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


    Happiness is something that comes and goes. It's an emotion that is quite powerful for the sheer fact that everyone can be happy, but what brings happiness is different for every individual. 


    What was shown in Adam Curtis' Happiness Machine was society being happy, however the happiness didn't seem genuine. The individuals "bought" their happiness and as being consumers when the next product came into light so did their bliss. In the film, the one thing that stood out to me was when a woman said "you all look the same." They all bought what they thought they needed, but in reality it was a want. What does this have to do with being happy? Whenever we receive something we want, a feeling of joy overcomes us. It's unfortunate nonetheless that the fine line between a "want" and "need" has faded, and distinguishing between the two seems to be difficult for some. With the regards to Adam Curtis' film, happiness was possible; it's all dependent on what brings you joy.


    In "Civilization and its Discontents" by Sigmund Freud there's a great possibility of happiness but it has various factors that all intertwine. Freud discusses what men demand and wish to achieve from life, that is, "they strive after happiness; they want to become happy and remain so." (Freud 42) Freud throughout the book mentions the "pleasure principle" which is a concept that describes how individuals are looking for pleasure and trying so avoid suffering/pain. Pleasure is something that can bring people happiness, so when they don't have it they search for it, and when it's gone they want more of it. No body wants to feel pain, to suffer when we can be happy. Love also comes into the picture when we talk about happiness, he speaks about how everyone looks for love and to be loved, but the weak side to this is "we are never so defenseless against suffering as when we love." (Freud 52)  


     We all want to be happy, but happiness is something that's temporary and so when we are happy we hope that it remains. Have you ever felt happy, genuinely happy, but in the back of your mind you're waiting for something to go wrong? You know that happiness comes and goes, but the time frame varies every time.  So you're hoping maybe this time will be longer than the last, you're wishing that the happiness will remain. It's possible, happiness for everyone is possible and I think it's something we all deserve. 

Just something interesting. I'm thinking you should watch it :)

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


    To say the charges that Socrates was placed with were legitimate, to me would be a false statement. The conversation between Euthyphro and Socrates were one of many where Socrates had tried to speak in all possible directions to prove his point. Socrates had been placed with the charges of corrupting the youth, and not believing in the Gods. Who's to say these charges are justified?


    As the trial began Socrates was placed with charges, that were presumed rather than justified. Socrates began to share his opinion of why he was charged, and as I read what was being spoken it seemed as though he was falsely placed on trial. Meletus declared how Socrates was able to "make the worst argument appear the [strongest]." (Plato 22) He seemed to use that as fuel towards his argument about Socrates being guilty. I believe just because Socrates has a way with words, doesn't mean he's doing anything wrong to the point at which he is being argued that he is corrupting the youth. Socrates is known to be a wise man, and the way he pleaded his case clearly indicated his innocence. His wisdom is what got him in misfortune but having and spreading knowledge should not be a crime. 


    To me Socrates was humble enough to accept his punishment, was it deserved? In all honesty I don't believe so. One shouldn't be placed on trial for preconceived notions, however Socrates was able to sway votes but not the amount he needed in his favor. That still goes to show how eloquent he is, but was he fooling everyone with his words? As punishment Socrates received the death penalty, now that's a bit drastic. With the votes being 281 to 220 (in the favor of being guilty) doesn't that show some of his innocence? With regards to how close the votes came. I don't believe it was a fair trial, and I understand that "innocent until proven guilty" may not have applied back in that time period but death is a permanent thing. What Socrates had been accused for may be fixed, but fixing his death I think that's taking it to a level that's not required.  


Work Cited: Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1984.  Print.