Epicurus Vs Aristotle

Aristotle believes there to be one ultimate end that humans hope to achieve. As all actions lead to some good or end, and these ends are useful for another desired end, the latter end is the one that is truly desired. If all ends lead to another end, eventually there will be what would be considered the highest end, one in which all other ends are aiming towards reaching. Aristotle believes this end to be Eudaimonia, or happiness. It can be said that all other ends achieved are in hopes of achieving happiness, and that happiness is an end for the sake of itself. This end then would

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.

Happiness is an essential goal for most people. From books and expensive classes that teach people how to achieve happiness to the fundamental right of “the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, the importance of happiness is evident in society. This causes the rise to two fundamental questions: “How does one attain happiness?” and “,How does happiness create a meaningful life?” Both happiness and living a meaningful life are achieved simultaneously. The search for happiness and the factors that make it brings meaning to life. Happiness can stem from several factors such as wisdom and knowledge, savoring life and its experiences, and even suffering and pain. Analyzing these factors brings meaning to one’s life.

Morality has been a term of debate for several years by intellectuals who have not come to the final conclusion of its definition. According to Damon (5), morality is an existing, multifaceted construct that may not be pinned down by any single definitional criteria which is flexible. The moral character

The way in which Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics is with the statement “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision seems to seek some good.” (Aristotle Bk.1, Ch.1). This is a fitting way to begin, as it addresses exactly what the entire book hopes to

What Makes Happiness Happiness? Everyone defines happiness differently, but everyone needs happiness. The book Siddhartha by Hermann Hesse talks about how Siddhartha finds happiness through many ways. He leaves home and his friend, Govinda, to find enlightenment. He starves himself, he learns love, he even thinks of suicide… Fortunately, he meets a ferryman, who becomes his best friend, also his “teacher”, and helps him find the ultimate way to achieve enlightenment. Siddhartha abandons his relationships, money, and education which bring him happiness, and in the twenty first century, these still bring happiness as the essential steps to take.

John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.

I do believe that Aristotle’s two conclusions (happiness is the activity of the soul and happiness is the highest good) satisfy his criteria for being the highest good because being involved in noble activities comes from being a contemplative person about morals, and the world in general. Being

i. Death is something that is inevitably going to happen in everybody’s lifetime. We see people get older every day and as we know we don’t live eternally. But should death be feared or is it harmful? That is something that nobody can know without a doubt the answer to, but two philosophers, Epicurus and Lucretius, have built their own arguments on the common assumption that death is the total annihilation of the self. Therefore, if there is no life after death, we shouldn’t fear death itself. Epicurus creates his no harm argument on the fact that after we die we no longer exist. Lucretius takes another approach where he makes a comparison using non-existence before life. If we don’t consider this time period before we come to life to be bad

Our Well-Being: Aristotle and Human Happiness What is the purpose of a human being? “Happiness is the meaning and the purpose of life, the whole aim and end of human existence” (Nicomachean Ethics). When one thinks about happiness, these words said by Aristotle allow us to understand its significance. Through Aristotle’s

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.

“But pleasure, which every sparrow is acquainted with, we simply cannot grasp.”(Cicero,p.51) The debate on the true meaning of happiness has been going on for centuries. Different conceptions of happiness have developed and also challenged in the philosophical world starting mostly with Socrates and Plato. They were challenged and new philosophical schools were developed including Epicureans. As the Epicurean school progressed, so did their own conception of happiness. With the new developments also came criticism and backlash. The Epicureans had a different take on the meaning of happiness and was at the time considered to be incoherent. Cicero was the major critic and seemingly was the most critical of the epicureans. His points proposed questions on where virtue plays a role as well as why they were unable to provide support their theories.

It is believed that the supreme good is happiness, although many people have trouble defining happiness. There are those who believe it has something to do with pleasure, while there are those who believe it has something to do with how well they live or do something. Everything we do has a telos, an end or a purpose. Happiness is construed as the final telos because it is usually conceived as the ultimate goal of all our activities, there is nothing beyond happiness. Aristotle believes that the soul is what ultimately differentiates living things from nonliving things. All living things souls have two parts, the irrational and the rational. The irrational part consists of the vegetative part that is in charge of nutrition and growth, and the appetitive aspect that dominates our impulses. The vegetative part has a very small link to virtue, while the appetitive part “shares in it, in so far as it listens to and obeys it, this is the sense in which we speak of “taking account’ of one’s father or ones friends.” The rational part of the soul is in control of the impulses more; meaning one who is truly rational can better control their impulses. Man has the ability to be rational more than a dog has the ability. Therefore, man has the ability to be rational and virtuous due to the activity of the soul, which promotes and creates happiness. In

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

In Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle defines the highest good to be happiness, claiming that happiness is the end, or good, at which every action, rational choice, and inquiry aims (Book I, pg. 3). He goes on to explain that happiness is the only thing that is complete without qualification, as well as self sufficient, meaning that it is sought for the sake of itself and lacking in nothing. He also attributes the ‘highest end’, or happiness, to be a good of the soul, meaning that it is through activity of the soul that makes it especially ‘good’. And a happy person is categorized as one that lives well and acts well through their actions (Book I, pg.13).