Eudaimonia Via Atarxia Research Paper

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 conviction of Socrates is the darkest moment in Athenian history. In Crito Socrates argues that it is always in one’s best interest to act justly. He argues that those who voted against him were only voting as they did to do damage to him. He says that they did so without so much as an inclination that their votes would lead to his conviction and execution. Socrates had made a fool of almost every politician and had made many enemies, many of whom considered themselves as the higher echelon of Athens. He had not regarded these “wise” people with the amount of respect that they felt they deserved. He had denounced their wisdom, position, wealth, power, and intelligence publicly. They hated Socrates because of the respect that he was being given by the people of Athens and he wasn’t anyone of status or power. Yet the people followed him and the young men from the aristocratic party listened to him, discussed with him, debated him, and loyally followed his teachings.

Epictetus, a Stoic philosopher who lived from 50-130 AD, was instrumental in allowing the Stoic philosophy to grow and flourish. As ideas have come and gone throughout the years, this is a philosophy, a way of thinking, or even a lifestyle that has maintained its validity ever since its inception into the human mind, and continues to be a formative way of thinking to this day. Without knowing it, I have adopted several of the views that are explicitly written in Epictetus’ The Handbook. As I grew tired and annoyed with the events happening around me, it dawned on me that I can only control how I live my life, and that has been a central philosophy in my life for several years. In this paper, I will use different excerpts from The Handbook to support my claim that this philosophical way of thinking is a superior path to eudaimonia, and I will look at counter-arguments and discuss why they are less valid than the Stoic outlook on life.

Epicurus believed that we do not have the power over certain things but the things that we have power over can be cause action. Things that can require us to have power over such as making bad decisions or wrongfully thinking. Epicurus explains “The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, and unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others”. Things that are not in our control we tend to worry about the most such as poverty, wealth and reputations. As Epicurus describes, “Aiming therefore at such great things, remember that you must not allow yourself to be carried, even with a slight tendency, towards the attainment of lesser things”.

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

During his college years Wilde also came across the teaching of Epicurus, a Greek philosopher who lived from 342-270 B.C.E. and taught that pleasure was the highest good. He was "active during the Hellenistic period" and "had a defining influence on those defined as Aesthetes and Decadents, particularly Walter Pater and his occasional disciple Oscar Wilde."(Terpening 1) The Victorian aesthetes, such as Wilde and Pater concerned themselves with sense-perception, wholeness, and the soul. It was the belief of Wilde that "the exterior beauty of a man conceals inner moral decrepitude to those who do not contemplate in earnest . . . Dorian Gray's

Epicureans asserts that if gods at all do exist, they have no influence on the physical life and thus death is the end of everything. They reject the assertion that there is life after death. Epicureans claims that the only key to happiness is calm contentment in the face of challenges and losses that comes along one’s life as opposed to heeding to superstitious theories as to why certain things do happens such as suffering, judgment and rewards after death (Robin). According to Epicureans theory of happiness, the rich man did live a good life of happiness because he was materialistic. The rich man was only focused on the current life and never gave heed to superstitious beliefs and stories of the afterlife and thus lived to enjoy every aspect life.

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.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who wrote, The Enchiridion, a manual which instructed people on how to live their life ethically and honorably on a social level. His belief was that regardless of personal conditions, people could live with pride and discipline. Epictetus tells us differentiating between what is in our own power to control and what is not is the key to a noble life (281).

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.

Sophie’s World has made me realize that I am more of an Epicurean than anything else. I strongly agree with the idea that the goal in life is to achieve the greatest amount of sensory enjoyment. Epicurus was wise to say that “...the pleasurable amounts of an action must always be weighed against the possible side effects” (131). Although I agree with his