Interpretive Questions Ch.

1-3
1. Three interpretive questions
Why does the author value experience when defining happiness?
Why does the author give different types of experiences in defining happiness?
Why does the author give virtue as a kind of happiness?
2. The author gives several types of experiences to state separate definitions of happiness, in
order to then demonstrate that different people may come to different conclusions about what
happiness is, based on the different experiences in which they felt most happy.
3. Evidence
We couldnt even begin to respond to such accounts, however, unless we were able to recall
experiences of happiness in our own lives. p.12
In every culture, individuals have spoken or written of their own experiences if happiness
and unhappiness p. 18
It is when we consider autobiographical writings from different societies and different
periods together that they contribute most to our understanding of the different forms that the
experience of happiness and unhappiness can take. p. 20
Learning to appreciate the subtle differences in feelings and experience that lie behind the
many generalizations about happiness makes it necessary at least to pause to ask why all
forms if happiness should be lumped together in any one definition or general claim. 34
4. Counter-evidence
The author could also simply be giving these examples to be used like the Experience
Machine, described on page 25. As a way of evaluating how we could feel and act in various
circumstances.
5. Do I still hold to my original conclusion
Yes, because the author makes the previous point more often.
6. Do I agree with the author?
Yes, because experience itself tell me that when asked to define happiness the layman will
respond with an example of when they most felt happy, or unhappy. Experinece sotry-telling
is the easiest form of doing so.
Future experiments to test my conclusion
7. If my experience is to figure out what the author meant then Id ask the author, especially
because this book is filled with countless explorations of the origins and various definitions
of happiness. And because I know I wont get even a solid idea on her opinion til the end, if
at all.




Interpretive Questions Ch. 4-5
1. Three interpretive questions
Why does the author include Mills measurement of happiness?
Why does the author include juxtaposing ideas of using reason to evaluate happiness?
Why does the author choose to include religious philosophers in the explanation on the
origins of defining happiness?
2. Question answered
She chooses to include religious philosophy to demonstrate that debate between those
religious philosophers who feel it unnecessary to contemplate fulfilling happiness on earth
when it can only be achieved in the afterlife, and others who do feel that it can be pursued
here on earth, as well as in the afterlife.
3. Evidence
Happiness cannot, therefore, can be anything mortal and transitory. It can ony be the
happiness of possessing God, who alone is eternal and ever remaining 68
and held that only the latter [imperfect happiness] was possible on earth for those leading
lives of virtue as Aristotle had defined it, along with the Christian virtues of faith, hope and
charity. 71
Indeed ths is undoubtedly the happy life, that is, the perfect life which we must assume
that we can attain soon by a well-founded faith, a joyful hope, and an ardent love. - 69
4. Counter-evidence
Despite the debate, neither answers what happiness truly means for the person, or spirit, and
how they will know when it achieved.
5. Do I still old my original conclusion
Yes, she uses these definitions to demonstrate how various definitions of happiness and
different points in time have shaped our history.
6. Do I agree with the author
It makes sense because it does explain qhy some points in history are concerned with
fulfilling happiness in the present (90s) and other with the afterlife.