The Good Life Montaigne Analysis

Ever since we were born, we were told about how we were going to live our lives and what we were going to do with it. We all go through different experiences and problems, and we all see the “good life” in different ways. Everyone’s life

This isn’t as much of an issue as it seems, because we can hypothesize that Socrates would define living well as having a good life but not necessarily having a perfect life.

Everyone desires to live a good life and people are always searching for ways to do so. In my case, by moving to the United States, I now have the opportunity to live a good life, but my definition differs from everyone else’s. I believe that living a good life means getting a good education, working hard, family support, willing to adapt new environment, having a leader, and becoming a self-made individual.

Human nature dictates the necessity of being successful and happy, and to find internal contentment, but what truly defines the good life? Everyone makes decisions about the person they want to be and what is most important to them: Which do you value more, your wealth or your friendships? Do you want to be famous or truly loved? Do you care what people think or are you just trying to please yourself? I think the good life is a combination of everything, and is a fine line that everyone must walk if they want to be truly content.

Although we have established the fact the knowledge cannot exist from the human standpoint, it is this concept that all of mankind believes in most deeply. From a man’s perspective, it is our knowledge, which sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. The fact that we can communicate to each other the knowledge of our thoughts and ideas is the dividing line between man and beast. However, Montaigne is in strict disagreement with this rational and believes the only the inese sense of vanity displayed by all humanity separates men from the rest of the animals.

Since ancient times, many have sought to the answer the philosophical question, “What is the ‘good life’?” This is a question with no simple answer! For some individuals, “the good life” could mean living a life based on justice and rationality, or on faith and trust in the divine, or on the attainment of power, military, glory, and reputation. Their perspectives varied greatly depending upon their cultural values and contexts.

What is the true nature of the Good Life? Is it living life with concern for only oneself despite the possible consequences of one's action on others? Or might it involve

Perhaps we may say that there is an element of good even in mere living, provided that life is not excessively beset with troubles. Certainly most men, in their desire to keep alive, are prepared to face a great deal of suffering, as if finding in life itself a certain well-being and a natural sweetness. (Aristotle, Politics Book II)

In philosophy, there are many understandings of the Good Life. One belief is long-term happiness is the ultimate end goal because it results in overall contentment in life, unlike the temporary state of feeling happy. Aristotle relates long-term happiness to human nature and explains that people achieve long-term happiness when they properly fulfill what is most essential to live a meaningful life. In the Road to Character, David Brooks explains that there two opposing sides of human nature that must be balanced in order to correctly attain all the things necessary to live the Good Life. The problem is many people are off balance and neglect to fulfill both sides of human nature because of the fact human nature is inherently flawed. Good Character works to overcome one’s faults by practicing character traits. The most important one being humility because it eliminates the greatest vice, pride. The Good Life is a struggle to achieve long-term happiness by developing good character and finding balance.

The idea Montaigne illustrated in this essay was that people have a tendency to think that their established beliefs and practices are superior to those of other people. He argued that everyone holds their own values and beliefs based on their experiences and perspectives and that there is no right or wrong way to do things. Montaigne also used another example to demonstrate his ideas in his essay “Of Experience.” He briefly used medicine and illness to portray that sickness will come to us all at different times and in various forms, but we must use our own experiences to gain knowledge and learn from our specific encounters since no two people are

Humans strive every day, through hard work and dedication, to live life to the fullest. Different people though, have different views on what a “good life” exactly is. For some, the idea of their “good life” may be bathing in wine, along with endless amounts of luxurious goods, with no concern about money, while others might use their life to inspire, and make this world a better place for as long as they can. Whatever the case may be, everyone strives to live a “good life,” because at some point that life comes to an end. According to Wikipedia:

Moreover parents have an influence on their children I the color scheme they follow when they find out the sex of their baby. When a women is expecting the first question people ask id what are you having? A boy? Or a girl? Parets cannot help but to find out so they can start planning a tutu and tiara baby shower or a sports themed baby shower. Parnets canot help but start planning what options they will have for their kids, whether it has to do with dress code, colors, toys: two very different themes that divide the sexes. Moreover, in the article. “The Precession of Simulacra” by Jean Baudrillard reflects the idea of simulacra which is an image or representation

Furthermore, Montaigne emphasizes how the Europeans’ sense of cultural superiority is superficial, as their inventions merely emulate nature, writing: “our utmost endeavors cannot arrive at so much as to imitate the nest of the least of birds, its contexture, beauty, and convenience: not so much as the web of a poor spider.” If European superiority is defined by having human knowledge, then cannibalisms, who live in harmony with nature are more knowledgeable, and, thus, more human than Europeans, as they coexist with nature and its natural inventions. According to Montaigne, Europeans, in order to emphasize their false illusion of superiority, “surcharge [nature]” as a result, and “[adorn] her with additional ornaments and graces we have added to the beauty and riches of her own work [with] or own inventions,” imitating the roles of divinity, “smothering her.” Against nature’s inventions, however, Montaigne argues that human inventions falls in comparison, and thus, human identity should be defined by one’s connection with nature, rather than one’s manipulation of it, and thus, would never become better than nature’s

I have to agree with the good life being more important for human beings however, I think that in today’s society there is more than one definition or understanding to what the good life is. Socrates made it clear that the good life is a life filled with knowledge and wisdom. In today’s society the good life would be defined as the American Dream. The American Dream is just a way of measuring the so called happiness of life with tangibles. In that aspect I completely disagree. I have been working at a country club for almost three years now and I can see why so many people have that misconception. I personally agree with Socrates. The good life is one filled with knowledge not money or any other assets. Working at the country club has showed me the side of life I never want to be part of. Everyday I am surprised with what I see. The members at the country club seem to have defined happiness with

To start, one must make sure to refrain from generalizing “where one must not generalize.” Nietzsche states that “the difference among men becomes manifest not only in the difference between their tablets of goods—in the fact that they consider different goods worth striving for and also disagree about what is more and less valuable, about the order of rank of the goods they recognize in common—it becomes manifest even more in what they take for really having and possessing something good.” In this sense, the factor for our happiness is entirely contingent on what we personally value. Does this leave us more vulnerable than when we possessed the crutches of morality? Perhaps, but this is not necessarily a contemptible thing. To give meaning to our lives, we must first know ourselves. When we finally obtain self-awareness, we will be able to discern what we personally require for a fulfilling life. Thus the secret to a satisfactory life does not lie in a strict adherence to any variant of morality, but rather in the endeavour of self-discovery and the active pursuit of what we