Epicurus Ideas To Help People In Today's Society

The principal Doctrines, are written by Epicurus who lived from 341B.C. to 270 B.C. His theory is hedonism, which is rooted in pleasure. The book speaks of pain as being only temporary, and that it is only a pleasure over pain (V). This is a way of life to see the pleasures that life offers are what Epicurus is saying. And although, “no Pleasure is a bad thing in itself,” The results of obtaining the pleasure can bring greater displeasures (VIII). He is looking for the most pleasures one can get, and I suppose if he was not happy with his job, that he would quit. I can see Epicurus, avoiding a lot of things within his life because they would bring pain and frustration, like driving in rush hour. The idea sounds like he is living the simple life, or a hermit’s life.

There always will be a production of the upgrade of an item, which increases the urge in an individual to get that product. It is sad that we let this disease of the “affluenza” continue to creep into our lives and homes.

Moreover, a society that emphasizes a consumption-oriented economy heavily relies on the spending of goods and services, as consuming them drives the economic health. The question thereon is whether an economy should count on production or consumption to sustain economic stability. In his article “Consumption-Based Economy”, Chuck Vollmer states that America has a consumption conundrum. On one hand, the US economy is dominated by consumption (71%) that must be maintained in order for the economy to prosper. On the other hand, conspicuous, unneeded or unessential consumption without the ability to repay spiraling indebtedness risks defaults, ever higher interest rates, and bankruptcy (5). Vollmer outlines the advantages and challenges of the

Epictetus represents a myriad of concepts. One concept of which being that one should live with the awareness of human imperfection and finitude. He expresses the sentiment that one is able to relinquish the feelings of disrespect and desire by allowing all

In order for one to be happy, one must be free. So this begs the question, how do you become free? Epictetus lends us his distinction between things/objects that depend on us and those that do not. He states that our body, fame, power, etc. are things that do not depend on us. And, our judgments, our desires and dislikes are all things that do depend on us. In order to be free, Epictetus says we need to focus on the things that do depend on us, and for us to not let things that don’t depend on us be of any importance. Surely, they are not dependent upon our own will, rather the opportunity of external circumstances. For instance, fame in which one may desire in not completely dependent on the amount of talent the individual has, but it is also the people that will come and take time to discover one’s talent. In this particular scenario, we lack having total power. This is because we aren’t the sole cause in determining how successful are actions are. Because of this, we are more at risk to having speed bumps or disappointments along the way that will ultimately cause us to be

Born of different backgrounds, upbringings, and experiences, Epictetus and Seneca are Roman philosophers who outwardly appear very different. Epictetus spent most of his youth as a slave while Seneca was born into money and became a tutor of Nero. Although these two men seem to be very dissimilar, they each shared a common purpose in studying philosophy and teaching people on how to live well. Each suggested different paths for how to do so. Epictetus suggests in his book, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, that living a life in accordance with nature could be achieved by living moderately. Seneca suggests in his work, Letters from a Stoic, that a happy man is self-sufficient and realizes that happiness depends only on interior perfection. Despite the differences, both Epictetus and Seneca are considered Stoics because of their shared belief in the idea that character is the only guarantee of everlasting, carefree happiness. The world outside ourselves will never give us happiness, nor will it be responsible for our unhappiness. It doesn’t matter what’s happening outside ourselves, Epictetus and Seneca claim that the only thing that matters is how we interpret those events. Further evaluating Seneca’s, Letters from a Stoic and Epictetus’s, The Discourses and The Enchiridion, we will clearly be able to differentiate the two in their ideas and opinions regarding stoicism and the keys to living a well, happy life.

n An Epicurean Ideal (Suits 2008) is an article written by David Suits that deals with the discussion of the understandings and teachers on Greek philosopher, Epicurus. The writer attempts to evaluate and examine different aspects of Epicurean idealism. Epicurus’ goal was to build a society that would be free from any social or personal anxiety and problems. Also known as ‘ataraxia’. This understanding caused out of the importance on pleasure.

