- how to think about being happy or happier,
- how to become happy (ier), be happy(ier), stay happy, become more happy beginning from at the point of already being quite happy,
- how to conceive of, or grasp the image of, an aim for the happiest of all conditions,so on, and on, and on.
Not surprisingly, a number of these “[phony] treatises” or more likely “glossy mag” contributions have the making of money in mind. They are usually not genuine wisdom.
are extremely important for any lawyer trying to analyze his/her life as a
lawyer and make it better from a personal point of view. Of course this is not the only place to find them formulated in different and/or more diverse terms, i.e., for more types of people. Whether the book is
right or wrong and/or involve important quandaries are also important questions–and in Part Five I will argue that at its foundations the authors have made at least one significant mistake–part of the empirical evidence is helpful and the recommendations, advice, or suggestions make it a consciousness raising piece of work
trying to provide various types of information to lawyers about
themselves. In addition, and this is the central point of the book, they
are trying to give advice and make recommendations regarding how at least some
lawyers and some law firms can make themselves happier.
about lawyers and law firms. It is about the mild and severe negatives in the
lives of lawyers–he kind hat make them unhappy, And it about how recommendations and advice how to overcome at least some of hem. This series of blogs has three dimensions.
sciences–physical and social. I will mostly discuss conclusions of some of the social studies; I will not discuss the physical. I don’t see it helping lawyers (or anyone deal, in practical ways with problems of unhappiness in he here and now–interesting those observations and methods are now and may be fore the far distance future. (Then again these studies may suggest helpful drug prescriptions, but that topic s not really discussed.)
in all of their work is some philosophy. The philosophy is significant.
dimension is a set of empirical facts oriented to lawyers. None of the
“facts” are, “Precisely this happened,” or “Happens
all the time,” or, “Will uniformly happen.” Instead, they are about the
usual, the frequent, the statistical, and the important tendencies.
the advice given. Much of it is for lawyers and some for law firms. Much of it is
derivative upon the empirical. “Here is what you should do to be happier, given the evidence there is.”
“Find ways to overcome or separate yourself from the usual strings of events that hurt, etc.” Along with this,
there are tables or charts suggesting how one might move him/her self along the
One right now. Part Two discusses some of the empirical conclusions presented. Part Three focuses on their
directives and advice for lawyers. Part Four discusses advice for law
firms. (There is little to no empirical “back up” for the discussion of firms. Still, it hard to imagine that some of the images and advice would not be helpful.)
commenting on some of the authors’ theses and outlooks; however, this blog, even when taken as a whole, is not
intended to be a book review. It is intended to participate in an extraordinarily important discussion.
normative questions, hints, and theses. Most of these are questions those who try and use the chart are to ask themselves. This is an extremely important part of the
book. As a recommendation of
“ways out” of, for example, depression, or for example, as routs to–at least more–happiness, the charts
fail. They might even be thought of as dangerous. They are, however, interesting topics for educational devices. No one should try to apply them in self-improvement situations; self understanding leading decisions for improvement frequently fails; cannot it cannot done and trying to do itcould easily lead to self inflicted harm. “If I cannot do this, I guess I am really as worthless as I often feel about myself.”
author’s most important theses are implicit. I plan to ignore the difference
between the implicit and explicit. Of course, I might be quite wrong. What I claim are implicit theses or arguments may not be either at all.
Originally posted on 01/30/2014 @ 7:48 pm