Aristotle’s Account of Pleasure
Introduction
Aristotle emphasizes the importance of pleasure to human beings and demonstrates how we should live. The two accounts of pleasure in the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics are broadly similar and agree with the supporting and opposing theories as well as on the nature of pleasure.
The purpose of this paper is to best bring out the Aristotelian ethics in both the happiness and pleasure. The paper looks into the details the Nicomachean Ethics of these issues and goes into the details of his views in comparison with opposing views.
Pleasure Cannot Be the Standalone Chief Good in Life
Aristotle describes Eudaimonia (Happiness) as the feeling of having self-worth and achieving happiness and showing great interest in life. Happiness is not a mentality but rather an activity that that is not necessary but desirable. It desirability should be because of the lack of something else but outright desire because self- sufficiency is happiness. …show more content…
Many authors have had various definitions of happiness. According to Aristotle Happiness, is living with virtue and reason. A man may agree to this, but it does not satisfy animals. Receiving honors is not always the final step; this opposes Aristotle’s argument that purports that receiving honors is the final end. In his definition, Aristotle says that happiness is the final end. A man is only as good as his actions. Aristotle dictates that a good man is the best gauge for choosing what is pleasurable. As some traits are born with us intellectual qualities are attained by instructions. Moral excellence, on the other hand, is attained through habit. The cliché “practice makes perfect “attests to this. Moral virtuousness is born with everyone and our daily practice is what takes us on different paths. This intercourse with other men and conduct is what defines what a good man
Introduction
Aristotle emphasizes the importance of pleasure to human beings and demonstrates how we should live. The two accounts of pleasure in the Eudemian Ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics are broadly similar and agree with the supporting and opposing theories as well as on the nature of pleasure.
The purpose of this paper is to best bring out the Aristotelian ethics in both the happiness and pleasure. The paper looks into the details the Nicomachean Ethics of these issues and goes into the details of his views in comparison with opposing views.
Pleasure Cannot Be the Standalone Chief Good in Life
Aristotle describes Eudaimonia (Happiness) as the feeling of having self-worth and achieving happiness and showing great interest in life. Happiness is not a mentality but rather an activity that that is not necessary but desirable. It desirability should be because of the lack of something else but outright desire because self- sufficiency is happiness. …show more content…
Many authors have had various definitions of happiness. According to Aristotle Happiness, is living with virtue and reason. A man may agree to this, but it does not satisfy animals. Receiving honors is not always the final step; this opposes Aristotle’s argument that purports that receiving honors is the final end. In his definition, Aristotle says that happiness is the final end. A man is only as good as his actions. Aristotle dictates that a good man is the best gauge for choosing what is pleasurable. As some traits are born with us intellectual qualities are attained by instructions. Moral excellence, on the other hand, is attained through habit. The cliché “practice makes perfect “attests to this. Moral virtuousness is born with everyone and our daily practice is what takes us on different paths. This intercourse with other men and conduct is what defines what a good man