Second Proposing Speech
I would like to start having you take a closer look to the notion of happiness. The philosopher Schopenhauer describes it as our state of mind during the transition from a desire to the satisfaction of that particular desire, which makes from happiness a very brief and intense feeling. Thus we should really pay attention in this debate not to mix up happiness and pleasure, which lasts longer but is less strong. Indeed remember the first time you heard that you were admitted to Ecole Centrale Paris (for those who really cherished that school), I’m guessing without any doubts that you felt happiness, but do you still feel that intense feeling every day you wake up on the campus? You may feel at least pleasure, but not happiness...
I would like to start having you take a closer look to the notion of happiness. The philosopher Schopenhauer describes it as our state of mind during the transition from a desire to the satisfaction of that particular desire, which makes from happiness a very brief and intense feeling. Thus we should really pay attention in this debate not to mix up happiness and pleasure, which lasts longer but is less strong. Indeed remember the first time you heard that you were admitted to Ecole Centrale Paris (for those who really cherished that school), I’m guessing without any doubts that you felt happiness, but do you still feel that intense feeling every day you wake up on the campus? You may feel at least pleasure, but not happiness...
Second Opposing Speech
Paul begins his speech with a definition of the term happiness. But already at this stage he perverts the facts by defining happiness only as "state where some of our desires are fulfilled". As already remarked in a comment from the floor, this definition is too narrow-minded and applies, if at all, to a pet which is hungry at the moment. For this reason, I want to underline that the opposition can't accept Pauls definition, but will adhere to the one given by Juliana...
Paul begins his speech with a definition of the term happiness. But already at this stage he perverts the facts by defining happiness only as "state where some of our desires are fulfilled". As already remarked in a comment from the floor, this definition is too narrow-minded and applies, if at all, to a pet which is hungry at the moment. For this reason, I want to underline that the opposition can't accept Pauls definition, but will adhere to the one given by Juliana...
Second Proposing Speech
I would like to start having you take a closer look to the notion of happiness. The philosopher Schopenhauer describes it as our state of mind during the transition from a desire to the satisfaction of that particular desire, which makes from happiness a very brief and intense feeling. Thus we should really pay attention in this debate not to mix up happiness and pleasure, which lasts longer but is less strong. Indeed remember the first time you heard that you were admitted to Ecole Centrale Paris (for those who really cherished that school), I’m guessing without any doubts that you felt happiness, but do you still feel that intense feeling every day you wake up on the campus? You may feel at least pleasure, but not happiness.
It’s just like when you have gathered enough money to buy the thing you deeply cherish; the best moment is when the seller offers you to decide if you prefer the red or the yellow one (about what you don’t give a crap because whatever color you may choose, it will be your Ferrari). At that particular moment you fulfill your pleasure, along with a touch of power and pride that tastes delicious.
This conception of happiness makes up itself a rebottle to Juliana’s argument about material things and the ephemeral happiness they bring: happiness itself is ephemeral and the most you can expect from your purchase is to experience real happiness at the beginning and still feel pleasure after a long time.
Plus I think that your point about billionaire executives isn’t relevant at all because it’s obvious that happiness is very subjective and you can’t assume that what makes you feel happy will have same effect on everybody else. In fact for those people, power and money equal happiness, just as spending time with your family equals happiness from your personal point, so please try not to generalize too fast.
As Paul brilliantly explained it, money is necessary to reach a first level of what we called “basic happiness”, which already emphasizes the essential part taken by money in the access to happiness. And to go further I guess it’s time to stress more spiritual happiness like the one brought by friendship or love.
I won’t try to show that you can directly buy love because it’s something you have to gain. However what you can buy is time or even a chance to build a relationship. Think about these people who subscribe to meeting websites or who take part to speed-dating: most of them pay for experiencing happiness trough love. I’m pretty sure you can find many happy couples who wouldn’t have known each other without the opportunity to buy a first romantic meeting with a person that you know will fit your waiting. Many people normally don’t have enough time to waste going in public spaces trying to meet new people who may fit their waiting one or two out of ten times.
