Comparing Socrates T To Epicurus And The Epicureans

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

The ethics behind Epicureanism are very simple. Epicurus demonstrates that experience shows happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy but less so than the unselfish. This statement is very powerful for the simple person. Epicurus proves that if a person seeks to be happy he/she usually won't be able to find true happiness.

“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human

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.

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).

Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity “in accord with virtue.” Happiness is in accord with the most excellent virtue. All men agreed that happiness is to “live well”, but Aristotle expands this further into a whole

How does one define happiness? For many people, this question makes people think what exactly it means to “be happy.” Many philosophers have different views on the definition of “happiness,” but one that strikes several scholars is Aristotle’s view on happiness. Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with perfect virtue. This stems to another question, what is virtue? There are two types of virtues; intellectual and moral. Intellectual virtues engage in your mental capacity and moral virtues are the balance or imbalance of the morality of a moral decision. To achieve perfect virtue, moral virtue needs to have a balance, in which a feeling of emotion is rationale, with not too much or too little of that emotion (Aristotle, 11). Aristotle’s view of moral virtue is evident in several novels and films, but more noticeable in the classic film The Wizard of Oz. In the film, The Wizard of Oz, many characters experience feelings of emotion where they have too much, too little, and balanced feeling of emotion. All in all, several characters in the film The Wizard of Oz apply different feelings of an emotion, such as confidence, compassion, and courage throughout the story, resulting in showing Aristotle’s view of moral virtue as a plausible theory of a path to happiness.

Born of different stations, languages and creeds, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who externally appear to be very different. Epictetus was born to a slave mother, sold as a slave himself and spent the majority of his youth as a slave in Rome. Seneca was born into money; he became tutor to a boy named Nero who later acquired position of Emperor of Rome in 54 A.D. Though these two men seem to be from very different worlds, they have a shared purpose in studying philosophy. The purpose of their writings was to teach people how to live well. Though they had a shared purpose, they suggested its achievement through different means. Epictetus professed an ‘expect the worst so you wont be disappointed when it happens’

The definition of happiness has long been disputed. According to Aristotle, happiness is the highest good and the ultimate end goal—for it is self-reliant. This idea contradicted other common beliefs and philosophical theories. Aristotle opens his work by describing the various theories, neutrally examines each idea, and discloses how he thinks the theory is wrong and why his idea of happiness is more accurate.

“Happiness in particular is believed to be complete without qualification, since we always choose it for itself and never for the sake of anything else. Honour, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we do indeed choose for themselves (since we would choose each of them even if they had no good effects), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, on the assumption that through them we shall live a life of happiness; whereas happiness no one chooses for the sake of any of these nor indeed for the sake of anything else.” ( Aristotle 10-11) Aristotle is the other view of happiness that will be discussed. With him and the Stoics, they are both kind of similar due to both believe in virtue for happiness, Aristotle says virtue a different way and other ways about happiness. Aristotle along with the Stoic’s believe that virtues is the same, but Aristotle says this about virtue “and if we take this kind of life to be activity of the soul and actions in accordance with reason, and the characteristic activity of the good person to be to carry this out well and nobly, and a characteristic activity to be accomplished well when it is accomplished in accordance with the appropriate virtue; then if this is so, the human good turns out to be

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.

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.

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.

The discussion of happiness leads to Aristotle's next major ideas, those of the virtues and deliberation. A happy person will be someone who lives in accordance with the virtues. He is neither too much of one thing, or not enough of another, he is in the middle of two extremes. Aristotle explained the virtues to be a perception of the right thing to do or the appropriate response when faced with a certain situations. The good decision lies in the virtue that is between what Aristotle called the "vices of excess" and the "vices of deficiency." For example, cowardliness would be a vice of deficiency, foolhardiness would be a vice of excess, and