The true meaning of happiness

Topic 2

    Sigmund Freud’s description and definition of happiness can be difficult to comprehend. It is difficult not because of the usage of the language or complex wordings but it is difficult because it takes on a fundamentally understood and simple ideology and refines its meaning to what most people have never thought about.  At least in my case, my understand of happiness was vastly different than what Freud said in his book, “Civilization and it’s discontent.” He introduced new ideas and a different view about the human mind and psychology with his book when it was first introduced. In my previous understanding I believed happiness was something easily obtainable if the person really desired it and that society supported that. Freud’s unorthodox view completely juxtaposes those thoughts with solid evidence backed by history and sociology. Freud describes happiness, in the simplest sense, “ a problem of the economics of the individual’s libido”(page 54) and that a complete, fulfilled happiness “cannot be fulfilled.”(54). What this means is that while happiness is possible to obtain, it is very limited and that one cannot be “fully” happy for a number different reasons.
    One of the most prominent and common term used in the book is the word libido. Libido, by simple definition, is a person’s sexual desire. Another word that Freud frequently uses is ego, or the thoughts of an individual that controls planning. Freud often relates the two words together as to say that our basic desire of happiness comes sexually. He explains that deep inside, we all have could or even have a desire of viewing another human as a“sexual object”(90) or to “seize his possessions, to humiliate him, to cause him pain, to torture and to kill him.” This has been proven through history where soldiers would pillage, kill and rape when they were no forces stopping them. Man did this to satisfy their every little desire even though it meant the suffering of others.. To prevent such atrocities, Civilization was created, or as Freud called it, the “whole sum of human achievements and regulations intended to protect men against nature and "adjust their mutual relations.” Civilizations therefore create laws that limits human behaviour that could harm others. However as freedom of our choices decreased, so did the actions that would make us happy. In fact, Freud explains that “what we call our civilization is largely responsible for our misery.”(58). He even adds on that “we should be much happier if we gave it up and returned to primitive conditions.”(58). Freud then explains that we try to find other ways to fill the empty gap left by the limitations put on by civilization.
    Freud actually did not complicate the meaning of happiness but brought it to most basic form, the sensation of achieving our most hidden and primitive desires. In a way, I agree with Freud that society puts limitations on our most hidden desires that keeps us from being fully happy. However, I think there are other ways to fill these gaps efficiently and that society provides as more happiness than Freud makes it out to be. Society brings people together and I believe the desire to create chaos can be replaced with the desire to better the oneself and the civilization itself. Freud mentions the same thing in the form eros vs. the death drive but seems to have more of pessimistic and negative view about it. I believe as time passes, humans learn to better themselves and start losing our primitive desires. The development of human rights and common morals is proof of humans bettering themselves through time. “Civilization and its discontent” provided interesting points that I would never have thought of and changed my perception of true happiness but I believe humans are better and more mature than what Freud makes us out to be.

Reality vs Morality ver.2

The answer to this question might seem obvious to most people as it is unthinkable and unjust that a child must go through inhumane conditions for everyone else's happiness. In fact I think many would agree that no one with an ounce of self respect could know about a skinny boy that has "no calves to it's legs", (Le Guin 3), "sits in it's own excrement"(3) and "lives on a half-bowl of corn" and still stay. This view is also further backed up by the poll on the blog as almost fifty percent of the class said they would leave. 

Personally I do not think I would leave Omelas. While I believe the “just” or “right” decision is to leave Omelas, realistically it would be easier said than done. If everything else about Omelas is as perfect as it sounds, with all "the festival, the city, the joy"(3) it would be a lot harder to leave after actually being part of such society. It's difficult to judge something without actually experiencing it. This might seem contradictory to my opinion as it gives me no justification to say that I would stay in Omelas without actually having lived there, however there is more to it then just that point.

We take our society and living conditions for granted as we live in an almost perfect or at least vastly better than those living in todays third-world countries. To a citizen living in Somalia for example, our society might seem almost perfect or even utopic, in the same way we initially viewed Omelas. However our comfortable way of life comes with a price. For food and basic living conditions, children from poor families are forced to work to produce goods for richer countries. These children work under harsh working conditions as they work for hours with very minimal pay. There are millions of children who have almost "no calves to it's legs", (Le Guin 3), "sits in it's own excrement"(3) or "live on a half-bowl of corn" in the real world. This is a well-known global issue and yet people still buy products from these countries, indirectly funding the business of child labor. Whenever we see advertisements or promos about the kids in poverty, we "brood over it"(4) or even burst "in tears"(4) but only hours after we forget about it. In this way, Omelas becomes a vague representation of reality as many people live in great conditions while knowing it is in expense of others' suffering.  We get along with our lives and continue to buy these products even though I'm fully aware, because those items became a part of my lifestyle. That is why I am hesitant on leaving Omelas because change is difficult. If I can't change my way of life in the real society, then it would be ridiculous to claim that I would in an utopic one. Those who would leave however, are the strong-willed whom, in comparison, strictly buy local goods and participate in programs and campaigns to stop child labor. 

Unfortunately, I do not think most people would change their own lives for the sake of others. Many people, including myself, would attempt to leave Omelas but I think most would come back. Changing a lifestyle that has been engraved in our minds for years is more difficult than it sounds.