Stoic Ethics: What Does It Means To Live A Good Life

If these compiled virtues are the ultimate freedom, the main goal of a person should be to develop their character. “The good for man is an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue, or if there are more kinds of virtue than one, in accordance with the best and most perfect kind.” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1.7) These virtues are achieved by constant interaction with society and any obstacles that present themselves. This interaction must be an activity of the mind; only through internal activity can one hope to further an internal change. “The expectations of life depend upon diligence the mechanic that would perfect his work

Stoicism is the belief that virtue and the highest good is solely based on knowledge. It also has to do with letting go of other people's beliefs and focusing entirely on oneself. Being able to focus on only what is in our control is essential when it comes to stoicism because that is the only way to reach happiness. Epictetus wanted to get rid of any and all desires. Stoics are strong believers that nothing is eternal and that everything in due time will disappear. Therefore, n

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.

22. The Stoics believed that the entire universe is an ordered reality, it forms part of a whole cosmos in which all contradictions are resolved for the ultimate good. The universe then follows a determined, logical path that leads to a final perfection. All the things that happen in life, good and evil, is rigidly determined in accordance to a rational purpose. This course of the universe is unchangeable. Therefore, no individual could escape or change his destiny, no one was master of his fate.

     When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the

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.

     As rational beings, we can become conscious of the law that guides all things. Virtue consists in conscious agreement with the inevitable order of things. According to Epictetus’ The Enchiridion, one acts with the virtues of Stoicism: human imperfection, prudence, temperance, and courage. We can relate what Epictetus is saying to our own lives. It appears that some comfort comes in knowing that one has no control over the predetermined.

As opposed to just focusing on intention or the best outcomes, an ordinary person will try to act so that they are morally virtuous. Practical rationality takes into account all moral or immoral considerations and of these, certain considerations give the reasons for how they should act (Foot 2001). These considerations account for wellbeing of themselves and others, prudency and instrumental rationality among other things (Russel 2016, Lecture 17). All of these considerations will weight in as reasons for how they will act, because overall they ought to act in the most virtuous way. Those that possess moral virtues understand the weight of certain considerations and as such they can act accordingly to retain their virtuous will (Foot 2001). The function of the human will entails recognizing the considerations that incorporate human needs and understanding the weight of those considerations (Russel 2016, Lecture 17). If we want to retain the goodness of that will, we ought to act in a moral

In the Republic of Plato, the philosopher Socrates lays out his notion of the good, and draws the conclusion that virtue must be attained before one can be good. For Socrates there are two kinds of virtue; collective and individual. Collective virtue is virtue as whole, or the virtues of the city. Individual virtue pertains to the individual himself, and concerns the acts that the individual does, and concerns the individual’s soul. For Socrates, the relationship between individual and collective virtue is that they are the same, as the virtues of the collective parallel those of the Individual. This conclusion can be reached as both the city and the soul deal with the four main virtues of wisdom, courage, moderation, and justice.

Yet, Epictetus offers another interesting concept for Stoics. He divides things into two categories: things that are “up to us” and those that are “not up to us” (Ench. 1.1-2). Things that are “up to us” include: opinions, desires, and actions, i.e., what are conditional on assent. Everything else such as our bodies, possessions, and reputations, are “not up to us.” Epictetus believes that we should only pay attention to things that are “up to us” and pay no attention to indifferents which fall into the “not up to us.” We should only focus on what is genuinely good, which is virtue, and resides in the only thing we have real control over: “choice.” Epictetus does not necessarily reject the idea of preferred and dispreferred indifferents, but

“Happiness in particular is believed to be complete without qualification, since we always choose it for itself and never for the sake of anything else. Honour, pleasure, intellect, and every virtue we do indeed choose for themselves (since we would choose each of them even if they had no good effects), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, on the assumption that through them we shall live a life of happiness; whereas happiness no one chooses for the sake of any of these nor indeed for the sake of anything else.” ( Aristotle 10-11) Aristotle is the other view of happiness that will be discussed. With him and the Stoics, they are both kind of similar due to both believe in virtue for happiness, Aristotle says virtue a different way and other ways about happiness. Aristotle along with the Stoic’s believe that virtues is the same, but Aristotle says this about virtue “and if we take this kind of life to be activity of the soul and actions in accordance with reason, and the characteristic activity of the good person to be to carry this out well and nobly, and a characteristic activity to be accomplished well when it is accomplished in accordance with the appropriate virtue; then if this is so, the human good turns out to be

Stoics have been criticized for neglecting their virtue of justice in lieu of the other virtues. Their principles can make them less inclined to actively work toward a better world. This makes sense, seeing as how the Stoics explicitly attempt to develop an indifferent attitude to things that are external to themselves, for which they have no control. There are glimpses, within Stoicism, that express a more nuanced view. Something that is implicit in the teaching is an understanding that, while we may not have full control over things beyond ourself, we certainly do have some influence. Both the criticisms, and the view of one's potential for influencing the world are also seen within Buddhism.

Hume states that in Epictetus’s The Handbook, most of the statements are based upon a mindset where one is simply told to get over it. Hume states that Seneca also makes use of these invalid arguments that do not add any strength to any point trying to be made. An example of this attack is when Hume gives an example where “a man may as well pretend to cure himself of love by viewing his mistress through the artificial medium of a microscope…” (Hume 349). This addresses the idea that finding an artificial solution to a problem does not benefit anyone in the long run. Similarly, artificial arguments that are made does not do anyone any good. The use of an artificial argument completely invalidates the point that is trying to be made. Therefore, since stoicism is based upon artificial arguments, it cannot serve to bring any individual happiness and success in the future. Hume adds that simply being indifferent to all problems and issues in life as Epictetus instructs does not mean that nothing bad ever happens. When one extinguishes the idea of pleasure and pain, he or she also removes the point of living in life. Someone cannot just state whatever happens, happens and be okay with it simply because they did not care about it from the

Unlike happiness, virtue is not an activity, but a disposition and a state of being. More precisely, it is a disposition to behave in the right manner. In Aristotle’s description, virtues are the “means” and intermediate states between what he considers vicious states (excess and deficiency). In other words, they are the moderation of desiring too much and desiring too little. For example, the state of being courageous is considered a virtuous disposition because it moderates the states of being cowardly (deficit) and rash (excess). Furthermore, Aristotle describes the virtuous person as one whose passions and deliberation are aligned; someone whose possession of goodness allows their acts to be guided by the balance of their “means” and their rationality. This means that to achieve a virtuous state one has to consistently aim for the “mean” of their actions to the point where it’s instinctive. (Nic. Ethics II 6).

Stoic philosophy describes nature of the universe as a type of connection between us. Where we are made to follow nature. Nature being seen as governed by these laws, we as humans are to see these laws as natural and a way to live. Without