AutoJC Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 Check out how Sen. Kerrey introduces himself to Condoleezza Rice "Thank you, Dr. Rice. Let me say at the beginning I'm very impressed, and indeed I'd go as far as to say moved by your story, the story of your life and what you've accomplished. It's quite extraordinary." The author can't help but think this remark was racially motivated. I certainly think it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 From the bottom of that page, an excerpt from the guy's book: "Not only do we have a right to be happy, we have an obligation to be happy. Our happiness has an effect on the lives of everyone around us--it provides them with a positive environment in which to thrive and to be happy themselves." Yuck. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyKD Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 "Not only do we have a right to be happy, we have an obligation to be happy. Our happiness has an effect on the lives of everyone around us--it provides them with a positive environment in which to thrive and to be happy themselves." that's a new one, personal happiness justified as a duty to others, a new species of altruism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_S Posted April 13, 2004 Report Share Posted April 13, 2004 No, it's the same species of Altruism, just a new perversion of it. I mean it stems from the same fundamental ideology of many altruistic belief systems. Yet in contrast to say Christianity, where our personal suffering and self-loathing is our obligations to others, our happiness is now our obligation to others. Either way its just as bad. Our happiness (happiness of the greatest philosophical sense) is not an obligation of any sorts, it is an imperative proponent of our existence and the measure of all that exists within it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 personal happiness justified as a duty to others On the one hand, that cannot be Kantian, because happiness - whether or not a duty, whether or not justified by anything - is immoral. On the other hand, whereas some modicum of happiness is essential to life, it's the logical result of Kantianism, for how can one act to fulfill a duty without being alive to act at all? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MinorityOfOne Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 As I understand him, Kant thinks happiness is amoral, not immoral. But really, that's almost worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZiggyKD Posted April 14, 2004 Report Share Posted April 14, 2004 No, it's the same species of Altruism, just a new perversion of it. I mean it stems from the same fundamental ideology of many altruistic belief systems. Yet in contrast to say Christianity, where our personal suffering and self-loathing is our obligations to others, our happiness is now our obligation to others. Either way its just as bad. I see your point, and agree. I actually meant to put across what you said, but worded it incorrectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 "Not only do we have a right to be happy, we have an obligation to be happy. Our happiness has an effect on the lives of everyone around us--it provides them with a positive environment in which to thrive and to be happy themselves." Actually, I think it's pretty clear that this author lifted the idea straight from Kant. Kant said almost exactly this himself (minus the part about having a right to be happy, of course). He made the same argument that happiness is a duty--and he added, in the spirit of the rest of his ethical system, that this duty must be pursued with absolutely no selfish interest on the part of the agent, if his action is to be regarded as moral. A selfless, disinterested happiness to be pursued out of sheer Duty--now that's a contradiction in terms (the goal of which is clearly to destroy the very concept of "happiness") if I've ever heard one. And so blatant, it's hard to imagine that anyone still takes him seriously. But for some reason, they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Happiness Is a Serious Problem : A Human Nature Repair Manual is the name of the book. I stopped reading Townhall when it came to the major emphasis on homosexuality. I might be gay, but I'm rational and not stupid. Objective, logical conservatives don't spend their time on homosexuality and I've spent enough time with the like to realize that. Townhall is merely a vehicle for the Religious Right if you ask me. In a review from amazon... Dennis Prager, a devout Jew, helped bring me to Christ through years of listening to his radio commentaries and reading his books and essays. His clear-thinking and insight to man's eternal dilemma can help anyone searching for meaning in his life, and for a personal relationship with God. But Mr. Prager's book on happiness does us all a service while we spend our time here on earth, muddling through the complexities of every day life. One of the keys to happiness, Mr. Prager rightly suggests, is that expectations inevitably result in unhappiness. This is a wonderful insight to why so many today are frustrated, angry and unhappy in a society that touts the entitlement mindset, the thinking that we are automatically entitled to things, including happiness. If you can set aside your expectations suddenly everything good that enters your life becomes a blessing. What do you appreciate more, the gift you've demanded or the one you didn't expect? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Areactor Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 As for the topic, Democrats has this black appeal thing going on. I honestly don't understand it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate_S Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 As for the topic, Democrats has this black appeal thing going on. I honestly don't understand it. As for the mechanics of this fact, John McWhorter's losing the race gives you a very good insight into the ideological proponents of this. Its really a combination of Separatism, Self-Victimization, and the fact that many Democratic policies prey on these ultimately crippling ideas that are imposed upon blacks through a tribal manifesto of altruistically cultivated ideals. For even more information on the adverse effects of self-victimization Theodore Dalrymple's "Life at the Bottom" presents a real life account of its effects at their worst. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AutoJC Posted April 16, 2004 Author Report Share Posted April 16, 2004 As for the topic, Democrats has this black appeal thing going on. I honestly don't understand it. Politics, of course. They want the Black vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 The person who could write the book Happiness Without Happiness would have to be someone especially gifted with words. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshRyan Posted April 18, 2004 Report Share Posted April 18, 2004 Not only did Kant advocate the position that one has a duty to be happy, but Ayn Rand presents this as one of the teachings of the collectivist society in Anthem ("It is forbidden not to be happy"). So the idea is hardly new. It just makes so little sense that I think that it would be hard to swallow honestly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.