Happy judges haplessly
1. In language carries our beliefs as vessel, but we can be like archaic vessels lost in a labyrinth.
2. Twins conjoined at the head claim they are happy. The philosopher asks, “Are they really happy?” We are being pushed to think their is a dichotomy. There’s a predicate pristine that the philosopher likely believes she’s got, and that she wants you to believe she’s got the necessary and sufficient conditions of–it’s the Socratic Scare (someone end must have the end-condition to this particular language game–another unjustified dissection). That decadent and dopey postmodernist inside shouts something, looking theatrical as feigning an emotion, “We are not in a position to judge such situation!” They treat being conjoined at the skull as if it were a lifestyle…almost by choice. This is the absurd madness the philosopher introduces: a skepticism for the weak to hang their ideology on, a banner of a sort. “We grow up in different backgrounds. We do know understand their happiness. It’s indeterminate.” The scientist informs us, “We disjoined the twins. Ask them again.” Of course, we each of us bite. “But were they ‘really’ happy before?” This is the nonsense (strict) we must account for, a term bleeding in the bellows of language. Coherency is lost with either the affirmative or the negative: if “yes,” we accept a twin’s claim that happiness can be revised and we are left with the question in any case “Is this twin happy now?” Asking it at all looks as if the twin had answered “no.” So she says “no”; we say, “Aha! We have found a new property to attach to “happiness.” It now involves being individual in one’s physical person. Did we not look for this answer anyway in asking the question? The postmodern wears a pitiful and unconvincing mask of skepticism and openness. Let’s say they were happy in both cases. We could observe them and this might turn out true for span of their lifetime. In another set of twins’ case: it turns out they were never happy to begin with and that was a viral thing within their lives. Some happy after, some happy only before. Have we said anything about happiness except that it is a multifaceted term? a term who’s necessary and sufficient conditions elude us. Will we commit the naturalistic fallacy and say “you must explain why you are happy in my terms.” Chairs! They make me happy, but that they do is something to which you can never understand. We think we have added something on top of this mundane situation by positing “peculiar cases” like twins. We must accept the “logical behaviorist” who forces us to look at the contextual conditions as giving us the shifting essence of our terms. Happiness is that right there. Look and see for yourself. Will the Fallacy be committed here? Why should we be militaristic with our notion of the criteria for “happiness,” other terms?
Of course you can judge. If anything, you are the only person who can. Happiness is not a private emotion, and happiness certainly isn’t manifest, emergent, ostensible in the laboratory (both philosophico-methodological and physical) just because we intend or expect it to be.