Life, Liberty and the pursuit of...

[evesdream]

I was listening to an interview this morning in which Toni Morrison was asked the question "If you could re-write the American Dream, what would it say?"

Off the cuff, her opinion was that the pursuit of happiness (originally the pursuit of property) is a little bit absurd. She suggested the pursuit of integrity or the pursuit of knowledge might be a better foundation for the national ethos and make more sense.

What do you think? If you could re-write the American Dream, what would it be or say?

 

[evesdream]

the pursuit of al-Qaeda





Surely you jest.

 

[cjh]

I was listening to an interview this morning in which Toni Morrison was asked the question "If you could re-write the American Dream, what would it say?"

Off the cuff, her opinion was that the pursuit of happiness (originally the pursuit of property) is a little bit absurd. She suggested the pursuit of integrity or the pursuit of knowledge might be a better foundation for the national ethos and make more sense.

What do you think? If you could re-write the American Dream, what would it be or say?

The pursuit of happiness as described by Locke and his contemporaries was related to but not the same thing as the pursuit of happiness.

What most people don’t know, however, is that Locke’s concept of happiness was majorly influenced by the Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Epicurus in particular.* Far from simply equating “happiness” with “pleasure,” “property,” or the satisfaction of desire, Locke distinguishes between “imaginary” happiness and “true happiness.”* Thus, in the passage where he coins the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” Locke writes:

“The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty.* As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action…”*(1894, p. 348)​

In this passage, Locke indicates that the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of liberty since it frees us from attachment to any particular desire we might have at a given moment.* So, for example, although my body might present me with a strong urge to indulge in that chocolate brownie, my reason knows that ultimately the brownie is not in my best interest.* Why not?*Because it will not lead to my “true and solid” happiness which indicates the overall quality or satisfaction with life.** If we go back to Locke, then, we see that the “pursuit of happiness” as envisaged by him and by Jefferson was not merely the pursuit of pleasure, property, or self-interest (although it does include all of these).* It is also the freedom to be able to* make decisions that*results in the best life possible for a human being, which includes intellectual and moral effort.* We would all do well to keep this in mind when we begin to discuss the “American” concept of happiness.

http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/


Happiness in that view affords personal freedom suffient to be personally and civicly fulfilled and virtuous. I like that concept.

 

[neci]

i feel smarter now, and i want a brownie.

 

[cjh]

i feel smarter now, and i want a brownie.

Will that result in your best life possible as a human being?

 

[neci]

Will that result in your best life possible as a human being?

depends on what's in the brownie.

 

[RoryN]

Off the cuff, her opinion was that the pursuit of happiness (originally the pursuit of property) is a little bit absurd. She suggested the pursuit of integrity or the pursuit of knowledge might be a better foundation for the national ethos and make more sense.

That won't fly with most of the American public. The "pursuit of happiness" is a religious ideology at it's foundation. Americans shot that heroin a long time ago; too late to shake the habit.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The pursuit of happiness as described by Locke and his contemporaries was related to but not the same thing as the pursuit of happiness.

Quote:
What most people don’t know, however, is that Locke’s concept of happiness was majorly influenced by the Greek philosophers, Aristotle and Epicurus in particular.* Far from simply equating “happiness” with “pleasure,” “property,” or the satisfaction of desire, Locke distinguishes between “imaginary” happiness and “true happiness.”* Thus, in the passage where he coins the phrase “pursuit of happiness,” Locke writes:

“The necessity of pursuing happiness [is] the foundation of liberty.* As therefore the highest perfection of intellectual nature lies in a careful and constant pursuit of true and solid happiness; so the care of ourselves, that we mistake not imaginary for real happiness, is the necessary foundation of our liberty. The stronger ties we have to an unalterable pursuit of happiness in general, which is our greatest good, and which, as such, our desires always follow, the more are we free from any necessary determination of our will to any particular action…”*(1894, p. 348)

