Epicurus
Epicurus was a philosopher who was believed to be the one with all the answers to life. He encouraged the Ideal of Good Life, to live simple lives by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Epicurus views worries as unnecessary and unnatural desires. If these desires are avoided, he believes that all worries will be eliminated. Epicurus' metaphysical theory was based on Democritus's view of atoms. They were monists who believed all is matter, the soul is equivalent to the mind and comes apart at death. I feel that Epicurus' extravagance leads to pain, not pleasure; and, therefore, should be avoided.
According to Epicurus, the purpose of life is happiness; and by happiness he means not that state of well being and perfection, but pleasure itself. The Epicurean goal to happiness was ataraxia, freedom from inner disturbance. Epicurus acknowledges the issue of pain caused by owning many material possessions. He believes that even though these possessions may make us happy, the long-term pleasure will not exist. Having many great possessions cause people to be happy, but then they want more and more, which means they will never reach happiness. I feel this point is true to some extent. Although quality of life is a very important point made by Epicurus, quantity also plays a big role. Epicurus takes this to the extreme level of never giving ones self any luxury at all. Everyone who lives on the earth has their good and bad days, when it is a bad day, as human beings we deserve to splurge every once in a while. We work hard here as humans and deserve some kind of replenishment for it, weather it is material, physical, emotional, or whatever else it is that one wants.
Epicurus believes pleasure is the standar...
... middle of paper ...
...o that is what we should have. Thirdly, unnecessary desires are vain and will not cause pain if absent. According to Epicurus, it is unnecessary to desire sex. I strongly disagree with this point because it is natural to have the urge for sexual interactions and necessary to fulfill them or else reproduction would not occur.
It seems to me that Epicurus was the type of person who just wanted to live the life he was supposed to live so he could live life in the best possible way. Even though his beliefs were mostly unrealistic, his intent was to make it possible to live worry free. I feel that if Epicurus lived in today's society, he would have a completely different philosophy. Epicurus did not have enough information to back up all of his theories, and with our world today, he would have thought differently about his philosophy, ideal of the Good Life.
This man had spent the better part of a year reading and rereading the Handbook of Epictetus, throughout that book the message is similar to one of the topics Sherman touches on, “Some things are up to us and some are not up to us,”(pg 2). Basically the circumstances maybe beyond our control, but ultimately what affects us is our judgements and the way we react. She makes a great point that we underutilize our ability to control ourselves when we let external things drive our happiness and that is the difference in so many people's lives, they wager their happiness and satisfaction on factors that should not ultimately
As said before, this is an unanswerable question, but to find a few conclusions it would be essential to look back at what Epicurus thought of what was life all about and to look back at what Gramsci meant about be a partisan. Equally important, is to look back at how these two philosophies influenced literature and art, by reading Sartre's thoughts on the engaged writer and by recalling to our minds some i...
There have been many attempts at formulating a theory that accounts for our intuitions regarding the harm of death. Most theories attempt to account for this intuition by attributing the harm of death to a deprivation of some sort. That is a person is harmed when she dies because she is deprived of some good thing. This paper is a defense of Epicurius's argument regarding death as a response to deprivation theories.
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
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.”
The Dhammapada speaks a universal truth, that “desire is unquenchable,” and explains that “he who wishes to awake, consumes his desires joyfully” (Chapter 14). These statements prove similar to the four noble truths, that to live is to suffer, and desire causes suffering; therefore, one cannot avoid temptation because it is ubiquitous. When explaining the outcomes of “craving pleasure or nursing pain,” the Buddha articulates that “there is only sorrow” (Chapter 16). Desire clearly only causes difficulty when attempting to achieve Nirvana, and the Dhammapada seeks to convey the importance of clearing the mind and purifying one’s thoughts. Continuing to contrast lust and happiness, the Buddha explains that “there is pleasure and there is bliss, forgo the first to possess the second” (Chapter 21). One cannot have genuine jubilation while yearnings and allurements cloud the mind. Expressed throughout Buddhist teachings and a main religious text, the action of overpowering desire and lewd thoughts proves a crucial step in eventually reaching
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.
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.
Obviously not everyone thinks this way. While Epictetus thinks the best life, is an extremely reserved one, Aristotle says the most virtuous life is a mean between the extremes. For example, the virtue of courage is the mean between rashness, and cowardice.4 Aristotle and Epictetus would disagree, because from an Aristotelian viewpoint Epictetus' ideas do not lead to virtue. For Aristotle virtue is like an instrument that ...
More specifically, Stoicism is a moral guide for humans. Though nature is absolute and perfect through God, the human thought is the one and only feature of life that is controlled and changed by people. Humans have the ability to reason and to know that everything in life is determined. For every event that they encounter, humans are able to acknowledge the fact that it is a part of their life plan. Therefore, a person can control whether he/she accepts that the action is unchangeable. Many humans think that they have a choice for all that they do and all that happens to them. But in Stoic reality, natures plan has one path with no possible differences. Thus, good is not defined by what a person does; but, by a per...
Beginning with chapter 27, paragraph 1 of the Summa Contra Gentiles, Aquinas states, “it is impossible for human felicity to consist in bodily pleasures, the chief of which are those of food and sex” (Aquinas, 1264) Although, food and sex may indeed be forms of pleasure, they ultimately have a more important purpose than pleasure alone. Food is required in order for the individual to ...
What are the three principles that Epicurus and Lucretius are arguing for in these passages?
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.
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
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...