On Habit De Botton Analysis

In "On Habit," de Botton ridicules the fact that people do not appreciate there surroundings enough and are constantly on the look for new things, therefore suggesting us to imply a "traveling mindset". A mindset which allow us to be more "receptive", more open to looking out for new things is likely to bear us fruit, just like it did for de Botton. As de Botton himself says, "after reversing the process of habituation, his travels began to bear fruit", suggesting that when he started to look things from a new, fresh perspective, objects started to release latent layers of value, as to how he had never seen objects in that way before. In the passage seem to be stated 2 aspects of traveling, one being mental, which could be said as a "traveling

mindset," other being physical, meaning traveling to new places to explore them.

Implying that a "traveling mindset" is superior to a "habituated mindset", De botton asserts that the chief characteristic of that is said to be "receptivity". He tends to suggest that people are not "receptive" enough to appreciate their surroundings, which is why they consider their universe to be boring. People stop embracing the beauty and values of things around them, the reason being that they do not have any anticipation or expectations from it. Further strengthening the point stated above that people stop expecting anything from their surrounding, de Botton asserts "It seems inconceivable that there could be anything new to find in a place which we have been living for in a decade or more". For example, in 2013, New York City drew 54.3 million visitors, the all time high in the 5 boroughs. The prodigious majority is likely to be tourists from all over the world rather than actually New York residents, as they know neither Times Square nor the Empire State Building, the 2 most attractive sites of NYC are going nowhere. However, what if one feels more comfortable in his own, habituated surrounding? If, for example, someone is forced to go to a new place where he does not want to go. How can one expect him to be receptive to new things? How can he be expected to apply a "traveling mindset", a mindset where he is receptive to new things? In truth, there's no one who is not receptive. Its either one is less receptive or more receptive. Less receptive people just do not value their surroundings as much as more receptive people do. So to term a person as to being "receptive" or "not receptive" would be incorrect.

Even though a "traveling mindset" allows one to submerge in imagination and be captivated by unusual sightings, may seem to bring more joy and happiness to people's life, we cannot under estimate the value of a ''habituated mindset".

Like de Botton observes that "they had fallen into the habit of considering their universe to be boring-- and it had duly fallen into line with their expectations". Some people feel at ease in a "habituated mindset", just being at home, having nothing to worry about. The fast pace of life in the modern era in fact requires us to have a "habituated mindset," meaning that we are settled within our expectations. Furthermore, when one comes back from a vacation, he tends to say the phrase "home sweet home", suggesting that there is indeed no place like home, our habituated environment. To change our perspective at how we look at things, is like coming up to a new solution for an old problem, just like how in the beginning de Botton despised London, and in the end saw latent layers of value released from it. People could well argue as to how long can we be expected to keep a "traveling mindset" within our habituated surrounding. Inevitably, we are going to get bored of seeing the same things over and over again, and at that time, applying a "traveling mindset" would be of no avail

too.

Going further, de Botton concludes that our responses to the world are crucially moulded by whom we are with, "being closely observed by a companion inhibits us from observing from observing others ". Yes, traveling alone gives one complete freedom and flexibility of what he/she wants to do, in fact sometimes opinions of others can help us perceive things in a new positive way, just like how De Maistre shook us from our passivity by suggesting us to "reverse" the process of habituation, which ultimately lead de Botton from despising London to being in awe of it. The word "reverse," normally used in a negative way, here seems to be giving a sense of positivity, as to how reversing the process began bearing fruit for de Botton. However, De botton seems to have seen only the negative side of traveling with our companions here, suggesting they are nothing but a hindrance to achieving our main goal. That, however, is not the case. Being with a companion on a trip does not necessarily mean our view on things is driven by them. We sometimes do need an extra pair of eyes to appreciate the things we like. We want to give vent to our feeling of joy and content to whatever we are seeing. Our companions could perhaps share the same views as us or perhaps give us a better insight of our main goal. Its much more interesting and fun when people have a companion to accompany them on their travel, ultimately decreasing chances of one getting bored. Trips with companions are generally more fruitful than those without companions. It is evident of the fact that sometimes others opinion can open up new ways of perception for us, not always though.

The overall essay gives an indication that how de Botton just blatantly brands people with a "habituated mindset" as boring, and seemingly expects people to live life the way how he thinks is more better. He does not bother looking at the positive side of a "habituated mindset" and seemingly expects people to live life the way he aspires to. It tells us as to how a habituated and traveling mindset are different.