Epicurus promoted a materialist atomism that presented the soul as a particular arrangement of atoms spread through the body. Consequently we have a capacity not just to be impacted by the surrounding world but also to feel from it and draw pleasure or pain accordingly. Epicurus believed that the primary function of human beings is to seek pleasure and move away from pain, all other things are secondary to this purpose. In this paper I will be discussing
Epicurus’s ethos stresses pleasure as a basis in which to define all things. As a consequentialist he believed when determining whether something is good or bad one must simply consider whether it gives us pleasure. Thus he states that pleasure is ‘the starting point and the goal of the happy life.’ This can be further understood by looking into his teachings on ethical and psychological hedonism. For Epicurus happiness is defined as obtaining pleasure and also achieving ataraxia, which is tranquillity of the mind. Desire for pleasure is an inherent aspect of human nature and thus the “starting point” of all human motivation. His anthropology states that the ultimate motivation for our actions is the search for pleasure, and given that there is nothing beyond bodies and their affects, the real path to the “good life is a life” of pleasure.
However, pleasure, as a moral principle is highly paradoxical. Good is evaluated by the pleasurable consequences we gain, or the painful consequences we avoid but something that brings present pleasure or pain may bring contradictory future consequences. Therefore while Epicurus states every pleasure is good pleasure one must judge rationally the total amount of pleasure or pain overall and over time. We have to be true to who we are acro...
... middle of paper ...
...is sufficient reason for an epicurean to seek a long and good life. Furthermore epicurean ethics have been criticized as predominantly cynical and selfish. We are all separate atoms seeking pleasure in the great void; there is no sense of duty or social obligation. However it could be argued in return that though Epicurus did not see social obligation as the path to happiness he did in fact see friendship as a means of sustaining pleasure. It is said that in the last days of his life when he experienced great pain, he overcame this by recalling past conversations with friends.
Evidentially I believe it is easy to agree with the core values of epicurean ethics. Instead of ruminating over the past and worrying about the future we as Epicurus did should develop a cognitive technique that brings us back to the present and allows us to enjoy life as a gift.
First, as a premise, Epicurus asserts all good and bad consists in sense-experience. In his ethics, he is a hedonist, who believes pleasure is the highest good and pain is the worst and found on the instinct that people refuse pain without reason. So, he defines things cause pleasure as good and things cause pain as bad. Therefore, the sense-experience,
Through books one to three in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle distinguishes between pain and happiness, clarifying the endless war that men face in the path of these two extremes. Man’s quest for pleasure is considered by the self-conscious and rational Aristotle; a viewpoint traditionally refuted in contemporary, secular environments.
Epicurus describes these particular aspects of the good life as desires that are natural and necessary desires; for example having access to food and/or the company of friends. When it comes to friends, Epicurus believes that if a friend is experiencing pain and that pain is affecting you in a painful way, then you should let go of that friend, because the friend is hindering you from experiencing real happiness. Obtaining natural and unnecessary desires are seen as just a gateway to unhappiness and an unnecessary burden. The constant desire one has to obtain these unnecessary desires is another way of allowing pain and anxiety into your life. Epicurus also believes that another way to true happiness is the acceptance of the fact that everyone eventually dies. Next the differences between the two ideals will be
Every person in the world wants to be happy and what makes us happy? Well that would be pleasure. Pleasure is a feeling of happiness and satisfaction physically through our body and mentality in our mind. Everyone in the world will do anything for pleasure no matter what it is. But should every pleasure we seek be desired because not everything is free, but comes with a price? Is pleasure going to be our most important goal in life? Well to answer those questions, you should read Letter to Herodotus by Epicurus, who is a philosopher, and maybe he could answer that question. Epicurus will tell us how to live a full and successful life. Epicurus made Epicureanism where we will learn the important of pleasure and the decision that we made that will lead to happiness or the destruction of
Epictetus represents a myriad of concepts. One concept of which being that one should live with the awareness of human imperfection and finitude. He expresses the sentiment that one is able to relinquish the feelings of disrespect and desire by allowing all that is ill-fated to appear before one’s eyes each day. Epictetus states, “Let death and exile and everything that is terrible appear before your eyes every day, especially death; and you will never have anything contemptible in your thoughts or crave anything excessively” (XXI). It is important that we are attentive to the fact that there is much unhappiness and despair in this world. If we do not expose ourselves to such matters, these things will consume us.
