Aristotle Vs Epictetus Essay

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who lived during the height of the Roman Empire, 50 to 135 CE roughly. He was born a slave in modern Turkey. He was given his name from the Greek word επικτητος, meaning ‘acquired’ or ‘slave’. As a slave he was permitted to attend philosophy lectures, which were held by Stoics at the time. During his time as a slave, Epictetus’ leg was injured, either from torture or an accident, and, due to his familiarity with Stoicism, he was able to endure it. He got his freedom when Nero was appointed emperor; however, during the rule of Domitian, Epictetus was exiled and moved to Greece. He started a philosophy school where he continued to teach about Stoicism and eventually died. His student, Arrian, wrote and published his works: The Discourses and Epictetus’ shorter book, the Enchiridion, or The Manual.

Aristotle argues that in order for a polis to emerge, a union between man and women must convene. Later a household must be introduced which unites with other households to form a village, villages come together to form city-states. This theory is Aristotle’s natural view that an individual can not be self sufficient Plato argues that, in order to achieve absolute justice, a city-state is needed.

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

Excellence is a function which renders excellent the thing of which it is a function is Plato’s definition of virtue. What does this definition really mean though? Plato and Aristotle both had their own unique arguments devoted to the topic at hand, and their own ways of describing what virtue really is. Defining virtue may seem to be an easy taste, but to truly understand the arguments behind the definition can prove to be very challenging.

In ancient Greece two great written philosophers lived. First there was Plato and then Aristotle. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato. Despite being taught by Plato they had different theories and views. Their ethics were very typical and traditional of ancient Greece but Aristotle detailed virtue ethics and the path to happiness. Plato’s political theories for a utopian society varied from Aristotle’s view of ‘best state for each society’. Their metaphysical theories are complete opposites and very contradicting. Even though Plato and Aristotle came from the same era and were closely linked they had very different philosophies.

achieve the maximum point of virtue, self – knowledge has a central role, as it is a prerequisite

According to Aristotle, intellectual virtues belong in the ‘rational’ fragment of the soul and moral virtues lie in the ‘irrational’ measure of the soul However, they are both dependant on reason. Although Aristotle recognised many virtues, he was an advocate for the notion of the existence of only four cardinal virtues. His proposal proved to be popular in the society that he lived in, being acknowledged by Plato and other bodies. The four cardinal virtues are: courage, a virtue which ensures control in the interest of goodness, temperance, a virtue which diminishes wants and desires by limiting them to reason, justice, the only virtue that consists of expressing care for other beings. A human that possesses the virtue of justice has the ability to practise this virtue on other human beings and not solely on themselves. The final and one of the most important virtues is prudence, a logical virtue of practical reason by which we separate the good and the methods of achieving it. Aristotle accentuates that virtues are pragmatic skills and hence experience guides us towards becoming more dexterous in avoiding deficiency. Although familiarity with the vices as extremes supports us in our aspiration for the mean, the wider connotations of the doctrine is that only through experience will we as humans come to know the right pretences and

Philosophy can best be described as an abstract, scholarly discourse. According to the Greek, philosophia refers to ‘love of knowledge’. This is an aspect that has involved a great number of clever minds in the world’s history. They have sought to deal with issues surrounding the character of veracity and significantly exploring the endeavors to respond to these issues. This paper seeks to compare and contrast the philosophy of Aristotle with that of Confucius. This is with a clear concentration on the absolute functions of these philosophies and how they take care of the particular responsibility of a person and the broader society and the resultant effects on societies (Barnes, 1995).

Aristotle found that there are two kinds of virtues of the soul. First, there are virtues of thought, such as wisdom. Next, there are virtues of character, such as generosity. The main focus of his virtue ethics lies in the virtues of character. Aristotle assumed that these virtues are learned through habit. For example, whereas intellectual virtue may arise from reading a book, the adoption of virtuous character is inherited solely by practice. Therefore, it is through a person's upbringing that moral virtues are cultivated, and it is through the habit of thinking virtuously that one can excel towards happiness.

Aristotle was one of the most important western philosophers. He was a student of Plato and the teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology, and zoology. I found that his biggest impacts on modern society were in the subject areas of ethics, and zoology.

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.

In ancient Greece, the schools of philosophy were places that students lived, not just went to for most of the day, making the philosophy their life. The Epicurean lifestyle to living a balanced life obtained through eudaimia via atarxia and this is achieved by gaining wisdom and using that wisdom to be just and live honorably. It all comes together in a circle: to live without fear gives one pleasure and to achieve a life without fear a person must be wise and live with honor and with justice. Overall, Epicurus’s ‘rules’ for life are simply and malleable, but as long as someone follows them Epicurus believes a man would, “live like a god among men” (Letter to Menoeceus,

Plato and Aristotle, arguably the most important philosophers of their time, both made attempts to define justice. Being that Aristotle was a student of Plato, their ideas share many similarities. Both viewed justice as the harmonious interaction of people in a society. However, Plato defined his ideal of justice with more usage of metaphysics, invoking his Form of the Good, while Aristotle took a more practical approach, speaking in terms of money and balance. Although Aristotle's ideal of justice may seem superior, upon further inspection, Plato's ideal of justice is the stronger.

Virtues are gained through nurture, and backing his thought, he explained that if we are born virtuously then we could not become bad. Yet, there are a number of bad people in the world. Aristotle saw that virtue and duty had a strong connection. This is because duty is an act in accordance with law, which enforces perfections. Since laws keep us in line, and our duty is to follow these laws, virtues come if you commit your duty. It is a cycle that repeats itself in the positive and the negative depending how we act. Because Aristotle was a Christian, he saw God as everlasting, and overall, see’s god as an important figure to live up to. Aristotle laid the framework to what would be the future of ethics. Although what he had reported would be found eventually, his views are what most believed as the golden rule, and future philosophers would just string off his ideas.

Aristotle studied under Plato, who studied under Socrates, yet Aristotle tended to be more real-world oriented with regard to how he thought. Aristotle has come to be known as the father of logic, and has been credited as the first person to classify knowledge in specific categories like mathematics, and biology. Indeed, his sound reasoning skills and belief in the scientific method form the framework for much of his work, and his idea of a good life is probably no different (Richter, 2008). Aristotle was an observer of nature, and recognized the need for balance in natural systems. He could have reasoned that since humans are products of nature, we too must find a balance with-in our environments. This probably led to the idea of a golden mean, or balance between two extremes that humans should strive to achieve. The golden mean is not an exact middle or average in the mathematical sense, but rather a flexible guideline that can vary depending on the situation. In this way, it could be said that courage is the desirable trait that exists between cowardliness and recklessness. However, where courage lies between these two extremes varies from situation to situation, so a baseline cannot be defined to cover every case. For example, risking one’s life in battle to save the lives of others would be considered a courageous act, while risking one’s life through heavy alcohol or