I see Kant's assumptions riddled in duality and so, he misses the mark completely. Even in that, I think he is on to something. Much like the Jewish premise that the path to God is joy, I think that a basically happy person is blessed with a live well lived. But not because he wills it so, as I think more like a Jew in this case, that divine will is more apt, in the end, to bring joy, if our own will does not resist it. I also think his premise that our own happiness causes unhappiness elsewhere. This kind of codependent living is extremely limited. There is no reason in it. If I am unhappy because you are happy, my unhappiness is my own business or resentment, jealously or any other number of problematic psychological pitfalls for which I myself am responsible.
A duty to happiness, like walking in beauty or following joy, allows us an internal organization that is more apt to compassion, peace and contentment. In this state, we open ourselves to others, are more likely to greet our social responsibilities with a handshake and a smile. Do we have a duty to participate as social beings in ways that brings joy to others? This may be where morality steps in, as we tend to see those who move against, always see fault, behave destructively as having a lack of morality while people that can unite, create, ease suffering, promote healing as people who are moral. On Sep 2, 4:48 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Kant's description of happiness is, "continuous well-being, enjoyment > of life, complete satisfaction with one's condition." One could also > say it is the enjoyment of all life's pleasures without the pains. He > also states that happiness is ".....the state of a rational being in > the world in the whole of whose existence everything goes according to > his wish and will." I'm thinking that in this sense happiness is > having all your wants fulfilled. Surely the moralistic aspects are > complex and confusing therefore I had put them aside and rather have > put sight into the "duty" of assuring happiness in one's life. > Obvious is the degree to which many suffer from unhappiness. Is it > their failure to recognize a duty to assure happiness in their lives? > Kant's example of the person seeking wealth sets forth a number of > contrapositives, such as "if you have wealth, you are happy", with the > word wealth being replaced by numerous substitutions. > Kant states, "The problem of determining surely and universally which > action would promote the happiness of a rational being is completely > insoluble." That would be true because "happiness is not an ideal of > reason but of imagination." I would think this makes it highly > subjective. This also leads me to believe that it isn't possible for > everyone to make decisions and choices that ultimately lead to > happiness. Kant adds, "The more a cultivated reason purposely > occupies itself with the enjoyment of life and with happiness, so much > the further does one get away from true satisfaction." That we have > our own individual will and the ability of individual choice obviously > can lead us away from happiness, if it were all instinctive then we'd > all automatically be happy. Therefore we get back to the duty of > assuring happiness in our lives. Should we begin each day with a quest > for happiness, live with intent to secure happiness in our lives? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
