Aristotle’s Account of Pleasure

When having good experiences, most people, if asked, would claim that they feel happy. However, if one decided to ask Martha Nussbaum, author of “Who is the Happy Warrior? Philosophy Poses Questions to Psychology,” she would most likely respond that she was feeling pleasured. In her article, she draws a restrictive line between pleasure and happiness. She introduces the viewpoints of many intellectuals who have spoken on the definition of happiness, and then offers her own opinions in regards to theirs. Her thoughts generally align with those of Aristotle, Plato, and the ancient Greek thinkers – the very ones she spent much of her higher education studying. Her main ideas, that happiness is too complex to be concretely defined and that pleasure is a feeling that we may experience while doing certain things, are well-explained and supported. She offers the idea that happiness is not an emotion – rather, it is a state of being that we should all hope to attain as a result of self-reflection. Nussbaum continually counters the beliefs proposed by psychologists, like the notion that happiness is a one-note feeling, or the concept that happiness is only influenced by positive emotions. In my essay, I will explain how Martha Nussbaum’s explanation of the complexities of happiness is superior, as well as how the ideas of two psychologists, Sonja Lyubomirsky and Daniel Gilbert, are faulty and disreputable. However, it is important to note that just because Nussbaum is the least wrong

In The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that there are three types of friendships. The three friendships being that of utility, pleasure, and virtue. First, in Sections 1-3, I will explain Aristotle’s claims of the three types of friendship. After that, in Section 4, I will examine Aristotle’s argument that there are two friendships that are not as lasting as the other friendship. Then, in Section 5, I will analyze whether or not the friendship of virtue can occur between only virtuous people. Next, in Section 6, I will evaluate whether or not true friendship is the friendship of virtue like Aristotle claims. Lastly, in Section 7, I will object to Aristotle’s claims.

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

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).

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.

Aristotle’s work, The Nicomachean Ethics, consists of numerous books pertaining to Aristotle’s Ethics—the ethics of the good life. The first book discloses Aristotle’s belief on moral philosophy and the correlation between virtue and happiness.

In the text, Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, but translated and edited by Roger Crisp, a few questions stand out for consideration. “What is happiness?” “What makes me happy and why?” In this text, Aristotle examines the main factors of happiness which consists of gratification, the life of money-making, the life of action, and the philosophical life. He explains what is needed for happiness and what it means to be a truly happy human being. In his definition of

Aristotle was a particularly influential Grecian philosopher and student of Plato who lived from 384BC- 322BC (ADD CITATION). Within Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle outlines the thoughts of the general population along with his regards and rationales in explaining many philosophical premises. But to concentrate on how Aristotle feels about the role of pleasure in morality, Aristotle introduces the idea that “most people think happiness involves pleasure.” He goes on to interpret the roles of different pleasures and their virtues and vices, giving examples such as as bodily pleasures and soul pleasures.

Aristotle begins his exploration into the most outstanding life by attempting to figure what the highest possible good achievable is for human beings. He comes to the conclusion that most people will agree that happiness is the most sought after good. Happiness is self-sufficient and is the complete end of things pursued. However, they cannot seem to agree how to achieve happiness and what happiness is. In order to figure out what happiness is, Aristotle must evaluate the true function of human beings. This true function, as seen by Aristotle, is the key to achieving happiness. Aristotle describes happiness by saying:

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

Many believe it is simply seeking a pleasurable end, Aristotle also believed it to be so. In Nicomachean Ethic, he asserts, “Happiness, then is found to be something perfect and self-sufficient, being the end to which our actions are directed.” Happiness is one of man’s greatest pursuits; it is, after all, within our nature to seek pleasure; but at what cost? Seeking pleasure at the expense of others is immoral to say the least. However, one may also argue that it is also immoral to deprive a man of certain pleasures for it may affect someone else. Aristotle believed in virtue and justice. A just man would not seek pleasure for his own personal gain and would put the need of others before his

Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western philosophy, and is most notably known for expressing his view of happiness in Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle develops a theory of how to live the good life and reach eudaimonia (happiness). Eudaimonia has been translated into, living a happy and virtuous life. Aristotle’s definition of the good life as the happy life, consist of balancing virtues (arête), the mean, external goods, political science, and voluntary action.

I do agree with Aristotle’s ideas of pleasure in Books II and Book X. I agree for several reasons, after learning what he means by bodily pleasures I could not agree more when he makes the statement about how one who abstains from these pleasures is temperate and if he is grieved by it he is intemperate (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics II 1104b5-10). I too agree that virtue of character is about pleasures as well as about the pains. He is very accurate in his statement that pleasure causes us to do base actions. Pleasure is what makes us do something or act in some way. We act because we have the pleasure to do that action (1104b10). I am a strong believer that the way children turn out is a reflection of how they were raised from the start.

Happiness is the fundamental objective of life. This bold statement is unanimously agreed upon among generations of people on every corner of our planet. However, the real question that has been contested for centuries is the true meaning of happiness? The true meaning of happiness is one of the most highly debated philosophy topics in history. Most famous are the writings of Aristotle and John Stuart Mill who both paint very opposing pictures of happiness. Mill believes happiness is obtained through pleasure and the absence of pain. On the other hand, Aristotle insist happiness is obtained through living a fulfilling, virtuous life. This passage will examine Aristotle 's and Mill 's views on happiness as well as give an opinion one which philosophical theory is most convincing.

According to the article entitled Pleasure and Happiness by Aristotle, there are several points of arguments that view by author about the main things in pleasure and happiness. Pleasure and happiness have an own definition and it distinguish by how people measure on itself. Aristotle was among the very greatest thinkers ever and for the term of pleasure and happiness he started come out with the question like what is the good life and how it related with happy life. Every human action aims at some good and the good which, chosen for its own sake and not as means to an end is the highest good. Thus, based on the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle set up the term of pleasure comprise produces a definition pleasure.