I’ll let my teammates continue about the other states of happiness, but don’t forget: real happiness is very ephemeral and whether it equals buying a Ferrari or spending a week in the Bahamas with your better half, you can buy those moments. And for those who “don’t think that money can bring happiness, give it to me, I want to die sadly” (Pierre Desproges)
Nicolas B
I would like to start having you take a closer look to the notion of happiness. The philosopher Schopenhauer describes it as our state of mind during the transition from a desire to the satisfaction of that particular desire, which makes from happiness a very brief and intense feeling. Thus we should really pay attention in this debate not to mix up happiness and pleasure, which lasts longer but is less strong. Indeed remember the first time you heard that you were admitted to Ecole Centrale Paris (for those who really cherished that school), I’m guessing without any doubts that you felt happiness, but do you still feel that intense feeling every day you wake up on the campus? You may feel at least pleasure, but not happiness.
It’s just like when you have gathered enough money to buy the thing you deeply cherish; the best moment is when the seller offers you to decide if you prefer the red or the yellow one (about what you don’t give a crap because whatever color you may choose, it will be your Ferrari). At that particular moment you fulfill your pleasure, along with a touch of power and pride that tastes delicious.
This conception of happiness makes up itself a rebottle to Juliana’s argument about material things and the ephemeral happiness they bring: happiness itself is ephemeral and the most you can expect from your purchase is to experience real happiness at the beginning and still feel pleasure after a long time.
Plus I think that your point about billionaire executives isn’t relevant at all because it’s obvious that happiness is very subjective and you can’t assume that what makes you feel happy will have same effect on everybody else. In fact for those people, power and money equal happiness, just as spending time with your family equals happiness from your personal point, so please try not to generalize too fast.
As Paul brilliantly explained it, money is necessary to reach a first level of what we called “basic happiness”, which already emphasizes the essential part taken by money in the access to happiness. And to go further I guess it’s time to stress more spiritual happiness like the one brought by friendship or love.
I won’t try to show that you can directly buy love because it’s something you have to gain. However what you can buy is time or even a chance to build a relationship. Think about these people who subscribe to meeting websites or who take part to speed-dating: most of them pay for experiencing happiness trough love. I’m pretty sure you can find many happy couples who wouldn’t have known each other without the opportunity to buy a first romantic meeting with a person that you know will fit your waiting. Many people normally don’t have enough time to waste going in public spaces trying to meet new people who may fit their waiting one or two out of ten times.
I’ll let my teammates continue about the other states of happiness, but don’t forget: real happiness is very ephemeral and whether it equals buying a Ferrari or spending a week in the Bahamas with your better half, you can buy those moments. And for those who “don’t think that money can bring happiness, give it to me, I want to die sadly” (Pierre Desproges)
Nicolas B
Second Opposing Speech
Paul begins his speech with a definition of the term happiness. But already at this stage he perverts the facts by defining happiness only as "state where some of our desires are fulfilled". As already remarked in a comment from the floor, this definition is too narrow-minded and applies, if at all, to a pet which is hungry at the moment. For this reason, I want to underline that the opposition can't accept Pauls definition, but will adhere to the one given by Juliana.
I'm really surprised by the fact, that the proposing team defines the term happiness without even mentioning words like mind, spirit or feeling. It resembles a bit the US government, which is naming a war in Afghanistan “Operation Enduring Freedom”. I hope for the proposition, that they, unlike the Bush administration, don't try to hide important aspects from the public.
After this little digression concerning the definition of happiness, I want to bring forward the debate with some new aspects on the question "can happiness be bought?".
Juliana already explained that happiness isn't only a individual feeling. In fact, the strongest feelings take place during social activities with other humans. And the closer the relationship to these persons is, the stronger are the feelings. Let me show you the matter of fact, that social interactivity is mandatory for a permanent state of happiness.
Recent studies (http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/dynamic_spread_of_happiness.pdf) showed that happiness is able to spread from one person to another. It's a bit like a virus, if the persons around you have it, you will probably get it too.
