The study of ethics has for many years divided the philosophy community into competing schools of thought. Two of these schools, Stoicism and Epicureanism, have wrestled with the specific question “How can I be happy?” While the answer may appear obvious at first, the two schools have developed competing theories of happiness that prove it is not such an easy question to answer. The Stoics argue that the way to a happy life is through pursuing virtue. In comparison, the Epicureans argue that a happy life is one free of pain. To clarify, neither school is declaring specific actions right or wrong; rather each is prescribing their own way of life in which happiness can be obtained (Sharples 82). In this paper, I will argue that the Stoic School succeeds because it accounts for the human desire to purse certain virtues without regard to pleasure or pain which is essential to happiness. For the Stoics, what is necessary to live a happy life does not derive itself from physical pleasure or mental peace, rather virtue (Sharples 100). When one acts virtuously, they act in accordance with their human nature, following the guidance of their reason. For the Stoics, this guidance from reason leads us to certain things which give us pleasure such as wisdom or even other virtues we may feel. This life of virtue in accordance with reason is completely sufficient for living a happy life and in no way is it affected by an action’s consequence. The Stoics stress the importance of reasonable action in pursuance of a specific outcome without giving worth to the specific outcome itself (Sharples 107). If a man follows his reason to obtain an outcome, the outcome in question plays no role in the assignment of happiness, only the use of his reason. Ext... ... middle of paper ... ...ific actions that foster happiness. For the Epicureans, it is essential to remove pain from the body and limit mental anxiety in order to maintain happiness. For the Stoic, the pursuance of virtue ultimately gives rise to happiness. In my opinion, the Stoic argument overcomes the argument of the Epicureans and is successful in prescribing a way of life that is conducive to happiness. The Stoic school differentiates between virtues and feelings, making it desirable to humans. Human reason tells us that it is desirable to attain certain virtues, some of which may not be the most physically pleasing. The Epicurean would be forced to say that virtues such as leadership and service would not lead to happiness if the pain outweighs the pleasure. The fact that humans have desires to pursue virtues that may cost pain, is proof enough of their superior school of thought.
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.
In Book I of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states that the ultimate human goal or end is happiness. Aristotle then describes steps required for humans to obtain the ultimate happiness. He also states that activity is an important requirement of happiness. A virtuous person takes pleasure in doing virtuous things. He then goes on to say that living a life of virtue is something pleasurable in itself. The role of virtue to Aristotle is an important one, with out it, it seems humans cannot obtain happiness. Virtue is the connection one has to happiness and how they should obtain it. My goal in this paper is to connect Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics to my own reasoning of self-ethics. I strongly agree with Aristotle’s goal of happiness and conclude to his idea of virtues, which are virtuous states of character that affect our decision making in life.
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.
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.
One of the main ideas which form part of the answer as to what it means to follow nature for the Stoics is the following of an intended trajectory. As the oak tree strives to achieve its natural form of the best oak tree that it can become, it is upon its natural trajectory of reaching its potential. So too, borrowing from Aristotle, humans have the potential of becoming excellent in their own right through...
Both Plato and Augustine offer unusual conceptions of what one must acquire to live a truly happy life. While the conventional view of happiness normally pertains to wealth, financial stability, and material possessions, Plato and Augustine suggest that true happiness is rooted in something independent of objects or people. Though dissimilar in their notions of that actual root, each respective philosophy views the attaining of that happiness as a path, a direction. Plato’s philosophy revolves around the attainment of eternal knowledge and achieving a metaphysical balance. Augustine also emphasizes one’s knowing the eternal, though his focus is upon living in humility before God. Both assert that human beings possess a natural desire for true happiness, and it is only through a path to something interminable that they will satisfy this desire.
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...
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.
Thus, when virtues involves in some personal pain, the idea of purpose or need become very important as it deeply depends on self-control. Self-control becomes extremely important when virtues entails stepping out from person’s comfort zone, here you can distinct a virtuous person from others. A virtuous person can control himself and abide to rules and morals whatsoever, while people with no self-control but claiming being virtuous might forget their morals and values in some situations. In conclusion, I argue that there is a connection between virtues and happiness, however I have showed some situations that virtues may lead to unhappiness or confusion.
In the philosophy of stoicism, virtue is the only ultimate good. Other things, such as health and riches are "indifferents": Sellars (2006) described how according to the Stoics, these things "are not necessary for a happy life" (p. 113). Stoic ideas appear fairly often in Montaigne's "On the Inequality There is Between Us" essay. To begin with, Montaigne (1987) wrote that a man "may have a great suite of attendants, a beautiful palace, great influence and a large income: all that may surround him but it is not in him" (p. 289). This is a stoic idea since it emphasizes how externals like wealth are not extremely important, instead just an external that is not the greatest good for our being. Similarly, when Montaigne (1987) said that even if
Stoicism made the transition from an intriguing foreign philosophy to a popular practice because it was taken up by several high profile figures. Scipio Africanus, the original esteemed Roman Stoic died in 129 BCE, but about 40 years later a new crop of celebrated Romans took up the Stoic practice. During the fall of the Roman Republic a group of famed orators, generals, and statesmen including Marcus Junius Brutus (85-42 BCE), Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BCE), Pompey the Great (106-48 BCE), and Cato the Younger (95-46 BCE) all professed themselves Stoics. This group of powerful statesmen and leaders practicing Stoicism disseminated it throughout Rome. Octavian (63 BC- 14 AD) who later became Caesar Augustus had a Stoic tutor and many years later the young emperor Nero also had a Stoic tutor. As Stoicism grew more esteemed and more popular it became the natural choice to hire a Stoic tutor for sons who were destined for politics. Stoicism was especially attractive to political leaders. The Historian Gilbert Murray states “Nearly all the successors of Alexander -- we may say all the principal kings in existence in the generations following Zeno -- professed themselves Stoics.” While not every ruler professed himself a Stoic, for example Julius Caesar was an Epicurean, many were not just students of Stoicism but Stoic disciples like the Greek King Antigonus and the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
In the tree of Ethics, there are many twigs and branches that all trace back to a single root: how a person ought to act. Now, the paths that some branches take to get to that single root differ in many ways, yet all arrive at their own definition of how they themselves should live. The ‘branch’ that I will be talking about today, is Stoicism. I will discuss the history and beginnings of Stoicism in the Hellenistic period, the basic ideas of stoicism, and I will share my own personal beliefs and skeptical ideas as concerned with Stoicism.
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.
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...