Comparing Aristotle's Conception Of Happiness To The Soul Of A Man

1560 Words4 Pages

Happiness in today’s modern language is defined as a pleasurable or satisfying experience (Merriam-Webster). This definition differs greatly when compared to the Greek word happiness was translated from, eudemonia. Eudemonia is best translated as “well-being” or “flourishing” (Reeve, 227). From this definition, happiness is not based solely off of an emotional state, but a condition of a person over a lifetime, and not just in a specific moment in time. A kind of active living that is in accordance with virtue (Aristotle, Book I, VII). Philosophers describe happiness as “the good of a man”. Agreeing that the soul of a man is virtuous, and the ability to attain happiness is through virtue. Although many philosophers do disagree on what is needed …show more content…

The Stoics believed that happiness is achieved by preserving ones good virtue alone (Edelstein, 1.), while Aristotle believed that in order to be happy, bodily and external goods are necessary to perform virtuous acts and therefore be of good virtue (Sherman, 2). These opposing viewpoints propose the questions of whether external and bodily goods are required to be virtuous and therefore acquire happiness or whether being of good virtue alone is viable for happiness. Aristotle did not believe that virtue alone could be sufficient for happiness. He expressed, “Possession of virtue seems actually capable with being asleep, or with lifelong inactivity, and, further with the greatest suffering and misfortunes, but a man who is living so, no one would call happy, unless they were defending a thesis at all cost.” (Aristotle, Book I, V). Aristotle believed that in order to live a life of virtue, there is a need for both external and bodily goods. Without them, one could not …show more content…

The need for external goods is not required for happiness because external goods can neither be inheritably good nor bad. To further explain this rational, Epictetus divided things into two categories; things that are up to us, and things that are not up to us. Up to us being conception, choice, desire, and aversion, everything that is our own doing. Not up to us would be our body, property, and reputation, everything that is not our own doing (Epictetus, 1). External goods would fall under the category of things that are not up to us. Stoics believe that it is okay to prefer one external good over another (i.e. health over sickness), but they know that there is a thin line between preferring and becoming frustrated when one is unable to obtain the preferred good. The Enchiridion says, “If you ever happen to turn your attention to externals, so as to wish to please anyone, be assured that you have ruined your scheme of life.” Expressing the use of external goods in order to please others would result in living a lesser-unfulfilled life. The Stoics acknowledge that bodily and external good are not to be neglected but can easily be considered of too much value. For this reason, they say that little attention should be given to the things that are not up to us. Instead focus attention on developing virtue, the only thing able to be

Open Document