1. Increasing time pressures have led people to overextend themselves in certain areas of their lives, which can lead to a life imbalance and no way to achieve well-being. Aristotle believed that in order to achieve well-being, one must be able to balance and achieve virtues, pleasure, and happiness. This is known as an objective list theory. Epicurus believed that the key to achieving well-being was through pleasures. This theory is known as hedonism. Even though Aristotle and Epicurus did not agree on how to achieve well-being, their theories did offer one similarity which was balance. In order to achieve well-being, one must have a balanced life. For example, if a person were to overextend themselves at work, they would not be able to achieve certain pleasures, virtues, or happiness. Regardless of which theory one believes, a person must be able to balance their life in a way where everything is in perfect harmony. From my understanding, balance is the key to achieving well-being.

Epictetus was a Stoic philosopher who wrote, The Enchiridion, a manual which instructed people on how to live their life ethically and honorably on a social level. His belief was that regardless of personal conditions, people could live with pride and discipline. Epictetus tells us differentiating between what is in our own power to control and what is not is the key to a noble life (281).

Epicurus was a philosopher who argued that death should not be feared on the basis that there is nothing (no substance or consciousness) in death to experience. He also states that life itself should not be fearful, since we no longer experience anything after we die there is nothing pending to fear when we cease to exist. "when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not

He interrogates his audience continually and each subsequent confrontation cheapens the last. Epictetus proves his habit, asking, “Is that shameful to you which is not your own act, that of which you are not the cause, that which has come to you by accident, as a headache or fever? [Moreover, this fever, if one is poor, will more than likely kill the individual in this era, thus justifying the rich’s fear of poverty.] If your parents were poor, and left their property to others, and if while they live, they do not help you at all, is this shameful to you” (537)? While true, Epictetus presents a valid argument when he explains that men should not fear what they cannot control. However, fearing the surrounding conditions of what one cannot control serves as the chief stressor for the rich. No hypothetical person that Epictetus describes prefers relegation to his or her social status, and those that are at the bottom, like himself, have nothing to value. Thus, Epictetus’ stoic ideology is born. Moreover, one might argue that the scenarios described in Epictetus’ quote does not quite align with the philosopher’s thesis. Likewise, his audience must consider all aspects that might make the rich frightful of hunger, poverty, and the death to which the lifestyle will

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

According to Epicurus, the purpose of life is attaining happiness “since, if [happiness] be present, we have everything, and, if [happiness] be absent, all our actions are directed towards attaining it.” Although that statement is undoubtedly true, people use different ways for finding happiness. Epicurus believes that the best guideline towards happiness is pursuing pleasure, which is “the alpha and omega of a blessed life”, and avoiding pain. That is why many people describe his approach as very hedonistic. However, he makes it clear that by pleasure he means the “absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul”, and not the “pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality”, which sets him apart from hedonism. What is more,

The ethics behind Epicureanism are very simple. Epicurus demonstrates that experience shows happiness is not best attained by directly seeking it. The selfish are not more happy but less so than the unselfish. This statement is very powerful for the simple person. Epicurus proves that if a person seeks to be happy he/she usually won't be able to find true happiness.

I do agree that you should surround with friends and that we should get rid of unnecessary pains. But he does say that we should have friends over having a significant other and that we don’t need the pleasure of having a significant other, I have a boyfriend and we’ve been dating for almost two years, and I also have plenty of friends as well, I’d like to think I’m pretty happy. Epicurus also says some pains like sadness can lead to an appreciation for life or compassion, I do somewhat agree with this, for example if someone dies it can make you appreciate life (if you didn’t already). He also states that we need to live life with a mindset in which there is no pain, now I’m sure everyone at some point in their life they go through some kind of pain whether it be maybe a death or a heartbreak they go through some kind of pain, so this is something I disagree with. And lastly he says we should be content with the simple things in life, I do agree with this because well we should be content with the little things in life, why should we get mad or upset over the little things in life, by getting mad or upset we are only hurting ourselves which may lead to us hurting others and not meaning to. Epicurus does have some very good points to being happy and I agree with most of them and some of them I do disagree with slightly but I wouldn’t say this man was crazy. And I don’t know about you but I wouldn’t want to