Bertrand Russell's The Conquest of Happiness

[imported_Captain_Janks]

I realize that most of you humble readers would rather not bog down and worry about the slipped clutches that we may find in philosophy. Philosophy is a priori, a futile endeavor.

For what it's worth, my friends...


Today, let's talk about Bertrand Russell's The Conquest of Happiness c. 1930.


"The Books of Bertrand Russell are a modern substitute for the Bible"- TIME magazine


The essay begins... " Animals are happy as long as they have health and enough to eat."

Should not people be happy with these 2 goals as well?

The philosophy board on hostboard... yer thoughts...?

<font color="#6699FF" size="1">[ October 04, 2002 04:28 AM: Message edited by: Captain_Janks ]</font>

[doodoo]

If all animals are happy with these 2 goals, then people should be happy as well.

Is this your point? Am I missing something here?

People should be happy with anything that does make them happy.

On the other hand (which one, I don't know), some animals may be happy when devouring their prey alive.

[gnosis_within]

how do we know animals can be happy? was russell somehow in tune with nature to such a degree that he could read an animal's mind? if he was, i must say i have new respect for him. perhaps you should explain the essay a little more (assuming, of course, that you actually read more than the first line).

as for humans, why should we even desire happiness? why not be unhappy? but before you answer these questions, i request that you define the term 'happy' for us (we humble readers of the philosophy forum are sometimes confused by undefined terms).

[Beta-Decay]

I would have to agree, it seems that there is more discussion of the terms that the topics are based upon, than the actual topic itself.

Language is stupid that way, anyone may take a work, and distort the meaning and then aregue about the meaning of the word.

[SHATOUSHKA]

i suppose that if captain janks is arguing FOR
the first line...
animals chained and confined to a cage just large
anough to house the animal would never alter that
supposed 'happiness'.

also, if i were to be inclinded to determine
the initial post as CJ's opinion, i could easily
infer that he finds 'people' as separate from
'animal'... hense the addition of the line:

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">"The Books of Bertrand Russell are a modern substitute for the Bible"- TIME magazine</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

i see no other reason to have added that line
unless it was to further support his own claim
that maybe people are not so 'animal'.
either that or, janks has an interpretation problem.

and while we are defining 'happy'... can we
also define the terms 'healthy' and 'enough'?

thanks

[gnosis_within]

i guess that essay must be long...it is taking the cap'n a long time to read it.

[imported_Captain_Janks]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by gnosis_within:
i guess that essay must be long...it is taking the cap'n a long time to read it.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

You got me. I didn't read it. It's like 191 pages long and I more or less skimmed it, picking out the parts I liked.

You guys also ought ot check out A Golf Handbook All I ever learned I forgot by thr 3rd Fairway by Jeff MacNelly. It's mostly a picture story book, so I think you guys might like it.