The Philosophy Of The World

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

Epicureanism is a philosophy developed the teachings and ideals of a man named Epicurus. Epicureanism is defined by Epicurus as the pleasure for the end of all morality and that real pleasure is attained through a life of prudence, honor, and justice. Epicurus introduced this philosophy around 322 B.C, and two schools established in Athens. Epicurus taught the ethics of his philosophy in his school, that a person should live by "the art of making life happy", and that "prudence is the noblest part of philosophy"(newadvent.org). Epicurus ideals for life intrigued people and they began to think that perhaps the ethics of Epicureanism had some truth behind it; a person should live his/her life to the fullest in order to become happy. Epicurus

The first four Principal Doctrines, deal with anxiety in people’s lives, and how they should think. Epicurus, is telling people not to fear death, God, nor pains in one’s life because they do not last long and they are for the week. The problem with this way of thinking, is that it removes the true God from the person’s life. But, that is not what he is saying. He, “believed that the true life of pleasure consisted in an attitude of imperturbable emotional calm which needed only simple pleasures, a healthy diet, a prudent moral life, and good friends” (pg. 342). This is quit opposite of what people say of Epicureanism in today’s time.

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).

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).

Epicurus believed that the idea of pleasure was important but had to restrained. He contributed to modern hedonism. He created the garden a sort of ancient Utopia that he used as a base for his teachings and claimed that all were welcome but must reject their old lives and society. His guide to the good life included the use and creation of Tetrapharmakos, which had four points that people should live by to attain the good life. These included, God is nothing to fear, one if Epicurus’ biggest idea was in his riddle, if god is so powerful and willing to help others, then why does evil exist? And if is not so powerful and is not willing then why are they called gods and why are they worshipped? Death is nothing to worry about, there is not immoral

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.

In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.

In order to obtain a meaningful life one has to ponder different philosophical thoughts to create a life of meaning. By building upon Buddhist beliefs suffering is necessary in order to obtain liberation from life and death. For Epicurus the thought process was that hedonism created a life worth living. Yet, this thought process creates an addictive cycle of thrill-seeking and a stronger

Imagine your friend telling you your outfit looked good when in fact you had three stains on your shirt. Imagine your coach telling you you performed to the best of your ability in today’s game, when last game you hit three home-runs. Imagine your boss telling you you’re the best employee he’s ever had, yet gives the promotion to your co-worker. These are some scenario’s that have a higher chance of occurring if I were to take the happiness pill. Therefore, I have decided not to take the pill because according to Epicurus there are three influences that determine your happiness and being being blinded by the truth is not one of them. The truth in this case, is more important to me.

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.

Pleasure versus Pain: For a long time, Utilitarianism has been used to refer to different perspectives commonly falling under the semblance of this theoretical deportment (Lukas 43). To take the point of reference closer home, the paper will attempt to sum up the main theoretical perspectives of this ethical structure. For a significant portion, Utilitarianism identifies and distinguishes two absolutes in the universe: pain and pleasure. Moral law is shaped and

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.

As humans, I do not think we know as much as we think we know. “Perhaps this is the reason why in matters of Philosophical research some claim to have discovered the truth, while others declare that finding it is an impossibility, and other are still seeking it” (SE Handout 31). The word “truth” in this quote is ambiguous. I believe that we will spend the rest of eternity seeking the truth. The truth can mean many things to many different people. What is true for you may not be true for me. Many of the modern philosophers dance around the question, “What is real and what is not?” Although there are many arguments for and against the internal world and the external world, I tend to lead towards the skeptics point of view. I do this on the simple notion that many of the skeptics arguments are hard to refute. Much like Sextus Empiricus, I argue that we cannot know anything with absolute certainty about the external world.

The second noble truth implies to the origin of suffering or samudaya. In essence, there are causes to the suffering that man