Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle and Epictetus view on human happiness
Aristotle and Epictetus view on human happiness
Epicurean debate
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle and Epictetus view on human happiness
The Epicurean theory essentially encompasses the thought that we as humans, have a natural instinct to seek pleasure and avoid pain and that this instinct in and of itself is what will ultimately cause us to achieve happiness and the ‘good life’. Pleasure is considered a feeling of satisfaction, joy and overall contentment with a particular situation or state of being. While pain as the polar opposite, being a feeling of immense physical or mental discomfort/distress.
Epicurus states that pleasure is “the starting point and the goal of a happy life” which could be interpreted as pleasure being both the means and the end of living a happy life. He believes that in order to achieve the goal of happiness, we must first understand that pleasure is the underlying cause of happiness.
An interpretation of the phrase “starting point” would be that when we are born into the world, when we are without literacy and experience, our initial desire is to seek pleasure and avoid pain. Epicurus says that we use “the pleasure feeling as our criterion” (PHIL132 Unit Reader, p3) when choosing between two particular actions or possible circumstances.
Although Epicurus states that pleasure is the pathway to happiness and the good life, he does not believe that all pleasures are good pleasures and that there is a distinct difference between pleasure and indulgence. One point he makes in the ‘Letter to Menoeceus’ is that “there are times when we forgo certain pleasures, particularly when they are followed by too much unpleasantness” (PHIL132 Unit Reader, p3). An example of this is indulging in alcoholic beverages; when one drinks too high a quantity of alcohol they may feel pleasure in the short term, however the day after usually result...
... middle of paper ...
...rom partaking in something productive, but it can provide mental relaxation that could be beneficial for someone with issues in balancing different segments of their life, though it does not fit in with the criterion of ‘the simple life’ Epicurus believes is optimal.
Epicurus provides some great ideas towards what constitutes happiness and ‘the good life’ that can be applied to many facets of life, however I believe some aspects must be further contemplated to find a more infallible theory. The view that one can only feel pleasure in the absence of pain seems to be one that is very black and white and does not seem to take in the intricacies of modern society. Fundamentally, the pursuit of certain pleasures and the minimisation of pain would likely result in happiness, however a mild dosing of the contrary could also contribute to ‘happiness and the good life’.
Hedonism is a theory of morality. There are several popular philosophers who support hedonism; some of whom offer their own interpretation of the theory. This paper will focus on the Epicurean view. Epicurus, a Greek philosophers born in 341 B.C., generated a significant measure of controversy amongst laymen and philosophical circles in regards to his view of the good life. Philosophers whom teachings predate Epicurus’ tended to focus on the question of “How can human beings live a good, morally sound, life?” Epicurus ruffled feathers and ultimately expanded the scope of philosophy by asking “What makes people happy?”
Through books one to three in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between pain and happiness, clarifying the endless war that men face in the path of these two extremes. Man’s quest for pleasure is considered by the self-conscious and rational Aristotle; a viewpoint traditionally refuted in contemporary, secular environments.
First, as a premise, Epicurus asserts all good and bad consists in sense-experience. In his ethics, he is a hedonist, who believes pleasure is the highest good and pain is the worst and found on the instinct that people refuse pain without reason. So, he defines things cause pleasure as good and things cause pain as bad. Therefore, the sense-experience,
Eating the candy is at first a very enjoyable experience. It is intrinsically good, but will cause serious pain later. Eating the candy will lead to later pain, thus eating the candy is extrinsically bad. So, it is clear that something can simultaneously be intrinsically good as well as extrinsically bad. This distinction does pertain to the Epicurean argument. It is logical and sound for an individual to believe that since being dead in itself is not a painful experience, death is not intrinsically bad. But the issue arises when it comes to extrinsic badness. To imply that pain and badness are interrelated in death, as Epicurus does, is a problem. There are many things that are extrinsically bad, such as verbal bullying or the death of a parent, that do not cause physical pain. Thus, death can be extrinsically bad despite not causing any
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).
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.
Further, Aristotle parallels the highest good with happiness: “As far as its name goes, most people virtually agree [about what the good is] … (and) call it happiness”(1.4.1095a17-19). In order for happiness to fit Aristotle’s definition of the good it must be “unconditionally complete” meaning “choiceworthy in itself”(1.7.1097a34) and “self-sufficient” meaning “lacking nothing”(1.7.1097b15). To be the highest good happiness will need to be the “mos...
In the First Book of The Ethics, Aristotle states that “true happiness is activity that expresses virtue.” This idea is expressed that happiness is a state of being, which the world around said mind cannot contribute to this state of being. However, happiness defined during his time is more about achieving and being able to fulfill these virtues and not only look at the instant gratifications in life, such as pleasures in only material form. Happiness seems to be Aristotle’s reason that people tend to aim and “hence the good has been well described as that at which everything aims.” (23, Aristotle) Aristotle saw that neither notions toward happiness, such as wealth, honor or other ordinary pleasures that people tend to lean toward could not
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
People who follow Epicureanism beliefs live a peaceful life. Their lives are not reliant on material possessions and other excesses. Believing in Epicureanism gives life meaning by creating tranquility through happiness. Tranquility and peace can only be achieved after removing overabundance. After these are taken away, one is able to reach true happiness. Epicureans believe that “happiness [depends] on avoiding all forms of physical excess”. Greed, for example, is a result from being over-exposed to physical excess. Founder of Epicureanism, Epicurus, said “nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little”. Greed can start out as simply wanting a better car than your neighbor but soon can lead to stockpiling unnecessary possessions
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
When talking about pleasure there needs to be a distinction between the quality and the quantity. While having many different kinds of pleasures can be considered a good thing, one is more likely to favor quality over quantity. With this distinction in mind, one is more able to quantify their pleasures as higher or lesser pleasures by ascertaining the quality of them. This facilitates the ability to achieve the fundamental moral value that is happiness. In his book Utilitarianism, John Stuart Mill offers a defining of utility as pleasure or the absence of pain in addition to the Utility Principle, where “Actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (Mill 7). Through this principle, Mill emphasizes that it is not enough to show that happiness is an end in itself. Mill’s hedonistic view is one in support of the claim that every human action is motivated by or ought to be motivated by the pursuit of pleasure.
But since we are rational beings we should try to pursue pleasure as rationally and as intelligently as possible. Epicurus said that, for each of our actions, we should first consider the pleasures it would give us and the pains it would lead to and then measure the net outcome. For example some activities like drinking alcohol in excess amount lead to short term boost in pleasure but ultimately lead to great pains in the form of sick bodies, hangovers and broken relationships. Epicureanism also argues that we should limit our desires to what is necessary and easy to
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...