In summary, this passage basically said that individuals can't be happy the way they are living now nor can they be happy if they returned to the way they lived in the past. This statement reaked of cynicism. I found this cynicism present in other areas of the book too. Page 108 discussed the utilitarian attitude of love and divorce: "A relationship should give each partner what he or she needs while it lasts, and if the relationship ends, at least both partners will have recevied a reasonable return on their investment." This comparison of a supposedly loving relationship to a business transaction was one of the most cynical things I read.
But getting back to the meaning of the orginal quote, from this cynical perspective the implication is that one cannot be happy with their way of life under any circumstance. This idea is ridiculous. If individuals want to be happy, they'll be happy. If they want to sulk in their own pain, they'll be depressed and unhappy. In the movie The Wedding Date, a woman is still depressed years after being cheated on and dumped by her boyfriend. Her escort, played by Dermot Mulroney, to a wedding explains to her that her unhappiness is her own decision. Once she is ready to move on and be happy with her life, she will be. She has the power to decide the happiness in her life. I think this idea is more relevant to "producing a way of life that is individually and socially viable."
I found the perspective of the "profound impasse" presented in the book quite interesting. It seems ironic that "modern individualism" doesn't seem to blame on the individual for their unhappiness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment