The great Prager, on the radio last week, mentioned that he could come up with no perfect, concise, defining definition for happiness.
I agree with him that semantic and conceptual philosophers struggle incessantly to define any noun, or any other word to construct the perfect definition. It cannot be done because of the limits built into human communicating via language and concepts, as our language and thoughts are imperfect and limited as we are.
Epistemologically, any definition that we offer is inevitably flawed--and at best is only fairly definite and objective, if we are thoughtful and careful in our definition of a concept and its accompanying word.
Thus, I am some sort of epistemological pluralist, fallibilist or moderate.
Let us return to Dennis Prager's definition of happiness. He offers no ironclad definition for it but does define happiness as approximately equivalent to enjoying an emotional and psychological state or status of inner peace, wherein the self is suffused with gratitude.
I believe the wise Prager has nailed it once again.
No comments:
Post a Comment