Choose two philosophers protected up to now and use their work to go over the role of "pleasure" in the happy life.
I choose to pick Epicurus among the philosophers to be talked about because he is one of the main figures in philosophy to be speaking about on this issue of pleasure, it is interesting to find just which category does Epicurus participate in. Was he just an ethical hedonist? Asserting merely that human action's ultimate purpose is to bring us pleasure and that should be the only purpose or goal we serve or to achieve while adhering to doing good in the process. Or is he something else, something more profound?
Epicurus is without a doubt, a hedonist, however he is somewhat of the different kind of hedonist, he draws a difference between intense physical pleasure, and he also claims that if one engages in intense physical debauchery too much, it's going to end up hurting you. Epicurus stimulates the idea of ataraxic that is: "getting the peace of mind, clear of stress or turmoil", he proposes that physical indulgences in eating, taking in, or making love orgies, may bring more negative repercussions than pleasure, but mental pleasures, like hearing music, discussing philosophy with your friends etc, can last for so long as you want to with no negative consequences. For Epicurus, mental pleasure carries a higher pleasure and value than physical pleasure, he also further classifies effective pleasure and passive pleasure. For example, you want to consume because you are famished or drink because you are thirsty and then your passive pleasure, such as liberty from panic and pain. Epicurus thought unaggressive pleasure was more important than indulging in active pleasure, for example, a true epicurean delight would not be having an orgy, but instead researching technological questions, perhaps.
"Epicurus concept of pleasure was twofold: in the opinion of analysts, Epicurus recognized two types of pleasure- a static pleasure or a pleasure in a state of break and a kinetic pleasure or a pleasure in actionan Epicurean by the name of Lucius Torquatus, gives a explanation of two different types of pleasure, one which suavitate aliqua naturam ipsam movet et iucundi-tate quadam percipitur sensibus, thus being a pleasure in movement, while the other, static pleasure, percipitur omni dolore detracto. Here Torquatus attracts a differentiation between two different claims to either of which, in his judgment, the idea of pleasure can be employed - firstly, circumstances presupposing active stimulation of pleasant sensations and secondly, circumstances negatively defined as the absence of pain and anguish. Epicurus referred to as kinetic those pleasures which go with the procedure of gratifying one's needs and regarded as static pleasure their state experienced when the wishes are satisfied. "In another place he provides quotation from Epicurus about pleasures accompanying gustatory, auditory and aesthetic sensations, which time he respect these pleasures as pleasures in movement, speaking now about physical motions in the sensory organs. Besides, the original interpretation of kinetic pleasure contradicts Epicurus' idea that it is impossible simultaneously to see pleasure and pain; for example, if a guy is being pleasure while satisfying his cravings for food, then, obviously, at the same point in time pleasure should be combined with pain from food cravings that has not yet been totally satisfied. " (Nikolsky, 2001)
Epicurus believed we can all discover a way to be happy, the challenge is simply we are looking at the incorrect place, unlike many philosophers, Epicurus notion of happiness actually looks somewhat fun, he didn't think we have to feel guilty about wanting to feel a wonderful and gratifying life, we seem to be to be pondering the key to happiness is very very easy, that is having a lot of money. However before we reach for our wallets, Epicurus wants us to avoid and think. Epicurus was committed to a life of pleasure, he likes love-making, laughter and beauty but he points out that happiness is rather a tricky issue and a philosopher will help you think it is than a visa or mastercard ever before could.
Epicurus was and only pleasure by any means, short of several of his many Greek contemporaries, his philosophy became synonymous with a lavish eating lifestyle. Epicurus said that pleasure was the main part of life, but if we evaluate Epicurus we actually discovered that he resided simple, far from a luxurious life, having survived on breads and plain water as a way of life,
Epicurus thought we don't really know very well what we need etc prey forth to numerous substitute needs, such as spending lavishly over a shopping spree. But often according to Epicurus, the key to pleasure comes pretty cheap, the first one is camaraderie, he explained that companionship is a significant source of delight, however in order to achieve that, one needs to live along with his friends all the time, the second thing Epicurus thought we need is independence, Epicurus still left Athens with his friends and started out a commune, relating to Epicurus, we should free ourselves from the prison from everyday life politics, their lives were simple, but at least they loved their liberty in their self-sufficient ways. The last ingredient is an analyzed life where he designed a life in which we devote some time off to reflect on our worries, to analyze that which was troubling us, our anxieties can be diminished if we give us time to think things through, and to do that, we have to take a step back again from the loud commercial world.
According to Epicurus, so long as you have enough money to sustain the essential sustenance, that is plenty of to obtain pleasure in a happy life, "Epicurus state governments that even loaf of bread and drinking water can confer the highest possible pleasure when they are taken to hungry lips. Naturally, Epicurus means by this the condition of satiety, but he will not at all independent it from pleasure from eating and sipping that brings about this condition. "( Nikolsky, 2001) so if we are so easily satisfied, why aren't we happy? The answer is seductions where our goal to become happy and live a wonderful life become influenced. Whenever we are quickly lured by smart lights and nice clothing, our dreams are subconsciously detoured in our search for pleasure.
