Philosophy – Guide to Happiness
We tend to accept that people in authority must be right. It’s this assumption that Socrates wanted us to challenge by urging us to think logically about the nonsense they often come out with, rather than being struck dumb by their aura of importance and air of suave certainty. This six part series on philosophy is presented by popular British philosopher Alain de Botton, featuring six thinkers who have influenced history, and their ideas about the pursuit of the happy life.
Socrates on Self-Confidence (Part 1)
Why do so many people go along with the crowd and fail to stand up for what they truly believe? Partly because they are too easily swayed by other people’s opinions and partly because they don’t know when to have confidence in their own.
Epicurus on Happiness (Part 2)
British philosopher Alain De Botton discusses the personal implications of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus (341-270BCE) who was no epicurean glutton or wanton consumerist, but an advocate of “friends, freedom and thought” as the path to happiness.
Seneca on Anger (Part 3)
Roman philosopher Lucious Annaeus Seneca (4BCE-65CE), the most famous and popular philosopher of his day, took the subject of anger seriously enough to dedicate a whole book to the subject. Seneca refused to see anger as an irrational outburst over which we have no control. Instead he saw it as a philosophical problem and amenable to treatment by philosophical argument. He thought anger arose from certain rationally held ideas about the world, and the problem with these ideas is that they are far too optimistic. Certain things are a predictable feature of life, and to get angry about them is to have unrealistic expectations.
Montaigne on Self-Esteem (Part 4)
Looks at the problem of self-esteem from the perspective of Michel de Montaigne (16th Century), the French philosopher who singled out three main reasons for feeling bad about oneself – sexual inadequecy, failure to live up to social norms, and intellectual inferiority – and then offered practical solutions for overcoming them.
Schopenhauer on Love (Part 5)
Alain De Botton surveys the 19th Century German thinker Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) who believed that love was the most important thing in life because of its powerful impulse towards ‘the will-to-life’.
Nietzsche on Hardship (Part 6)
British philosopher Alain De Botton explores Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844-1900) dictum that any worthwhile achievements in life come from the experience of overcoming hardship. For him, any existence that is too comfortable is worthless, as are the twin refugees of drink or religion.
Thanks, Prezakias.
Isaac Newton once remarked ,”If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.”
Thank you for the wonderful uploads.
These men gave birth to new ideas for the world to adopt.Unfortunately not all of us are fit to be parents.
Keep up the good word.You are indeed a wonderful parent.
A great series. Highly recommended. The foundations of humanity.
Prezakias, you know that Newton was being very caustic with his words right? The statement is a double entrende. He said that in a letter to Hooke, who was a short man. So he was not only insulting Hooke’s physical features, he was saying he was not intellectually relevant either. Newton was the quintessential nerd. If he was around today, he’d be in Mensa and thumb his nose at the public. Royal jerk, but he was brilliant, so we have to pay our respects to him for co-founding calculus and other physical matters.
Extra Ordinary
Very good documenteries! They let you think about certain things in life and life itself. I would recommend everyone to watch them.
I love this documentaries.
I specially liked Nietzsche because I was founding myself encountering the same answer and eager to find new challenges to overcome the new difficulties, so I would be stronger and happier in the end and at very step of it. Because even while I’m not feeling that happy during the journey I know I’m doing the right and fulfilling thing.
Really inspiring. Thanks.
These are truly practical and interesting documentaries not just for philophilosophers (those who are into philosophy).
I liked the one about Epicure and Socrates the most. They gave me some encouragement and food for thinking.
I would recommend those two having some free time, or, having enough time, all of these.
I’d be happy to see more documentaries in this category, by the way!
I don’t know if I exactly like the way De Botton demonstrates these philosophers ideas, or ideals as exact. Hes very upright in the one interpretations, for instance the Seneca on being a pessimist- perhaps in a sense, a realist? I don’t know if it’s the wording that throws me off.. I like the intention, but the scenes and monologue are not thoroughly convincing. And perhaps applicable to life, regardless of whatever century, but still not thoroughly effective or a little downgraded in my opinion. Nonetheless, I can still appreciate the philosophy aspect.
This is really fantabulous. Watching these documentaries, one becomes aware of himself. They are in its own simplicity exceptionally great. Thanks for such a great WISDOM resource.
Well paced, great scenery, great ideas. Truly a philosophical “how to” in a documentary.
First, thank you for this great upload.
Though…
I was shocked to watch the episode on anger and see how untrue It was! We are advised to be pesimistic about life,
and therefore not be annoyed when things go wrong..?
He gives the example of a dog tied to a bike,
Instead of being annoyed about not being free,
we should give up and follow the bike?
So, when things go wrong for us,
as a result of a corrupt society,
we should not be annoyed,
and Instead just run along with It like everyone else,
Is It not possible that some people hold an exceptionaly high standard for themselves and the people around them,
and that If these standards are not met, then It Is perfectly natural to be annoyed. Its part of being human,
and drives us to be better and Improve.
I dont believe Its right to just accept that things go wrong.
Its better to believe In a world that not very much can go wrong, than to believe we`re better off getting used to a place where things do go wrong.
