Happiness is something everyone strives for, yet few truly achieve. The understanding of happiness and the ways to attain it have always been a source of questions and reflection for philosophers throughout history. Many have come with various hypotheses and techniques that should enable people to live happier life. Regardless, some philosophers might have found methods and concepts, which are easier for people to apply properly in their lives. To achieve happiness, Aristotle and the Stoics have similar views regarding destiny, material wealth and emotional self-control, yet the slight differences they have makes the Aristotelian philosophy more realistic to adopt for modern day Americans. Stoicism was created around 300 B.C by Zeno, in Greece.
…show more content…
According to the Stoics, each life has a fate determined by logos, such as “God, Zeus, Nature, Providence, Cosmic meaning or Fate” (Soccio 222). Many things are out of people’s control and it is therefore important to learn how to control emotions regarding them, since it is the only thing truly controllable. They explain that we can influence events in our lives, such as how much effort we put training for a sport, for example, but we cannot control making the team or not. For the stoics, what is meant to happen will happen regardless of the path taken, decisions solely influence how you get there (Soccio 223). On the other hand, Aristotle developed the concept of entelechy, which explains that each thing develops to achieve the same specific end goal as its kind. For example, a rose grows to become a rose, never a tulip (Soccio 169). The basic principle of entelechy is similar to the logos, since they both present the idea of destiny as a pre-decided end. Although, the difference is that entelechy might never be fully completed. Following the same example, the rose might never grow and just stay as a seed, due to reasons such as its environment. He explains that, for humans, entelechy is even harder to fulfill due to the complexity of human development (Soccio 170). In short, the main resemblance between both is that, to achieve happiness, one must reach its final …show more content…
Aristotle explained that wealth never entirely fulfills the soul, as people spend so much time earning it, they barely take the time to enjoy their lives. Furthermore, being rich does not mean the person has the capacity to use his fortune wisely enough to achieve happiness (Soccio 176). Although, he highlights that even if wealth might not lead to happiness, poverty makes it impossible, since one must have the balance between both (Soccio 172). On the other hand, stoics believe that there are many freeing benefits of having less material possessions. They believe that if someone is detached from what he owns, losing it will not affect him, if he owns less he will not be constantly anxious of losing it all and instead of feeling guilty for indulging, he will feel satisfied of resisting. (Irvine 66-68) Just like Aristotle, stoics view wealth as something to buy things in the hope that they will bring happiness, but is not happiness in itself. (Fitterer 11) Therefore, pursuing material possessions is not a way to achieve happiness according to them. In brief, Aristotle and the stoics have a similar stand regarding the importance of wealth to live a fulfilled life, yet Aristotle distinction of owning things with moderation makes it more realistic for modern day America based on
According to the Stoics, each life has a fate determined by logos, such as “God, Zeus, Nature, Providence, Cosmic meaning or Fate” (Soccio 222). Many things are out of people’s control and it is therefore important to learn how to control emotions regarding them, since it is the only thing truly controllable. They explain that we can influence events in our lives, such as how much effort we put training for a sport, for example, but we cannot control making the team or not. For the stoics, what is meant to happen will happen regardless of the path taken, decisions solely influence how you get there (Soccio 223). On the other hand, Aristotle developed the concept of entelechy, which explains that each thing develops to achieve the same specific end goal as its kind. For example, a rose grows to become a rose, never a tulip (Soccio 169). The basic principle of entelechy is similar to the logos, since they both present the idea of destiny as a pre-decided end. Although, the difference is that entelechy might never be fully completed. Following the same example, the rose might never grow and just stay as a seed, due to reasons such as its environment. He explains that, for humans, entelechy is even harder to fulfill due to the complexity of human development (Soccio 170). In short, the main resemblance between both is that, to achieve happiness, one must reach its final …show more content…
Aristotle explained that wealth never entirely fulfills the soul, as people spend so much time earning it, they barely take the time to enjoy their lives. Furthermore, being rich does not mean the person has the capacity to use his fortune wisely enough to achieve happiness (Soccio 176). Although, he highlights that even if wealth might not lead to happiness, poverty makes it impossible, since one must have the balance between both (Soccio 172). On the other hand, stoics believe that there are many freeing benefits of having less material possessions. They believe that if someone is detached from what he owns, losing it will not affect him, if he owns less he will not be constantly anxious of losing it all and instead of feeling guilty for indulging, he will feel satisfied of resisting. (Irvine 66-68) Just like Aristotle, stoics view wealth as something to buy things in the hope that they will bring happiness, but is not happiness in itself. (Fitterer 11) Therefore, pursuing material possessions is not a way to achieve happiness according to them. In brief, Aristotle and the stoics have a similar stand regarding the importance of wealth to live a fulfilled life, yet Aristotle distinction of owning things with moderation makes it more realistic for modern day America based on