In this passage, Locke indicates that the pursuit of happiness is the foundation of liberty since it frees us from attachment to any particular desire we might have at a given moment.* So, for example, although my body might present me with a strong urge to indulge in that chocolate brownie, my reason knows that ultimately the brownie is not in my best interest.* Why not?*Because it will not lead to my “true and solid” happiness which indicates the overall quality or satisfaction with life.** If we go back to Locke, then, we see that the “pursuit of happiness” as envisaged by him and by Jefferson was not merely the pursuit of pleasure, property, or self-interest (although it does include all of these).* It is also the freedom to be able to* make decisions that*results in the best life possible for a human being, which includes intellectual and moral effort.* We would all do well to keep this in mind when we begin to discuss the “American” concept of happiness.

http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/


Happiness in that view affords personal freedom suffient to be personally and civicly fulfilled and virtuous. I like that concept.

Damn it, I was going to say that!

It seems like every time I get a good idea, some vanity-published guy named Locke, Hegel or Descartes has beaten me to it.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The pursuit of happiness as described by Locke and his contemporaries was related to but not the same thing as the pursuit of happiness.



http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/


Happiness in that view affords personal freedom suffient to be personally and civicly fulfilled and virtuous. I like that concept.

So, in more modern terms, the pursuit of "self-development" or "self-improvement" or "self-actualization"?

 

[Byron In Exile]

And nobody has learned anything.

Which surprises me not in the least.

But you knew that, didn't you?

 

[Byron In Exile]

i feel smarter now, and i want a brownie.

You've earned at least two.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Alright, that's it. This is as far as I can go.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Make me an offer.

Tell me my daughter will be safe.

Then you have me.

 

[Very_Bad_Man]

Happiness comes in all different shapes and sizes so it suits me just fine.

 

[CHNOPS]

It's become fashionable to cite the DOI or Constitution these days, especially as implication that we've eroded personal and the like.

In 1776, there were 2.5 million people in the US. In 1787, just under 4 million. (White people. No idea what the slave population was, but the Constitution wasn't for them.) The Constitution was a set of codified procedures designed to enact certain fundamental ideas, in the ways that seemed most viable given the state of the country at the time.

No one seems to want to talk about how--or whether--those ideas can be enacted with a population of several hundred times greater, across four times as many states--far greater raw numbers but also per capita numbers. We're aware it's not quite working, but we think it's because we've abandoned the Constitution. It's clearly the opposite.

So I'll stop here and put in my vote: ...the pursuit of reason or nuance.

 

[about_average]

The pursuit of happiness as described by Locke and his contemporaries was related to but not the same thing as the pursuit of happiness.



http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/john-locke/


Happiness in that view affords personal freedom suffient to be personally and civicly fulfilled and virtuous. I like that concept.

Yeah, but we all know Jefferson meant "pursuit of property".
He was just too stupid to write what he meant.

 

[richard_daily]

It's become fashionable to cite the DOI or Constitution these days, especially as implication that we've eroded personal and the like.

In 1776, there were 2.5 million people in the US. In 1787, just under 4 million. (White people. No idea what the slave population was, but the Constitution wasn't for them.) The Constitution was a set of codified procedures designed to enact certain fundamental ideas, in the ways that seemed most viable given the state of the country at the time.

No one seems to want to talk about how--or whether--those ideas can be enacted with a population of several hundred times greater, across four times as many states--far greater raw numbers but also per capita numbers. We're aware it's not quite working, but we think it's because we've abandoned the Constitution. It's clearly the opposite.

So I'll stop here and put in my vote: ...the pursuit of reason or nuance.

So what do you think the solution is? I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with your statement, but what's potentially to be done about it?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Remember: The DOI is only a revolutionary manifesto, and has no legal or constitutional force of any kind.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Why are they asking a Canadian author about the American Dream?

 

[KingOrfeo]

Why are they asking a Canadian author about the American Dream?

Because we spent the whole Cold War trying to sell it as an ideology the whole world -- in competition with that other universalist ideology -- and the workd at least listened, and neither America nor the rest of the world is past all that yet.