Otherwise you become numb, and your mind becomes dull.
thomas I didn’t see the episode, but do some more thinking into it and you realize that the world and universe is the bike, you are the dog, you can fool yourself into enjoying the run or fool yourself into thinking you have a choice and get upset
at the end of the day you are only in control of yourself if anger gives you pleasure then by all means but otherwise accept what you can’t change, and change what you can, and know the difference
@ Ignorant
Please try to watch something before you comment on It.
What you have done Is to Presume..
You presume the metaphor for the bike and dog has something to do with the world and universe. You have come to a conclusion without looking Into It.
You just gave It that meaning In your own mind.
In this episode, he equates It to things that go wrong,
the bike represents things that go wrong, Instead of being annoyed when something goes wrong, he says we should EXPECT IT, which means running with the bike.
(You have given your own meaning to the metaphor)
He then goes on to recommend that every morning we should run through all the things that can go wrong with the day ahead.
Hilariously.. the girl Is coming down with a cold and says,
I suppose Il get pneumonia and die!!
Anyone who knows anything about the power of the mind would never say such a thing, because you are just going to create It!!
Yes, that anger episode is tricky. But, it is meant to be a means of dealing with anger and gives little explanation to the mental state a pessimistic outlook would give to one who consistently exists within it.
When you think of it, yes, if you expect it to go wrong, then you will not be surprised when it does go wrong, and you are indeed, less likely to blow up and get angry. That doesn’t mean it is an effective way to deal with anger.
I think the best attitude one might have is adaptability, and to understand that we cannot be in control of everything. To be able to realize that things are what they are, quite simply. And to be able to look at something with a realistic point of view. For example, we know the general population is made up of bad drivers, yet we set ourselves up for anger by driving too close to the person in front of us (here in Canada) and then get upset when someone buts in. Maybe if we planned ahead and left early and slowed down, we would be less encouraged to speed to get from point A to point B more quickly.
I think in dealing with anger, we have to consider our own role in the things that make us angry, and to own up to that responsibility and truth; and from there, really determine what is worth getting angry over.
By the way, otherwise, I thought this series of documentaries was exceptional, giving us little bits and pieces of the minds of philosophers. It puts things into an alternative perspective from what some of us are used to, which is exactly what we need. We need to know that we can trust ourselves enough to remove ourselves from the “flock”. We need to really evaluate why our need for possessions does not make us happy and what truly does. We need to understand our anger and what is justifiable. We need to separate love from happiness just a little more because it would put added value in our relationships. If we separate the two, then we realize that we can maintain happy relationships with others. And we also need to recognize the value of hardship so that we might begin to respect sacrifice.
These are great documentaries, and this is among my favorite on the site.
Thomas, there was so much in your response that I don’t agree with but I’d rather not attack you by propping up my opinion and belief as facts… The purpose of this reply is to signal to you the high horse you rode in on is still lower than the smallest hill
be well bro
un-ignorant
ellebeck that’s a good point I didn’t look at it like that from the point of view of it being an a la carte of philosophers…I did learn something about Socrates and his anti-social behavior…will watch the rest this week :)
That doesnt change It from being true.
Also helps to watch the actual episode.
I have a problem with the overuse of metaphors to elaborate on concepts presented in this series. The selection of metaphor is important. Sometimes it is just better to speak outright on the concept itself. In the previous posts above we have a common problem with the use of metaphor; variation from the intended interpretation, also oftentimes even misinterpretation. Instead of attempting to make use of a famously quoted metaphor from the philosopher, the editor should maybe have instead come up with one with less chance of reinterpretation, OR merely do away with metaphor and describe the solution directly.
Other than this criticism, wow, what a great TV series of a Philosophy of Happiness! I’m glad that a group of people distilled the best they could six tenets that cover this philosophy. I have not seen this quality of a holistic treatment of this subject matter on American television. Bits and pieces cannot describe the whole concept. Typical American TV funding considerations eliminate any chance of a decent comprehensive series on Happiness. The pharmaceutical industry, for one, would not want to lose out on profits due to PBS viewers coming to their senses and realizing they too can attain a non-medical peace-of-mind. But that’s a discussion for another forum.
Excellent, the new age of philosophy! By watching a video/documentary instead of reading hundreds of pages of information trying to sort out the most relevant for ourselves, really makes philosophy interesting for the modern attention span lacking generation. I learned about all these philosophers in college but bringing them all together again in a concise documentary really makes it enjoyable. GREAT STUFF!
Wow!!
Amazing series
While impressive all knowledge does and must be based on your own personal knowledge of what you learn. So to say that you are knowledgeable is to also profoundly say that you are NOT KNOWLEDGEABLE. Sterile knowledge has NO KNOWLEDGE.
What is learned must come from what we truly know and not from so based expert or authoritative persons. Taoism also states this profoundly. That due to the nature of the flow of life that knowledge is ever actually is a secure knowledge is not possible. And that simply words prove knowledge or intellect is then also not true.
nice series, is it me or did anyone experience a 7 second continuous stutter … other films i have watched here on this site have not suffered from this and i can only assume it is because the 6 players are on the one page….please fix this as it is very annoying, even this comment suffered from the stutter. othewise thanks very much
NOt a bad series, and I certainly appreciate maxing a series like this, but its certainly a very prejudiced one…
The choice of philsophers is very questionable, and ultimately not very useful in the subject of finding happiness.
