Analyzing Epicurus's Principal Doctrines

The Leading Doctrines of Epicurean philosophy state that ‘it is impossible to live the pleasant life without also living sensibly, nobly and justly, and conversely it is impossible to live sensibly, nobly and justly without living pleasantly’ (Epicurus, 1998b, p.53). Therefore, the good Epicurean believes in order to live virtuously, one must adhere to a pleasurable life. For Epicureans it is impossible to live virtuously and unpleasantly or vice-versa. In addition, Epicurus describes pleasure as our ‘primary native good’ (Epicurus 1998a, p. 51), implying that all human actions are driven by pleasures and by the avoidance of pains. Another imperative concept to Epicurean philosophy is Epicurus’ idea of the three fundamental aspects in attaining pleasure, those of friendship, freedom and an analysed life

25. Epicurean teachings and politics were based on individual pleasure. The highest of all pleasures is the serenity of the soul, in complete absence of mental and physical pain. This can be achieved by eliminating fear.

The principal Doctrines, are written by Epicurus who lived from 341B.C. to 270 B.C. His theory is hedonism, which is rooted in pleasure. The book speaks of pain as being only temporary, and that it is only a pleasure over pain (V). This is a way of life to see the pleasures that life offers are what Epicurus is saying. And although, “no Pleasure is a bad thing in itself,” The results of obtaining the pleasure can bring greater displeasures (VIII). He is looking for the most pleasures one can get, and I suppose if he was not happy with his job, that he would quit. I can see Epicurus, avoiding a lot of things within his life because they would bring pain and frustration, like driving in rush hour. The idea sounds like he is living the simple life, or a hermit’s life.

In evaluating the philosopher’s goal of determining how to live a good life, Epicurean philosophers argue that pleasure is the greatest good and pain is the greatest bad. Foremost, for the purpose of this analysis, I must define the pleasure and pain described. Pleasure is seen as the state of being pleased or gratified. This term is defined more specifically by the subject to which the pleasure applies, depending on what he likes. Pain is the opposite of pleasure, which is a type of emotional or physical un-pleasure that results in something that the person dislikes. “Everything in which we rejoice is pleasure, just as everything that distresses us is pain,” (Cicero 1). Through this hedonistic assessment of pleasure and pain, epicurean philosophers come to the conclusion that, “the greatest pleasure [is that] which is perceived once all pain has been removed,” (Epicurus 1).

The Handbook vs. 90210 Finding happiness in life is the ultimate goal for many people; this task, however, is not easy. In a world surrounded by temptation, it is often extremely difficult to distinguish the difference between what leads to true happiness and what only temporarily gratifies. Innumerable philosophers have tried to tackle this challenge, and each has left behind various theories on how to achieve happiness. One of the most famous philosophers, Epictetus, came to the conclusion that Stoicism is the best way to find happiness in the mortal world. Epictetus lived from approximately 50-130 A.D. and the stoic movement began to catch on even earlier, around 300 B.C. (Epictetus 1).

Epicurus was an ancient Greek philosopher who lived from 3241-270 BC. This argument was favored by the ancient Greek skeptics, and maybe have been wrongly attributed to Epicurus by Lactantius who Christians considered and Atheist. Again, this goes to the lack of understanding of God. The Bible talks about all kinds of tragedies. Jesus was crucified on the cross. The apostle Paul witnessed people being stoned to death. The flood of Noah killed the entire human race except for a few. Nowhere in the Bible does God say there won't be suffering in the world.

Benefits of justice given by Glaucon and Adeimantus are based on the idea that they are desired based on their consequences. In this sense, many people would place justice as a necessary evil, which allows individuals to avoid a greater evil that would exists without justice. Justice is something that comes from the vulnerability to humans, they are all affected by the injustices of others. As such, people continue to act just because without it, there would be more collective suffering. Rather than being practiced for the sake of being just, it is something produced similar to a social contract that comes out of fear and weakness. Adeimantus adds another benefit of justice in regards to what one can gain which will benefit them in the future. He claims that no one praises justice for being justice, but rather for the rewards that will come from it in current day and in the afterlife. In doing so, they can question Socrates about the benefits of justice, when it does not produce external rewards.

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

Having stated, all the views of other philosophers, Aristotle tries to attack against those who say that pleasure is wholly negative. In his opinion, there are many types of pleasures and some come from doing good deeds while others come from base sources, e.g. the pleasure of helping a handicapped person wouldn’t be considered bad. According to Aristotle, humans are above the animals and plants because humans have the power to reason, therefore they can live actively in accordance with the virtues. One cannot get the pleasure of the just man without being just (1173b, 29-31). Again, they are depended upon the situation and the agent, e.g. a person with a sick mind would find disgraceful pleasures pleasant and a normal person would find them unpleasant. What is good for one person and bad for another. One might enjoy drinking too much liquor and the diabetic person eating sugary things. These are just temporary pleasures, but have a negative effect on the body. There are many things we should do, even if they don’t bring any pleasure, e.g. seeing and remembering. Therefore pleasure is not good nor it’s

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

1. Increasing time pressures have led people to overextend themselves in certain areas of their lives, which can lead to a life imbalance and no way to achieve well-being. Aristotle believed that in order to achieve well-being, one must be able to balance and achieve virtues, pleasure, and happiness. This is known as an objective list theory. Epicurus believed that the key to achieving well-being was through pleasures. This theory is known as hedonism. Even though Aristotle and Epicurus did not agree on how to achieve well-being, their theories did offer one similarity which was balance. In order to achieve well-being, one must have a balanced life. For example, if a person were to overextend themselves at work, they would not be able to achieve certain pleasures, virtues, or happiness. Regardless of which theory one believes, a person must be able to balance their life in a way where everything is in perfect harmony. From my understanding, balance is the key to achieving well-being.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

People cannot control where they are born, the color of their skin, or who their parents are. They can control how they conduct themselves and the actions they take. Ethics encompass morality and the principles of right and wrong. In order for society to prosper we need ethical people working together toward a goal of integrity and compassion. Everyone has circumstances in their lives that they can and cannot control and knowing that is the key to living in harmony with themselves and others.

To Epicurus happiness was the same as pleasure. And pleasure was freedom from bodily pain and mental anguish. He lived a simple life, owning only two cloaks and only eating bread and olives. With the occasional slice of cheese for a treat. He believed desire was a form of pain and therefore should be eliminated, and thus one should be satisfied with the bare minimum of what is needed to be happy. Therefore, while it was not a life of many desires, it was filled with the only pleasures you would need to be happy. There was a certain joy he found, in pure existence. Today’s society could learn a thing or two from this philosophy, most of which being living simply. It was better to take pleasure in simple things, rather than to chase pleasure.