There is no exact definition to being happy. Many writers such as Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, and Ralph Waldo Emerson have sought out ways on how to lead a happier lifestyle. Russell implements these beliefs and defines happiness in a whole different way.The Happy Life, written by Bertrand Russell, is a rhetorical essay about his meaning of “happiness.” He persuades his audience through the use of pathos and ethos. I agree with his interpretation of how to live the happy life because one cannot help another at the expense of their own happiness. As Dalai Lama once said, “Happiness is not something really made. It comes from your own actions.” Russell writes “the happy life’’ from the point of view of a hedonist and a moralist. He believes that the good life is similar to the happy life. Although many people have different versions of what makes them happy, the principle is still the same- you must do good in the world and give back to the community. Russell agrees exactly this- he wants people to help the community and their loved ones but advises to not lose their happiness as a result of it. The happy life as a hedonist would be to live life selfishly- to only care for your own happiness, …show more content…
Happiness doesn’t come from how much knowledge you have but instead comes from your heart when you help someone. There should not be an underlying motive for doing good. Russell connects love and happiness together when he explains that in the opinion of the traditional moralist, “love should be unselfish.” He disagrees with this statement and elaborates by illustrating a situation in which a man asks a woman to marry him. Through this, he portrays that we should try to make our loved ones happy, but it should not be a priority before our own happiness. People can be very selfish even when their initial intentions are good. If people could learn to be more selfless, the world would be a much more genuine