Is there a way in pursuing happiness?

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

The definition of “happy” is the “feeling or showing pleasure” or “contentment”, “causing pleasure”, which could lead to “resulting in something pleasant”. I truly believe that to be happy is possible. But as the expressions of Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud starts to make me think deeper of the word “happiness”, what is the definite nature of happiness?

There are many different ways and forms of happiness shown in the documentary of Adam Curtis. Edward Bernays was portrayed by Adam Curtis who had the build up of being happy and expressions of freedom, and contained happiness also another example is in the documentary, where cigarettes were seen as happiness for women because it made them feel more independent. The relation of Adam Curtis' documentary that illustrates experiences of materialism which causes happiness is also shown in modern society. Whereas a person would simply feel happy/satisfaction when they buy goods and ideologies

Though through the ideas of Sigmund Freud, he states that happiness is from the interpretation of our own personal being, where we, ourself are the only one that is able to really feel it, not looking in it from others. He did not consider happiness being a value, but instead it being as pain then achievement of pleasure. Human tend to pursue happiness because of human psyche and natural instincts to seek happiness and pride. The reason for pride of purchasing these are because human would feel proud to purchase something new and trendy, to just fit in with other parts of society.

In conclusion with agreement to both beliefs and theories of Adam Curtis and Sigmund Freud it is possible to be happy, even though it may be "temporary happiness", there is still happiness involved.  Even though there may be "false consciousness" of being or feeling happy, there is still that small amount of happiness we feel inside us. Therefore I think happiness exist beyond and through all matter, it is up to oneself to determine their "true happiness".

Work cited:
Sigmund Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents"
Adam Curtis, Century of The Self. Episode One: Happiness

Socrates and Plato's /Apology/

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

Charges that were against Socrates are fairly legitimate. The two main charges were corrupting the youth and not believing in the city’s god’s. Another charge was creating new gods. Therefore three Socrates faced three charges. Socrates challenged the worshiping of the gods where he questioned the necessity and holy fundamentals as what was established as a just of unjust actions among the Athens’ youth. 

To look at how Socrate “corrupted” the youth, we have to look at it in the Ancient Greece era and not in our modern day perspective because in our society it is more free, while his society was not.

As it may seem that Socrates had a reasonable trial because he was allowed to express and define himself and his beliefs in court where there were many judges and juries whereas it seems as if it was a fair trail whereas a fair punishment was also given. Considering of the era where Socrate was being trialed, which during the Greek laws it may seem to the people in Athens that he had a fair trail. He represented himself and such. But as for our time now and their time then “fair trail” may be measured differently. Already from the beginning of the trail there were prejudices made against him (page 23). I believe it was not a fair trial since there was a prejudice at the start of the trail, but other than that overall I thought that the process, content, and format of a “fair trail” was reasonable. There are also other forms where we are not able to realize the extraordinary happiness, such as health/medical care.