Plato, The Stoics, And The Epicureans

Polus disagrees and claims that there are many people who have done wrong that are happy and that to experience discomfort from punishment is not happiness (Gorgias, 470). Socrates still persists that those who do evil are unhappy, but Polus retorts by citing a tyrant as an example of one who has done wrong but is happy (Gorgias, 473). Polus talks about a tyrant who killed his young nephew in order to gain power and then argues that by having so much power this tyrant is now happier than he was before (Gorgias, 473). Socrates disagrees and says that he is in fact unhappy due to the shame he feels for the terrible acts he has committed in order to attain his power and that he holds a lot of guilt inside him for what he has done (Gorgias, 476). Socrates then goes on about why those who commit evil and shameful and crimes and then escape punishment are the least happiest of all.

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

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.

People travel through life with what seems like a single goal: to be happy. This may seem like a selfish way to live, however this lone objective is the motivation behind nearly all actions. Even seemingly selfless deeds make people feel better about themselves. That warm feeling experienced while doing charitable acts can be described as happiness. But what is authentic happiness? There is an endless possibility of answers to this question, and man seems to be always searching for the solution. Although one may reach his or her goals, there is always still something one strives for in order to be happy. In the book Stumbling on Happiness, Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert takes the reader through

Happiness: a Human Disease -- An Examination of the Allegorical Theme of Existentialism in the Happy Man

The story of the movie The Pursuit of Happyness directed by Gabriele Muccino portrays a family who struggles with finding enough money to pay taxes and afford living expenses. The movie takes a place in San Francisco during the 80s. The two main characters are the father Chris Gardner and his son Christopher, Will Smith and Jaden Smith respectively. Gardner tries to support his family. But every time he attempts to make things better, they always end up worse. Gardner in the story wonders on "how to be happy?" He earns his money by selling the bone density

For our Economics subject, we watched The Pursuit of Happyness, a movie based on Chris Gardner, a salesman who was not making that much money and eventually experiences homelessness with his five-year old son. He faces problems when his wife is unwilling to accept his goal to become a stockbroker and leaves him. However, he perseveres even under all this stress.

Born of different stations, languages and creeds, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who externally appear to be very different. Epictetus was born to a slave mother, sold as a slave himself and spent the majority of his youth as a slave in Rome. Seneca was born into money; he became tutor to a boy named Nero who later acquired position of Emperor of Rome in 54 A.D. Though these two men seem to be from very different worlds, they have a shared purpose in studying philosophy. The purpose of their writings was to teach people how to live well. Though they had a shared purpose, they suggested its achievement through different means. Epictetus professed an ‘expect the worst so you wont be disappointed when it happens’

What is being happy actually like? With the money, school, work, friends, family, etc. issues, how is it possible to become fully happy if there is always something that could be interfering with it? We live in America that promises us to to be all equal and can experience the “life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.” But every news show that’s turned on, we hear about a 13 year old “entertaining” child who’s trending on every social media network about her disrespecting her mother more often than the issue on two American adults making terrorist threats and waving a confederate flag at a black child’s birthday party. We Americans get the free education until we graduate to find out that we actually don’t know what

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.

The philosophy of virtue ethics, which primarily deals with the ways in which a person should live, has puzzled philosophers from the beginning of time. There are many contrasting interpretations regarding how one should live his or her life in the best way possible. It is in my opinion that the Greeks, especially Aristotle, have exhibited the most logical explanation of how to live the "good life". The following paper will attempt to offer a detailed understanding of Aristotle's reasoning relating to his theory of virtue ethics.

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.

My topic focuses on Rosenbaum’s defense of the epicurean view, Luper’s critique of this view and my argument on who has a stronger position in regards to the topic. I am going to do this by describing both arguments in a detailed manner. Rosenbaum defends the epicurean view while Luper argues against, both sides provide excellent arguments and my argument is that which I feel is more superior.

There is really no definite explanation for what a happy and healthy life consists of. People may create a list of qualities that one desires for a “good” life, though many may come from a bad source. Profound philosophers Jean Kazez and Chris Heathwood developed both subjective and objective theories to help define the true meaning of a substantial life. Jean Kazez was responsible for the objective view of well being, where life requires fundamental goods or necessities for a good life. On the other hand, Chris Heathwood explained in a subjective view that satisfying your desires will promote well being. In the movie, D’Jango Unchained, two black men, Stephen and D’Jango, experienced contrasting lives and confronted each other at the end of the movie. During the time period the movie transpires in, it was extremely rare for a black man to have a “good” life. Most black people were made into slaves, but both Stephen and D’Jango had better lives. Stephen had a bad quality of life, and D’Jango aspired to live a “good” life based on the objective and subjective views of well being.

     I can remember as a child always asking myself the “why” questions of life. What is the purpose of life? Why are we here? What is the purpose of life? Why do certain things happen? And is there really a God? I had always kept these questions to myself and eventually pushed them out of my mind altogether. I was raised in a Christian household and you just were not allowed to ask questions of that nature and doubt the faith. The world is the way it is because God made it that way and that is all there is to it. I was really excited to take this class because it would finally give me the opportunity to exercise my personal thoughts and beliefs. I have come to agree with Socrates that “the unexamined life is not