Nietzsche and Schopenhauer were known to be some of the most pessimistic, unhappy people ever for example.
Why choose them in discussing the subject of happiness?
Most important, how could you possibly not have Aristotle in the mix – his definition of happiness would have helped the viewers so much.
There are much better philsophers on the subject of happiness – that lived happy lives and gave profound lessons.
Also, what about Kant?
Please, Thomas note that this is a series about happiness not justice. If your goal is to lead a more balanced and calm life then, yes, accepting misfortune (yours or others’) is the way to go.
If you believe that injustice is to be undone (as I agree you should), then this will not lead to you to a happy life I can tell you that.
Anyway, please judge them for their purpose not for yours.
@ happiness
I am not addressing whether this series Is about happiness or justice, I am NOT judging them for their purpose or mine..
I am simply stating the truth..
The point he made Is simply untrue,
you will also notice that more people commenting here have also noticed a problem with that particular episode. 3 others
Are we JUDGING It for our own purpose?
Or simply pointing out a mistake.
You say this Is a series about happiness, not justice.
So does that mean that If It were about justice, I would be correct, and because It Is about happiness I am Incorrect?
Surely they should be congruent.
The point I was making Is this, you used the words, ‘accepting misfortune’.
What If your misfortune Is caused by your own doing?
Then to accept this will not put an end to the cycle.
Think about It.
But by refusing to accept It,
And changing what causes It,
It ceases.
Simple.
Accepting misfortune will only bring you temporary relief,
masking over the deeper Issues.
Thank you.
Thomas,
You’re absolutely right mate.
And I tell you what the problem of this whole series is – not just the third episode.
It makes the implicit assumption that happiness is merely but a form of hedonism – how to derive more pleasure out of things.
(Not surprising, it is the dominant world view today.)
But there is alternatice view to happiness – an authentic one – that was summed up by Aristotle.
Happiness is the fulfillment of the full human function.
In other words yes, being Just is part of realizing happienss – for it is part of our highest purpose.
Justice and happiness are not separate matters as Socrates put it – but one. Leading the good, the beautiful and the just life is one thing.
The result of living to our highest potential then = real happiness.
What this author has presented then is little psychological tricks one can use – to fool themselves into how to enjoy life more.
Accordingly, being unjust or just makes little difference to the state of mind, according to this series author – as happiness is more a question of whether he has enough pleasure in it… (or perceives it as such)
Need it be said, but Nietzsche was so miserable throughout his life, he went mad towards the end of it.
It’s like asking the most unfit, overweight person to teach you about health.
… Not very smart.
True,
There Is a vast differece between happiness and pleasure.
Pleasure being more like a ‘drug addicts’ happiness.
That line you wrote Is nice and simple, quote,
‘Happiness is the fulfillment of the full human function.’
So, fulfill our function.
Then we`ll come accross real happiness.
Surely, happiness is a state of mind. Whether it is fulfilling one’s purpose or simply eating fries all day, it is a private concern.
I do not believe that one can say that a simple advice is true or not true. It works for some and does not for others.
I believe the point of the third episode is indeed some simple advice: Happiness comes – for humans at least – by a sense of control. You are happy when you feel that you are in control of your life, your cicumstances; the world around you makes sense. This is what everyone wants in order to get happy, even if the exact meaning of that (the purpose, object and means of control) is quite different for each and every one of us. For some, more than for others I guess.
“Guess what” he says: You are mistaken if you think you will get that control. No one can. We are all tied to a bike, called society, circumstance, happerchance or whatnot. You are not getting control no matter how much you try. You might fight for Communism all your life and 40 years latter you will see the Berlin Wall fall. Or be a hawk, destroy a couple of countries in the Middle East for no apparent reason, and just loose the next election with nothing to show for.
So accepting some measure of uncertainty (the only certain thing is that things are uncertain), accepting that others will make things difficult for you, plans will go astray and so on, will only make you more equiped to deal with those issues when they arise. It is like saying that by panicking you rarely achieve anything.
In effect, understanding of the world and of its ways, will restore some of this control back.
Well, I for one, agree with that.
Cheers
There Is a big difference between real happiness,and pleasure. Real happiness can be called Joy.. Joy Is something that comes to you naturally, through ‘healthy’ means. Pleasure Is very different, Its the false joy that material Items bring, as you mentioned ‘eating fries all day’. That Is exactly pleasure, If you pay enough attention to peoples eating habits and how food has changed over the last few hundred years, Its obvious that todays food Is more like a drug, and actually Is.
People seek comfort from food, to mask over their Insecurity. This Is not ‘happiness’ but Instead Is pleasure In Its simplest form.
As John mentioned, the fulfillment of the full human function. It Is when we are not `full` ‘fulfilled’ that we seek out pleasure to fill the gap, In the form of food, money, cars, new ****** phones and I-pads…..
which can never work.
You say simple advice can not be true or untrue.
I come from a Catholic backround…
Plenty of simple advice there, I believe It to be untrue, with many others.
