Aristotle vs Plato’s View on Happiness Essay Essay

essay B

Get Full Essay

Get access to this section to get all the help you need with your essay and educational goals.

Get Access

Many people try to specify and see different definitions of what felicity is. and I think that Plato and Aristotle offer interesting positions of felicity and what it means for one to populate a good life. Both philosophers agree that felicity is an of import factor in one’s life and basically the kernel of how to populate a good life. Plato offers many theories and definitions of justness taking to happiness. while Aristotle argues that felicity is the chief end that all worlds aim for in their full life.

Plato offers a philosophical position of a happy life for an single by explicating a merely province and what it would imply and besides the theory of the signifiers that one must understand to accomplish felicity. After larning about both philosophers. I have come to the decision that I agree with Aristotle’s position of felicity more because he gives us a wide lineation of what a good life is. Although Plato was Aristotle’s wise man. Aristotle offers a position of felicity that is more plausible and relevant than Plato’s because it places a big accent on the thought of the map of a human being.

Therefore. in this paper. I will reason that I agree with Aristotle’s position of felicity over Plato’s because of the manner Aristotle describes how worlds can accomplish the greatest good in life: felicity. First. I would wish to compare Plato’s theory of going a merely individual to accomplish felicity. to Aristotle’s thought that the capacity of felicity relies on the milieus we are raised in. In Plato’s Republic. he attempts to inquire the inquiry how does one live and what it takes to seek for cosmopolitan good life for all human existences and non merely Athenians.

Plato provinces that for one to be happy or a good individual. they must move morally and take part in merely activities. Justice is non stealing from one another and being honorable. When we harm others. we’re being unfair and we will non take a moral life and hence non be happy. For illustration. non stealing from a neighbor would do a individual merely and hence happier than if they chose to steal. Plato’s focal point was to hold the bulk of people of people in the universe live merely lives and unrecorded happily.

If one acts rightly toward one another. more people will be merely and happy and hence hold a merely community. Plato provinces that no 1 can be merely entirely. and that we need others to be merely with. This position leads me to my following point of Aristotle’s position of miming others to go good human existences. Aristotle thought that whatever is natural to worlds in good and that we all aim for good which should convey us happiness. Aristotle provinces that it is easier for one to take a happy life if they are surrounded by good function theoretical accounts.

If we are surrounded by people that set good illustrations of felicity it will be easier for us to understand how to be good. For illustration. if one is born into a household that does non expose good actions or does non populate a balanced life. it is more hard to populate a happy life than the individual that is born into a state of affairs with good function theoretical accounts to mime. However. miming others that lead happy lives is debatable because many people in the universe do non populate wholly true happy lives. similar to Aristotle’s position of true friendly relationship.

Aristotle says that the human end is one that we must acknowledge in order to understand how to hold a good life. Therefore. I agree with Aristotle’s point that it makes a important difference how we grow up when we have good influences to raise and us to go happy persons. Plato’s position of felicity differs from Aristotle’s because he focuses on how one must go a merely individual which so leads to more regulations about a merely community. province. swayer. and eventually the signifiers.

To further implement Plato’s theory of justness. he tells us that to be merely. we must be merely with each other and hence hold a merely community. All of this combined will give us happiness. but it doesn’t terminal at that place. Plato continues to state that a merely community needs a category system which includes soldiers. craftsmen. and defenders. For one to be finally happy. they will bask what they do in their category and be able to go on being happy by non tampering in the plants of others. For illustration. a soldier is born to be a solider.

He has certain features that separate him from being a craftsman or a guardian. He will besides be unhappy if he tries to dispute the undertakings of the craftsmen and defenders. I disagree with Plato on this point because I think that in present twenty-four hours. many people are capable at making many occupations and frequently win at more than one field of work. Therefore. I agree with Aristotle’s position of mundane life more than Plato’s. Aristotle speaks of balance and what it means for one to populate a balanced life to accomplish felicity.

