IS VIRTUE SUFFICIENT FOR HAPPINESS?
There is much debate over the right path to happiness in life dating back to early civilization in the Roman Empire. Majority of people believe that happiness can only be achieved by material things such as; wealth, political power, fancy cars and so forth, whereas others believe that striving for pleasure and success ultimately yields happiness. Liberal education tends to take a conceptual approach to teaching the importance of virtues, whereas vocational studies tend to have a more practical approach. In “On Liberal and Vocational Studies,” Roman philosopher Seneca gives his own view of happiness and the importance of liberal studies in virtuous character of men. As a champion for living a virtuous life as opposed to materialism, Seneca’s remarks explain his arguments for virtue. Essentially, Seneca argues that men should not place emphasis on the things of this world arguing that happiness is not achieved by the possessions in one’s life, but by the way one lives their life.
Certainly the most fundamental rejection to Seneca’s take on happiness may have to do with man’s daily desires and urges in life. Seneca suggests that men should and can have fruitful lives without fulfillment of their urges as long as they are virtuous. But it is safe to say that having desires is simply the nature of man and therefore man’s desires are meant to be satisfied. Seneca seems to suggest that a man without desires, has no strife and therefore is a virtuous man which means that a man with no desires is ultimately a happy man. Seneca believes that liberal arts in general contribute greatly to the equipment of life, but have nothing to do with virtue arguing that the importance of a liberal arts education is ...
... middle of paper ...
...a conceptual approach to life which all men to adhere to.
Seneca challenges Land owners to be virtuous and not place their focus on the importance of their material (Land) possession in this world, “Who owned the land before your grandfather? You did not enter into this land as an owner but as a tenant.” Seneca goes on to advise men to content with the land they have and learn to share with their brother. This blends in with Seneca’s original stance on virtue and the argument that one must make best of life with the materials that one has been given.
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.
Humans, throughout recorded history, have searched for a proper way of living which would lead them to ultimate happiness; the Nicomachean Ethics, a compilation of lecture notes on the subject written by Greek philosopher Aristotle, is one of the most celebrated philosophical works dedicated to this study of the way. As he describes it, happiness can only be achieved by acting in conformity with virtues, virtues being established by a particular culture’s ideal person operating at their top capacity. In our current society the duplicity of standards in relation to virtue makes it difficult for anyone to attain. To discover true happiness, man must first discover himself.
Seneca has a strong opinion on the liberal arts and the liberal study’s in general. He thinks students are only focused on the worldly skills, and not the skills of life. Students are lacking the common knowledge on how to treat others and losing sight in what it takes to become a decent human being. In “Liberal Studies and Education” by Seneca, the path to virtue is through self-awareness. Throughout Seneca’s letter he states his views on liberal education and how important it is in life, students can’t just focus on worldly things, they need to focus on the things we take with us after death. The mind is important, but in Seneca’s letter, he feels the soul should get the most attention in the education field, virtue being his main idea. The effects of virtue are illustrated through the characteristics of, kindness, love for the common man, and inner strength.
Seneca explains, “Temperance knows that the best measure of the appetites is not what you want to take, but what you ought to take” (Seneca 27). This suggests that one should refrain from corrupting the soul through vices, which would impede individual salvation. Stoics like Seneca believe that greed & addictions inevitably corrupt the soul, so one ought to seek what is essential for survival and avoid indulging in these vices. “Temperance controls our desires; some it hates and routs…” (Seneca 27). As human beings, we often succumb to our wants before satisfying our needs. We are not yet virtuous, according to Seneca, and therefore leading a life of this kind would not satisfy the soul. In his writing, Seneca stresses that in order to become virtuous, one must accept temperance and steer away the vices of
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...
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.”
...nothing, fearing nothing, but satisfied with your present activity according to nature, and with heroic truth in every word and sound which you utter, you will live happy'; (Aurelius 514). This perfectly describes the Stoic lifestyle; do what you have to do without any expectations or fears of what is to come, and do it with integrity, then life is happiness.
Seneca made a name for himself by being a scholar, philosopher, scientist, and politician. In “On Liberal and Vocational Studies” Seneca writes a letter to people who want to know what he thinks is education, and more specifically, liberal studies. He responds to what the purpose of such studies are and if education makes someone a better person. Seneca agrees that one should be learning, but there is no point to learning unless it serves a true purpose. People should not merely learn how to do, for example, a math problem, but rather how to apply that math problem to life. If there is no purpose to the education, it is useless. What might of motivated Seneca was people trying to teach him and others information that served no importance to
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.
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.
Also according to Roman Cicero, the bonds between virtue and happiness are very strong, that a virtuous person could still be happy even if he is tortured (McMahon 2006). In addition, Rosalind Hursthouse contended
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
Happiness is the goal of every human beings according to Aristotle, however what does happiness imply? It is in his attempt to define happiness and to find a way to attain it that Aristotle comes across the idea of virtue. It is thus necessary to explain the relationship between these two terms. I will start by defining the good and virtue and then clarify their close link with the argument of function, I will then go into more details in explaining the different ways in which they are closely related and finally I am going to give an account of the apparent contradiction in Book X which is a praise of the life of study.
Aristotle rejects the idea of universal happiness by explaining how Plato does not incorporate the large number of variants. Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal, because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual. One might also argue that other common factors associated with happiness were wealth, pleasure, knowledge, and honor. Aristotle disagrees and found each of these limited to the notion of the good of man. Some benefits that may motivate them to seek better opportunities within their career may be the thought of money bringing happiness and also they will practice living the good life. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
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...