You mentioned happiness coming from a sense of control,
This Is just another way of wording that ‘Void’ I was talking about. By getting lost In pleasure, people get a sense of control back. Il give you an EXTREME example, A drug addict experiences a terrible void, and complete loss of control (In the negative way) ”The meaning of control” as you put It would be to have a drink/joint/shoot up!
This gives them emmense pleasure and they regain control.
but Its only temporary.
Quote:
“Guess what” he says: You are mistaken if you think you will get that control. No one can. We are all tied to a bike, called society, circumstance, happerchance or whatnot.
So. What happens If you are tied to a bike called addiction?
(Everyone on this planet Is an addict by the way, In some shape or form, drugs or bad thoughts or most dangerous of all KNOWLEDGE. Knowledge junkies)
hmm?
You mean to say If we are tied to the bike called society, which Is corrupt and created by mans selfishness and unntelligence, that we should go with It?
Well, I for one, disagree with that.
This void, can only be filled by… Well, figure that part out for yourself.
Pubs and Church’s, wow, that blew my mind.
Absolutely fascinating…
“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”
Thanks a lot to De Botton for the upload. Watched all the video clips :) they are fascinating! Helped me to reflect on my personal life and also to rethink on certain radical statements like comparing pubs and Church!!
btw this was quite interesting to know that people fall in love with their subconscious mind to have healthy well balanced offspring! No wonder why men fall in love with younger women ;)
I’d like for this documentary series to be screened in class rooms far reaching; high schools to universities, community centers to online education, Netflix (esp. Instant) to Bittorrent. From retailers to bootleggers world wide. I LOVE this series and think EVERYONE should have the opportunity to take it seriously.
Having only watched part 1 & 2 so far, felt compelled to first comment and say, this is just what I needed to see. Being “new to TDF” and a self-admitted Documentary Junkie, count on me spending far too much time here! To the creator &/or maintainer of this website, Thank you!!!
@ Ali – I’d agree with your sentiment. Internet FTW!
After watching the rest of this series, frankly, you could use many adjectives to describe what I feel right now… very compelling! This should be watched and studied by everyone. I will help spread and share these videos!
Episode 6 makes no sense at all
I’m no philosophy expert, but taking advice from a loon doesn’t make much sense.
It’s like learning bodybuilding from a dystrophy sufferer.
The guy went crazy following his own advice.
So unless you’re looking to achieve the same stellar results, why take him seriously?
Entertaining series accompanied by entertaining comments.
Cheers.
If one sacrafices happiness then one sacrafices desires-if one sacrafices desire then one sacrafices values- if one sacrafice values then one sacrafices judgement- if one sacrafices judgement then one sacrafices mind
@nonsense
He went mad with syphilis, not from his own advice.
A man is being hunted by a bear; he runs as fast as he can, but the bear is getting closer; he runs faster; the bear is closer again; then the man reaches a cliff – it’s the end of the line: either he gets esten by the bear or commits suicide, jumping to the cliff. In these fractions of a second, the man sees strawberries. He got down on his knees to eat some.
Wow Quark,
You sound like george w bush!
There is a Toaist saying that goes “There is no way to happiness, happiness is the way.” I think if we replace the word “way” with “guide”, the same phrase applies nicely here as well.
You’ve heard the saying “the ends justify the means”? I believe this to be patently untrue. You either do things in a Just and Merciful way or you don’t, one can rationalize all they want reasons of pre-emptive strikes, or violent means of conflict resoloution but such methods are rarely just and never merciful. I do contend however that the means will define the end. If you meet the challenges of life with hate and anger you will be hateful and angry. If you try and meet life’s twists and turns with joy and happiness you will be joyful and happy. This true for individuals or societies.
Through the course of watching these documentaries I realized how much philosophy has been used, and very subtley at that, to engrain our acceptence of tyranny. Whether or not this is intentional on the part of the author or was edited at a later date I’ll leave for the individual to decide. I’ll cite “The Republic” as an obvious example.
Taoist, sorry.
Death means nothing to us,
for what is disolved is without sensation,
and what is without sensation means nothig to us.
Epicurus 300 bc
Andy
“What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.”
Much as i liked that part in Conan the barbarian, pushing the stone wheel round and round, fear, pain, suffering (sigh,the outpouring of emotion always gets me misty eyed). The forging of the Arnie-nator…
Here comes the serious part. I do not agree with it in the Nietzschian sense. It implies that we should harden ourselves to the misfortunes of life rather than accepting that negative things out of our control do frequently occur and then moving forward with our lives,as far as is possible.
For example a young person gets sexually abused. Is it better for that person to harden their outlook of the opposite sex? Carry the baggage around within themselves? suffer inner turmoil? change themselves as a reaction? Or should that person somehow try to come to terms with the horrible events and hopefully forge a meaningful healing and therapeutic relationship? change ourselves on our own terms.
In my opinion the latter.
i gree with you, Epicurean_Logic.
I was brought up in a culture where it was normal for parents to raise children in a hardened manner, the misguided purpose being to prepare for the emotional difficulties of existing in the “real world” of society outside of our people’s land that we were supposed to all experience in adulthood.
