|
|
|
|
|
Epicureanist Pleasure, Hedonism and Good Life
|
|
|
Introduction 2 Happiness and Good Life in Epicureanism 2 Epicureanism: A General Glance 2 A Deeper Look 3 Bibliography 13 Introduction The Hellenistic Age was a period of dislocation, a senselessness of the public order having resulted from the conquest of Greece by Alexander The Great who thus took over all the Greek ctiy-states and in a sense made their citizens alienated from their native societies. From this moment onwards many attempts were done to place the individual in a sensible role in the world that philosophies of self-sufficiency were some of the most significant ones. It was Cynicism, Epicureanism and Gnostic Religions which defended this self-sufficiency notion for all of them suggested to an extent a withdrawal from the community and reach self-sufficiency. Among them, I’ve found interesting to study Epicureanism since they are thought to have contributed the materialism of our age, being mostly favoured. Yet, it has been subject to lots of misreadings and distortions that it has often been perceived as becoming slaves of our passions. Nevertheless, it is worth to take a look at Epicirus and his teachings to see what morality they recommended. Happiness and Good Life in Epicureanism Epicureanism: A General Glance Before starting the analysis of our core concepts, I think a brief summary of Epicureanism will be helpful to understand further arguments. First of all, this philosophy is greatly influenced by the materialism of Democritus who suggested an atomistic theory for the basis of everything. All we see consist of homogenous atoms whose motions on the senses create the qualities of things. Such a point of view has further implacations that when employed to human nature, that materialism considers human beings formed by a collection of physical sensations. Thus, there is no soul, but just our bodies and our minds. Moreover, this body of our is engaged in a constant exchange of motion with its environment and that the wise and happy man according to Epicurus is the one who is capable of directing this relationship in a way that he/she perceives pleasure the most. Therefore, we see in the centre of his theory the concept of pleasure, seeking for it in the form of hedonism and thus through this process, reaching happiness and good life. Yet, his conceptualization of these terms are a bit different than that of we perceive today. A Deeper Look Like every philosophy tries to do, Epicurean ethics puts forward the necessary steps to be taken in order to live a happy life. However, what distinguish them is their fundemental unit guiding to the good life. In turn, what Epicurus considers the main unit of happiness is the concept of pleasure. Actually, Epicurus wasn’t the first hedonist, for we may refer to Aristippus who suggested a different pleasant life than that of Epicurus. While the former considers the absence of pain as an intermediate condition, Epicurus, as I am going to deal with closer in following sections, equated teh removal of pain with pleasure and that there was no such intermediate between them. In fact this assumption is one of the central arguments of distinct Epicurus’ hedonism. Later, the concept of pleasure was examined by both Plato and Aristotle. Yet, there is a clear distinction between on one hand Plato and Arsitotle and on the other Epicurus. Such a difference can be portrayed in terms of the relationship they offer between happiness and pleasure. Although all of them deal with the necessary conditions for the provision of happiness, only Epicurus identifies happiness with a pleasant life. Despite such a distinction, they have something in common, especially Arsitotle and Epicurus: happiness is the final end of action. It is something that other things are chosen for its sake and it can’t be chosen for the sake of anything else. “... which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else” Whenever we act, we try to gain a surplus of pleasure and our action is successful provided that it aims at happiness. To Aristotle, happiness is achieved by being engaged in some intellectual activities nad having some virtues which are “intrinsically valuable and thus the components of happiness” Yet, a clear difference is still obvious that for Plato and Aristotle, some pleasures are good and contribute to happiness while some are bad. On the other hand, Epicurus denies such a situation and accounts the pleasure as being good since the good means what causes pleasure. Therefore, he takes pleasure as something intrinsically valuable. While Aristotle and Plato think it is through virtues that the human excellence is what produces happiness, the hedonist equates it with pleasure: “We begin every act of choice and avoidance from pleasure and it is to pleasure that we return using our experience of pleasure as the criterion of every good thing.” Furthermore, the goodness of pleasure doesn’t need any proof that the cradle argument should be taken into consideration in this sense. It means Epicurus’ taking happiness as a fact that all living creatures seek for and avoid pain, the latter meaning perceiving pleasure. “It rests on a conclusion supplied by nature herself and is the ground and basis of all our doing and not doing.” The main point in this argument that the pain is bad and pleasure is good. What is more, the case needs no proof since it is evident in their perception. Such matters are sensed just like we do the heat of fire or sweetness of sugar, meaning they are never theorises.
|
|
|
|
Still Can't Find What Your Looking For? Then Try a Essay Search!
|