Also, the average Canadian probably knows at least as much about things American as the average American does, if not more. The converse is not necesarily true. Dog and tail.

 

[CHNOPS]

So what do you think the solution is? I'm not saying that I necessarily disagree with your statement, but what's potentially to be done about it?

I don't know if it's an actionable state. I merely mean that expecting ANY solution that worked for 3 million people to work for 300 million is foolish. The ideas can work. The implementations almost certainly cannot.

It is easy to embrace the idea of liberty. It is almost impossible to exercise or ensure liberty when--for example--most of your population lives in cities. Cities are communal, de facto. The are not vast stretches of non-contiguous agrarian land. They are bodies piled on top of bodies.

For a city to function, its citizens have to be at least as concerned about the liberties of others as they are about their own--probably moreso. That requires redefining liberty to reflect a collective quality. If you are an originalist, that concept is a threat to your ideas about our country and its original document.

However--and I've said this before--that original state has now almost never existed. We have grown quickly, exponentially, and significantly. Clinging to that state is something like saying, "this person was a nice fetus, but I'm very disappointed in the person it became."

The 'solution' is start with the country we are now, not the one we were then, and apply the ideas that got us here, not the simple tactics that played them out.

 

[KingOrfeo]

It is easy to embrace the idea of liberty. It is almost impossible to exercise or ensure liberty when--for example--most of your population lives in cities. Cities are communal, de facto. The are not vast stretches of non-contiguous agrarian land. They are bodies piled on top of bodies.

Even a county of family farms is communal de facto, and the hand of community opinion can fall even more heavily on the individual than government action does. I believe de Tocqueville commented on that.

In fact, there is no form of human society at any stage of development that is not communal de facto. City life at least offers a form of freedom through the possibility of anonymity, to a degree found nowhere else -- that is, nowhere else can you go a typical day and see only strangers.

 

[CHNOPS]

Even a county of family farms is communal de facto, and the hand of community opinion can fall even more heavily on the individual than government action does. I believe de Tocqueville commented on that.

In fact, there is no form of human society at any stage of development that is not communal de facto. City life at least offers a form of freedom through the possibility of anonymity, to a degree found nowhere else -- that is, nowhere else can you go a typical day and see only strangers.

I agree with this entirely. I have spent too much time buried in issues of evolutional biology to harbor any illusions that we can ever truly claim to operate independently of one another. Evolution doesn't work on the individual scale, it works across entire populations. The great shame of our age and our ability to form theories of self is its resultant sense that we are individually significant in the least, save for the very small-scale value-related endeavors, like mattering to someone and the like.

But: the fact remains, we were largely agrarian when we first started talking of liberty in this country, and the reasons we started talking about it are fairly obvious. The extreme it's been brought to--that I can do what I want, unfettered by government or concern for others--is absurd. But it's an asurdity that even had it been intended originally, would have resulted only in local feuds, not in the breakdown of order in highly concentrated populations--simply because there were not as many highly concentrated populations in this country. So the WAYS in which "liberty" would be played out then were fundamentally different from how that same idea needs to be played out today, 300 million people and hundreds of thousands of square miles later.

OK, I think that horse is dead.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I agree with this entirely. I have spent too much time buried in issues of evolutional biology to harbor any illusions that we can ever truly claim to operate independently of one another. Evolution doesn't work on the individual scale, it works across entire populations.

More importantly, we're anthropoid primates. All our nearest cousins -- gorilllas, bonobos, chimpanzees -- live in bands and cannot thrive alone. We have not evolved to thrive alone. We are group animals like bison or wolves, not solitary animals like deer or cats. And that's all from before we invented civilization, which requires a whole lot more and more complex group-cooperation than any anthill or beehive. Do not prepare to be assimilated; you were born assimilated.

 

[KRCummings]

Why are they asking a Canadian author about the American Dream?

When did she become Canadian?