Stoicism is a philosophical school of thought that asserts virtue as the one true good that can produce eudemonia, the Stoic term for happiness or living well. This good is accessible to all, by means of using impressions properly and behaving in accordance with god and nature. Virtue is a good achieved through both internal and external sources. The Stoics associated virtue with the venerated status of sage, which can be achieved only when the soul is unwaveringly consistent with true human nature. But what is human nature? Unlike many philosophical theories that focus on the role of emotions in human nature, the Stoics thought human nature to be closely tied to rationality. The Stoics believed that it was human nature to seek out good and happiness, and that all wrong choices are made in the pursuit or avoidance of a wrongfully perceived value. These errors in rationale and perception contribute to the formation of false beliefs, which causes non-virtuous or vicious behavior. Determinism, or the acceptance of living in accord with events outside of our control is a key feature of Stoic theory. This strict determinism allows Stoics to distance themselves from encumbering emotional reactions that are often associated with negative or positive outcomes. A stoic would attempt to dissuade a non-sage from engaging in emotions because they lack the capacity of assenting strictly to kataleptic impressions because emotions negatively effect their beliefs. In order to behave in accordance with this logic it requires a rejection of common emotions. Ordinary emotions such as pleasure and fear are considered false impression, which contribute to a bad mental state. In order to avoid assenting to false impressions one must gain a rational und...
... middle of paper ...
...unchecked use of common emotion can result in weak assent in an individual, in turn leading the individual towards a vice and unhappiness. This is in stark contrast to the goal of a stoic; attempting a strong assent in pursuit of knowledge, in turn fully believing in a knowledge by practicing the virtue of rationale during every day life. Obviously a sage would only advocate participation in an emotion that contributes and does not detract from rationality and living virtuously. The only way to fully believe something, in turn resulting in a strong assent towards a belief, is through knowledge. Knowledge means understanding a belief fully and clearly. In order to confirm a fact to be indubitably true we must apply caution and not make quick judgments. Caution is an emotion that avoids the criticisms of other familiar emotions, and would thus be accepted by the sage.
Salutati ethical perspective was much influenced by stoicism doctrine and was based on his reading of the Roman moralists Cicero and Seneca. However he gradually moved toward a Aristotelian's point of view and mainly he interested in the emotions. Salutati become very suspicious about the Stoic claim that complete non emotionality is possible. But for Salutati that more interestingly was Aristotelian belief that emotion needed to be controlled and channelled in proper direction. Rather than exterminated.
In the humdrum and mundane events of human life, the question is often wondered if certain abstract characteristics are given to individuals via nature or nurture. This notion has been the core of debates for centuries. The nature notion suggests that individuals are innately gifted with their talent. Adverse to nature is the idea that a person’s talents or skills are acquired through a knowledge that has been taught to them i.e. nurture. Like any debate, nature and nurture have their respective followers. Philosophical greats, such as Plato even offered his perspective on the nature vs nurture debacle. In his work, The Republic, Plato vicariously speaks his thoughts through his character Socrates. Socrates defends his view of justice against his friends Glaucon and Adeimantus. Socrates asserts that justice, in itself, is a naturally good and is desired. To defend his view of justice, Socrates must first construct what he believes to be a
Over the course of human history every society, even the most culturally isolated of civilizations, has developed some form of faith-system for interpreting and understanding the spiritual and material worlds. Thousands of such systems have existed over the centuries, and as tribes and cultures expanded, these faith-systems inevitably met each other face-to-face and clashed. Two thousand years ago there was a particularly important collision; one between the Roman stoic and the gentile Christian. At this time in Western civilization, Christianity was just planting its seeds and beginning to grow, whereas stoicism was already legitimate in its foundation and strong in its following (Stavrianos 100). One might wonder how Christianity ultimately replaced stoicism as the prominent and official religion in Rome. There are a few particular political and historical events that tell us exactly when and how it happened, but the curious man is more concerned with the psychology behind the transition. In other words, why would men tend to prefer one over the other?
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.”
Cicero, was truly a man of the state. His writings also show us he was equally a man of
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.
Concluding his third book, Aristotle deems that self-indulgence is the more voluntarily chosen vice than cowardice, since intemperance seeks pleasure, while the latter avoids pain; which can derange a person’s choice. He compares intemperance to childish actions; exactly how the child requires instruction, the desiring soul must be fed by rational mind. Man’s desire without the presence of the rational mind can dangerously become unquenchable.
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...
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
... of sainthood requires an excess of self-restraint that makes it impossible to attain the moral mean. The saint may tell himself that the denial of worldly pleasures will bring him true happiness, but in fact he is pursuing a kind of perverse pleasure in self-restraint. Saint Augustine is looking for happiness from beyond life; but happiness, as Aristotle says, comes from achieving the moral mean in life. If we aspire to the moral mean, we must consider moral martyrdom to be like any other excess. In this view, the denial of worldly pleasures is not a virtue; rather, it is a vice that leads us away from the balance that we seek in our lives.
The theme of reason versus emotion can be found by analyzing individual character’s actions in William Shakespeare’s Othello. However, the line between to the two decision-making mindsets is not always very apparent. Three characters – Iago, Desdemona, and Othello – will be analyzed to show that Shakespeare wanted to blur the line between reason and emotion and demonstrate that individuals do not necessarily operate with only one or the other.
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.
Roughly from 1815 to 1910, this period of time is called the romantic period. At this period, all arts are transforming from classic arts by having greater emphasis on the qualities of remoteness and strangeness in essence. The influence of romanticism in music particularly, has shown that romantic composers value the freedom of expression, movement, passion, and endless pursuit of the unattainable fantasy and imagination. The composers of the romantic period are in search of new subject matters, more emotional and are more expressive of their feelings as they are not bounded by structural rules in classical music where order, equilibrium, control and perfection are deemed important (Dorak, 2000).
Oedipus was willing to die to uncover the truth. Closure was needed for Oedipus the individual and Oedipus the king. Despite this need for closure, Oedipus remained blind to the clues in his path, plainly dismissing the ideas of other characters. Oedipus’ passion for knowledge was at least as strong as his blindness to the clues in his path. This blindness can be attributed to his pride. This pride gradually developed from h...