I now see all that neglect, lack of nurturing from our own parents and leaving this duty to grandparents, and just lack of decent parenting is in fact child abuse. It is the kind of child abuse in which an adult might spend decades trying to undo the damage, just to be able to get to the point of coping in a normal way with reality, in order to get comfortable with oneself, to thrive and contribute instead of merely surviving & consuming.
The Moral: DO NOT blindly assign an adult the status of an Elder merely because they are older than you. They may have not earned the privilege of such an honor. There’s much more that needs to be experienced, understood and mastered, in an adult life in order for that person to be worthy of being known as an Elder.
Spidey
Its all about sensation and the after effects. We often choose which sensations to hold onto and by a similar rational have the ability to remove and reject that which we do not require. so why not make positive self serving choices.
I am not saying it is easy to do, but it is well within our grasp. Enjoy our friends, respect the strange and often confusing ideas of family members and debate on disagreements in a manner that reduces future resentment. In short make peace with the world on your own terms.
“The Moral: DO NOT blindly assign an adult the status of an Elder merely because they are older than you.”
i agree, respect is difficult to earn and easy to destroy.
Good luck on your journey.
DancingSpiderman’s final paragraph is a great one. There are many societies today where age comes before knowledge or skill and that Moral is a great one to keep in mind.
Great series, shame about the video quality tho.
But that’s not the important thing here.
This is a wonderful brain food. Thanks Vlatko! I really can’t thank you enough for posting all these wonderful documentaries.
Many many Thanks to Vlatko :)
You make finding opinions and global knowledge so much easier and enjoyable to me.
Part 4 is damn good. Thx to the uploader for sharing this brilliant documentary with us =)
Alain de Botton’s programe on Montaigne avocated an examinatiom on wisdom and set one as a test.
Sitting such an exam without preparation might give some good intellectual answers on paper but is no guarantee of wisdom in life.
A course on wisdom would be no guarantee either, but it would help in developing faculties.
It is a pity that De Botton did not discuss the possibility and ideas for such a course rather than just showing a laboratory type random exam of unprepared students. (An academic type of magazine questionaire.)
Wisdom, allowing for flashes of insight, needs preparation for long term use. If De Botton had not been fobbed off with a random exam and allowed to run a course, I
suspect the results would have made his argument worthy for
consideration by the academic establishment.
Maybe not! Academic establishments are often conservative and selective in what they consider merits their attention, often for good reasons. Courses on wisdom, as anything else, would have an uphill struggle in getting approval. But they would be harder to ignore than ramdom exams: A bit of harmless fun though useful for media propaganda, and easily shelved.
Is it wise to ignore the development of wisdom, or ignorant?
Or maybe we should hope there will always be magicians to draw it out of a hat.
I am SO ordering that book of Montaigne XD
There is a lot of debate about the anger episode. And I must confess that I was, too, a bit confused. However, there are some valid points according to the scenario used. In the case of the angry driver, the approach of just giving in and not getting peeved at the rest of the drivers is probably the best. There is nothing we can do about that case and so we must just accept that fact and learn to not get angry about it. On the other hand, if you have unfairly been wronged by someone, say your employer has given a coworker less competent than you a promotion, then by all means anger is well-deserved and should be addressed not simply by ignoring the situation, but by confrontation. Sometimes anger is a good thing, a motivation to reach for something better, but we must be careful with when we decide to use it.
Very good to see Philosophy docs around; thank you for providing it for us to watch. This documentary was very good in terms of general overview of philosophies and philosophers but I wish there was more of it in greater detail… keep it up though!
I have seen the first 2 docs and Im really fascinated about the power of philosophy… I believe that teaching philosophy and the power of thinking to people at young age (schools for example), could help the people to stop acting like sheep and think about their actions first and why they are going for shopping and/or follow influential people without having an opinion for themselfs…
let me say one thing
this man is just another peasant wanting to be a philosopher.
going to a party and asking people if they want to reproduce LOL
they blink a few times laugh, then say not really a hahahahaaa
just dont blame our ****** parents, for they not know what theyre doing.
indeed – jesus.
It is interesting to note Montaigne’s point on universities sometimes producing dolts and the similar point made in the film, “The Wizard of OZ.”
1.) The Straw Man wants a brain.
2.) The Wizard gives him a certificate. A symbol for public recognition of intelligence.
3.) The Wizard turns out to be a sham.
I think Montaigne would have agreed with the film.
