, but we will likely never be due to the awful materialistic society that we have become apart of, if only we could change the fabric of society and go back to the ways of the past, which I will be the first to admit were idealistic, yet flawed as well. Thus leading all of humanity to the ultimate question, what do we want society to be, and where should we look for an example of it?
As an aside, your writings in many ways have touched me quite deeply, and I would like to know where you have been getting the inspiration to write such heartfelt pieces, and yet in such a succinct manner? Clearly you must be mature beyond your years. Could you provide us, the readers with some insight into your life?
Sincerely,
Your faithful reader,
~Surrey's last poet...
I take your point that human beings may not always know what they want - other than to achieve happiness. But, how does this problematize Freud's thinking? Isn't it his concept of the Id that we still use to describe the drives and urges of which we have no consciousness?
ReplyDeleteDear Ignatious,
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I just want to say thank you so much for even taking the time to read my blog! I was literally astounded that I received such a detailed response. To be honest, I only created this blog specifically for one of my courses at school. But knowing that whatever I say is actually taken into consideration outside the context of school is pretty awesome. So thank you :D
I actually wrote this post two days after getting my wisdom teeth pulled out; the implication being that I was severely drowsy from all the medication I was/am still taking when I was writing it. No, that's not really an excuse for not explaining myself enough. But after reading your response, I must say that it makes me want to go back and revise this post with a more concrete grasp on my opinion. Or at least, a more thorough explanation written when I'm not about to pass out any second.
But thank you again for your comments :) As a first-year student at university, I'm definitely learning more and more about the "mature" world of thinking!
Dear Patrick,
ReplyDeleteYou made a very good point about the id and it kind of makes me wish that I had kind of referred to it more in this response. Honestly, I had not finished Civilization and Its Discontents when I wrote this post. BUT, when I revise it, I intend to touch base on that.
Thank you as always for your input and for marking the blogs of our class :)
Your humility is astounding, and your grasp of reality is reassuring, at least to myself that there is a viable future in our generation and the youth of the world.
ReplyDeleteWhat must be taken into account if you decide to revise your original post is the time and place in which Freud wrote Civilization and Its Discontents. What I mean by this is that the world at the time was a very different and dark place. Freud was an Austrian, born in the Czech Republic, under the rule of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, he wrote Civilization and Its Discontents only ten years after the cessation of hostilities of the First World War, and a mere eleven years before the beginning of the Second World War.
I leave you with this quote, from the late Edward R. Murrow, taken from the film "Good Night, and Good Luck", "...We cannot defend freedom abroad, by deserting it at home..."
Remember to keep your principles throughout your education, take others opinions and criticisms to mind, but never be disheartened by our struggling world.
Would you mind if I asked where you are receiving such a stellar opportunity to learn and express oneself?
Sincerely,
Your faithful reader,
~Surrey's last poet...