Summary Of Happiness In The Garden Of Epicurus

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

Yet moderation only makes the individuals enjoy the desires of everyday life. “Be moderate in order to taste the joys of life in abundance.” (Epicurus) The gratification of an experience is better delayed so that the qualities and true desires for significant options are available in the future.

The great philosophers of ancient Greece concerned much of their time with what is the best path of life and how to achieve it. Many people question what true happiness is and how it can be achieved. In Plato’s Gorgias, Socrates talks and muses about what happiness is, why people seek happiness, how it is achieved and what the best way to achieve it is. In one part, Socrates tries to explain to Callicles why not all pleasure is happiness and that one must use restraint and temperance to control ones desires and help them achieve happiness (Gorgias, 488). Callicles argues with Socrates, stating that happiness can only be truly achieved when one allows their goals to flourish without any boundaries or anything to stop them (Gorgias, 489).

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).

Joel Kupperman in Six Myths about the Good Life: Thinking About What Has Value evaluates that humans as a whole want more comfort and pleasure in life as he it “may represent a tendency that is wired into normal human nature” (Kupperman 1). Through the explanation of pleasure as well as its arguable counterpart, suffering and the discussion of their values in addition to the counterargument of hedonic treadmill, Kupperman’s views about the role of pleasure in living a good life can be strongly supported and evaluated.

The Handbook vs. 90210 Finding happiness in life is the ultimate goal for many people; this task, however, is not easy. In a world surrounded by temptation, it is often extremely difficult to distinguish the difference between what leads to true happiness and what only temporarily gratifies. Innumerable philosophers have tried to tackle this challenge, and each has left behind various theories on how to achieve happiness. One of the most famous philosophers, Epictetus, came to the conclusion that Stoicism is the best way to find happiness in the mortal world. Epictetus lived from approximately 50-130 A.D. and the stoic movement began to catch on even earlier, around 300 B.C. (Epictetus 1).

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.

The hedonist would argue that pleasure is the only intrinsic good in life, that joy and suffering are the only distinguishing marks of things beneficial or harmful to the human being. To the hedonist, life is like the common balance scale with suffering on one side and pleasure on the other. With pleasure being inversely related to suffering, in order to maximize the good of life, the hedonist strives to minimize suffering, thereby maximizing net pleasure (pleasure minus suffering).

In part one of our book, “The Good Life,” we studied five different philosopher’s viewpoints on what is needed in order for a person to have a good, fulfilling life. They all included the concepts of pleasure and happiness to some extent in their theories, but they all approached the ideas in different ways. The two hedonists we studied, Epicurus and John Stuart Mill, place heavy emphasis on the importance of pleasure. They both believe that pleasure is a necessity in the ideal life. Jean Kazez agreed with their viewpoints in her theory and said that happiness was a necessity for a good life. Epicurus and Mill also argue that there is nothing else that we ultimately desire beyond pleasure and that it is an intrinsic good.

We are a pleasure driven society always waiting to be amused. Self indulgence is a very natural aspect of human life. Does pleasure affect our lives? Will it make us happy at the end? Well, Aristotle will let us know what it means to be happy and have a good life in the Nicomachean Ethics. In the process, he reveals his own account of pleasure as well as other philosophers opposing views on the subject. The author highlights the key them by telling us that pleasure is not the chief good. However, it is an end in itself, which makes it good. In addition, pleasure is also not a process because it doesn’t involve any movement from incompleteness to completeness. According to Aristotle, happiness is

Happiness is all around the world, it is a very genuine and important thing, and everyone wants to be happy. Being happy is what makes life worth living, and it makes life a lot better in every way possible. What makes people happy though? Are bodily and external goods necessary to happiness? I would say no because by which they can make you happy, they are not necessary for human happiness. It’s not what things you buy, the pain, the suffering, or enjoyment your body might get. Human happiness comes from somewhere else within the human. Comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness will help give a better clear and logical understanding on what really happiness is and why I believe that bodily

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.

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.

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.