The first form of happiness is a life of pleasure and enjoyment. The second form of happiness is a life as a free and responsible citizen. The third form of happiness is a life as a thinker and philosopher.”(Gaarder 115) Aristotle felt that for a person to achieve eudaimonia, they must achieve all three forms of happiness otherwise they will not be truly happy and satisfied because their life would be unbalanced. Aristotle believed balance is key to happiness. “To be a good person, according to Aristotle, is to act in accordance with right reason, in other words, th... ... middle of paper ... ...nses while Plato only trusted his reason.
Therefore, if one carries out their function adequately, they are leading a good life. As such, living a life of perfect rational activity... ... middle of paper ... ...ppiness is multifaceted and can be described in so many other ways. Nevertheless, Aristotle would argue that happiness should be based on pleasure because men are rational being and as such they should not rely on indulging in their basal need for pleasure. This is because feelings can be deceiving but reason never fails. However, although it is true that happiness should not based on the feeling of pleasure alone, this does not imply that man should not allow himself to be overwhelmed by the state of feeling happy (emotion even when he has done the right thing.
I will argue that Epicurus’s version of happiness is false and Nozick’s Happiness helps show that. Epicurus’s version of happiness is the lack of pain and the meeting the basic needs. Epicurus also believes in having pleasurable things in life. Nozick’s shows how happiness is more than just pleasure or pain. He also shows how happiness is not the only important thing in life.
Plato show’s that justice is worthwhile in and of itself and that being a just person equates to being a happy person. In my opinion, Plato does a good job and is accurate when explaining what it is to be just and this definition is an adequate solution to repairing an unjust person or an unjust city or anything that has an unjust virtue and using the definition of what justice is accurately explains why just people are happier than unjust people. According to Plato justice is harmony (book 4, 434c) and justice is each part doing its own work and not interfering with one another. These two definitions of justice don’t do a good job of explaining what justice is in ful. Plato compares justice in a soul and justice in a city, the city of Kalipolis.
I want my friends to flourish for their own sake. What is the relation between a mutual desire for the other’s flourishing and mutual esteem of character? V Aristotle argues that only in a relation of mutual esteem between virtuous people: a. does each love the other “as being the man he is” (1156a20) as opposed to as a source of advantage or pleasure, b. will the relationship endure, independently of the vagaries of fluctuating circumstance, mood, etc. (1156b1) c. is the relationship reciprocal in the best sense, since “each gets from each in all respects the same as, or something like what, he gives.
Aristotle also provides his view of what the best life is and consists of, however, it is illogical to identify a single sort of the best life for everyone, as it should be relative to each person in different ways. Also, the life of study, which is the best life according to Aristotle, is not the only type of life that will bring about happiness. The best life of someone who is ill versus someone who is poor will be different in terms of what it consists of and the happiness it will bring. Aristotle believes that eudaimonia or happiness is the ultimate good and that the best life is guided by rational contemplation; while it is true to say that happiness is the supreme good, Aristotle incorrectly argues that the best life is a life of study and provides an objective account of the good life which does not hold for all. While happiness is the ultimate good, Aristotle establishes the best life and incorrectly claims that the life of study is the best life for everyone, but it is crucial to first determine how Aristotle connects eudaimonia with human function and virtue.
Socrates was one of the first true intellectuals in human history. The societal conventions of his time condemned intellectual enlightenment. They viewed secular knowledge as an obstruction of the path to spiritual enlightenment which was far superior to any intellectual exploits. Socrates was a revolutionary thinker in that he recognized the benefits and importance of studying temporal elements instead of devoting his life to religion. In the eyes of his contemporaries, Socrates' blatant defiance of tradition and religion as the sole importance of life and thought was so unorthodox that it was punishable by death.
With Plato it seems he views justice as fit for everyone just not a particular person. Everything is made equal no matter what part of society they come from. More with Plato he values the virtue of the should and how it helps with justice to man and to the city. “.. in his soul, there resides a better principle and a
The guardians would be chosen for their excellence in citizenship, and possess and develop the virtues of courage and temperance. A... ... middle of paper ... ... and eternal. Justice is something that can be aspired to, and if achieved within oneself to as much perfection as possible the closer to happiness the person could be. This happiness could not be influenced or changed according to some external factors, not unlike the happiness of the truly just person held in shackles. In contrast Aristotle’s view of the forms were that they were subject to our world and changeable.
Instead, it implies the feeling of adaptability and compromise. The need for justice signifies that there is turmoil within the population. Justice, in Plato’s example, neglects to mention the fundamental characteristics of humanity when dividing up the population. Although he mentions an innate desire for money and power, he does not take into consideration a possible solution if a rebellion were to start because of the farmers desire to rule and be equals. Plato also neglects the importance of the right of choice; a ruler can be a better warrior than a philosopher, a farmer may be more philosophical than a ruler.