Happiness Vs Happiness

Lazy fall days, colorful leaves, cooler weather, birds singing, frogs croaking, crickets chirping, relaxing to the sounds of the outdoors. Waves of water crashing upon each other, fishing, telling stories around a campfire, making s’mores, memories with family and friends; this is what happiness is to me. Happiness is in the eye of the beholder, what brings happiness to one person may not bring happiness to another person. When I think of the word happiness, I think of descriptive words like Contentment, enjoyment, satisfaction, delightfulness, something that makes a person smile. I have always looked at the word happiness as a feeling, an action, never have I thought of happiness as an overall affect. However, it is a proven fact, that happiness can affect the over-all health and longevity of human life. Happy people live longer than those that are lonely, stressed, or depressed.

“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

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

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).

Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.

According to the classic sense, a life full of happiness is a life that manifests wisdom, kindness, and goodness. However happiness has been twisted by a secular culture and the classic sense has given away to “pleasurable satisfaction”. Pleasurable satisfaction depends on external circumstances going well. Moreland points out that because of this the modern sense of happiness, “pleasurable satisfaction”, is unstable and varies with life’s circumstances. Pleasurable satisfaction becomes increasingly addictive and enslaving if it becomes the dominant aim of one’s life. By contrast, classical happiness brings freedom and power to life as one ought, as one increasingly becomes a unified person who lives for a cause bigger than one’s self. Western culture has been disillusioned into seeking happiness as their main priority in life. Although, happiness is important, when its importance becomes exaggerated, it leads to a loss of purpose in life, and even depression. What Western cultures need to realize is that true happiness can never be achieved. Over the past 50 years, levels of health, wealth, and liberties have increased, but levels of happiness haven’t.

Since their beginning, Humans have debated over the true cause of happiness. Some people argue that wealth brings happiness, while some say that love is the only real way to acquire happiness. Some even devote their entire lives to a god in an attempt to gain an inkling of genuine, long-lasting happiness. Every human has some belief system when trying to find true happiness, but many go their entire life without experiencing it except for in brief, fleeting moments. Through the use of various literary elements, “Sir Gawain and the Green Knight” and “Federigo’s Falcon” both indirectly suggest that happiness gained through others or physical possessions is doomed to live a short life, but happiness derived from contentedness within oneself cannot be extinguished by anything except for death itself.

The theory of ethics explore through various topics of human behaviour, involving the constructive guidance of concepts that are right or wrong in one’s performance. Many philosophers argue that people should be just and ethical because it is the only source of true and lasting happiness. Meaning, ethical people are happy people. This ethical theory of happiness is further studied through countless philosophers, but the two main thinkers that will be specifically researched are Aristotle, a continuing figure in ancient Greece philosophy, and Epictetus, a Greek Stoic philosopher. Within the two, both believe human action is the main goal in reaching happiness such as the good habits, so called “virtues”, but with two different beneficial views. Another interesting theory they come across is the intention of being rational towards a decision. Lastly, the main difference between the two theories is how one will be able to achieve happiness, as one focuses more to be virtuous and sacrificial and the other seems to avoid pain and endures in pleasure. As two philosophers go in depth in the same topic of the search of happiness, this paper aims to portray the similarities and differences each theory have.

Before Humanities 210, my processes for decision-making and preference development were based on more mental pleasure than physical pleasure. Happiness was the ideal feeling and I would try to feel happy as long as possible. Having wonderful relationships with family and friends, making wise decisions, and thinking of ways to improve life were the most important goals to achieve happiness. However, when moments of extreme happiness emerged, great sadness followed. Although it was unclear at the time, I was following the concepts of Epicureanism. Richard Paul Janaro and Thelma C. Altshuler, authors of The Art of Being Human: The Humanities as a Technique for Living, say that Epicureanism believes “complete happiness is a moderate amount of pleasure with freedom from pain” (338). Thus, I realized moderation of pleasure regulates feelings of sadness. My belief in Epicureanism developed as I recalled periods of suffering and realized I became happy as the suffering subsided. Regarding religion, my parents and grandmother practice Buddhism, but they never forced it on me and my sisters so the religion is not as familiar. However, learning about Buddhism was interesting as it is applicable to everyday life. One salient

The pursuit of happiness is a timeless and ageless endeavor. Since the beginning of time people have searched far and wide for the source of happiness. Even the greatest minds attempt to discover the basis of all human contentment. The father of philosophy, Socrates, was one of those few that might have unearthed the key to human happiness. His understanding shaped the way that the western world sees pleasure, joy, and happiness. His views on how to obtain them are still alive today.

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

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.

The ancient people’s ideas of happiness are surprisingly common to today. In the writings of Seneca, stoicism is shown in their joy through philosophy and the present life. Happiness to them is internal. “The Bhagavad Gita” shows that happiness is found in Brahman. This is achieved through reincarnation. Confucius shared the ideas of Taoism that happiness is in unity. The ways to achieve unity are filial piety, education, and ritual according to Confucius’ “Analects.” Homer shows in The Odyssey that happiness lies in family and home.

The latter has the strength of using realism, logic, and the nature of man, but is also limited by its contractions. The discussion, therefore, aims to answer the philosophical issue involving the account that is best for happiness, and having regarded the application to the case, its view on human nature, logic, and realistic approach, it will argue that Epicurus had the best opinion on the kind of happiness that is premised on content.

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.