Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Epicurus research paper
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Epicurus research paper
Epicurus began with no life on the tiny island of Samos in the grand Aegean Sea. He was born on February 341BCE as the second of four brothers to two poor cleruchs, shamed Athenian citizens who settled on Greek territories. Epicurus’ early childhood may have brought him to distraught, but his philosophies made it seem as though he had lived his entire life in the grand palace of Alexander the Great. Epicurus’ main focus was on maximum pleasure, which, according, to him, was only achievable through removal of all pain. This pain was not only present in the body but also in the mind and soul as well, defining pleasure to a greater extent that reached out to friendships and ideals as well. Epicurus grew up during the Hellenistic period, a time when Alexander the Great conquered Greece, the Persian Empire, and Egypt and spread the Greek culture far to the east. This time period was also a time of great philosophical evolution, making Epicurus lucky to be a philosopher at the time. Epicurus’ second most important concept was that of the atomic swerve. He did not believe in fate because it was a determined and inescapable path for humans, so instead, by the influence of Democritus’ atomic system, Epicurus created the atomic swerve, or the “clinamen”, a concept where atoms swerved out of their determined paths to allow some chance into the future. This was an approach with physics which is widely accepted in today’s scientific world – the science of the 21st century. Epicurus lived in Greece in the 3rd century BCE and his theories were based off of philosophies created even before his time, making them seemingly irrelevant to today’s contemporary world. However, the views of modern physics and psychology support Epicurus’ theories of ple...
... middle of paper ...
...m_staticxt>.
3) Gaarder, Jostein. Sophie's World. New York: Berkley, 1997. Print.
4) Tiegreen, Chris. Why a Suffering World Makes Sense. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2006. Print.
5) Epicurus. "Principal Doctrines." The Monadnock Press. Trans. Peter Saint-Andre. 8 Oct. 2011. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. .
6) Dean, Jeremy. "Hedonist Philosopher Epicurus Was Right About Happiness (Mostly) — PsyBlog." PsyBlog. 31 Dec. 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. .
7) "Epicurus." The Information Philosopher - Dedicated to the New Information Philosophy. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. .
8) "Nausiphanes - Epicurus Wiki." Epicurus Wiki. 14 June 2007. Web. 01 Dec. 2011. .
People who are viewed as happy in our culture today are also seen as being rich, having a loving family, and a great occupation. Our society is attracted to material things, rather than spiritual ones. Can a person who does not have many possessions and an elevated social position still live a happy life? Epicurus believed that each one of us could achieve true happiness, and our only problem is that we stubbornly search for it in all the wrong places. Epicurus states that we only need three things to be happy besides the essentials needed for survival: friends, freedom, and an analyzed life. I will be comparing contemporary American notions of happiness to the Epicurean view.
With any form of hedonism, one is committed to the concept that pleasure is the chief good. In an extremely generic form of hedonism, it seems as though the quality of sensual pleasure should be given no more weight than the quality of emotional pleasure and vice versa. Additionally, this sort of hedonism would hold that the acquisition of kinetic pleasures would increase overall pleasure to seemingly no end, a concept which Epicurus’ doctrine would reject. Even if we understand death to be a genuine ceasing to exist, we must conjecture that it is bad for a person to die in the sense that it terminates even the possibility to acquire more pleasure. Under this concept of hedonism, we must agree that a person who lives a pleasurable life for ...
Epicurus was admittedly a Hedonist, and this philosophy has had a huge influence on his work. Especially so on his death argument. Hedonism is, “the doctrine that pleasure is the only thing that is good in itself for a person, pain the only thing that is bad in itself for a person.”
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.”
Happiness is often viewed as a subjective state of mind in which one may say they are happy when they are on vacation with friends, spending time with their family, or having a cold beer on the weekend while basking in the sun. However, Aristotle and the Stoics define happiness much differently. In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes happiness as “something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action” (NE 1097b20). In this paper, I will compare and contrast Aristotle and the Stoics’ view on human happiness. Aristotle argues that bodily and external goods are necessary to happiness, while Epictetus argues they are not.
Web. The Web. The Web. Gakuran, Michael. A. Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy | Gakuranman • Adventure First."
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994. Translated and Edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson.
Epictetus. "Encheiridion." Ancient Philosophy. 31 Ed. Philosophic Classics, vols. 1. Baird, Forrest E., and Walter Kaufman. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall, 2000.
The. The "Aristotle". Home Page English 112 VCCS Litonline. Web. The Web.
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.
Grant, S., (2007). A defence of Aristotle on the good life. Richmond Journal of Philosophy (16) p. 1-8.
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader. Trans. Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...