Comparing Epicurus's Views On Pleasure And Pain

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).

We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is

This philosophy of Epicurus ,holding that the world is a series of fortuitous combination of atom and the pleasure is the highest good. Interpreted as a freedom from disturbance or pain.

In order to live the good life, one must eliminate all pain and live a life with maximum pleasure. Unlike other hedonist philosophers, Epicurus evaluated pleasures by their duration rather than their intensity, making psychological pleasures much more desirable to physical pleasures. Epicurus, as a consequentialist thought that in order to achieve the good life, one had to logically assess future consequences of human actions through rational reflection and evaluation. If one were to rationally reflect on death they would soon ‘realise that there was nothing but oblivion after death’ (de Botton 2000, p. 59).

Lucretius aforementioned there's a system that needs severe self-denial and ethical discipline. He places a way bigger stress on the dodging of pain than on the pursuit of delight, and he favors intellectual pleasures (which ar long-lived and ne'er cloying) over physical ones (which ar ephemeral and result in excess). As for self-indulgence, he argued that it's higher to abstain from coarse or trivial pleasures if they stop our enjoyment of richer, a lot of satisfying ones. In Titus Lucretius Carus ethics, physical pain is that the nice enemy of happiness and is to be avoided in the majority cases.

These passions, like great winds, have blown me hither and thither, in a wayward course, over a deep ocean of anguish, reaching to the very verge of despair. Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a hated burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate the evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer.3 The Greek philosopher Epicurus is most likely the first recognized philosopher to ask how the existence of evil could be compatible with the nature of God (The Wrath of God 13).4 According to Epicurean philosophy, the notions of good and evil are identified with pleasure and pain respectively. The Epicurean claim is that only pleasure is good. Accordingly, this translates into “pursue pleasure (good) and avoid pain (evil).”5 David Hume in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion says of Epicurus: “Epicurus’ old questions are yet unanswered. Is he (God) willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?”6 Even if Epicurus is regarded as the first to raise

In an ancient Greek proverb that goes as follows "Everything in Moderation" the concept of balancing the aspects of one's life is championed. Epicurus offers an almost entirely contradictory life philosophy with serene hedonism as is explored in the article "Happiness in the Garden of Epicurus." Serene Hedonism offers the perspective that the only truly valuable thing in life is that of pleasure while this philosophy initially may sound appealing it lacks any development in a meaningful purpose for an individual other than maximizing pleasures of the senses. The largest counter to this argument exists in the question on whether or not one would trade there life with that of a clam who is experiencing constant euphoria, and through this argument

Lucretius said there is a system that requires severe self-denial and moral discipline. He places a much greater emphasis on the avoidance of pain than on the pursuit of pleasure, and he favors intellectual pleasures (which are long-lasting and never cloying) over physical ones (which are short-lived and lead to excess). As for self-indulgence, he argued that it is better to abstain from coarse or trivial pleasures if they prevent our enjoyment of richer, more satisfying ones. In Lucretius ethics, physical pain is the great enemy of happiness and is to be avoided in almost all cases.

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.

Epicureanism is a philosophy developed the teachings and ideals of a man named Epicurus. Epicureanism is defined by Epicurus as the pleasure for the end of all morality and that real pleasure is attained through a life of prudence, honor, and justice. Epicurus introduced this philosophy around 322 B.C, and two schools established in Athens. Epicurus taught the ethics of his philosophy in his school, that a person should live by "the art of making life happy", and that "prudence is the noblest part of philosophy"(newadvent.org). Epicurus ideals for life intrigued people and they began to think that perhaps the ethics of Epicureanism had some truth behind it; a person should live his/her life to the fullest in order to become happy. Epicurus

Over the course of time there have been a multitude of philosophers that have claimed to find the true meaning of happiness. One of these philosophers was Epicurus who originally studied “sensual pleasure” and then moved to a discussion on one’s inner happiness through friendship, freedom, and thought. The Consolation of Philosophy tracks Epicurus’s evolution of philosophical ideas throughout his lifetime to express to the reader how to create a happy and healthy life.

The majority of human beings, at the end of their lives, want to be able to say that they have lived life to the fullest. It can be said that people’s definitions of what is “good” vary from person to person. However, there are often specific similarities in the beliefs and perceptions of those who have been able to achieve lives of happiness and contentment. Epicurus, in his Letter to Menoeceus, states that one who has a “clear and certain understanding of these things” will be able to properly pursue the pleasures associated with a happy and blessed life and avoid those pains that prevent one from doing so (2). He claims that “these things” are beliefs regarding various aspects of life, including one’s relationship with the gods, perception of death, what can and cannot be controlled, and the dismissal of a short, yet pleasant life for a long life. Epicurus states that by living life with an understanding of “these things” in mind, one becomes wise and is then able to live and do well and attain that sought-after pleasant life that is free from pain and free from fear.

According to hedonism, pleasure is the most important good and the ultimate goal in life. Epicurus states that pleasure is in intrinsic good. Mill agrees with him, but along with Kazez, says that happiness is also an elemental good. In Epicurus’ theory, he defines pleasure as the absence of pain. Mill also uses this definition, but applies it to happiness as well. Therefore, we can agree on a definition for the two terms that makes sense: happiness and pleasure are both the absence of pain. According to Mill, happiness and pleasure are correlated. He says that happiness is the existence of pleasure. This is what drives all of our actions and desires. We desire things because it will bring us pleasure in some way and we avoid things because

Epicurus during the Hellenistic and Roman periods turned the focus of philosophy to pleasure as opposed to Aristotle’s median of happiness centuries prior. This was all due to the change in mentality during the time of political unrest and overall societal decline. Epicurus thought that happiness pointed directly to pleasure, but there was more to it than just simple pleasure. One could see just how easily his words could be interpreted in a different sense than intended when involving pleasure.

For Epicurus, happiness was the complete absence of bodily and mental pains, including fear of the Gods and desires for anything other than the bare necessities of life. Even with only the limited excesses of ancient Greece on offer, Epicurus advised his followers to avoid towns, and especially marketplaces, in order to limit the resulting desires for unnecessary things. Once we experience unnecessary pleasures, such as those from sex and rich food, we will then suffer from painful and hard to satisfy desires for more and better of the same.