Epicurus And The Good Life

Greek Philosophers had a certain way of approaching the problem of morality and the different questions that it raises. These questions were answered by them trying to define the good life. Epicurus (341-271 BCE) was one of the most influential philosophers of the Hellenistic period. He studied many philosophies and then founded his own philosophical school, “The Garden” a self- Sufficient community on the outskirts of Athens. He summarized his philosophy in a number of letters, “Letters to Monoeceus” being the most important. Epicurus states that the pleasure is ‘The starting point and the goal of the happy life’, we learn about if it is actually good to seek each and every pleasure and also we read about the possibilities of leading a virtuous but unpleasant life.

Epicurus believes that pleasure is ‘the starting point and the goal of the happy life’. Epicurus invokes psychological hedonism (“starting point”) to support his ethical hedonism (“the goal”) in this statement. He claims that pleasure is the goal of life and that virtues are simply means. Epicurus was a consequentialist, he believed something is morally good because of something – a pleasure it may result in. So more generally when he claims that pleasure is the goal of the happy life, he means that it is ‘freedom from pain and…fear’ (ataraxia). He believes we have the need of pleasure only when there is an absence of pleasure from our lives, he also says that when we no longer feel pain, we don’t stand in the need for pleasure. So basically we seek certain pleasures in times of discomfort or pain to remove that, so when we attain the pleasure that will remove our pain and discomfort, that is when we have achieved a happy life.

By saying it is the goal, he means that ...

... middle of paper ...

...that it is the goal or aim of life, as I feel he does not cover things that may be more important than just pleasure and virtues. I agree in terms of the fact that he thinks not every pleasure may be desirable, I believe that there are many good things in the world but all of them may not cater to our needs or provide us with satisfaction. I also agree in some places that yes we need to be good people to live a pleasant life, and in the end being a bad person with no virtues or values will result in punishment or some sort of bad consequences. Other than that his views are strong and do make sense but I would not agree with his entire philosophy and certainly not his definition of the good life. Although he may have made more sense in the times of Ancient Greece, from a modern perspective I find his theory to not meet with what I would think the good life is about.