“What we call happiness in the strictest sense comes from the (preferably sudden) satisfaction of needs which have been dammed up to a high degree.” – Sigmund Freud

            Both Freud’s influence and input on the twentieth century raise a question of happiness.  In general, Freud adds some food for thought to any thinker asking the same question as many: “Is it possible to be happy?” 

Freud mentions civilization, in particular, as an expression of humans.  He makes a point that humans must always be controlled by things such as civilization, which brings discontent into the picture. In particular, Adam Curtis’ movie The Century of the Self, mentions that Freud was strong in his beliefs when it came to people and happiness.  Freud thought that man does not want to be civilized, therefore civilization brings discontent.  At the same time, he points out that discontent is necessary to survival; man must be discontent.  In Freud’s Civilization and its Discontents he argues that for humans, discontent emerges from three main sources: ‘the superior powers of nature, the feebleness of our own bodies and the inadequacy of regulations which adjust the mutual relationships of human beings in the family, the state and society’ (Freud 274).  The third “source”, in particular, provides that discontent is especially apparent in our relations with other people. For example, families may prevent members from maturing on their own because of thoughts or ideas on how family works; this goes on to allow discontent to occur. Civilization can be thrown back into the equation at this point as there are particular demands in civilization which may not be met by many around us, therefore leading many to discontent. According to Freud, the society inflicts frustration which in turn leads to discontent as well.   Society forces demands upon us which lead to restrictions, such as laws, taboos, and regulations.

Although this may slightly go off track, I found a specific aspect of Curtis’ The Century of the Self rather interesting: the taboo of women smoking.  Curtis’ documentary mentions this taboo which can be taken into account for discontent.  This showed Freud’s nephew Edward Bernay’s setting out an experiment on human minds involving the taboo of women smoking cigarettes.  This experiment included rich debutante’s who took part in an Easter parade; Bernay’s signaled them to light their “torches of freedom” and observed the reaction from the public.  As a result of this experiment, smoking among women became more common and made them powerful and independent.  This experiment shows to be a worthy example when looking at how civilization’s taboos can make one discontent and happy at the same time. More specifically, women may have been discontent and more private about the smoking taboo at first, but when it was seen as an action done by other powerful women, it appeared to be okay.

Freud also mentions the pleasure principle which describes the concept that people seek out pleasure (happiness) and avoid pain (discontent); we seek out things such as wealth and forget about the things that should truly be looked at in order to seek out happiness. In turn, the pleasurable things in life may as well make one discontent in the first place. Overall, Freud brings many factors into play when glancing at if it indeed is possible to be happy; these are viewed as answers to the questions one may be seeking out the answer to. The perceptions on happiness may as well change and be looked at differently, but Freud mentions particular aspects of discontent which must be commended.

"Justice that love gives is a surrender, justice that law gives is a punishment." - Mohandas Gandhi

1. Do you think these charges are legitimate?  Is this a fair trial? 

In the reading for Plato’s Apology, Socrates happens to put forth, in what my mind, stands for quite the compelling argument.  Socrates is put in quite the situation where he must prove his own innocence. But there is a difference in how today’s society and how the Athenian society portrays Socrates charges “of engaging in inquiries into things beneath the earth and in the heavens, of making the weaker argument appear the stronger, and of teaching others these same things” (Plato, 23).  Allow me to put Socrates in today’s society where he would have no apparent label on his charges: innocent or guilty, rather Socrates would remain innocent until proven guilty. Now if I were to place Socrates back into the appropriate time of charges I must acknowledge the fact that Socrates is already charged as being guilty and is required to prove his innocence.  This along with contributing facts discussed anon force me to believe that these charges against Socrates are indeed illegitimate, and that this trial stands to be unjust.

Socrates approaches his defence as a matter of proving that he is innocent by speaking of the prejudices against himself, one these being that he wishes to make profit through his “teachings.”  Socrates goes on to develop his argument by stating “[He] is so busy in this pursuit that [he has] never had leisure to take any part worth mentioning in public matters or to look after [his] private affairs (28). Socrates continues this by stating he is “in great poverty as the result of [his] service to the god” (28), and carries on to prove his innocence by addressing the charges of “corrupting the youth” as being involuntary.  In this argument, Socrates points out that the law does not give Meletus the authority to “prosecute [him] for an error which is involuntary, but to take [him] aside privately and reprove and educate [him]” (31).  In Socrates’ defence, Meletus nor attempted to educate him and correct him, rather he resorted to prosecution and brought men for his sentence.  Furthermore, Socrates provides the fact that he has been directed by god to scrutinize men in each way possible, and if this was not the case then the families of the so called “corrupted youth” would have come forth in the trial to take their own revenge.   This is wrapped by Socrates in his words of defence,

“Those of them who have been already corrupted might perhaps have some reason for supporting me, but what reason can their relatives have who are grown up, and who are uncorrupted, except the reason of truth and justice— that they know very well that Meletus is lying, and that I am speaking the truth.” (41).

Now if I were to assess Socrates charges and bring them back to today’s society, the fact that he was condemned to death is a tragic event given the fact that many of his defences were legitimate in the twenty-first century.  This compels me to conclude with considering Socrates defence in the trial itself.  Socrates put forth an argument that allowed me to justly believe that his charges were illegitimate and that this was an unfair trial.