Comparing The Good Life In Croesus And Siddhartha

I believe that one of the ultimate questions that all members of the human species asks is ‘How can I find happiness?’ and reflected in this question is a desire to find a happy, fulfilling, quality life. Many people try to find such happiness through their careers, material possessions, and all manner of other pursuits. What a large portion of these people do not realize is that happiness and the elements necessary to achieve a quality life may not come from place, position, or possession but from attitude. In both Gilgamesh by Stephen Mitchell and Sunny Chernobyl by Andrew Blackwell, the reader can see these ideas explored in great detail.

Since ancient times, many have sought to the answer the philosophical question, “What is the ‘good life’?” This is a question with no simple answer! For some individuals, “the good life” could mean living a life based on justice and rationality, or on faith and trust in the divine, or on the attainment of power, military, glory, and reputation. Their perspectives varied greatly depending upon their cultural values and contexts.

Here Siddhartha is demonstrating that he is the only one that matters when it comes to thoughts of who he is, and only his opinion of himself matters. Acceptance and the ability to look into himself will lead to that road of happiness. Also, to be minimalistic as to if there is nothing to be needed then it is not. This is something many people should take into consideration as to stay away from being materialistic.

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

As opposed to "his poor brethren,” the man of wealth has an extremely unfair advantage in which he typically

"I have neglected the things that concern most people-making money, managing an estate, gaining military power or civic honours, or positions of power."10 Even today to most of the human race the good life is acquiring great status here on earth. Most men need to have much material possession, meaningful vocation, and a wealthy class.

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

The texts of Socrates and Confucius examine what it means to live the good life. Although, the texts have similarities, especially in clarifying what the good life isn’t, their philosophies on how to obtain the good life differ greatly. Additionally, the two texts are even ambiguous on what living the good life truly means, so it is first necessary to identify what the good life is.

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.

I will argue that although Epicurus holds validity in his argument on achieving happiness through the pursuit and fulfillment of pleasures, it is Buddha’s method of the ceasing of woe through following the eightfold path to enlightenment that most comprehensively constitutes the good life. I will first explain Epicurus’ vision of the good life through his invitation to join him in studying the pursuit of pleasure; and then argue against the points in his writings concerning his attempt at dispelling a fear of death as well as his theory on the actual pursuit of pleasure. I will then explain Buddha’s path to the good life

The good life is life that should be focused on it’s true denotation, a present body life, not an afterlife. A key aspect of the good life is that it puts goals, dreams, and aspirations in the main focus. The good life is not a refusal of God and eternity, rather places the religious ideas in the background to allow for full pleasure by the individual. In addition, the good life cherishes the small things in life and places importance on the finite, at risk, unique parts in the journey of an individual. Furthermore, in making sure to not un-properly empathize the “small things” in life, the good life in its whole values the daily “grind” and experiences and aims to avoid becoming attached to material, fragile objects. Montaigne says “In my opinion, the most ordinary things, the most commonplace and best known can constitute, if we know how to present them in the right life, the greatest of nature’s miracles.” (Montaigne, 1227) Both philosophers are trying to find the best way to view life and use their work to try to get there. Overall, the good life shares aspects of both philosophies of Boethius and Montaigne. But, in looking at this idea in this work, the good life accepts and rejects pieces of the two philosophies and follows itself more with the ideals of Montaigne.

When looking to attain the Good Life, a number of key issues arise, specifically in regards to the concepts of pleasure and happiness. Although people use these two terms interchangeably, their differences couldn’t be more distinct. Pleasure is a momentary feeling of gratification that comes from an external stimuli. Happiness, on the other hand, is a state of satisfaction that suffuses a lifetime. (Paul) Herman Hesse’s Siddhartha and Richard Taylor’s An Introduction to Virtue Ethics both discuss the struggles a person might run into while seeking both pleasure and happiness in the journey to attain the Good Life. Although pleasures are easily accessible and provide for instant gratification, it is important to not settle with momentary

There are many literary works that try to summarize what is important in a fruitful life, but none of them do as exemplary of a job as the two literary works discussed in this essay. The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho and “Sonnet XXIX” by William Shakespeare are both insightful literary works that discuss the important essences of a fulfilling life. The writers’ styles, literary devices, and actions of the characters help to develop the themes of both works. Both stories include themes of epiphanic moments, new perspectives, and true love- all of which are found on the amazing journey of life.

Therefore, the “good life” in his eyes would veritably be one in which your life would be lived to your personal fullest potential, but reaching that in a way in which your peers (and also strangers and enemies) would not be disconcerted by you reaching this eventual zenith. This philosophy is possibly one of the hardest ones to practice in real life, though, as to bring some dreams to fruition will unfortunately often mean others will have to suffer by your hand. In my personal belief of the “good life” being unattainable, the suffering of others which does supervene reaching your apogee is something to not be worried about. I personally believe this makes it superior, as nothing may hold you back from living the good

“What is the good life?” my friend asked me in a feeble attempt to produce ideas for his Philosophy paper. Aside from the obvious answer of using material items to generate happiness, the question drove me consider what made someone’s life inherently “good.” A few days after our conversation, I read Open Door by Rebecca Solnit. This passage helped me to eventually answer his question. Throughout Open Door, Solnit defines, exemplifies and reasons, and explores the ideas of losing one’s self in order to achieve “the good life.”