I also don’t find the “anger” episode very fulfilling. Thomas brings up the issue about the dog being tied to a bike, and being content about being tied to a bike instead of being able to run free. Dogs, as animals do, tend to live in the moment, and being content about being tied to a bike would not make a dog angry because they may not be thinking about how their life would be better if they were free. I am not saying dogs do not think for themselves and will continue to follow who ever is the riding the bike. Thomas mentions sarcastically that if things go wrong with our corrupted society we should simply follow. Unfortunately that is true for some people who do live in the moment, but dogs are about more then just followers. If a stranger were to jump on to the bike and ride away as his owner is left watching, the dog would not just simply follow, he would do everything that is possible to try to get back to his owner instead of simply following. To the commenter “happiness”, stating that to be happy with injustice, that would be the downfall of a man. Even like dogs we notice injustice and should do everything capable to prevent or undo it. you could not be more wrong stating that not trying to undo injustice would not make one happy. If you were to allow the injustice to carry on, you would live a life of shame and regret, compared to if you tried to prevent the injustice then I’m sure you would be somewhat more satisfied regardless of if you failed or succeeded. The episode shows that to think of all that could go wrong and believe it would happen, in order to live a happier life, this conflicts with my philosophy on life (as we all have/should have our own philosophy of life). To live that type of life is to give up on hope, because once we lose hope, it is true, we are able to accept anything that we may not wish upon ourselves. To fuel a pessimistic life style, is the last thing we need, in a society that bombards us with our imperfections. As Thomas states the power of our mind and its ability to manifest what it believes, is very wrong and to believe in all the bad things that may go wrong, then what is the purpose of life? Yes it may make you happier since you are not surprised that what you what you thought may go wrong did go wrong, but is that type of happiness you are looking for? to being contempt about thing things that have gone wrong, and to accepting it, there is a simple solution if that is the philosophy one would like to follow, and that is to do nothing at all, so nothing can go wrong. I would like to think of myself as more of a sorta realist, by that I mean, yea I try to live in the moment when possible, I accept that things may not go according to plan, but to live a life waking up everyday and convincing yourself all the bad things that could go wrong will go wrong, will not make you happy, i’m sure of it. One also needs hope, because at some point of our lives that is all that we have that we can hold on to, and without that we would simply be accepting our downfall. If you were late for something, is it not possible to still enjoy the journey to your destination, instead of thinking the bus might crash, or the traffic will make me even more late, if your late, your late, there is nothing you can do about that, and being worried people are going to judge you based on that, is shallow of them, and should not affect how you life your life, after all who are they to look down at you. I try to absorb the beauty of life even if i;m late, it reassures me that there ‘has’ to be more to life then being late for a meeting/some destination that no would properly remember a month from then. I do not know how to lead a life of fulfillment, and I dont always follow what i wrote, and indeed sometimes I think about all that could go wrong, after all i;m a just a 20yr old student, below average at that, on the pursuit of happyness, and i would prefer criticisms on how to live a better life, after all is that now why we were all attracted to come this site “the guide to happiness”? which has yet to meet my expectations.
I greatly enjoyed watching all of these a day before the fourth of july and have been inspired to think and write all the more. I don’t believe that analyzing the way these documentaries were presented is a good way of taking home the messages within these videos. It was very informative and very heart warming.
All and all, all of these films are greatly oversimplified in their presentation of the different philosophers’ ideas; however the films are a great introduction to them and Alain De Botton is to be commended for them. They are accurate and serve as a way to get these important ideas out there.
Thank you….
I think those who are complaining about the anger episode have really missed the point and are only taking the dog metaphor at face value. The theory of that episode is that anger is the inevitable result of unreasonable expectations going unfulfilled. If you expect things like “glasses never break” or “buses are always on time,” then you are condemning yourself to disappointment. It is only a matter of time. The objective of Seneca’s pessimism is not to have a bad attitude but to prepare yourself mentally and emotionally for the possibility of the unexpected and undesirable. By expecting glass to break or your bus to be late, you won’t be surprised and angry when it happens. If you have properly prepared for it, then it won’t be unexpected and it won’t screw up your day and you won’t need to get angry. The woman’s morning pessimism was cheesy. I don’t think it really embodied Seneca’s philosophy and I think anyone who judges Seneca’s idea by that one example or even the dog example is shredding a straw man. You’re missing the mark. Botton even says explicitly that Seneca would not have us expect that things will never go according to plan, but just to more seriously allow for when they don’t.
The dog on a leash metaphor was not meant as an attack on our personal freedom nor to suggest that we should blunder through life like mindless lemmings. It was to illustrate Seneca’s idea that that there are things outside our control and we would be happier to acknowledge and accept that fact rather than convince ourselves that money, power, prestige, technology, or anything else will enable us to control that which we cannot influence. A dog on a leash can either struggle until it is worn out or it can go where it is led and enjoy the journey. It’s not about freedom or living in the moment or being a dumb dog. You can live your life in fear, panic, and anger, or you can prepare yourself as best you can and then accept that there are elements beyond your control which will free you from worrying about them and allow you to enjoy the rest of your life.
Participation in civilization requires a certain degree of conformity. I know that’s a tough pill for many Americans to swallow, but even the members of a society that bills itself as the most free, individual, and nonconformist must still conform to a bare minimum of social and legal standards. In other words, you can change the nature of your leash, but there’s always going to be a damned leash.
Seneca was basically one of the first to write a book proclaiming “Nothing is certain in life but death and taxes.”
I must admit that I haven’t seen this doco, but I have read the book on which it was based (Alain de Botton’s “Constellations of Philosophy). There are a few things I’d like to mention.
First, to those that say that Nietzsche was too pessimistic and his ideas shouldn’t been taken seriously, please PLEASE read some of his works. Read it with an open mind. Nietzsche, in my mind, is one of the most positive, life affirming philosophy’s out there. It is true that he accepts life as suffering and turmoil. But he asks us to find joy in suffering. To experience a greater joy beyond the material. To find value in the abyss.