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...
Everyone is in love with the idea of changing the world, themselves, their stars. I don’t think Epictetus should be seen as a pessimist – in the sense that you can’t fight city hall. He was simply trying to obtain happiness from a different angle – that acceptance. He wants people to stop trying to fight the world – to stop judging it. It’s a very spiritual view of philosophy; living a life according to the will of God and it is very well expressed though the
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 Epicurean state of mind toward death is that it is unimportant, as well as is really an inhibitor to the accomplishment of pleasure and happiness. At the point when looking at Epicurus' idea of fear of death, it is essential to note that by death, he doesn't just mean the physical, additionally the profound. Epicurus had faith in the Gods, yet he didn't trust that they were the sorts of Gods that were worried with the everyday workings of humankind. He didn't subscribe to the belief that the Gods would rebuff us for our trespasses, and damn us for not taking after the standards. Like the fear of physical death, consistent distraction with the fear of angering the God's, and in this manner encountering the profound death of unceasing perdition,
ABSTRACT: Aristotle argues that temperance is the mean concerned with pleasure and pain (NE 1107b5-9 and 1117b25-27). Most commentators focus on the moderation of pleasures and hardly discuss how this virtue relates to pain. In what follows, I consider the place of pain in Aristotle’s discussion of temperance and resolve contradictory interpretations by turning to the following question: is temperance ever properly painful? In part one, I examine the textual evidence and conclude that Aristotle would answer no to our question. The temperate person does not feel pain at the absence of appropriately desired objects. In parts two and three, I reconstruct some reasons why Aristotle would hold such a view based. My discussion here is based upon Aristotle’s discussion of continence and the unity of the virtues.
People who follow Epicureanism beliefs live a peaceful life. Their lives are not reliant on material possessions and other excesses. Believing in Epicureanism gives life meaning by creating tranquility through happiness. Tranquility and peace can only be achieved after removing overabundance. After these are taken away, one is able to reach true happiness. Epicureans believe that “happiness [depends] on avoiding all forms of physical excess”. Greed, for example, is a result from being over-exposed to physical excess. Founder of Epicureanism, Epicurus, said “nothing is enough for the man to whom enough is too little”. Greed can start out as simply wanting a better car than your neighbor but soon can lead to stockpiling unnecessary possessions
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader. Trans. Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, 1994.
The Stoic and Epicurean philosophies both made major impacts on all of Greek and Roman thought, although they were very different. Epicureans solely endeavored to obtain pleasure. They also believed that the world was filled solely of atoms and the void in which they are surrounded. They thought that life ended after death, with no afterlife or god to fear. Stoics on the contrary were indifferent to all types of pleasure, often putting themselves in danger for their beliefs. Stoics lived according to nature claiming that it was in conformity with the divine order of the universe. Epicurean philosophy defined the time in which it was created, where life was thought only to be full of pleasure without any fear punishment in any life after death, while Stoic philosophy went against the normal desires of humans to seek pleasure.
Epicurus. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia. Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1994. Translated and Edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson.
However, we can wonder if the pleasures that derive from necessary natural desires are what actually brings us happiness, since having a family, friends, a good job and doing fun things seem to bring the most joy in life. Plato’s ideas on life are even more radical, since he claims that we should completely take difference from our bodily needs. Therefore it seems that we should only do what is necessary for us to stay a life and solely focus on the mind. Although both ways of dealing with (bodily)pleasure are quite radical and almost impossible to achieve, it does questions if current perceptions of ‘living the good life’ actually leads to what we are trying to achieve, which is commonly described as