Freud states that our pleasure is entirely subjective and not only is our pleasure idiosyncratic, it is revealing of our idiosyncrasy.
If you want to find out who you are, recognize what makes you happy.
Pain is not the ultimate mode of self-realization. It is merely provisional and a protest…Pleasure is Nature’s test, her sign of approval.
We need only understand our pleasure so we can get to our pleasure.
Pain is a protest against the absence of pleasure.
It is only through pleasure that individualism becomes possible.
The problem which I posit is how modern man as “clever animals” then safeguard and sustain their pleasure-seeking and how pleasure-seeking informs their daily decisions as the lifeline to everything that matters in life. Also, the tool to individualism is exclusionary and often can be used as a camouflage in order to deny others (who become barriers to their realization of personage) of their right to pleasure as well.
T.S Eliot counter-argues by stating the parallel text. We are always driven to approach and avoid the objects of desire and what makes us feel most alive makes us feel like we are risking our lives. (The numbing ordinary of “Happiness” or contentment)
In this life, uncanniness is way in excess of canniness and we feel like we are ineluctably involved in our lives yet we do not know what we are doing.
A sense of aliveness displaces a sense of certainty as a paramount consideration.
Our Needs (real or imagined) inform our direction in life and if needs then become the only sole and paramount informer of our directions in life.
Who are we to trust anyone and their future actions upon the pledges of today? This is highly disturbing. Does a change in need then justify a 360 degrees change in direction? Does a person with different set of needs then exist wholly as a new person from which previous engagements are null?
If we all operate from self-orientated need system, then this is what we can give each other: temporary and disguised Happiness.
No comments:
Post a Comment