Epicurus : The Purpose Of Life

The pursuit of pleasure has also been condemned by critics as being little more than the promotion of one’s own interests, with no regard to the happiness of others. Mill disputes this as being narrow-minded, clarifying that the pleasure principle which forms the foundation for utilitarianism, “what is right in conduct, is not the agent's own happiness, but that of all concerned” (Mill 16). With this acknowledgment, however, comes the criticism that people cannot possibly be motivated by something as satisfying the collective good of society. Mill countered this by pointing out, “The utilitarian morality does recognize in human beings the power of sacrificing their own greatest good for the good of others” (Mill 16). To the objection that pleasure is an acceptable end is contrary to Christian principles because it is “godless,” Mill states, “If it be a true belief that God desires, above all things, the happiness of his creatures, and that this was his purpose in their creation, utility is not only not a godless doctrine, but more profoundly religious than any other” (Mill 21).

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

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

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.

The principal Doctrines, are written by Epicurus who lived from 341B.C. to 270 B.C. His theory is hedonism, which is rooted in pleasure. The book speaks of pain as being only temporary, and that it is only a pleasure over pain (V). This is a way of life to see the pleasures that life offers are what Epicurus is saying. And although, “no Pleasure is a bad thing in itself,” The results of obtaining the pleasure can bring greater displeasures (VIII). He is looking for the most pleasures one can get, and I suppose if he was not happy with his job, that he would quit. I can see Epicurus, avoiding a lot of things within his life because they would bring pain and frustration, like driving in rush hour. The idea sounds like he is living the simple life, or a hermit’s life.

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).

The philosophy of Epicurus sought virtue as a condition of serenity in the soul. According to his thought, Epicureanism is centered in the achievement of happiness through the elimination of one’s desires, and on pleasure and virtue claiming that “It is impossible to live pleasantly without living wisely and honorably and justly” (Epicurus, Doctrines, 1). This signifies that pleasure and virtue are interdependent and both sustain the concept of this ideology. To achieve happiness, one must do its best to live as virtuously as possible if they are to live a pleasant life. Pleasure is declared as the “beginning and end of the happy life” and by nature “the greatest good” (Epicurus, Doctrines, 13). This is so because living a life of pleasure means pain is absent and therefore makes life meaningful. Reason and virtue play an important role in the Epicurean notion of pleasure, leading the wise man to choose a simple life and rational action above

Epicurus believed that the idea of pleasure was important but had to restrained. He contributed to modern hedonism. He created the garden a sort of ancient Utopia that he used as a base for his teachings and claimed that all were welcome but must reject their old lives and society. His guide to the good life included the use and creation of Tetrapharmakos, which had four points that people should live by to attain the good life. These included, God is nothing to fear, one if Epicurus’ biggest idea was in his riddle, if god is so powerful and willing to help others, then why does evil exist? And if is not so powerful and is not willing then why are they called gods and why are they worshipped? Death is nothing to worry about, there is not immoral

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.

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

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

In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia.

The role of pleasure in morality has been examined thoroughly throughout the beginning of philosophy and continues to be a questionable issue. With these in-depth examinations, some similar outlooks as well as differing views have been recorded. Many philosophers have dissected this important topic, however I intend to concentrate of the famous works of Aristotle, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill. After meticulously analyzing each of the above philosophers’ texts, I personally prefer the position of utilitarian and Benthamite, John Stuart Mill. After comparing and contrasting the positions and reasonings of these philosophers, I will demonstrate my own reasons why I have chosen John Stuart Mill as the most established in his theory of the role of pleasure in morality.

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.

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.