Epicureanism is the theory that personal pleasure is the highest good, beginning with the philosopher, Epicurus.
(why does the religion have this trait?) Between the years of 341-270 B.C.E, a man who will go down in history as one of the greatest philosophers of ancient Greece was born and he goes by the name of Epicurus. There isn’t much known about him as a child but as he grew older he became most famous for trying to figure out the hardest puzzle on earth, what makes people happy? Epicurus knew for sure that people was constantly looking for happiness in the wrong place and certainly didn’t know the real definition of ‘happy’. Epicurus then decided to start a school to study happiness, crazy right? The school contained plenty of activities
…show more content…
The first mistake is that we believe that we need to be in romantic, sexual relationships. This sounds good but when you look around you can see a vast amount of unhappy couples, people cheating, bitterness, jealousy, etc. To solve this problem Epicurus observed how nice all friendships tend to be, and if all friends are with the same kind of treatment as if you were in a relationship. He also believe that people are more committed to their friendships than the romantic relationships anyways so stop the cheating and be friends.
The second problem that Epicurus stated was that we humans think that we need money to be happy. Money is always good but for the most part money attracts the wrong things and even the wrong people. Having plenty of money and the people around you don’t, causes jealousy and jealousy can lead to more dangerous things such as murder, deceit, etc.
Lastly, Epicurus noticed that we are all obsessed with materialistic, luxury things, especially big houses, nice locations and cars. He said we believe that having a luxury life will give us a calm mindset, and keep us away from chaos. As time went by he noticed that wasn’t the right thing
This man had spent the better part of a year reading and rereading the Handbook of Epictetus, throughout that book the message is similar to one of the topics Sherman touches on, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,”(pg 2). Basically the circumstances maybe beyond our control, but ultimately what affects us is our judgements and the way we react. She makes a great point that we underutilize our ability to control ourselves when we let external things drive our happiness and that is the difference in so many people's lives, they wager their happiness and satisfaction on factors that should not ultimately
He argues that Athens had great fame because they were able to have brilliant authors who declared how great Athens was (180). Directly relating to this he thought that Rome’s fame, and success was in part due to their fortune, and prosperity. However in later Rome he points to fortune being a leading cause of the downfall of Rome. He wrote that “To the men that had so easily endured toil and peril, anxiety and adversity the leisure and riches which are generally regarded as so desirable proved a burden and a curse (181).” In this statement he means that the Romans began to place too much value on material goods. They began to love money, and to lust for power which he called avarice. He believed that Romans began to see money as something they could waste on simply the first thing that came to mind (183). He felt that they wasted their money, and lost the values that they originally held. His argument that the Roman desire for money and power is directly correlated to his argument of the destruction of the moral fiber of
I only see him being right if you look at death as something that is a positive idea. When death gets looked at as nothing but not looked at as something positive in the same sense, people are going to grieve about it. Epictetus’ argues we should not grieve because death is natural. Well if we look at it that way, then grieving is a natural emotion also. We cannot control what comes to us naturally. The grieving process can end up becoming a long stressful process. Therefore grieving can become a huge problem in someone’s life that can cause him or her to become irritable and intolerable to others. According to Epictetus’ philosophy, the point of life is to be happy. Grieving is going to cause your life to be the opposite. Attempting to ignore death is only going to cause us to think about it more. Constantly thinking of the loss of your loved one is going to cause you to think of them. Most likely, he or she will go on to think of the memories they had with their loved one and then continue to go through the grieving
Today, I will be speaking about the Epic System and why it is so significant. The Epic system is a software that majority of hospital and health clinic’s practice. Epic is a private company with private owned employees. It is a system in the computer that keeps files confidential and secluded. Epic system is used often in hospitals and healthcare clinics because it is easy to learn, organized, safe and secure. As stated in Epic.com “EpicCare EMR is known for being fast and physician-friendly”. With this said more health care facilities prefer to use this system. Also, most of these businesses are beginning to start their employees out on this program. Another key point, with this system patients are benefiting from it as well. A lot of patients
Epicurean ethical theory consistently operates under the presumption that hedonism, or pleasure, is the greatest good. For the Epicureans, an individual in a state of ataraxia, or complete freedom from mental disturbance, has achieved the most complete and pleasurable life, the greatest good for a human being. The concept of ataraxia, however, differs in many ways from what most would characterize as hedonism. Consequently, Epicurus is able to construct a great many controversial (and perhaps counterintuitive) views on particularly delicate subjects like death, the gods, friendship, and society. I find the issue of death to be one of the most glaring holes in all of Epicurean ethics. How are we to reconcile an ethical doctrine of hedonism with the issue of death? The manner in which Epicurus defines his hedonism sheds an alternative light on the world, a light which illuminates a much more accepting image of death than other generic notions of hedonism.
Epicurus was admittedly a Hedonist, and this philosophy has had a huge influence on his work. Especially so on his death argument. Hedonism is, “the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself for a person, pain the only thing that is bad in itself for a person.”
The mindsets of people in society are often heavily influenced by the conflicts and circumstances that are common within the time-span in which these people lived. In times of war, people may be more patriotic; in times of pestilence, people may be more pious. Whether cynical or optimistic, the understandings of these mindsets allow for a better insight into how theses people lived their lives and the philosophies that guided them. In the case of the philosophers Plato and Epictetus, their philosophies sprang up amidst collapsing cities and exile. Plato and Epictetus’ philosophies differed due to their individual experiences in that Plato believed that all is not what it seemed, while Epictetus believed that what was presented should only matter if they are within an individual’s concern.
Happiness is often viewed as a subjective state of mind in which one may say they are happy when they are on vacation with friends, spending time with their family, or having a cold beer on the weekend while basking in the sun. However, Aristotle and the Stoics define happiness much differently. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as “something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (NE 1097b20). In this paper, I will compare and contrast Aristotle and the Stoics’ view on human happiness. Aristotle argues that bodily and external goods are necessary to happiness, while Epictetus argues they are not.
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
He states that we should inherently fulfill these desires because if we did not have them, then we would be exhibiting some form of suffering. As human beings, our aim in life is to avoid stimuli that cause us pain, and strive after things that give us pleasure. Thus, it is crucial to follow our innate need to obtain basic human needs such as food, water, and shelter. Epicurus argues that we need to accumulate the needs that are natural and necessary, so that we can survive and ultimately lead satisfying lives. It seems that he is attempting to advocate a view to have individuals be content with their possessions and become less dependent on material
What are the three principles that Epicurus and Lucretius are arguing for in these passages?
Many stoic philosophers have taken a different approach to virtue and happiness. Homer and Epicurus for instance argue that happiness through desires and virtue are co-dependent suggesting that men with no desires cannot live happy lives. This slightly counters Seneca’s belief that happiness is a result of virtue.
To find where this happiness comes from, Aristotle explored nature through biology. Based off the Stanford Encyclopedia for Philosophy and a website called The Pursuit of Happiness that talks about the history of Aristotle, he knew that what would ultimately make humans happy would have to...
The pursuit for happiness has been a quest for man throughout the ages. In his ethics, Aristotle argues that happiness is the only thing that the rational man desires for its own sake, thus, making it good and natural. Although he lists three types of life for man, enjoyment, statesman, and contemplative, it is the philosopher whom is happiest of all due to his understanding and appreciation of reason. Aristotle’s version of happiness is not perceived to include wealth, honor, or trivial