Analysis of an essay of causes of unhappiness: by nuzhat mumtaz

Analysis of an essay of causes of unhappiness:

Idealism is the philosophical theory which maintains that experience is based on mental activity. In the philosophy of perception, idealism is contrasted with realism, in which the external world is said to have an apparent absolute existence.

In the philosophy of mind, idealism is the opposite of materialism, in which the ultimate nature of reality is based on physical substances. Idealism and materialism are both theories of monism as opposed to dualism and pluralism. Idealism sometimes refers to a tradition in thought that represents things of a perfect form, as in the fields of ethics, morality, aesthetics, and value. In this way, it represents a human perfect being or circumstance.

Idealism is a philosophical movement in Western thought, and names a number of philosophical positions with sometimes quite different tendencies and implications in politics and ethics; for instance, at least in popular culture, philosophical idealism is associated with Plato and the school of Platonism and happiness.  Bertrand Russell has used this philosophy in his essay because he talks about ethics and   value in his essay and also represents things of a perfect form.

He came to believe that even ethics was outside of philosophy's scope, for its main assertions were not empirically or logically verifiable. This did not stop him from sharing his views on ethics or on many other subjects, though he was careful to mention that he was not working in his capacity as a philosopher when he did so. He wrote about history, politics, education, marriage, atoms, relativity, and religion.

It is the last of these subjects that we shall expand upon, focusing mainly on the themes of his book, The Conquest of Happiness, first published in 1930. However, we should begin by saying something about Russell's long life.

It is evident from Russell's auto­biographical correspondence that he had short time with depression so that Russell would write about happiness, given his own personal struggles for happiness. The subject was also in keeping with his general outlook on ethical matters, informed partly by the writings of his godfather, John Stuart Mill, a leading representative of the utilitarian school. There are several species of utilitarianism, but the most common holds that the main goal of ethics is to spread the greatest amount of happiness to the greatest number.

Russell was unaware of what we now know about depression, brain chemistry, and pharmacology, so some of his thinking is old-fashioned.  Allowing for such things, his The Conquest of Happiness is stuffed with observations and prescriptions grounded in common sense, and many of his ideas hold up well. Russell did not write this book for people unable to remedy their circumstances, whether due to the demand of poverty, oppression, mental illness and other diseases, or even tragic personal circumstances. He knew that anyone could not overcome any difficulty. He wrote it for people not overwhelmed with the most serious obstacles. Furthermore, while he thought the absence of unhappiness was a necessary condition for happiness, he did not see it as a sufficient condition; rather, happiness was something one had to acquire, indeed, conquer, as the title suggests.

The first part of the book deals with the principal sources of unhappiness. Russell begins by describing "Byronic unhappiness or the tendency of intellectuals and world-weary people to associate wisdom with despair rooted in pessimism. He then writes about the dangers of excessive competitiveness, focusing primarily on commercial affairs, for which, like many academics, Russell betrays a subtle disregard. However, he readily admits that excessive competitiveness exists also in artistic and scholarly pursuits, as well as in other human events.

Next, he talks on boredom, which he believes is a particularly human problem, and largely a product of boredom, though he says modern humans have much less about which to be bored than our acquaintances. At the same time, he avoid "excitement" over the brief pleasures that leave one feeling empty, using the kind of satisfaction derived from gambling as an example.

Russell then goes on to discuss the problems of fatigue, often induced by having too much to do, the irritation of people who work too hard or have too many interests; envy, an especially harmful source of unhappiness caused by desiring what we don't have or can't possibly have, and, often enough, don't really need; "harassment mania," the idea that one is the constant object of the plots and malefactions of others; and the harsh fear of public opinion, which stultifies the personal freedom necessary for creative growth.

Of particular interest among Russell's sources of unhappiness is our "sense of sin." Russell thought religion was a major cause of human misery in the world, not least of all due to the feelings of guilt it provokes. The tendency to focus on one's lack of virtue is merely a form of vanity, one which can be so overwhelming as to make us not only unhappy but irrational and even irresponsible. Russell would be horror-struck by the religious apologists populating today's airwaves, those who believe godless liberalism and an insufficient sense of human wretchedness are the chief causes of psychological disorders and society's downfall.

Many of the ideas about what comprise sinfulness were absurd to Russell, especially in matters dealing with sexuality. He certainly understood that one can violate a rational code of conduct; however, constantly dwelling on our failures is counterproductive. According to Russell, one should "regard his own undesirable acts, as he regards those of others, as acts produced by certain circumstances, and to be avoided by a fuller realization that they are undesirable, or, where this is possible, by avoidance of the circumstances that caused them".

 He realized perfect happiness is not simply what philosophers from Plato to Mill imagined it to be, namely, the complex pleasures of considering philosophy. It is clear from his discussions about the joy derived from more ordinary things that he did not entirely buy Mill's famous saying, "Better Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied." While not denying the pleasures of the intellect, he did not give them excessive weight. However, he did believe scientists might enjoy some advantages over others, for the scientist is able to "utilize his abilities to the full, and he achieves results which appear important not only to himself but to the general public, even when it cannot in the smallest degree understand them. In this, he is more fortunate than the artist".

According to Russell, the common denominator among all happy people is "zest," by which he  meant a kind of joyous interest in the different aspects of our lives, not with excessive zeal, but with moderation in an Aristotelian sense. People with such a balanced but engaged temperament are likely to be happier than their counterparts, who could range from one who would starve oneself at one end of the field to a glutton at the other end.

Russell then described the importance of both giving and receiving affection; having meaningful and productive work to do, but not to excess; having one or more a professional interests to challenge the mind, perhaps even benefiting others in the process, while preventing monotony and boredom; and placing satisfying effort into the things that one can meaningfully improve, at the same time understanding when one ought to be resigned to impossible realities. While external factors can obstruct happiness, and in some cases make it unattainable, Russell also believed that, when circumstances allow, it is important not to wait passively for it, as it does not "drop into the mouth, like a ripe fruit, by the mere operation of fortunate circumstances".

On a final note, Russell also wrote about the importance of having close family relationships. His own family ties were nervous for most of his life, except when his three children were quite young, and later during his marriage to Edith Finch—his last—which by all accounts was a happy one. His daughter, Katherine Tait, wrote in My Father Bertrand Russell (1975), "He was the most fascinating man I have ever known, the only man I ever loved, the greatest man I shall ever meet, the wittiest, the gayest, the most charming. It was a privilege to know him, and I thank God he was my father." This would have made Russell very happy, despite the object of her gratitude.