What does it mean to live the “good life”? The topic has been debated for thousands of years as people from all walks of life hold different values higher in accordance with their morals. People reflect their views of what they believe to be good through there culture, art, and lifestyle. Variations of how people perceive what it means to live the “good life” are even present within people of the same culture. Two renowned men from Attica, the area of land encompassing the ancient Greek city-state Athens, Sophocles and Plato share a similar culture yet depict different ideas of what it means to live the “good life”. Sophocles presents theories of the “good life” through the use of his characters in his plays, while Plato uses literature and dialogue to animate what he believes it means to live goodly. Living the “good life” is portrayed as …show more content…
If one was to view the “good life” through the eyes of Antigone, they would believe that one would have to devote one’s life to both upholding the laws of the gods and to the betterment of the family over the gain of the individual. For those not convinced that Antigone had the “good life” figured out, Plato’s philosophy introduces a much different approach with a similar aspect. Plato, because of the teachings of Socrates, believes that to live the “good life” one must do what is necessary to achieve complete happiness. To do this, Plato suggests that to gain happiness, one must perform acts of goodness for the enjoyment of the act and for the knowledge that act brings the individual, after the the good deed is done. I believe, as far as living the “good life” is concerned, there is no definite answer as to what will ensure one’s success in achieving a life so complete that it would be deemed the “good
“To be interested in the public good we must be disinterested, that is, not interested in goods in which our personal selves are wrapped up”(Mead). A constant debate arises between the importance of one’s own good, against the importance of the public good. Every person finds their own way of achieving the good life considering these two sides. Whether private good appears to be more important than the other, or whether a balance between the two must be reached; there is no right or wrong. Between the readings of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks by Rebecca Skloot and Antigone by Sophocles, having a balance between public good and private good in life conveys the impression of a typical good life. With that, It is essential to create a balance
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
In ancient greek philosophies such as platonic, aristotelian, stoic and epicurean, as well as in medieval christian philosophies, the answer to to the question “what makes a life go best?” is always a narrow answer. With little variation the only life that is good and worth living, to the aforementioned schools of thought, is the life which which is spent developing an understanding of nature and of metaphysics, or rather the life spent as a philosopher. However the position which is by far more popular today is that of pluralism. Pluralism is the concept that there are multiple ways to live that result in a life going best; Desire Satisfaction Theory attempts to offer a justification for pluralism.
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.
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.
To be just or unjust. To be happy or unhappy? Men fall into these two categories. Why does a man act according to these 2 extremes? Is it because they fear punishment? Are they quivering in fear of divine retribution? Or do men do just things because it is good for them to do so? Is justice, good of its rewards and consequences? Or is it good for itself. What is justice? Are the people who are just, just as happy as the people who are unjust? Plato sheds light on these questions and says yes, I have the definition of justice and yes, just people are happy if not happier than unjust people. Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people.
Grant, S., (2007). A defence of Aristotle on the good life. Richmond Journal of Philosophy (16) p. 1-8.
What establishes a noble, valuable, enjoyable life? Many philosophers tried their own beliefs to these ancient and most persistent of philosophical question. Most of Philosophers have agreed that the best possible life is a life where the ideas of “virtue” and “happiness” are fulfilled. Nevertheless expected differences in terms, many great minds theorized that the road to a joyful, flourishing, happy life is paved with virtues. For example, Aristotle believed that anyone keen to live a virtuous life will reach happiness (Aristotle 1992).
In Greek tragedy the natural forces are destructive. These forces might be nature, gods or fate. Man is helpless in facing these powers.
“The Good Life” in Socrates mind isn 't’ just simply defined in this primary source, however, it is implied. It is clear Socrates believes that “The Good Life” isn’t about where one ended up, or how much material gain they inhabited through the course of their lives, it is about if they clung on to mortality and lived their lives doing what they believed was good. Socrates says, “A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong - acting the part
Ethics is the good in an individual and should not be confused or interchanged with morality. As morality are the ways that an individual can obtain good by following the laws of one’s society and the commandments of one’s religion. Although there are many great philosophers whom have impacted the world, multiples of them have extremist views about society, and therefore Aristotle is the philosopher whom I consider has a similar perspective of ethics as myself. He discusses how the “good life” comes from happiness and continues to explain to attain the “good life” it must be done as a community. Even though Aristotle is one of the eldest philosophers, his ideas of ethics are still relevant in today’s society.
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
According to Aristotle, the good life is the happy life, as he believes happiness is an end in itself. In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle develops a theory of the good life, also known as eudaimonia, for humans. Eudaimonia is perhaps best translated as flourishing or living well and doing well. Therefore, when Aristotle addresses the good life as the happy life, he does not mean that the good life is simply one of feeling happy or amused. Rather, the good life for a person is the active life of functioning well in those ways that are essential and unique to humans. Aristotle invites the fact that if we have happiness, we do not need any other things making it an intrinsic value. In contrast, things such as money or power are extrinsic valuables as they are all means to an end. Usually, opinions vary as to the nature and conditions of happiness. Aristotle argues that although ‘pleasurable amusements’ satisfy his formal criteria for the good, since they are chosen for their own sake and are complete in themselves, nonetheless, they do not make up the good life since, “it would be absurd if our end were amusement, and we laboured and suffered all our lives for the sake of amusing ourselves.”
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.
...good life is, Aristotle still defines a good life in a way that is too specific to be applied to all instances of human behavior. Personally, I see Aristotle’s idea of a good life to be close to my own idea of what a good life is. However, with access to thousands of years of accumulated human knowledge, I recognize that what is best for me is likely not best for everyone, and others must find their own path to happiness on their own journey.