John Stuart Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” in his book Utilitarianism. The meaning of this quote varies based on what makes an individual satisfied or dissatisfied. The “good life” is the life a person would like to live as well as what makes them better off. Would having a “good life” mean that a person is content, or does virtuosity make one happy? Humans have many aspects to their lives that all contribute to how satisfied they are with their lives.
“It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied.” Both pigs and humans are animals but they are satisfied in different ways. If a pig rolls around in mud all day
…show more content…
A fool can be satisfied but he will not see all the aspects that Socrates will see. Thus making him ignorant to the reasons for Socrates dissatisfaction. Although Socrates claims to be ignorant himself, he is one of most respected and studied philosophers in history. This shows that he was clearly onto something with his ideals. Socrates might say that the fool’s satisfaction is not the kind that he would want, he would want a much more fulfilling satisfaction than one who seeks common wants such as wealth, fame etc… Would Socrates be satisfied if he knew the answer to every question he or someone else asked? Or to just simply not be wise enough to ask the questions that trouble him? Is the only way for him to be happy by being a fool? Unlike the fool, Socrates knows both parties because of his philosophical ideals. He knows why he is dissatisfied and why the fool is satisfied. If you are a fool satisfied then you know what its like at least to some extent as to what the good life is. Since it is impossible to know everything, maybe it is better to be a fool satisfied so that its possible to experience the “good
Examining one’s life can bring many joys. There are many things that give people the idea that their lives are meaningful. These ideas could be the pursuit of pleasure and happiness, entertainment, sports, power and money, possessions and security, being famous and success, meeting other people, knowledge and every other thing that can give the smallest amount of happiness to the person. In the apology Plato describes Socrates’ venture to question people would were wise and content with their wisdom, but when they asked a series of questions to test their wisdom they were revealed not to be wise and were now upset. The flaw in that was that these people did not examine what had happened to them and did not learn from it.
This could mean that Socrates had understood, or at least on the way to understanding what is the good and how to obtain it. This interpretation also explain Socrates´s behavior, as recounted by Alcibiades. Socrates spend most of his time either thinking(220D), or talking and philosophizing with others(221D, 222E).He seem to show extreme calmness and unrivaled self control( 221B). He does not desire physical beauty, money,power, or anything else that Alcibiades might be interested in(216E), and seem to only be concerned about giving speeches and
At the heart of a seemingly simple, unassuming novella lie political issues that occurred in Russia during and after the Russian Revolution in 1917. George Orwell’s allegorical ‘masterpiece’ as some would say, stems from his own opinions and detestation of the class divide. He shows that an egalitarian society is unachievable, when some characters that exercise power within Animal Farm use forms of both psychological warfare and physical threats in order to keep the ‘lesser’ animals under their control in order to maintain their society which supposedly follows the principles of Animalism; that ‘all animals are equal’. The pigs employ various tactics and express ways of thinking that convince the animals that they are better off than they had
In this play the Socrates here doesn't sound like the Socrates from the Apology or the real life Socrates. The real Socrates doesn't actually teach per say, he teaches in a way that makes you yourself use your brain. He makes you question everything and understand things based on your own perception. The writer of this play clearly felt as if Socrates was a major problem in his society for allowing people to actually try to think outside of the box and ask questions. He most likely enjoyed the fact that everyone were robots and all thought alike and believed in the same thing because it brought no need to bring out discussion.
John Mill says, “those only are happy (I thought) who have their minds fixed on some object other than their own happiness” which I don’t
I think that it is a little ironic that Socrates, the man who was all about intellect, had an intellectual error. Socrates was a man who focused on the truth, and unfortunately he failed to realize that the truth might not be what everyone else was focused on. In relation to what I stated earlier here is some in text evidence; Socrates said “to disregard the manner of my speech- it doesn't matter how it compares- and to consider and concentrate your attention upon this one question, whether my claims are
One study revealed that money was an essential need for happiness, but it was not what made the people happy. They established satisfaction in close relationships with loved ones, community work, fulfillment and pride from their work and accomplishments (Diener and Biswas-Diener 162). The highest life satisfaction was found in societies of wealthy nation while the unhappiest nations were the extremely poor ones. When it comes to materialism, it does not matter if someone is rich or poor, all that matters is that “your income is sufficient to your desire,” and that “differences in aspirations lead to very different amounts of happiness” (Diener and Biswas-Diener 170).
His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for
Not many achieve happiness in their lifetime. Either they do not live long enough to witness it or they are not prepared for what their happiness is. Happiness is very subjective. Each person’s version of happiness is different. This version of happiness is universal.
Socrates started his life as an average Athen citizen. His parents worked, making an honest living. But as Socrates grew up, he began to realize that his mind questioned things and wondered how come no one else questioned the same things or at least think about the answers to the questions that were not answered. So, as his mind kept wandering, he began to acknowledge the questions that were not answered and sought for those answers. He ended up believing and teaching things to other people, whether it went against the way the Athen government or not, he still continued his work.
Throughout the history, there have been heated discussions on what constitutes a good life. Philosophers have given different annotations on the meaning of good life based on their beliefs, perspectives or even scientific-based evidences. Some view a good life as an accumulation of material goods that brings “large amount” of pleasure to oneself. On the other hand, Mencius and Aristotle advocate good life as possessing of pleasure that incorporates ethical values and they believe that by doing so one will experience enduring happiness. There is no ultimate right or wrong for these interpretations since this is not a factual question.
(Mill, utilitarianism, p.697) To put this into simpler terms, Mill is essentially saying events or experiences are desirable only when it is a source for pleasure, so actions are good when they lead to higher levels of general happiness and they are deemed as bad when it lowers your general level of happiness. However, it is important to note utilitarianism doesn’t say it is morally right for everyone to purse what make them alone happy but instead morality is dictated by what increases the total amount of utility in the world. Pursuing your own happiness at the expense of the majority of social happiness would be viewed as wrong by utilitarian’s. Mill then proceeded to say that morality requires impartial consideration of the interest of everyone involved, its not just about your own happiness.
This quote summarizes how the pigs changed from being one of the animals (comrades), to becoming like the humans (oppressors). The animals thought they could trust the pigs because they started off having similar ideologies, but as the story continued the pigs became more invested in their own selfish gain. This can be related to how Joseph Stalin started off as a communist, and wanted everyone to be equal. However, as he got a taste for power he wanted more and became like the Tsar’s that ruled
How does someone know if they are truly happy? Much of society have come to associate happiness with the pursuits of personal pleasures or that which makes us “feels good”. When we feel good we display positive expression of emotions such as joy, laughter, kindness and fewer negative emotions such as anger, hate, and sadness. To some people our happiness is already determined through our genes. Some people seek happiness through money and material possessions.
Have you ever dreamed to live well? Or Did you know someone who has lived a good life? If so, how can you define a good life? According to Merriam-Webster’s dictionary, the good life can be defined as “a life marked by a high standard of Living. The good life can be defined as a way that someone plans to live virtuously by having a great education, enough money, and helping others.