Many of us have a subjective position of felicity because certain things can do us happy. but that does non intend they’re good. For illustration. finishing legion hours of community service work which could do us experience happy and think we are making good. but that does non intend in itself that we live a life of felicity. Aristotle says we must happen the balance. We can non make excessively much or excessively small of certain facets in our lives. However. he says that felicity is an action. It is something we must make non a feeling or emotion.

Therefore. I agree with his position of felicity because of the importance of balance in order to be rational. Plato continues to associate the classs of a merely province to the single psyche. He says that the psyche has different parts to it every bit good and for them to be in harmoniousness is for them to work together rightly. He categorizes the psyche into three parts. but more significantly speaks of another kingdom. Plato’s theory of the signifiers explains a seeable universe and the apprehensible universe. The apprehensible universe is one where things we can non see are: justness. wisdom. the psyche. etc.

I disagree with Plato on his position of the universe of two kingdoms. I think that Aristotle explains the universe much better because he tackles the thought of how to be good and accomplish a life of felicity in the universe that we live in. However. Plato continues to reason that for a merely province. a merely swayer is needed and for a swayer to be merely. they must hold the best purposes for the citizens and besides understand the signifiers in the apprehensible kingdom. When one understands the signifiers. they will understand the highest possible signifier. which is good.

Plato. similar to Aristotle. says that the best head is one that is philosophical. If one understands the highest signifier. they will be a great swayer for the province. Aristotle likewise argues that one will take a good life if they contemplate. Aristotle’s position of contemplation leads me to my following point. Aristotle’s position that contemplation is the best possible life makes sense to me because it is something that we all do every twenty-four hours. and the thing we can make the most without taking a interruption. For illustration. an jock can non develop everlastingly. They must take a interruption finally and rest.

One that lives philosophically uses ground and ne’er stops contemplating or believing. Contemplation is besides self-sufficing and doesn’t require equipment like other exercisings may necessitate. Aristotle’s position is similar to Plato’s because he thinks the best swayer would be a philosopher who understands things that others normally can non. However. Aristotle still believes that every homo has the capacity to be a good homo being and live a happy life. He says it’s out map or our responsibility to populate a good life. The map of our human life is how well-lived our lives are.

A ticker performs good if it works to its criterion that is to state clip right. Its map is to state the clip. Similarly. worlds have a map that is to populate good. We must carry through our map as worlds. I agree with Aristotle and believe that this point is enormously important to his theory of a good life. This thought of the human map allows all people to seek to populate a life of complete felicity. unlike Plato’s position that is really rigorous that has set guidelines and classs. Finally. I would wish to hold with Aristotle’s position of friendly relationship.

Many of us have friends. even best friends. but harmonizing to Aristotle. that doesn’t mean that they themselves are populating a happy life. Many of us can non hold true friends because in order to be a true friend. you have to hold a happy and balanced life. Many of us ourselves have non achieved that. so it is improbable that our friends have reached the human end of felicity. Aristotle says that we chiefly have friends for public-service corporation or pleasance and seldom have true friends and that the lone manner to hold a true friend is if we have both reached the human end of felicity and as friends we participate in actions that enforce our felicity.

I agree with this point because I think that if we of all time did accomplish felicity and found another individual who besides flourishes and lives a happy life. I think it is perfectly necessary to go on moving out felicity and go on making good. In decision. Plato and Aristotle both tried to uncover what it takes for worlds to populate a good life and finally be happy. and I continue to hold with Aristotle and his position. Plato describes his position of felicity through the broken winds and kingdoms and the thought of justness. while Aristotle explained through illustrations of others environing us. and people near to us. such as our friendly relationships.

Aristotle gives us a manner to look at the good life in a wide sense. whereas Plato sets out regulations and guidelines to follow to accomplish justness and finally happiness. I prefer Aristotle’s position of a good life of one that flourishes. one that is able to execute their map as a human being good. A life of felicity. bravery. wisdom. and populating up to one’s duties are necessary for one to normally populate the best possible life. which is what most of us live. However. this is non the happiest life that we can accomplish. but still a good life.

Get instant access to
all materials

Become a Member