Essay Happiness is not easy to define. A good life has one characteristic – happiness. Happiness can be defined as pleasure, joy, contentment and satisfaction. Understandings of how to be happy were changing throughout the history. Aristotle who lived in 4th century BC in Athens and Schopenhauer who is19th century philosopher from Germany have contrasting understanding of happiness. In this essay I will argue that Aristotle and Schopenhauer provide accounts of happiness that are useful to contemporary society. The reason for this is that happiness is universal and people’s ways to achieve it did not changed tremendously over times. Aristotle’s word “eudaimonia” is translated into English as ‘happiness’. “Eudaimonia” notion belonged to theory of virtue. Understanding of this theory will lead to get a better grasp of what he meant when he used the word “eudaimonia”. Aristotle in his “Nicomachean Ethics” believed that happiness is not a goal, but goes with certain activities. He uses example of eating. When a person eats not enough, the person is not satisfied. When a person eats too much, then he or she cannot enjoy the taste, but only need for sleep and need for idleness. So when the person eats just enough that is the virtuous action. The better example might be the attitude one. The person who is virtuous is neither a coward nor rash, but is courageous. He believes that if people choose this way of living, it will lead them to happiness. Also Aristotle took into account the realities of life. He believed that there is no such thing as one correct way of living. He thought that it is personal. He suggested experimenting and that making mistakes would help to find a virtuous activity. So “eudaimononia” has a meaning of “flouri... ... middle of paper ... ...Emmett. Open questions: an introduction to philosophy. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub., 1992. Cashen, Matthew. "Happiness, Eudaimonia, and The Principle of Descriptive Adequacy." Metaphilosophy 43, no. 5 (October 2012): 619-635. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 17, 2013). Cooper, David E. World philosophies: an historical introduction. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1996. Irwin, Terence. Aristotle's first principles. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988. Popkin, Richard H., and Avrum Stroll. Philosophy. 3rd ed. Oxford: Made Simple, 1993. Schalkx, Rozemarijn, and Ad Bergsma. "Arthur’s advice: comparing Arthur Schopenhauer’s advice on happiness with contemporary research." Journal Of Happiness Studies 9, no. 3 (September 2008): 379-395. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed November 26, 2013). Shields, Christopher John. Aristotle. London: Routledge, 2007.
Aristotle’s virtue ethics is based on eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is the ultimate end which means that your life is flourishing and you’re doing well in life. Eudaimonia is self-sufficient and gives one the ability to make life choices and have a lack for nothing.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics we are given the Greek term Eudaimonia, its definition being a contented sate of being happy, healthy and prosperous. For Aristotle, Eudaimonia or happiness is our ultimate goal. Aristotle states that most people see happiness as something physical and this way of thinking is faulted because we do not have the appropriate image of a good life. He goes on to tell us that our view is faulted because most people are not virtuous. The reason for the deficiency in virtue found in society is that people are not thought virtue correctly from a young age. Aristotle believes that people can only reach their ultimate goal of happiness by living a virtuous life and making the right decisions. The quote given to us states
To Aristotle, Eudaimonia is really the synergy of both well feeling and well acting; you act well because you feel well and the opposite is true as well. The concept of Eudaimonia is about feeling good because you have acted well. It is like the “warm glow” one gets from volunteering, or even simply from doing a job well. Aristotle would not be opposed to this “warm glow”, however, Aristotle was not a Hedonist. Hedonists tie happiness to pleasure, but Aristotle ties happiness to well-being.... ...
The concept of happiness has been argued for thousands of years, and will probably be argued for thousands more. Wladyslaw Tatarkiewicz, a 20th century Polish philosopher, wrote an interesting paper, adding to the age-old debate, called, Happiness and Time. This essay correctly claims that for one to look at happiness one must also be aware of its relation to time.
From examining ends and goods, Aristotle formulates eudaimonia. He questions “what is the highest of all the goods achievable in action?” (Shafer-Landau 2013, 616). Aristotle argues that the majority of people agree that the highest good is achieving happiness, however, they disagree over what happiness actually is, for example, some claim t...
In conclusion, Aristotle’s elucidation of happiness is based on a ground of ethics because happiness to him is coveted for happiness alone. The life of fame and fortune is not the life for Aristotle. Happiness is synonymous for living well. To live well is to live with virtue. Virtue presents humans with identification for morals, and for Aristotle, we choose to have “right” morals. Aristotle defines humans by nature to be dishonored when making a wrong decision. Thus, if one choses to act upon pleasure, like John Stuart Mill states, for happiness, one may choose the wrong means of doing so. Happiness is a choice made rationally among many pickings to reach this state of mind. Happiness should not be a way to “win” in the end but a way to develop a well-behaved, principled reputation.
The studies given as examples and discussion focuses on teenagers and young adults, but includes anyone is struggling to find happiness. Evidence to Support Thesis: Point 1: The level of well-being is emphasized as more people continue to lose track of what makes them happy. Shawn Anchor is reminding people to capture the essence of simple contentment and asking his audience to think about what they value. Anchor’s book provides seven principles that involve having an open mind to becoming happier. Anchor includes other research studies as evidence to his claims throughout the book.
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.
Happiness is a reprise from the many trials and turmoil of life, and so it is natural that we should actively seek it. Ironically though, in our naïve belief that we can somehow augment the amount of happiness in our world, we are actually making our world more depressing to live in. Both John F. Schumaker, in The Happiness Conspiracy, and Ray Bradbury, in Fahrenheit 451, argue that our myopic pursuit of happiness is actually counterproductive. The two authors attempt to persuade the reader that happiness is, and should be, an almost-serendipitous byproduct of a truly fulfilling life, and therefore should not be an explicit objective.
If one is never unhappy, how would one know what happiness is anyway? Works Cited Bradbury, Ray. A. A. New York: Del Rey, 1987. Print. The. Simkin, John.
Grant, S., (2007). A defence of Aristotle on the good life. Richmond Journal of Philosophy (16) p. 1-8.
Bowman, James. "The Pursuit of Happiness." The American Spectator. N.p., Sept. 2010. Web. 19 Apr. 2014.
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.
Gertner, Jon. The Futile Pursuit of Happiness. New York: The New York Times, 2003. n.d. Web. 27 Nov 2009.
...that happiness is not found in amusement for it is too incongruous to end in amusement, and that our efforts and sufferings would be aimed at amusing ourselves. A flourishing life—a happy life, is one that consists of numerous requirements having been fulfilled to some degree. These include those things that preserve and maintain physical welfare such as, a certain level of material wellbeing, health, satisfaction, good familial and friendship bonds, and a comely appearance. Additionally, certain intellectual and moral needs ought to be met as well. It is a well-ordered and just state and community that preserves the freedom to have such a life. Thus, eudaimonia—happiness—for Aristotle is an inclusive notion consisting of life in accordance with intellectual and moral virtues, rational contemplation, and securing certain physical needs, such that one is flourishing.