|existentialism ° art ° poetry ° exquisite corpse ° chat ° search engine|
|( the cry ) Philosophy Discussion Board|
Posted by Julia on Monday, February 17, 2003 at 04:07:31 :
In Reply to: Re: hello everyone posted by grayson on Thursday, February 13, 2003 at 04:39:35 :
Hello, grayson. Well, to say honestly after I started to think how to answer you “I got to the woods” and was lost there for so many can be said about the subject as far as you are touching happiness here. I did not imply happiness as itself and did not say that we should be happy all the time – and of course I understand that it is hard for an existentialist to be happy. But.. all I was saying was that it cannot be just misery about our existence that is simply impossible – the dualism here served just like a secular argument – that there is always room in life for positive feelings about life, for personal bliss and harmony.
The concept of happiness seems to be very tricky. For what is happiness – as one my friend has put it – when there is less sorrow in life we call it happiness, and when there is less happiness we call it sorrow. So simple as it is.
So, the point is that both ugliness and beauty of the world, chaos and harmony, order and disorder go side by side in life – we cannot escape it, we cannot make it different, we cannot help it. And the biggest art of life is probably to see, to find this in misery as you call it.
The other thing would be whether we are satisfied with what we possess. And the truth is we are never satisfied. If we live to be just satisfied with existence we become “they” for we ignore the other side of the coin which is misery. Or as Ibsen has put it we become semi-humans –trolls – or as we say it in our language “neither fish nor meat”. But it should be the same with dissatisfaction we cannot live just in order to be dissatisfied and search new and new evidences to prove our dissatisfaction every day. For this is also a wrong view. Hope its clearer now.. Julia
: so what exactly are you laying on the table julia? that since there is so much misery in the world that means that there is an equal amount of happiness because of this dualism? maybe this is the case but does that mean there is a 50/50 split within each one of us or can that mean total happiness. maybe the bliss felt the ignorant who are too afraid to examine their own existence is where all the happiness lies. there will always be those people and they will always be happy to sail along in life in the "they" as Heidegger would call it. i dont see how an existentialist would get around a certain amount of nihilism and pessimism once all is examined. that does not mean that one must be purely pessimistic but it seems to me happiness is harder to come by for an existentialist. to me this is much more prefered than being clueless. let me know if im going at this with the right angle or if i have misunderstood you completely.
Post a Followup