Blog #3

I feel that Mills does make a fantastic argument. I however struggle with one of his points. When he talks about "it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fool, or the pig, are a different opinion, it is because they only know their own side of the question. The other party to the comparison knows both sides. "

I feel like Mills assumes that knowledge is the key to finding happiness. From my experience, it is the simplest things that make me happy. The smell of freshly cut grass or playing with my dog - which doesn't exactly require a deeper enlightenment of knowledge. To compare the reasoning for happiness seems unrealistic. I've always thought of happiness as a subjective thing.  Everyone is made happy by something different and to different extents. If we do assume that knowledge is the key to finding happiness - how is it that there are people who refuse to go to college - who refuse to read a book? Both things are steeped in the epitome of knowledge. Do they never perceive this 'true happiness' because they didn't pick up a book or spend thousands on a degree?

Sometimes I feel that being a fool would be more satisfying; would cause me more happiness. For being a fool, you do not need to comprehend technical ideas, you escape the troubles of the world, you would live a life simplistically. Living in such a way that your actions are not shrouded in other lights. Like Shayann had pointed out pursuits of happiness will eventually conflict due to different cultural attitudes. Living as a fool, you would be ignorant to that recourse - however being ignorant to that fact wouldn't cause you displeasure or pain- you simply wouldn't know.