Can we achieve happiness?

Unfortunately in our world today, there are so many new, better, and constantly improved materials being shown to us that we are never fully satisfied with the versions we own. With government, media, peers and all different kinds of authority figures telling us many different things about how we should live, what we need, and what we should strive for in order to be successful and happy, it is incredibly hard to think about how happiness could ever be a reachable goal. Frued suggests that "our civilization is largely responsible for our misery, and...we [would] be much happier if we gave it up" (Frued: Civilization and it's Discontents, 33), meaning abandoning our part in society and returning to the root of our non materialistic/influenced existence would be a much greater benefit to our being.
Personally, as one who does not fully pay attention to the media, though I get rough accounts and explanations from those around me, I do see that much of what we would consider good, and what would give us "happiness", is full freedom and will. Money plays a huge part as well, as to express our "wants" over our "needs" is to have an excess of wealth, which we may do with as we please. Freud also states, in the documentary video watched in class, "The Century of the Self", that "[humans] must always be controlled, thus discontent". Since we have this predetermined system holding us back from our greatest desires, how is it that we could ever be content with the lives we lead? Freud is right, I believe, in saying that we could indeed be happy, only if we were to disregard the higher power.
The belief that we are set under a state of rule to keep ourselves in order, and also discontent, for the fear of civilization becoming uncivilized and therefore projectively dangerous to ourselves and others around us, is to keep our egos in check. On the other hand, what may be dangerous is, in fact, what we need in order to be happy. Freud goes as far to say, "what is bad is often not at all what is...dangerous to the ego, on the contrary, it may be something which is desirable and enjoyable to the ego". This case is seen in many instances, where what we want is often what we are told we cannot have, for example, a young child is told they are not able to have a cookie, now all they can think of is the want of that cookie, and how they are unable to have it because the higher power says so. Further, if we were given the chance to explore these wants he believe would make us happier, we may even decide that what we thought we wanted is not, in fact, what we really want, only the constant discontent we have with our current situations make us believe that what we do not have will make us happier.
In conclusion, without being given the chance to explore what we believe is best for ourselves, we create a part within ourselves that we deem dissatisfied and unhappy. Because of the higher power, or government, we stand under and regard as our leadership, we dare not disrupt it's precious ruling system for our own fear or chaos, but in doing so, we are never able to step out of line in order to put our egos before anything else. The standards in which our history has set for the current generations does not allow us to grasp full happiness, there is too much we are told we cannot have, and we know that we will never attain, and this will therefore make us ever discontent and unhappy.

2. Do you think Socrates is a man who is willing to die for his personal and philosophical beliefs, or do you consider him to be 'playing' the martyr figure in the extreme sense? The former has connotations of personal conviction whereas the martyr-figure, in this instance, to quote a nearby dictionary (Apple's), is "a person who displays or exaggerates their discomfort or distress in order to obtain sympathy or admiration." Can we separate the two?

I believe I am among many people who feel quite sorry for Socrates. Though I do respect him, because he is, as I feel, standing up for what he believes to be right. He accepted his accusations, though wrongly accused, and is leaving himself as an example of the injustice of his people, but will not admit it. He will not betray those whom he is under leadership. Socrates, while attempting to reconcile, may have unobtrusively extended a position of the martyr-figure upon himself. I say this because I do not think Socrates would have been one to purposefully bestow upon others the feeling of sadness or sympathy for him; if anything, he would have wanted respect and an act of compliance from those condemning him. Socrates would only be considered the martyr-figure in my eyes if he purposefully and strongly pressed upon others to pity him. The feelings may come indirectly from others only through his honesty and reason.
Socrates fully intended to be a good person throughout his life, and by educating others without meaning harm, he fully supported those of his students who would want to return to him and chastise his teachings, and question his ways. In no way would he repel their beliefs; he would question them philosophically perhaps, but in the cases of his students, he only wished to broaden their spectrum of knowledge, not shut out their own opinions. He would enjoy talking to others who perceived themselves as intelligent, not to belittle them, but to engage in a stimulating conversation, debate, and come to a better conclusion for both the speakers. Therefore, the court really had no justly way of accusing Socrates of ill teachings and forcing unwelcome information of his students.
Furthermore, I believe Socrates was a studious man that was indeed willing to die for his own, strong beliefs, but in no way intended to be pitied for his fate. He believed that in the afterlife, a good man as he thought himself to be, would not be judged by his own God poorly and sent to an evil place, but rewarded for his goodness that his condemners could not see. He then had no reason to deny his meeting with justice and would willingly die for what he believed in.