Aristotle believes we practice good virtues for a greater reason, the superior aim in life is to achieve the supreme good, which is happiness. For Aristotle, happiness or fulfilment was the goal and purpose of life. In this understanding he meant more than just pleasure, he understood this in three different ways. First being happiness as a life of enjoyment of pleasure, second happiness as a free member of society, and last happiness as a philosopher. In order to achieve the eudaimonia, Aristotle believed that you had to practise skills or virtues to achieve happiness and live good lives.
The school of thought that you feed the most will win the tug of war between them and determine the path of fulfillment that you take. In order to be happy, in Epicurean ways, one first needs to understand the basic principals of the universe, and then they can be at ataraxia (peace of mind and sure confidence). Secondly, “All sensations are true” is an Epicurean saying meaning that there is no point seeking the sensations in life that are impossible, instead, one should find the sustainable pleasures in life. The reasoning behind this is if someone is seeking the greater pleasures in life and then when those pleasures are no longer existent, then, they will experience great anguish and unhappiness. So, by following the sustainable pleasures in life, one can be happy.
In order to create the type of society that both Plato and Lao Tsu desire to emulate, it is critical that the ruler have the characteristics and qualities that will lead the respective societies in harmony with their philosophical principles. The Republic of Plato offers a theoretical society of enforced elitism. In the work, Plato, citing Socrates whom was Plato’s teacher and often referenced in the dialogue, explicates that the ideal community would be one in which each person has a particular craft, a particular rank, and a fond love for knowledge. Although Socrates expects citizens to love educating themselves and searching for wisdom, he also believes that children of the community should be brought up believing that the world is a perfect realm with no blemishes. Socrates endorses that children’s stories should be modified to encourage the notions of a perfect civilization, which in-turn would directly influence the way the youth view life.
For Socrates, upholding justice leads to this state, while for Epictetus, it is about being in accord with nature. For Epicurus, it is about maximizing pleasure through removing all pain. I will expound on these below. We will first consider how each philosopher views justice as a means to achieving the ideal human state. To Socrates, his action was right and thus he chose not to flee as he felt that upholding justice was very important and the most righteous and virtuous thing to do.
They believed that exercising the opportunity to choose between a wide array of gods to worship offered them a great sense of freedom that they treasured. After all, the Greeks were known for their intellectual distinction of which their means of worship played a huge part. Each city-state, or polis, had an affiliated god who protected and guided its residents. Within a given polis, the belief in common gods unified the people. Ultimately, the Greeks yearned for this unity and order in the universe, which is a characteristic that is not unlike that of people today.
For example there is a form of beauty, which explains why we can all understand and know what beauty is, without the need to be told every time. However, we have our own opinions on what beauty it. This is because we don’t know forms fully, as only our souls (our only eternal aspect) is part of the Realm of the Forms and the concept gets mixed as we are not perfect. The Form of the good is 100% good, perfect, unchanging, eternal and outside this world. Plato’s definition of good is not the same as the good we define.
Plato’s Theory Strengths | Weaknesses | Forms or ideas can possess a more profound and reaching reality than material objects that we can touch or see. | He says “our argument shows that the power and capacity of learning exists in the soul already…” I believe he is mistaken. It is an allegory, a hypothetical situation, an illustration at best. While this illustration might give evidence for what he is talking about, it is by no means a solid argument that an entire metaphysical and epistemological view of the world should be based off of. | We all have innate knowledge of justice e.g everyone seems to have an idea of justice inside them, even if it is not exactly the same for everyone, but this shows it must have come from somewhere plato says with his forms and how our souls remember roughly what the forms are like.
English 101 Sarah Anacion Dr. Gomez Nov. 19, 2012 Happiness vs. Pleasure The ultimate question to life what every person is seeks is what is happiness and how can one achieve true happiness. Many feel that they have found their answer in belonging to the faith of their choice, but what is it that their faith teaches them that brings them happiness? The philosophers Socrates, Plato and Aristotle all have a similar view on what happiness is and how to achieve it. Aristotle's view is based on Plato's and Plato's is based on Socrates' teachings, this is why they are similar but they are all important and different with each philosopher's personal views and beliefs.
This leads Mill and Nietsche to believe that whatever they choose to do with their lives to make them happy, then that is their form of "right." In contrast, Aquinas would be the one to side with Aristotle because both philosophers are aiming towards reaching virtue and happiness in the end. Aquinas believes that law is nothing but reason for the common good, and that,if laws are obeyed, people will be led towards their happiness. This is similar to what Aristotle believes. He believes that people must do good to reach moral excellence (virtue), so if his and Aquinas's theories were combined, humans would reach virtue and happiness all together by obiding by the laws created for
Critias was the guardian of the younger and far more physically beautiful Charmides. He was older and wiser then Charmides, making him the more suited interlocutor for Socrates as he was beyond the years where young naiveté obscures thought. He was also the uncle of Charmides and thus related to the author Plato. This lineage is important to recognize because it allows for the understanding