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…
both about living to the fullest extent of a few aspects of life as believed by Sophocles’ character Antigone and as achieving complete and total happiness as expressed by Plato’s philosophy in the Republic. One of these such viewpoints is represented well in the play Sophocles’ play Antigone. Antigone is a play depicting the struggle of the daughter of Oedipus and Jocasta, Antigone, as she attempts to follow her beliefs and live a morally just life. According to Antigone, the way to live the “good life”, or morally correct is to live according to the will and laws of the gods. Antigone’s views are first presented during an argument with her sister Ismene about the burial of their brother Polynices. “So, do as you like, whatever suits you best- I will bury him myself. And even if I die in the act, that death will be a glory. I will lie with the one I love and loved by him- an outrage sacred to the gods! I have longer to please the dead than please the living here: in the kingdom down below I’ll lie forever. Do as you like, dishonor the laws the gods hold in honor” (Antigone, 63). Antigone argues that the burying of Polynices, even though unlawful according to the state, is morally correct because it is an honor decreed by the gods. This shows how Antigone wants to live the “good life” according to higher moral values. By rejecting the laws set forth by Creon and choosing to follow a more pious path, Antigone shows that she believes living the “good life” means to follow the gods’ laws exactly as the gods intended them to be followed. Antigone represents these values is when she confesses to Creon that she committed had, indeed, buried Polynices, against the will of Creon. “Of course I did it. It wasn’t Zues, not in the least, who made this proclamation- not to me. Nor did that Justice, dwelling with the gods beneath the earth, ordain such laws for men. Nor did I think your edict had such a force that you, a mere mortal, could override the gods, the great unwritten, unshakable traditions. They are alive, not just today or yesterday: they live forever, from the first of time, and no one knows when they first saw the light” (Antigone 82). Antigone knows that by confessing to Creon, about her part in burying her brother, she will face death. However, because of her belief in the higher laws of the gods, she questions Creon’s authority. Antigone not only believes that because Creon is mortal, he has no right to make a law that contradicts a law of the gods but also that any law made by a mortal in contradiction to the laws of the gods holds no value in the life of a pious person. Antigone does not solely believe that complete devotion is the key to achieving the “good life” for she also believes that she holds a duty to her family to better the whole of the family before herself. “You have your excuses. I am on my way, I will raise a mound for him, for my dear brother” (Antigone 63). During her argument with Ismene, Antigone announces, even though she knows the punishment of burying her brother Polynices is death by stoning, that she will see her brother buried because it will better him and allow him to reach the afterlife. This shows that Antigone does not just view religious devotion as the sole means to achieve the “good life” but rather there is an aspect of devotion to one’s family as well. Antigone’s challenging of Creon’s new law firms her stance that to live the “good life” one must live in complete accordance with the laws of the gods, even if such actions could cause harm to the individual. Another way of viewing the “good life” is presented in Plato’s Republic. In the Republic, Plato discusses Socrates’ and other notable figures’ views about what it means to live a morally correct life. Throughout the books of the Republic, Socrates has to defend his viewpoint that for one to live the “good life” means to live with the most amount of happiness. “Glaucon: Tell me, do you think there is a sort of good we would choose to have, not because we desire its consequences, but because we would welcome it for its own sake- enjoying… And is there a sort of food we love for its own sake, and also for the sake of its consequences- knowing… And do you also recognize a third kind of good, which includes physical training, medical treatment when sick, and both medicine itself and other ways of making money… In which of them do you place justice? Socrates: …the one that anyone who is to be blessed with happiness must love both because of itself and because of its consequences” (Republic, 357b-358a). Socrates, when questioned about what he believes is the goodliest of Glaucon’s three versions of what it means to be good, states that the most ‘good’ a person can hope to obtain is that of happiness both at the moment of its occurrence and after. To Socrates, living the “good life” entitles doing what makes one happy for not just the enjoyment of the act but also for the knowledge the act brings to the person. This idea is not just so easily accepted by the scholars surrounding him and they force Socrates to defend his claim that happiness is the key to living the “good life”. Socrates goes about doing so in a rather unusual way as he implores the help of the other men to create a hypothetical city, in which he will enforce his notion with the help of the religious beliefs of the Greek people of the time. During the process of the creation of the city, Socrates states that “So, since the gods are good, they are not- as the masses claim- the cause of everything. Instead, they are a cause of only a few things that happen to human beings, while of most they are not the cause. For good things are fewer than bad ones in our lives. Of the good things, they alone are the cause, but we must find some other cause for the bad ones, not the gods” (Republic, 379c). In this proclamation, Socrates utilizes the religion of the ancient Greek people to influence their opinions to what will cause happiness. Socrates believes that to live the “good life” one must seek happiness for all that it is worth not merely part of the worth. When he creates agreement amongst the men that the gods can only be attributed to the good things, and because good acts can only lead to good things, we as humans have a duty to believe in religion to a degree. Seeing as Socrates uses what is good and what is happy interchangeably, it can be inferred that good acts can only lead to happiness, therefore human beings should only engage in good acts to achieve the “good life”. Not only does Socrates infer doing good acts is the only way to achieve the “good life”, he also implies that because the gods only give human beings good fortune, the rational thing to do would be to praise the gods frequently because in doing so would put you in their good favor. Being in the gods’ favor could only help one in their quest for the living goodly because, according to Socrates, since the gods are only responsible for the good that happens to humans, it would stand to reason that humans would have nothing to lose from attempting to appease the gods. Plato, as a student of Socrates, would share a similar idea as to the nature of what is inherently good in life. As a result, Plato’s philosophy, during the Republic, would be that to live the “good life” one would have to live through good acts so that they would be rewarded with happiness. What it means to live the “good life” holds different meaning to different people and there is no precise way of saying that one person’s idea of the meaning of the “good life” holds any more significance than another’s.
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
life”.
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.
“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
Grant, S., (2007). A defence of Aristotle on the good life. Richmond Journal of Philosophy (16) p. 1-8.
total good of the man. Plato holds that if the desire were truly for a good
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.
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.
In Greek tragedy the natural forces are destructive. These forces might be nature, gods or fate. Man is helpless in facing these powers.
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.
“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
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).
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
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.
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.”