As for Seneca, I must admit that I don’t know much about him. However, to me what he is really saying is don’t concern yourself with things that are completely outside of your control. You can’t stop the bus from being late; you can’t prevent a servant from dropping breaking the glass; Nothing you can do will take all the bad drivers off the road, so don’t worry about it. In essence he was the first to say s**t happens. As for the dog metaphor, bkap pointed out that if the bike was hijaked from the dogs master, the dog would fight against being lead by the ill-doer. This may be so, but he would still end up being lead by the thief whether the dog liked it or not. In the end the dogs anger amounts to nothing. Though I believe this is taking the metaphor too far, and distracts from Seneca’s true philosophy which, to me, is almost quasi-taoist.
This brings me to my final point. While I appreciate this doco (or in my case the book) is a good intro to philosophical thoughts, I hope people don’t take this as a ‘literal’ guide to happiness. I find it interesting that this group of doco’s is subject to so much praise, whereas “evaluating life” (also on this site) has been criticised. The difference I think lies in the former giving answers to life, whereas the latter seems to be provoking us to ask questions. I sincerely hope that those that found this interesting will go delve into philosophy further, and not take these ideas as “gospel” (so to speak). Philosophy, at its roots, is about independent thought.
The view of Seneca and anger management will raise the hackles of those who are continually surprised by life not going according to their own personal plans. Absolute brilliance. However, to “accept with pessimism” might not be the best way to view Seneca and his philosophy. One might well say “be reasonable, there are forces at work greater than my own puny desire”.
That Nietzsche is seriously considered a philosopher is more a reflection on the modern culture than value for money upon purchasing a book of his writings. A sick mind, unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for a fatal error made in contravention of a code of morals he disdained thrust him into a life of resentful negativity. Nietzs’ misconception of the teachings of Christ (as opposed to the dogma of religion)are echoed in postmodernism, popular atheism and even in the narration of the doc. Nietz only wished that what did not kill him made him stronger, but it never did. That philosophy rightfully belongs to Dr. Viktor Frankl, a man who did not get his lessons from a whorehouse.
Don Kelvin, Who is Nietzs? Nietz?
Wow,I’ve been saying this for years about ‘intelligence’…nice to see it put well together on here.
Great. I liked the Nietzsche one the best. I did agree with thomas on some points but not all.
Sorry Lori, his name is too long to bother with typing the whole damn thing, thus, nietz, we pronounce it “neech” like cheech of cheech and chong. “nietzs’ was meant to convey the possessive. Who’d you think it was in ref to, (ref means “reference”)somebody else?
@Don your ignorance of Nietzsche and his works amaze me.
to think his syphilis was caught in a brothel is just a rumor made by his detractors. in actuality he caught it in a hospital during the war which he fought in.
his writings on christianity and christian morals are more a reflection on the dehumanizing aspect and the lack of responsibility that comes along with that delusion.
n Nietzsche’s view, recent developments in modern science and the increasing secularization of European society had effectively ‘killed’ the Christian God, who had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West for more than a thousand years.
Nietzsche claimed the death of God would eventually lead to the loss of any universal perspective on things, and along with it any coherent sense of objective truth.[50] Instead we would retain only our own multiple, diverse, and fluid perspectives. This view has acquired the name “perspectivism”.
Developing this idea, Nietzsche wrote Thus Spoke Zarathustra, therein introducing the concept of a value-creating Übermensch. According to one scholar of Nietzsche, Lampert, “the death of God must be followed by a long twilight of piety and nihilism. […] Zarathustra’s gift of the superman is given to a mankind not aware of the problem to which the superman is the solution.”
sorry, SOURCE
Lampert, Nietzsche’s Teaching, 17–18; Heidegger, “The Word of Nietzsche.”
Heidegger, “The Word of Nietzsche,” 61.
Lampert, Nietzsche’s Teaching, 18.
Glad to know I can amaze you. You’re probably amazed quite easily. Youare another a Neitzsche worshipper, it seems. We differ in opinion regarding both the history and worth of Neetski. Write me off, Mr.(or Ms.) epicuris, as I’m not impressed with your quick rundown of Neitzsche, nor your copy and paste skills. If an opinion differs from yours, you might think twice before immediately writing it off as ignorance.Some just don’t hold the same opinion as you, and we are entitled to it, thank you.
I am not as knowledgeable about Nietzsche as Epicurus is and I have to thank him for his post on his ideas ( and his sources). That was the basic reason I watched the documentary on Nietzsche in the first place because I wanted a good overview of his work so I can read him further.
Documentaries are good introductions to philosophers if one is not fortunate in taking classes in the universities so that would help in establishing some road maps in certain writers and thinkers. My education is in English Literature and the only exposure that I have was in Western Civilization.
In my life, I have run across people who are bitter and anti-intellectual with their approach to to human knowledge. Luckily, I do not share this approach and even think spelling people’s names is very important. I get tickled pink that there is enough of an interest that these documentaries were made and that this web site exist.
Thank you Epicurus for writing.
