The ability to attain happiness

For both (or either) Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud, is it possible to be happy?  Why?

          For every and each individual, the possibility to be happy is different.  I believe that the methods that one take to pursue that sample of bliss varies as well.  Adam Curtis shows numerous perspectives of happiness in several individuals with his documentary.  There is the manipulation of people for commercial means by Edward Bernays, in which he seemingly enjoyed doing, and Hitler's controlling of the nation to pursue what he envisioned to be happiness within Germany.  The difficulty in which one attains happiness is different as well.
          The first element that is shown in Adam Curtis' film is the effective application of Sigmund Freud's observations on human psychology to business.  Although Edward Bernays was technically manipulating people to buy material goods, is it not correct to say that those people who bought them felt overall happy?  The film looks at the situation from a perspective that perceives a negative connotation, but it also implies people attaining their joy through Edward Bernays' exploit of human nature.  Take the women's cigarette campaign for example.  Females had never been accepted to smoke before this campaign, and it can be said that there are some individual women who had wanted to smoke, and probably did so secretively.  However, after the campaign, women who smoke are accepted socially.  Does Adam Curtis not imply that those women were able to achieve some level of happiness by showing us the results of this event?  Not only does he show us this event, but also the promotion of individuality in women.  This also proves as evidence for us to feel joy when we are shown the post-reactions of women.  However, Adam Curtis portrays the ability to be happy in more than just one way.
           Another portion of the film was dedicated to Hitler and his use of Freud's and Bernays' successful methods to appeal to the people of Germany.  Although his pursuit of happiness strayed towards the extreme, he had successfully met peoples' needs and granted them their desire of recovery from the crisis they faced.  With that, he also provided people with their happiness for a brief period of time.  After a long period of economic depression and low standards of living, who would not be happy to receive aid and have their standards improved?  I believe that Curtis has successfully outlined a second view on happiness by showing us it is not only attained by getting what we desire, but what we need as well.

          Showing us these two individuals, Curtis outlines different methods in being happy.  It might be of a grand scale like Hitler's, where he helped people with what they needed, or of Bernays, where he fuelled peoples' desires.  After analysing  the film "Happiness Machines", I come to the conclusion that Curtis believes that humans can be happy to a certain extent, and the amount is dependant on the individual.

Accusation or Committed Crime?

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

     The righteousness of certain actions and accusations is usually hard to determine; this is exactly the case with Socrates' trial.  He is charged for committing a crime of introducing new gods and corrupting the youth, which is apparent to be a large crime in Athens at the time (Plato 2).  The unacceptability of this action is portrayed by the audience shouting and interrupting his speech later on in his speech (Plato 36).  However, the aspect of the charge that is in question, is whether it was a plausible and correct to accuse him of his crime.

     As stated before, the charge that was laid upon Socrates was the lack of worship towards old gods and the introduction of new gods, which corrupted the youth.  Socrates' however, does not introduce new gods.  In fact, he seems quite knowledgeable and loyal to the gods.  He proves his friend wrong in Euthyphro when he states, "[...]might be an action well pleasing to Zeus, but hateful to Cronos, and Uranus, and acceptable to Hephaestus, but hateful to Hera" (Plato 9).  This proves that he does worship the old gods, since if he did not, he would not have known that Euthyphro's actions would be pleasing to one, but unpleasant to the other.  One must have at least some faith to be able to memorize what each god is affectionate towards.  As for corruption of the youth because of the introduction of new gods, it seems like it might be more of a misunderstanding due to Socrates' personality.  Shown in many situations, such as the talk with Euthyphro, he refers to well-known people or relatives' names.  This might contribute to the names he refers to  being the new "gods" which he had been charged for, since not everyone must have known these people he refers to.  During Euthyphro, he refers to "Daedalus" (Plato 13).  Furthermore, he uses a metaphor that he is being accused of being the Daedalus (Plato 19), which is also a questionable way to put things.  It is his weird way of speaking that leads him to his charges.

     It is seemingly unrighteous for Socrates to be charged with the evidence that I have provided so far, but it is mostly, if not all, negated because of his speech during the Apology.  He has appeared to believe in the gods in all of Euthyphro, as he refers to the gods.  However, during his speech in Apology, he does not at any point refer to a specific god's name.  He only addresses them as, "the gods" (Plato 29).  Throughout the speech though, there is one point where Socrates makes a big mess up.  He starts to ignore "the gods" and address "the god", which would make the audience believe that he worshipped not polytheism, but monotheism, which in turn would be a different religion (Plato 28).  After his first referral to "the god", he continues with that name, until the end of his speech.  Although he may have not intended for it to mislead people, but it was a major mistake on his part.

     Socrates does not seem to be a person who would commit the crimes that he was charged for.  Despite that fact, his charges were proven legitimate by his speech in Apology.  From a spectator's point of view, it would be extremely suspicious for a person not to refer to a god when he is being charged of not believing in them.  It further proves that he does not worship them.  Even though it is possible that Socrates believed in the gods, making the accusation unjust; one cannot ignore the lack of portrayal of faith during his speech, making the charges indeed legitimate.


Works Cited

Plato. Euthyphro, Apology, Crito. Tran. F.J. Church. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1948. Print.