Ravi Sinha
Contemporary Civilization
October 7, 2014
Happiness is not Two Kinds of Ice Cream
Aristotle and Epicurus both agree that that the ultimate goal, or the final end, of human life is to reach some idea of happiness. But the key difference in their philosophy regarding the final end is in their vision and concept of happiness, and how it is to be achieved.
Aristotle claims that every action aims at some end. He notes that nearly all activities are not only pursued for the sake of something else, but also the something else itself is pursued for the sake of some other thing. For example, one practices carpentry in order to build wooden objects. One builds wooden objects to sell them for money, and so forth. He poses the question whether …show more content…
Epicurus argues happiness is not the positive pursuit of pleasure but rather the absence of pain. This pain refers to physical and emotional troubles. Epicurus claims that there are two beliefs that lead to pain: that the gods will punish us for bad actions and that we should fear death. Epicurus states that both of these beliefs produce some level of pain, which is unnecessary since they are incorrect. He believes that the gods exist, but they do not play an active role in human affairs and so we do not need to fear their punishment. As for death, he points out that once sentient experience comes to an end there will be no sensation of pain. He then distinguishes between necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are vital to produce happiness, such as attempting to purge bodily pain. It seems that humans exist in a binary state: if we are not in a state of pleasure, we must be in state of some pain. Epicurus states that we need to cultivate a mindset in which there is no pain; thus the aim is attaining a state of tranquility. Epicurus does not advocate for a purely carnal view of the ultimate goal of life. Rather, his idea of happiness as the final end can be achieved through philosophical contemplation and the absence of pain. In this regard he is similar to Aristotle; both philosophers believe pleasure, and the pursuit of happiness to be …show more content…
Aristotle’s intertwining of virtue and happiness seems somewhat circular. If virtuous activity causes happiness, then maybe it is the virtuousness of the actions that cause the happiness. Or is it the propensity to cause happiness that makes the actions virtuous? If all activity is aimed at happiness, and only activity in accordance with virtue can cause happiness, then virtue must be the source of happiness. But Aristotle implies that the ability to create happiness is ultimately the source of virtue. He posits that an action is right because it promotes good, good is happiness, and following the path to happiness is virtuous. To differentiate between virtuous actions that lead to happiness and the pursuit of happiness that results in virtuous actions is difficult. Furthermore, the notion that everybody has a set role poses a challenge for the social mobility embraced by a modern democracy. For example, if the gardener decides to abandon his pursuit of gardening, is he then not virtuous or capable of happiness? Aristotle might counter these arguments by positing that the gardener must not have been in his correct role, and that since happiness is a lifetime pursuit, these small interim steps are not roadblocks to happiness. He would also not be moved by the complexity of his theory; life is supposed to be rational and contemplative,
Contemporary Civilization
October 7, 2014
Happiness is not Two Kinds of Ice Cream
Aristotle and Epicurus both agree that that the ultimate goal, or the final end, of human life is to reach some idea of happiness. But the key difference in their philosophy regarding the final end is in their vision and concept of happiness, and how it is to be achieved.
Aristotle claims that every action aims at some end. He notes that nearly all activities are not only pursued for the sake of something else, but also the something else itself is pursued for the sake of some other thing. For example, one practices carpentry in order to build wooden objects. One builds wooden objects to sell them for money, and so forth. He poses the question whether …show more content…
Epicurus argues happiness is not the positive pursuit of pleasure but rather the absence of pain. This pain refers to physical and emotional troubles. Epicurus claims that there are two beliefs that lead to pain: that the gods will punish us for bad actions and that we should fear death. Epicurus states that both of these beliefs produce some level of pain, which is unnecessary since they are incorrect. He believes that the gods exist, but they do not play an active role in human affairs and so we do not need to fear their punishment. As for death, he points out that once sentient experience comes to an end there will be no sensation of pain. He then distinguishes between necessary and unnecessary desires. Necessary desires are vital to produce happiness, such as attempting to purge bodily pain. It seems that humans exist in a binary state: if we are not in a state of pleasure, we must be in state of some pain. Epicurus states that we need to cultivate a mindset in which there is no pain; thus the aim is attaining a state of tranquility. Epicurus does not advocate for a purely carnal view of the ultimate goal of life. Rather, his idea of happiness as the final end can be achieved through philosophical contemplation and the absence of pain. In this regard he is similar to Aristotle; both philosophers believe pleasure, and the pursuit of happiness to be …show more content…
Aristotle’s intertwining of virtue and happiness seems somewhat circular. If virtuous activity causes happiness, then maybe it is the virtuousness of the actions that cause the happiness. Or is it the propensity to cause happiness that makes the actions virtuous? If all activity is aimed at happiness, and only activity in accordance with virtue can cause happiness, then virtue must be the source of happiness. But Aristotle implies that the ability to create happiness is ultimately the source of virtue. He posits that an action is right because it promotes good, good is happiness, and following the path to happiness is virtuous. To differentiate between virtuous actions that lead to happiness and the pursuit of happiness that results in virtuous actions is difficult. Furthermore, the notion that everybody has a set role poses a challenge for the social mobility embraced by a modern democracy. For example, if the gardener decides to abandon his pursuit of gardening, is he then not virtuous or capable of happiness? Aristotle might counter these arguments by positing that the gardener must not have been in his correct role, and that since happiness is a lifetime pursuit, these small interim steps are not roadblocks to happiness. He would also not be moved by the complexity of his theory; life is supposed to be rational and contemplative,