Was Freud, right? Is an iffy question to ask, although it may sound like a yes or no answer. I feel like Freud had some good points, but some of the things he pointed out I feel like had no correlation. When I say no correlation, I am talking from a modern happiness standpoint. I feel like certain things have changed when it comes to expressing happiness. For instance, I think now a days we can distinguish being grateful for something and being happy for something. These two words can be one, but it does not always mean the same thing and at different times unless that person says this is something that makes them happy, we can see them both as different things. When Freud talks about science within the older days fulfilling happiness, the things we see now as ordinary or common I don’t think we take advantage, but I think depending on your generation you were born in an okay time where a lot of diseases or old common issues now have solutions. Reading Freud, I feel like with these points he’s making general statements on everyone’s behalf of happiness. I know that now a days things are way more accepting than they once were, so I feel like what I’m happy for may not be what the next person is happy for and vice vera. Everyone’s situation is different, and I think the way I read it at least was “get with the program”…why aren’t people happy for what they should be happy for. I do agree with Freud’s point on substitutive satisfaction but only within a general statement. I do believe that people have temporary satisfaction and long-term satisfaction. The part that becomes harder is how do you distinguish your temporary happiness versus your long-term happiness.
