Epicurus and Aristotle: The Theories of Happiness and Friendship (Essay Sample)

Student’s Name
University
Course
Instructor
Date Due
Epicurus and Aristotle: The Theories of Happiness and Friendship
The third century saw the ascent of logicians who created hypotheses encompassing humankind and the importance connected to life. Epicurus was one such thinker who fostered the hypothesis of joy during the whole Hellenistic period until the period around 31 BC when the Roman Empire was set up. Aristotle, Kant, and Hobbes among other incredible thinkers of that time appeared to settle on some philosophical ideas yet in addition varied on others. This paper clarifies the speculations set forth by Epicurus on bliss, distinguishing and featuring the significant marks of intermingling and dissimilarity with Aristotle's and Kant's perspectives. The contention closes with suggestions on the adjustment of Epicurus's hypothesis and why Aristotle's perspective on human relations is predominant.
The way of thinking of satisfaction as analyzed by the Greek rationalist named Epicurus characterized joy as being enthusiastic around one's pleasure and making preparations for our longing towards the quest for solace. Epicurus feels that dread cutoff points individuals from accomplishing satisfaction and lectures the expulsion of the dread of divine beings and passing. Also, the hypothesis gives an abstract view that all activities emerge from the monitors' pursuit of joy. Unmistakably expressed, Epicurus is of the decadent thought that basic living described by fulfillment of the psyche and tranquility of the body gives joy. Truth be told, as indicated by his hypothesis, torment and joy are mutually comprehensive; to imply that delight results from the shortfall of torment (Epicurus et al. 51). As per Epicurus, man is liable for his bliss, mostly because man is the expert of his psyche and has command over occasions of his life.
Interestingly, Aristotle objects to specific ideas of the hypothesis by Epicurus, however, he settles on some the two of them concur that monitors journey for joy and satisfaction drives activity. In any case, the Eudaimonia approach by Aristotle regarding the matter of joy varies from that of
Epicurus, Aristotle underlining on movement communicating a daily existence administered by excellencies (Annas and Julia 94). This is essential whether or not satisfaction is a transitory perspective or rather an objective that should be accomplished. I trust that our practices and moral direction, and not just the aversion of torment, are important to tracking down joy. The two logicians concur that bliss infers an alternate significance in each person, yet I concur that satisfaction is a natural gift and not the absence of dread of divine beings and passing. In the examination, a superior comprehension of joy could mean carrying on with life around significant companionships, great wellbeing, and riches, without essentially being suspicious of the peculiarity of death and torment. This calls for positive living, which eventually prompts an existence of bliss.
In Aristotle's hypothesis of kinship, there are three sorts of fellowship. Nonetheless, he proposes that the obligation of kinship is stronger between more high-minded people who perceive the nature of 'kindness' in one another. The premise of his hypothesis of companionship depends on the Greek interpretation of the term 'philia' which suggests a family bond or 'thoughtful love' however is taken to signify 'like' or 'love' or 'fondness'. Liking to someone else might be motivated by one of three reasons: the decency or character of the other individual, the helpfulness of the other individual or the benefits which they offer, and the loveliness experienced, or delight acquired from the other individual's companionship (Kraut 42).
Then again, Kant sees the fellowship as an obligation also as an ideal that must be tried to and not accomplished. Not at all like Aristotle, Kant is of the assessment that kinship is an ethical foundation where certain morals should preferably be maintained. He puts little importance on the 'fondness' which Aristotle says one feels,