Question I address:
\nWhat\u2019s the difference between jealousy and envy?
\nIs happiness subjective, objective, or reflective?
\nCan deviant cases be used to prove an argument?<\/p>\n
We began with (1) the nasty emotions, and then we talked about the last chapter which was about (2) happiness and spirituality, and then finally some (3) logistic stuff.<\/p>\n
1st Part: Nasty Emotions<\/p>\n
So first, regarding the nasty emotions, we began with Envy, which meant wanting something we are not entitled to. It mostly referred to something non-transferable. And as Laureine pointed out, envy is a hopeless emotion, which led to the point: envy might lead to negative self-image. Because when we cannot achieve the things we want but cannot get anyway, we tend to feel bad about ourselves. This is a process called \u201cinternalization\u201d meaning we ascribe the disparity between what we want to be and what we actually are to our inability. In other words, the hopelessness from envy might promote blame on ourselves.<\/p>\n
And then we had an interesting discussion about the difference between Jealousy and Envy. Envy, which meant wanting to have something we are not entitled to. It mostly referred to something non-transferable, whereas Jealousy refers to a sense of loss of what we are entitled to, such as being jealous when someone is talking to our significant one. And my take-away point from envy is what Laureine pointed out that envy may lead to a negative self-image.
\nFinally, we talked about Vengeance, which is an emotion of getting even.
\nTo conclude, these emotions are nasty because they are not optimal or even healthy ways of dealing with situations in our lives. But I don\u2019t think we must prevent ourselves from going through these nasty emotions; instead, I think it is a gift for us to be able to feel these nasty emotions. But we should not get stuck in them.<\/p>\n
2nd Part: Happiness + Spirituality<\/p>\n
Then, we moved on to the Chapter#23, happiness and spirituality. Dylan began with the question if happiness can be objectively or subjectively defined. Indeed, on the one hand, it is undeniable that we, as human beings, have basic needs that have to be fulfilled to survive, such as food and health as Wallace pointed out. But on the other hand, happiness can be relative, which means it is up to you how to perceive and interpret what you have. If you are happy and have no big issues to worry about, regardless of your educational or social status, you have happiness.<\/p>\n
And this question led to three positions of happiness:
\n1. Objectivity: happiness can be objectively measured;
\n2. Subjectivity: happiness is subjective;
\n3. Reflection: which is Solomon\u2019s argument that happiness appears when we reflect;<\/p>\n
I think happiness is subjective but also requires the ability to reflect. In other words, I think happiness involves #2 and #3 positions. The reason why I am not a fan of the argument of objectivity is that it relies upon an assumption that happiness is through comparing ourselves to an external standard. I find this problematic because I could always find someone better than me in any aspect, no matter how hard I try to improve; and even for some people who have not reached the \u201cstandard,\u201d are they not entitled to happiness? Can they be judged by others that they are not happy? I think the answer is no. I believe happiness is subjective and reflective because If I reflect and feel grateful about what I acquire and what I have at present, even though compared to others mine is little, I can feel happy.
\nWe then moved on to spirituality, which means the \u201cthoughtful love of life.\u201d It refers to transcending out of ourselves and beyond the good of our own lives. Dylan proposes a good question that according to Solomon, gratitude does not seem to have an \u201caboutness,\u201d which is then inconsistent with Solomon\u2019s previous arguments that emotions are intentional and about something. For example, in class we discussed that even if I am grateful of one tree when I see it, I can say I am grateful to the existence of the tree and who makes the tree: the gardener, mother nature, God etc. In other words, it is hard to avoid the intentionality of emotions. In my opinion, gratitude is not about a person or a specific thing;it is free-floating like we discussed in class; it is about everything, but one can also say it is about nothing because it is not targeted towards anything specific. Gratitude refers to the relation between I and the universe, as well as every single entity in the universe; but as entities around me change every second, my relation and experience with them also changes.
\nThe last question in our class is if deviant cases should be considered valid. The context is that Laura mentioned a documentary called Happy in which people are poor but have strong community and family bonds. This is a deviant case because not everyone poor has the emotional bonds and stable lives like the people in the documentary have. Thus, can this deviant case tell us what happiness means? I think logically deviant cases like such shouldn\u2019t prove a universal propositions. However, in reality, I think it is hard to find a universal case that can fit every single person especially everyone\u2019s experience and education are all different. Additionally, it is not true that there would be nothing we can borrow from in deviant cases. For instance, in this documentary, we can gain an insight into what matters to some people\u2019s lives and what constitutes their happiness. Such deviant cases don\u2019t have to serve as an evidence for a proposition; they can merely be an inspiration.
\nMy final thought which I\u2019d like to share is from my group discussion: we human beings have the ability to rationalize and put a positive spin on negative things. Even more extremely, when one is abandoned by families, the person may say s\/he becomes stronger and more independent. But is this ability, the ability to rationalize the misery, a good thing? Is it the same as cheating ourselves? If so, should we be honest to ourselves instead? How is rationalization our miseries compared to emotional integrity Solomon proposes?
\nMy personal response is that the ability to rationalize and put a positive spin on something misery is necessary for us. We can feel how intense those emotions such as grief or nasty emotions like envy feel like; but we shouldn\u2019t be dominated by them. We shouldn\u2019t do what those emotions tempts us to do because our society needs order. As a result, we have to move on from the miserable emotions, and to rationalize is a good way to move on.<\/p>\n
3rd. Course Schedule
\nFinally, in the last 15 minutes, we discussed some logistic stuff and decided the first quiz was due this Sunday noon, and our first blog was due on 25th, which is next Wednesday, and our comments due roughly two weeks after that.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Question I address: What\u2019s the difference between jealousy and envy? Is happiness subjective, objective, or reflective? Can deviant cases be used to prove an argument? We began with…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":224,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-225","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-summaries"],"splot_meta":{"author":"Anonymous","license":"","source":"Paul Gauguin(1897\u20131898); \"Where Do We Come From? What Are We? Where Are We Going?\"; https:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Where_Do_We_Come_From_What_Are_We_Where_Are_We_Going"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=225"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":241,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/225\/revisions\/241"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/224"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=225"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=225"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gallegft.sites.wfu.edu\/cms\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=225"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}