Talking about copy – paste! He copied everything he said from Wikipedia :-))). Just found the exactly the same text there.
I mean, Epicurus copy-pasted his post from Wikipedia.
Epicuris, by the way, don’t copy and paste from wikipedia, it makes you seem a fake. wikipedia is quite often incorrect, biased and changeable.
Note to readers:here’s a link to the plagerism:(Death of God, nihilism, perspectivism)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
“Mediocre writers borrow. Great writers steal.“ T.S.Eliot
As long as the sources of where Epicurus was getting his ideas on Nietzsche was included, so what?
Lori, seek with caution the gods you worship, for they may be stone or wood rather than everlasting spirit.
Oh, and Lori, Friedrich Nietzsche himself altered his name,on more than one occasion, using the spelling I did, thank you.
…don’t get me started on T.S.Elliot…..
i mean eLiot
Oh, what the heck, the actual quote was “Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least something different.”
I love Eliot. Old Possum/Practical Cats is my fave.
T.S. Elliot was a great poet and I am sorry you can’t enjoy his work. That is your decision. As for my spiritual life, that is none of your business.
@ Don Kelvin,
You certainly won my heart :-)!
Oh, Lori! I said , and thought I’d made it clear: I LOVE T.S. Eliot! He’s a true favorite and his quote deserves to be known correctly, that’s all. People are always using that misquotation and I just submitted the real thing, right from his own work. And “Old Possum” was a term of endearment given him by none other than the loveable madman Ezra Pound. Eliot used it often, even in the “Practical Cats” storybook (that became the musical “Cats” wonderful stuff!
Don Kelvin, I apologize then. Your other statement was out of line.
Sorry, Lori, I was wrong. I certainly never meant to offend, if my little parable trod into belief systems and that’s a no no, a philosophical discussion could prove a bit sticky.
But no matter, I could’ve just said, “Don’t believe everything you read.” T.S. Eliot said ” Oh Lord, deliver me from the man of excellent intention and impure heart,for the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked.”
Now THAT is naughty.
Your original statement sounded condescending. I entered into this discussion as one who wanted to explore and consider not one who had already made up her mind. I stated that in my earlier posts.
Hey Don Kelvin,
I’m curious about what part of Nietzsche’s writings make you come to the conclusion that he had “A sick mind, unwilling or unable to accept responsibility for a fatal error made in contravention of a code of morals he disdained…”?
I only ask because to me Nietzsche’s works are truly positive. I interested in hearing the other side …
Zack Ransom, I am a positive sort of person and what little I have read and seen of Nietzsche I, too, see a strong thread of a positive outlook in it. But then I see the search for truth as a positive one and certainly not a negative one. Nietzsche sought truth and I don’t think anyone can dispute that.
You asked a good question. I would be interested in the answer myself.
this series is great.
i love the three f’s concept, although i think it should be 4.. freedom, friends, philosophy and fu… oops…out of respect for vlatko and moderators, i’ll leave it at that.
are you all completely blind to the fact that i sourced what i copy pasted. and you can go there and check.
IF wikipedia uses the same source that is a good thing.
by calling down wikipedia you are making an ad hominem fallacy by saying anything from there is false. that is silly. i could direct you to many pages and challenge you to find a flaw, however that is not the point here.
yes you can hold differing opinions on the mans work but an opinion means nothing. knowledge is much better.
see what i did up there was state my points THEN back them up with scholars work. that is how real research is done. but thats fine you have opinions and ignore any points if they come from somewhere you have been told to distrust (rather than actually check the point).
and in no way am i “another Nietzsche” worshiper….in fact my name is Epicurus, whose philosophy differs enough from Nietzsche that you would think you would realize i dont worship him. i just dont like armchair philosophers spreading nonsense about a great thinker who has had enough nonsense spread (mostly because of his sister and her Nazi views).
Epicurus, don’t paint all of us with the same paint brush ok? You made several assertions that is not true of me. First, I thought your sources were sufficient and even thanked you for your post. Second, I objected to anyone stating that I “worship” anything and said so. Third, I think Nietzsche is well worth reading further. I even wrote that his search for the truth was admirable. In no way did I make any statement that Nietzsche would be sympathetic to the Nazi point of view and even the documentary covered that misconception.
Sometimes, some people don’t have their facts straight or have some sort of hidden agenda that makes them attack particular writers and thinkers. Having said that, I appreciate your anger for those people but before you attack everyone with one outburst of anger consider the source of your anger. I was not the only one who was not part of those irrational statements about Nietzsche.
Lori, i obviously was only directing that at the people who the comments are relevant to. not you. i saw all your posts.
i just didnt want to say to so and so and so and so.
but i should have thanked your for your comments anyways and now i can. Thank you.
Epicurus, you are welcome.
@ Epicurus and Lori:
Congrats! You gave a fine example on ‘how to be humble without giving yourself away’.
(sorry if my english isn’t so good, but it ain’t my mother language).
Anyway, it was a matter of class (charm?) to read your arguments.
Thank you both for the delitfull and open-minded debate!
Peace
Quark, you are entirely welcome. I live in a country where English is not the primary language. I think you are doing great.
LOL Great set of Docs – Oncore