Aristotle’s account of a morally virtuous life is opposed to Epictetus’ Stoic approach. I do not think a defender of Epictetus could respond adequately to Aristotle’s criticisms. In this paper I will argue that Stoic beliefs contradict themselves. The Stoic approach to the good life according to Epictetus consists of focusing on what you can control and accepting the things you can’t. Focusing on what you can’t control will only lead to disappointment. Expectations are something that should be avoided since you can not control what will happen in any situation. If you don’t have any expectations you can’t be let down. “Do not seek to have everything that happens happen as you wish, but wish for everything to happen as it actually does happen, …show more content…
First he would think that completely abstaining from any external pleasure would be a life of deficient vices. Epictetus would argue that abstaining from those pleasures is the greater pleasure. To which you could rebuttal that abstaining from external pleasure can give you intrinsic pleasure, but why not enjoy external pleasures to the golden mean and then abstain from them before they become excess; That way you get the best of both worlds. Another issue Aristotle would have would be playing your role well in certain contexts. Aristotle agrees that you should desire to better yourself but he also believes that you can go outside your role to acquire more wealth and influence to do good in your state. Epictetus would argue for divine providence, and that going outside of your assigned role would be impiety towards the gods. Aristotle could argue that god only put you in your role as a starting point, it doesn’t mean you have to stay there. Some roles are not morally virtuous as well, you may be born into a family of criminals and grow up to steal and do harm. Aristotle would not agree that you should play your role well if the role is not morally virtuous, he would urge you to find a better
if you do everything you can to get it, you will not always get what
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
With their philosophical roots grounded in ancient Greece, Stoicism and Epicureanism had contrary yet significant impacts on Roman society. These two philosophies differed in many of their basic theories. Stoics attempted to reach a moral level where they had freedom from passion, while Epicureans strove for pleasure and avoided all types of pain. Stoics like the Epicureans, emphasized ethics as the main field of knowledge, but they also developed theories of logic and natural science to support their ethical doctrines.
Gakuran, Michael. "Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy | Gakuranman • Adventure First." Gakuranman Adventure First RSS. N.p., 21 May 2008. Web.
The current inquiry considers some of the chief notions of the Stoics, but more specifically it focuses upon one important question: what does it mean to follow nature for the Stoics? To answer this question, the testimonies of several of the Stoics are pooled and examined together in the end. Not only does this inquisition illustrate chief attributes of Stoicism, but those attributes are eventually evaluated in light of their coherence as well.
As a worldview, Stoicism is a philosophical approach to help people to cope with times of great stress and troubles. In order to give comfort to humanity, the Stoics agree with the Pantheistic view that God and nature are not separate. Instead, the two forces are one. By believing that God is nature, humans have a sense of security because nature, like God, is recognized as rational and perfect. The perfection of nature is explained through the Divine, or natural, Law. This law gives everything in nature a predetermined plan that defines the future based on past evens (cause and effect). Because the goal for everything in nature is to fulfill its plan, the reason for all that happens in nature is because it is a part of the plan. It is apparent that, because this law is of God, it must be good. The Divine Law is also universal. Everything on the planet has a plan that has already been determined. There are no exceptions or limitations to the natural law. The world in the Stoics’ eyes is flawless, equal, and rational.
Epicureanism taught that happiness could be achieved through the pursuit of pleasure. Epicureanism was overshadowed by Stoicism. Stoicism taught that happiness could be obtained by accepting one’s lot and living in harmony with the well of God, thereby achieving inner
Many stoic philosophers have taken a different approach to virtue and happiness. Homer and Epicurus for instance argue that happiness through desires and virtue are co-dependent suggesting that men with no desires cannot live happy lives. This slightly counters Seneca’s belief that happiness is a result of virtue.
17, No. 3, p. 252-259. Urmson, J.O., (1988). Aristotle’s Ethics (Blackwell), ch.1. Wilkes, K.V., (1978). The Good Man and the Good for Man in Aristotle’s Ethics. Mind 87; repr.
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
Aristotle argues because we do one thing for the sake of another and the last for the sake of something else, and so on, that there is ultimately a supreme good that explains why we do all the lesser goods. It takes a process of first doing smaller tasks in order to reach the ultimate supreme good. Every little task one completes is done directing to an end, even though most ends are just means that lead to other ends. Everyone has a supreme good and do different tasks to complete it, and have different goals to reach it. Aristotle states that every activity one does is for a final goal, and that final goal is the supreme good.
However, this way of life does have a wide influence, whether slaves or upper class aristocracy are "bored." Aristotle is not against pleasure, but he is not considered the pursuit of physical pleasure is necessary because the flesh is happy indulgence joy. Indulgence is excessive or too much thencannot be called good, but rather may be referred to it as an evil. Second, the status of highlight: the pursuit of honor lifestyle Aristotle believed that the nature of those activities and preferences noble people choose honor, because people in general really can honor called target political life.
Marcus Aurelius was a famous philosopher in 121 through 180 C.E. He lived a hard life and even though he was surrounded by crowds he was considered a recluse. He was known for his kindness and mercy. The last years of his life were spent on a military campaign. It is said that these years were the hardest and loneliest. However, instead of becoming bitter and angry Aurelius wrote The Meditations. This was a diary or journal of his personal thoughts. He believed that by writing this it was his duty to his soul. The Meditations, is a popular piece of stoic literature. In this paper I will be describing how Aurelius used stoicism in book two of The Meditations and what I liked and did not like about what he said.
Aristotle feels we have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot establish human happiness, for pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is to express our desires in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals. Aristotle states that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character, what he calls complete virtue. In order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures of the moment. We must live righteous and include behaviors in our life that help us do what is right and avoid what is wrong. It is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing, we have to actually do it. Happiness can occupy the place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be independent of any outside help in satisfying one’s needs and final, that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else and it must be
McManaman, D. (n.d.). Aristotle and the Good Life. lifeissues.net. Retrieved March 15, 2014, from http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/mcm/ph/ph_01philosophyyouth14.html