1. Solomon states that “an artist, or a social worker, or an entrepreneur may enjoy only a few brief moments of contentment and satisfaction. But if he or she is living the life that he or she wants to live … I do not see why we cannot call such a person happy” (266). However, Solomon later concedes that “some of Aristotle’s quasi-objective virtues and accomplishments” are necessary for happiness. Can Solomon have it both ways? Can he both affirm happiness as an inherently subjective “meta-emotion” while simultaneously requiring an unspecified level of objectivity? Which “quasi-objective virtues and accomplishments” are necessary for happiness? if a con-artist or mercenary “is living the life that he or she wants to live,” is he or she happy?
2. Cognitivists like Solomon assert the position that all emotions have intentional objects. However, Solomon argues that “gratitude … is a philosophical emotion … so that one comes to appreciate the beauty of the whole as well as be absorbed in our own limited projects and passions” (270). In this way, spirituality lacks this sort of intentionality, yet it still forms the basis for the expression of our emotional integrity. Is this a problem for Solomon? Can he affirm spirituality as a free-floating “philosophical emotion” while still upholding base emotions as necessarily having these intentional objects?
3. Solomon affirms the importance of spirituality, yet he does not give us specific strategies to cultivate this philosophical emotion. Do we think this sort of cosmic humility and gratitude is actually a necessary condition for “ultimate happiness?” How do we specifically cultivate a “cosmic gratitude for one’s whole life?”
Shared by: Dylan Brown
Image Credit: https://www.soulveda.com/seekers-solace/women-and-spirituality/