Paste your essay in here… As human beings, we are gifted with this incredibly complicated thing called life. We stumble through its journey not only searching for why we are but how to happy while we are on this earth. The pursuit of happiness is so quintessential that our founding placed it in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Many before and after America's founding fathers have tried to provide all of the pieces needed for happiness. Nevertheless, philosophers Aristotle and Epicurus believed that happiness is the result of self-sufficiency and a morally good life. The two concluded that eudaemonia (the flourishing life), could only be the result of living a morally just life.
Pain and pleasure cannot coexist, I know it ruins the entire Fifty Shades of Grey franchise, but that is Epicurus’ take on happiness. If one were ever truly to discover happiness, there could not be any pain present. This concept is true as long as pleasure and pain are opposites. In the “Letter to Menoeceus” Epicurus stated, “Whenever pleasure is present, for however long a time, there can be no pain or grief, or both at once.” Epicurus’ notion of pain and pleasure have often gotten him and his followers into trouble, and have been inappropriately used by hedonists. By definition, hedonism is, the pursuit of pleasure, but for Epicurus instead of believing that pleasure is real satisfaction (we’re looking at you Fifty Shades), Epicurus taught his Epicureans that true pleasure of can only exists in the absence of pain. "Everything we do is for the sake of this, namely, to avoid pain and fear," Epicurus due to our need for pleasure. He states, “For we have need of pleasure at that time when we feel pain owing to the absence of pleasure,.” Epicurus is arguing against the very idea of hedonism; he argues that one can only feel pleasure, when you should feel pain, but are avoiding it, and when you are ready for the pain you will not feel pleasure any longer. The fundamentals of Epicurus’ pleasure and pain argument is that it is best to focus on limiting our needs through self-control rather than pursuing pleasure.
Beyond belief in self-control, Epicurus claimed, that the moral life was the way to good life. While Epicurus breached the service of a morally good life is merely a good life, this idea is better emphasized by Aristotle. In life so much is told you are what you are from birth. A variety of studies and scientists believe that a large part of capacity to things are determined early on, and that cannot be changed. Aristotle believed differently on the issue of virtue. Now to give science some slack these studies were developed long after Aristotle lived. In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discuss two types of virtue: the virtue of thought and virtue of character. Aristotle truly believes that virtue is the source of happiness when he introduces us to virtue, he reminds us that happiness comes from the virtue of character, and as explained earlier, the virtue of character can be acquired through habit. Aristotle seems to be saying that despite nature, all man can acquire some virtue. "So virtue is a purposive disposition, lying in a mean that is relative to us and determined by a rational principle, by that which a prudent man would use to determine it.", What I believe Aristotle is saying is that a virtuous must guide others who lack virtue. “It something arises in us by nature, we first have the capacity for it, and later perform the activity.” Then goes on the use the analogy of our senses in contrast, “[F]or we did not acquire them by frequent seeing or hearing, but we already had them when we exercised them and did not get them by exercising them.” In effect by already being virtuous, one is on the path to happiness, but through habit and careful instruction, your path to happiness is even clearer by Aristotle’s standards. When a man is living a life free of unjust actions and taking the path of the morally good, it creates a self-sufficient lifestyle. You would be correct in asking what makes one choose desire over the road of a moral life to living life besides the far cry desire for happiness? Aristotle reasoned:
“For we always choose it because of itself, never because of something else. Honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue we certainly choose because of themselves, but we also chose them, for the sake of happiness, supposing that through them we shall be happy.”
Our choices are dependent on what it is that we desire. The virtues that are encompassed in a morally just life are desired and then obtained. Happiness is found through the ethically good status of life. Aristotle and Epicurus describe a virtuous life as the main ingredients for finding happiness.
Jean Vanier investigated further. Vanier has also drawn these conclusions from analyzing Aristotle’s works. Vanier has described the effects that positive actions have on the mind and soul, “But in every instance, pleasure results from perfect activity and at the same time spring forth to perfect the act.” This is essential analysis for those who are skeptical about finding happiness through a just life. Furthermore, we can be more certain that changing our ways for a morally just life will provide ample opportunity for pleasures to be had. The idea of giving up vices that hinder our morality in some ways is no longer as challenging as we may imagine it. This brings to light another tool that was described by Epicurus, in order to find happiness or eudaemonia.
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle does not merely leave the message at be virtuous, lead a moral life and you will be happy. He also provides a crucial tool for happiness, and that is—friendship. Friends and social connections have many positive implications in a person’s life, Epicurus theorized that “Of all the things that wisdom provides for living one’s entire life in happiness, the greatest by far is the possession of friendship.” A social network is supplemental to living a morally good life. The positive actions that we strive to make are best shared with those that we care about. Aristotle went so far as to say no wise man would choose to be friendless. Martin Seligman, a founder of positive psychology, has reimagined what that means it means focusing on well-being as the measure to flourish. Unlike Epicurus and Aristotle Seligman is not obsessed with happiness, you cannot see it or touch it, so how do you it when you have it or do not have for that matter? Seligman calls for us instead to focus on your well-being. He goes so far as to say concerned for your well-being. “Well-being is a construct, and happiness is a thing.” However, there is a key overlap his well-being theory and the philosophies discussed here. And that overlap is a component of PERMA: Positive emotion, Engagement, Meaning, Accomplishment, and Positive Relationships or acronym PERMA. Seligman much like Aristotle and Epicurus believes to flourish you need positive relationships. What relationship is more positive than that of a friendship? Someone you choose to spend your time with. "Very little that is positive is solitary.” that notion alines very closely with Aristotle.
Everyone obsessed with happiness, and I can understand why with mental health issues being on the rise, but sometimes I am just content. I am not happy, but I am not sad. The work by these two philosophers on how morality and a just life are what should make you happy, lead me to believe that I am happy and that the standards and burdens of society make me think I am not.