"Thus, the Epicurean view of the physical aspect of pleasure as a whole varies little from that of other philosophers: in Epicurus judgment, pleasure has experience when the atoms of a body, acted upon by the certain force, end up in their proper places, i. e. when the organism attains its natural status under the result of some influence. Epicurus links pleasure not only with the procedure but also with the result of repair, i. e. with the natural condition which the organism attains. " (Nikolsky, 2001)
Next, I would like to make reference to a famous philosopher by the name of Aristotle as my second candidate.
For Aristotle however, the idea of pleasure and joy comes from what's considered favorable, what's considered as good. The concept of virtue comes into place here, and we must have these virtues in order to achieve eudaimonia which is the Greek word of contentment. For Aristotle, a excellent criterion to living a happy or pleasurable life is to determine what are the ultimate goal or purpose, and thus the best way to be happy. Aristotle proposes 3 details, it needs to be self-sufficient, it needs to be a final goal and it should be attainable. In this case, one has to develop the virtues in order to accomplish a happy life, virtues are themselves the methods to an end.
"Aristotle obviously distinguishes himself from the hedonists when he boasts that there surely is no such thing as undifferentiated pleasure. Pleasure cannot provide as the final goal of your actions because pleasure is not just one thing, i. e. , the word pleasure as put on specific instances of pleasure is not univocal. Pleasures fluctuate in nature just as the activities which they go along with differ in dynamics. The pleasure which we ingest eating is merely the same kind of thing as the pleasure which we take in thinking. They are simply different kinds of pleasures and as such it seems that there may be no evaluation between them as pleasures. Yet Aristotle evidently is convinced that such an evaluation between different pleasures is possible. He talks of contemplation as being the most enjoyable activity. But if Aristotle's critique of hedonism guidelines out the likelihood of saying that contemplation brings with it a greater amount of pleasure than does eating ( since these pleasures vary qualitatively and not quantitatively), what can he suggest by declaring that contemplation is the most pleasurable activity?" (Gonzalez, 1991)
According to Aristotle, our ultimate goal is pleasure, that is our telos, and joy is in itself the ultimate good, the best thing we ought to shoot for. In book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, he suggests that while delight is self-sufficient alone, there is varying degrees of pleasure, if we engage our senses in sensual pleasure, that is known as superficial and on the same level as pets or animals, it is important to consider enjoyment as not as one brief moment in time but rather all together important lifelong process. On the side note, Aristotle regards enjoyment as an activity rather as a state, in order to be happy and live well, one need to have the right virtues to incline towards a certain disposition, a certain lifestyle.
"In chapter 4 of e book 10 Aristotle represents what constitutes a feeling which is most perfect or complete and for that reason most pleasurable: " there is a corresponding pleasure for every sensation and similarly for thought and contemplation: the most enjoyable activity will be the most complete and the most complete will be the one which takes place between a well-disposed subject and the best of those objects which can be proper to it. Pleasure completes the activityThe activity of sensation will be most complete when its subjective and objective conditions are the best possible. It is important to recognize that the superlative here implies the opportunity of degrees in the completeness and pleasure of an activity. Aristotle is not proclaiming an activity can be complete and pleasurable only if it satisfies certain conditions; he's instead claiming these conditions must be satisfied for the activity to be most satisfactory and most pleasurable. " (Gonzalez, 1991)
For Aristotle, The question traces back to why we want to be happy, why we want to be virtuous? Why is happiness the ultimate telos? To demonstrate, we spend our money on things which we fancy to get pleasure, everything boils down that all our day to day activities concentrate on only one purpose, that is to be happy. But enjoyment itself is a fairly intriguing and intricate theory, and Aristotle state governments only through doing exercises our rational heart, by having a life of contemplation as our activity, can happiness be found, which is what distinguishes us from the family pets.
In Book 10 of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle further switches into depth why he thinks contemplation is the ultimate rational response to pleasure and enjoyment. The way Aristotle recognizes things differs, for example, when you encounter an subject or entity, would you take into account it in facet of its goal, or its functions or the procedure that the thing undergoes?
Aristotle views everything as telos, he thinks everything serve some kind of telos or purpose, he feels the telos of a plant is to keep growing from the consumption of nutrition, the telos of life, so what distinguishes us from vegetation and pets or animals is in our ultimate telos to contemplate and behave accordingly, to hire the rational faculty of the heart, and this in turn consists of the analysis of present day philosophy, for example.
"The pleasures involved in the activities are usually more proper to them than the wishes; for the last mentioned are separated both with time and in dynamics, while the previous are near to the activities, and so hard to tell apart from them that this admits of dispute if the activity is different then pleasure. " (Manser, 1960)