(re: this post, and so many other such conversations, over and over and over again.)
de beauvoir wrote at the end of the introduction of the second sex that she was not interested in happiness – since happiness is too often defined as stasis and complacency – but rather liberation. the liberation she argued passionately for her whole life was not a zero-sum game, but was in fact an ethical demand imposed on all those who loved their own freedom, since true freedom cannot be purchased on the backs of others. the only way to render this a zero-sum game is to value one’s own happiness over one’s freedom.
i feel very sad for philosophy as a discipline when i hear so many of its practitioners defending their right to their own comfort, their own security, their own complacency, their own overwhelmingly un-philosophical total lack of doubt, and its attendant wonder. it is depressing to know that for the most part these folks will do fine in philosophy, while i and so many others are being shown the door.
but if philosophy practiced otherwise is practiced elsewhere, then so be it.