It doesn't fall out of the sky, why one of the most frequent desires of older people is, that their children and grandchildren live a happy life. Why? Because it makes themselves happy!
Many people have the opinion, that happiness has to be shared in order to exist. In fact, people tend to share their experiences of happiness with others.
For example, how can you explain the phenomenon "public viewing"?
Nowadays, everyone has his own TV set at home. However, major events, like the upcoming world cup in South Afrika, are watched in public areas with many other people together. For this purpose you have to accept the inconvenient conditions there. (bad view, no seats, etc...)
So wherefrom comes the popularity of public viewing events?
It seems that people prefer to share their passion and feelings with others, rather than watching a match alone at home.
So where does all this lead to? Well, as we can see, happiness is quite more complex than it was described in the first proposing speech. It's not simply an indication if your desires are fulfilled as it was proposed by Paul. There is much more behind happiness, and I'm pretty sure that not even all reasons are fully discovered yet. Perhaps the way we obtain happiness in our lives is also important.
We've seen that the social aspect is very central in the pursuit of happiness. In addition, everyone agrees on the fact, that real important relationships can only be established without a connection to money. Thus, it's quite simple to reason that you can't buy happiness.
Frank M
Paul begins his speech with a definition of the term happiness. But already at this stage he perverts the facts by defining happiness only as "state where some of our desires are fulfilled". As already remarked in a comment from the floor, this definition is too narrow-minded and applies, if at all, to a pet which is hungry at the moment. For this reason, I want to underline that the opposition can't accept Pauls definition, but will adhere to the one given by Juliana.
I'm really surprised by the fact, that the proposing team defines the term happiness without even mentioning words like mind, spirit or feeling. It resembles a bit the US government, which is naming a war in Afghanistan “Operation Enduring Freedom”. I hope for the proposition, that they, unlike the Bush administration, don't try to hide important aspects from the public.
After this little digression concerning the definition of happiness, I want to bring forward the debate with some new aspects on the question "can happiness be bought?".
Juliana already explained that happiness isn't only a individual feeling. In fact, the strongest feelings take place during social activities with other humans. And the closer the relationship to these persons is, the stronger are the feelings. Let me show you the matter of fact, that social interactivity is mandatory for a permanent state of happiness.
Recent studies (http://jhfowler.ucsd.edu/dynamic_spread_of_happiness.pdf) showed that happiness is able to spread from one person to another. It's a bit like a virus, if the persons around you have it, you will probably get it too.
It doesn't fall out of the sky, why one of the most frequent desires of older people is, that their children and grandchildren live a happy life. Why? Because it makes themselves happy!
Many people have the opinion, that happiness has to be shared in order to exist. In fact, people tend to share their experiences of happiness with others.
For example, how can you explain the phenomenon "public viewing"?
Nowadays, everyone has his own TV set at home. However, major events, like the upcoming world cup in South Afrika, are watched in public areas with many other people together. For this purpose you have to accept the inconvenient conditions there. (bad view, no seats, etc...)
So wherefrom comes the popularity of public viewing events?
It seems that people prefer to share their passion and feelings with others, rather than watching a match alone at home.
So where does all this lead to? Well, as we can see, happiness is quite more complex than it was described in the first proposing speech. It's not simply an indication if your desires are fulfilled as it was proposed by Paul. There is much more behind happiness, and I'm pretty sure that not even all reasons are fully discovered yet. Perhaps the way we obtain happiness in our lives is also important.
We've seen that the social aspect is very central in the pursuit of happiness. In addition, everyone agrees on the fact, that real important relationships can only be established without a connection to money. Thus, it's quite simple to reason that you can't buy happiness.
Frank M
By quoting Schopenhauer's definition of happiness, the speaker implicitly uses an argument from authority. In the context of this debate,I think that using this kind of argument may be a double-edged sword. Schopenhauer is known for his very pessimistic nature, he led a quite dour life. He's certainly not the most qualified person to talk about happiness. The opposing team can simply dismiss this argument by citing Hegel or Kant, who held opposing view to Schopenhauer.
ReplyDelete