Response to Bertrand Russel's
A response to Bertrand Russell’s Happy Life
Happiness: What does that fully mean? To be truly happy, is that something that you can achieve in life? After reading “The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell, my outlook on happiness hasn’t changed but has been enlightened. Bertrand depicts happiness as a ferocious cycle when it comes to caring for others and yourself. He states loving someone selflessly does not lead yourself to the ultimate happiness you are capable of. If you are constantly focusing on making your significant other happy, you might not always be doing the right thing for your own wellbeing. If the person you are trying to make happy in fact does not make you happy, then this person is not going to be satisfied. This happiness needs to be mutual. The end result would be the effect of that person wanting what is best for you.
Russell writes in a way that persuades me to whole-heartedly agree with him about this situation. He brings up what I, and most other people have heard all of their lives; love should be unselfish. For Pete’s sake, It’s even stated in the Bible. Using his credibility as a philosopher, he then uses real life examples of why this common statement is incomplete. Putting it into an ambiguous situation between a man and a woman gives the reader a better comprehension and causes them relate to the statement he’s provided.
The Happy Life also brings up the very good point of doing good for instinct, or for oneself. Happiness does not come from doing something for someone because you decide it is that way. Russell states that if you do good things for the good of yourself, you will end up an even worse person than before. If you think, “Hey I’m gonna help this person because it will make me feel like a good person,” it will not make you happy. The opposing side to that would be assisting someone out of impulse or the natural want to help others.
I agree that happiness is more easily achieved when one lives freely, but I do not
Happiness: What does that fully mean? To be truly happy, is that something that you can achieve in life? After reading “The Happy Life” by Bertrand Russell, my outlook on happiness hasn’t changed but has been enlightened. Bertrand depicts happiness as a ferocious cycle when it comes to caring for others and yourself. He states loving someone selflessly does not lead yourself to the ultimate happiness you are capable of. If you are constantly focusing on making your significant other happy, you might not always be doing the right thing for your own wellbeing. If the person you are trying to make happy in fact does not make you happy, then this person is not going to be satisfied. This happiness needs to be mutual. The end result would be the effect of that person wanting what is best for you.
Russell writes in a way that persuades me to whole-heartedly agree with him about this situation. He brings up what I, and most other people have heard all of their lives; love should be unselfish. For Pete’s sake, It’s even stated in the Bible. Using his credibility as a philosopher, he then uses real life examples of why this common statement is incomplete. Putting it into an ambiguous situation between a man and a woman gives the reader a better comprehension and causes them relate to the statement he’s provided.
The Happy Life also brings up the very good point of doing good for instinct, or for oneself. Happiness does not come from doing something for someone because you decide it is that way. Russell states that if you do good things for the good of yourself, you will end up an even worse person than before. If you think, “Hey I’m gonna help this person because it will make me feel like a good person,” it will not make you happy. The opposing side to that would be assisting someone out of impulse or the natural want to help others.
I agree that happiness is more easily achieved when one lives freely, but I do not