Happiness in today’s modern language is defined as a pleasurable or satisfying experience (Merriam-Webster). This definition differs greatly when compared to the Greek word happiness was translated from, eudemonia. Eudemonia is best translated as “well-being” or “flourishing” (Reeve, 227). From this definition, happiness is not based solely off of an emotional state, but a condition of a person over a lifetime, and not just in a specific moment in time. A kind of active living that is in accordance with virtue (Aristotle, Book I, VII). Philosophers describe happiness as “the good of a man”. Agreeing that the soul of a man is virtuous, and the ability to attain happiness is through virtue. Although many philosophers do disagree on what is needed …show more content…
The Stoics believed that happiness is achieved by preserving ones good virtue alone (Edelstein, 1.), while Aristotle believed that in order to be happy, bodily and external goods are necessary to perform virtuous acts and therefore be of good virtue (Sherman, 2). These opposing viewpoints propose the questions of whether external and bodily goods are required to be virtuous and therefore acquire happiness or whether being of good virtue alone is viable for happiness. Aristotle did not believe that virtue alone could be sufficient for happiness. He expressed, “Possession of virtue seems actually capable with being asleep, or with lifelong inactivity, and, further with the greatest suffering and misfortunes, but a man who is living so, no one would call happy, unless they were defending a thesis at all cost.” (Aristotle, Book I, V). Aristotle believed that in order to live a life of virtue, there is a need for both external and bodily goods. Without them, one could not …show more content…
The need for external goods is not required for happiness because external goods can neither be inheritably good nor bad. To further explain this rational, Epictetus divided things into two categories; things that are up to us, and things that are not up to us. Up to us being conception, choice, desire, and aversion, everything that is our own doing. Not up to us would be our body, property, and reputation, everything that is not our own doing (Epictetus, 1). External goods would fall under the category of things that are not up to us. Stoics believe that it is okay to prefer one external good over another (i.e. health over sickness), but they know that there is a thin line between preferring and becoming frustrated when one is unable to obtain the preferred good. The Enchiridion says, “If you ever happen to turn your attention to externals, so as to wish to please anyone, be assured that you have ruined your scheme of life.” Expressing the use of external goods in order to please others would result in living a lesser-unfulfilled life. The Stoics acknowledge that bodily and external good are not to be neglected but can easily be considered of too much value. For this reason, they say that little attention should be given to the things that are not up to us. Instead focus attention on developing virtue, the only thing able to be
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.
Before we look into specifics, we’ll examine the history and development of “happiness” as a philosophy. Of course, the emotion of happiness has always existed, but it began to be seriously contemplated around 2,500 years ago by philosophers like Confucius, Buddha, Socrates and Aristotle. Shortly after Buddha taught his followers his Noble Eight Fold Path (which we will talk about later), Aristotle was teaching that happiness is “dependent on the individual” (Aristotle).
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
From pursuing pleasure to avoiding pain, life seems to ultimately be about achieving happiness. However, how to define and obtain happiness has and continues to be a widely debated issue. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle gives his view on happiness. Aristotle focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life.';(Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true happiness and reaching a desirable end. Aristotle defines good'; as that which everything aims.(Aristotle, 459) Humans have an insatiable need to achieve goodness and eventual happiness. Sometimes the end that people aim for is the activity they perform, and other times the end is something we attempt to achieve by means of that activity. Aristotle claims that there must be some end since everything cannot be means to something else.(Aristotle, 460) In this case, there would be nothing we would try to ultimately achieve and everything would be pointless. An ultimate end exists so that what we aim to achieve is attainable. Some people believe that the highest end is material and obvious (when a person is sick they seek health, and a poor person searches for wealth).
In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle then describes steps required for humans to obtain the ultimate happiness. He also states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. A virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The role of virtue to Aristotle is an important one, with out it, it seems humans cannot obtain happiness. Virtue is the connection one has to happiness and how they should obtain it. My goal in this paper is to connect Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics to my own reasoning of self-ethics. I strongly agree with Aristotle’s goal of happiness and conclude to his idea of virtues, which are virtuous states of character that affect our decision making in life.
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.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
1.) Aristotle begins by claiming that the highest good is happiness (198, 1095a20). In order to achieve this happiness, one must live by acting well. The highest good also needs to be complete within itself, Aristotle claims that, “happiness more than anything else seems complete without qualification, since we always…choose it because of itself, never because of something else (204, 1097b1). Therefore, Aristotle is claiming that we choose things and other virtues for the end goal of happiness. Aristotle goes on to define happiness as a self-sufficient life that actively tries to pursue reason (205, 1098a5). For a human, happiness is the soul pursuing reason and trying to apply this reason in every single facet of life (206, 1098a10). So, a virtuous life must contain happiness, which Aristotle defines as the soul using reason. Next, Aristotle explains that there are certain types of goods and that “the goods of the soul are said to be goods to the fullest extent…” (207, 1098b15). A person who is truly virtuous will live a life that nourishes their soul. Aristotle is saying “that the happy person lives well and does well…the end
As one ponders on how to live a good life, many ideas come to mind. Whether this may be wealth, family, or beauty, the early philosopher’s theories need to be taken into consideration. Those early philosophers include Plato, Aristotle, the Stoics, and The Epicureans. These four committed their lives towards bettering life, and are the basis of most philosophical theories. It is evident that these four need to be read, understood, and discussed to better understand one’s life. They always pondered on the thought of how to have a perfect life and society. When one makes their own theory, based upon these early philosophers, not only do they need to establish a strong belief system, it is required to practice this too. Plato had the most basic of theories, being that only virtue was needed in life to be happy and nothing else. For Aristotle, he used Plato’s foundation and added that external goods, such as wealth, respect, friends, and beauty were all necessary. Without one of these, Aristotle believes that one cannot live a happy life. For the Stoics, they settled on a balanced approached between virtue and external goods, saying that virtue is necessary, yet external goods are preferred too. The Epicureans largely argue the Stoics view, and present that pleasure (tranquility) is the goal of every life, but virtues and friends are required for this. Each theory has many critics, even with Aristotle being a critic of his own theory. None seems perfect, yet all fit today’s modern society. I found that I agree with the Stoics theory the most, and find that any external good is fine as long as virtue is the basis of that person’s life.
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.
Happiness can be understood as the moral goal of life or can be unpredictable and is something we create from ourselves and by ourselves. The idea of happiness was known as something we nurture on our own and is a state of emotion. Completing our everyday goals will soon bring us happiness, which seems to be very important to most humans and is what makes life worth living, but this is not certain. This conception of Eudemonia was common in ancient Greece as it is currently today. Aristotle had what he thought was an ideal activity for all those who wanted to live life to the fullest, be happy, and have purpose.
the right way to go. Aristotle says that virtues are something that we
When looking at the idea of Aristotle and his reading, “The Proper Function of Man and It’s Relation to the Good Life”, it is not hard to look at his idea and compare it to the ancient world views. Aristotle believes in the pursuit of happiness, which will always be with you throughout life and will consist of one of three types of life that will make the “masses” very happy. He argues about the different ways people work towards obtaining a life full of happiness, making this their number one goal towards the end of their life, to look back at their life and saying they lived a life full of happiness. The pursuit of happiness makes the “masses” want to achieve every goal they have stuck in the back of their minds, especially those main goals that will lead them to the ultimate goal, a life filled of
According to Aristotle, “Happiness is an exercise of the vital faculties in accordance with perfect virtue (Arête) or excellence.” In achieving happiness
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...