Title The human happiness of a person is directly related to their understanding of human nature. As beings, we claim nature to be the basis for our actions and because something is “in our nature”, it it acceptable to perform certain actions, despite the possible consequences. From Hobbes’s perspective, we as humans are no different from animals in that we move towards the things we want, have an attraction to them, and at the same time, we avoid the things we do not want. Supposedly, there is a constant struggle for power in which, as humans, we need to do what it takes to survive because if we cease to continue in the fight for power, we will not survive since the power we possess will be taken. In this essay, I will argue that there is
…show more content…
Opposed to Hobbes’s firm belief in simple appetites and aversions, Arendt chooses to argue that humans are, in fact, different from one another. We all have unique life stories, not told by us, but shaped by our speech and actions. She defines human nature as the development of our own individual stories while simultaneously understanding that as beings we are all still equal. Although both Hobbes and Arendt focus on human values, Arendt sees them in more depth- what it means to live a “truly human life”.
Arendt’s determination of a “truly human life” is attaining happiness through the means of developing your own life story through speech and action. In The Human Condition,
Arendt emphasizes the importance of self expression, connecting to community, and distinguishing oneself through who you are as a person and not just your possessions. You could say that when people “tell your story” or describe you, you would want them to describe your character and not just the things you have. Possessions do not represent our characters or personalities; instead, they simply show that we pursued things we wanted and were successful in getting them which Arendt labels as “dehumanizing”. The pursuit of things for mere success does not require dialogue with others, therefore, a connection cannot be …show more content…
Living life the “correct” or “proper” way is not dependent on possessions because there will always be an appetite or aversion that cannot be reached or avoided, in which case a person, by Hobbes’s classification, will never successfully achieve happiness. However, it is possible to be happy by leaving appetites and aversions that cannot be reached, as is. Supporting Arendt’s view, the cultivation of unique, personal life will define happiness. I agree with her idea of “double structure” because it describes, in more depth, how when you speak to express yourself, you have to be conversing with someone and not simply speaking out loud to yourself. When conversing, you distinguish yourself not only from other people but animals as well and your words hold meaning behind them which then allow you to be described by and to other people as a human being and not as an
Opposed to Hobbes’s firm belief in simple appetites and aversions, Arendt chooses to argue that humans are, in fact, different from one another. We all have unique life stories, not told by us, but shaped by our speech and actions. She defines human nature as the development of our own individual stories while simultaneously understanding that as beings we are all still equal. Although both Hobbes and Arendt focus on human values, Arendt sees them in more depth- what it means to live a “truly human life”.
Arendt’s determination of a “truly human life” is attaining happiness through the means of developing your own life story through speech and action. In The Human Condition,
Arendt emphasizes the importance of self expression, connecting to community, and distinguishing oneself through who you are as a person and not just your possessions. You could say that when people “tell your story” or describe you, you would want them to describe your character and not just the things you have. Possessions do not represent our characters or personalities; instead, they simply show that we pursued things we wanted and were successful in getting them which Arendt labels as “dehumanizing”. The pursuit of things for mere success does not require dialogue with others, therefore, a connection cannot be …show more content…
Living life the “correct” or “proper” way is not dependent on possessions because there will always be an appetite or aversion that cannot be reached or avoided, in which case a person, by Hobbes’s classification, will never successfully achieve happiness. However, it is possible to be happy by leaving appetites and aversions that cannot be reached, as is. Supporting Arendt’s view, the cultivation of unique, personal life will define happiness. I agree with her idea of “double structure” because it describes, in more depth, how when you speak to express yourself, you have to be conversing with someone and not simply speaking out loud to yourself. When conversing, you distinguish yourself not only from other people but animals as well and your words hold meaning behind them which then allow you to be described by and to other people as a human being and not as an