Is happiness possible?

"We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of."-Edward Bernays

Through the film "Happiness Machines", which is based on the ideas of Edward Bernays (the father of Public Relations), it can be inferred that Adam Curtis believes it is possible to be happy. The principle of the matter, however, lies in what brings one happiness and how this is controlled, which is explored further in this film.

In my opinion, the statement above made by Edward Bernays provides an accurate summary of the point Curtis' film is attempting to make. It is stating that we as individuals have undoubtedly lost control of shaping ourselves, and as a result, have also lost the power to decide what makes us happy. In the movie, Bernays points out that society is easily manipulated, and through this manipulation, we lose the control of defining happiness on our own terms. Viewers are shown how we have lost this control because of the influence of Bernays himself. Essentially, after Bernays discovered how effortlessly society can be mislead, he helped the American corporations have the ability to make people want things they didn't need, a power that still dominates today's society. Through the power of mass production, Bernays tricked the people of his time into acquiring unnecessary products that not only defined their happiness, but that they also believed defined themselves. A powerful example of this in the film is the way Bernays mislead women of the 1920's into believing that smoking cigarettes symbolized power, and perhaps even more important than power, freedom . He did this by presenting the cigarettes as "torches of freedom", leading women to believe that if they smoked, they would be fighting against the standards of the male-dominated society they lived in.

Currently, we are still manipulated by this same strategy that Bernays discovered back in the early 1900s, and I believe it is highly unlikely that this will change anytime soon. As of right now, we as a society are doing anything but fighting the control that media and advertisements have over us. Personally, I admit to feeling overwhelmed with happiness when I purchase something new, especially new clothes; however this state of bliss does not last long because as soon as different labels come out with exciting new fashion trends, I am no longer happy until I have this new article of clothing. This is a never ending cycle that we have been tricked into, a cycle that I feel began because of Edward Bernays.

The Trial of Socrates

After becoming familiar with the details of the trial of Socrates, most importantly learning why he is being prosecuted, I find the accusations made by Meleteus to be extremely unfair. Socrates is essentially being put on trial for carrying out acts of impiety: namely corrupting the youth and "...inventing new gods and for not believing in the old ones" (Plato, 2). That being said, I believe these allegations are merely opinions, or beliefs, of Meletus, not actual facts. Similar to how “...some of the gods think one thing just, the others another; and ...what some of them hold honourable or good, others hold dishonourable or evil "(Plato,8), what is an act of corruption to one person can be seen by another as the complete opposite. In this case, what Meletus deems as an act of corruption is a belief not shared by Socrates, righteously so in my opinion. Meletus, the prosecutor, is depicted in the text as a traditional individual, not wanting any reforms being made to the state and presumably believing very strongly in the gods. Seemingly understanding that knowledge is power, he sees Socrates educating the youth as a prospect that they could begin to question what they’ve been led to believe so far in their lives and, because of this, possibly go against the state. Evidently, to Meletus, corruption is doing anything that goes against the state or the gods’ beliefs, something he wants to prevent at all costs. However, perhaps to Socrates, though not said out right, doing wrong would be him not sharing his knowledge to the youth of his society and in that way not allowing them to create their own opinions. As stated, his "...love of men makes [him] talk to everyone whom [he] meet[s] quite freely and unreservedly"(Plato, 3). Therefore, to Socrates, he does not consider bestowing his knowledge on a young individual as an act of corruption, rather he views it as a gift of opportunity for the person to gain more wisdom, and with that wisdom, become his or her own person with unique views. However, though I find the trial completely unfair, I cannot declare the act of prosecution of Socrates by Meletus to be illegitimate. This is because to say whether or not it is legitimate, or lawful, would mean placing myself back in that day and age, almost 2,500 years ago, where freedom of speech was not widely accepted or practiced like it is presently. This is why Socrates expressing his distinct values leads to Meletus putting him on trial. It is obvious that the laws of our world today differ tremendously from those of the time of the Socrates trial, and because of this, it is incorrect to reason that what Meletus is doing is unlawful. It can however, still be seen as unfair, which is where I stand on the issue.