Plato and Aristotle’s Views on Happiness Essay Example

necessarily the same to another. It is intrinsically psychological. (Miller, 2010) Due to its psychological nature and its determination is not based on the objection conditions of life itself, then it is subjective.
Looking at it from another perspective, happiness may be derived from aspects that aren’t emotional nor are they described to specific circumstances of life of a person, then considering agents having special insights into their happiness would not hold water. Expecting that happiness will be derived from some specific aspects of an individual in all considerations, it is barely subjective. Instead, to that extent as it relies on the gratification of set conditions that hold for the whole population, it becomes objective. (Miller, 2010) This is as far as the English consideration is applied, dating back in ancient times, happiness was more objective than being subjective.

From the Greek terminology and writings, discussions on happiness was based on eudaimonia. The word is compound having eu as the prefix (This meant "well" or "being in an abundance") the noun daimon follows (the power that controls an individual’s destiny.) Another Greek word that was used in the place of happiness was Makarios. (This meant being blessed and used about the gods)

Aristotle is notoriously known to having a preference of using this term in his writings of happiness. (Miller, 2010) Aristotle links blessedness to the god’s activities that are superior and human activities that are akin to the gods will often lead to the state of happiness. (McMahon, 2010).
Aristotle’s way of writing has been attributed to being unusually complex and elusive marked by peculiarities, including matters that appear needlessly repetitive and deviation to self-contradiction. (Bartlett, 2008). In

Aristotle’s opinion, happiness greatly depends on each specifically and not anybody else. He holds that happiness is the sole purpose in human life that is a goal to be attained.

This in essence made him devolve a lot of his work on the theme of happiness more than other thinkers in his era. Through his work, he gives conclusion that happiness involves refinement of virtue. The virtues from his point of view are in a way a lot more based on an individual rather than the social virtues. However, Aristotle believed that happy life genuinely required fulfilling some set conditions that were encompassing to include both the physical and mental wellbeing. He ended up introducing a new field of knowledge that was an idea of application of science in happiness considerations.

Aristotle’s analytic thinking on the issue of happiness opens bit by bit. He gives surveys of opinions pertaining the principal of the goods wrapped up with actions, the good aspired by politics or the political art. (Bartlett, 2008) It the majority comes out to support claims that that a specific good is happiness, then this opens up to several ways as views in which it might be established. Incisively, three things are addressed by Aristotle, possessions that one can insure or make up out happiness. These he names as pleasure, wealth and honor. (Bartlett, 2008).

Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle’s work that ranks among the most influential presents the issue of happiness as a theoretical ideal (eudaimonia). He makes two assumptions here; the major ingredient to happiness is pure activity and that the virtue in the question is to be understood as a set of tendencies to respond with

the necessary feelings and conduct to human situations. (Broadie, 2005) This theory is in a big way still applicable even in recent times. The important question sought answers for is the ultimate purpose for the existence of humans and the goal which all activities that pertain to man should be directed to.
In as much as human are always bent to seek pleasure, reputation, power among other things, it is not without a doubt that all these have some certain value. What is most important though is that none of them can attain the level of being primary good, an aspect that all humanity should aim for. Aristotle fronts that a big percentage of humanity would agree that happiness is the end result of requirements as something that is always desirable in its form and cannot be replaced by something else. This should also be within man’s reach. In all that we seek to get, it is quite clear that happiness is the ultimate price that we all aim for. It is indeed a satisfying end.

An important feature in Aristotle’s argument is the link between happiness and virtue. These concepts are defined intertwined in efforts to achieve happiness. It is expected that a person is to be of good character morally always if they are to be virtuous. This he refers as a complete virtue and must act with virtue at all times. The considerations of partiality in this case do not count. He argues that persons with refined goodness place lots of value on virtue and its practice for their sake and they attain pleasure in themselves. (Broadie, 2005)

Basing on his argument it is clear

that happiness entails achievements of goods that cuts across one’s lifetime. These goods should be leading to perfection of the nature of humans and improvement of life in general. Making choices is an important aspect that has a lot of value in this matter. Through some situations, it is definite that difficulties will arise in making choices due to the consequences that they bear.

The temptation of immediate gratification will go a long way in hindering some choices especially those that lead to lesser goods. This is the point where sacrifice is required in as much as it might be painful. In the road to good character development, a lot of effort is expected and making the right choices especially in situations that are difficult is just part of the obstacles.

In a nutshell, Aristotle seems to conclude that happiness, based on the existence of human life, ranks as being an ultimate end. It is neither pleasure or a virtue but takes the position of being the practice of virtue. It should be regarded as a goal unlike the conception of being a state that continues for a limited time. Regarding in this aspect, it is of the view that it leads t perfecting the nature of humans due to the aspect of man having the ability to use reasoning. Ultimately, a moral quality is given utmost importance when one displays values of courage, unselfishness, friendship and justice in life. These qualities are able to guide one to come to balance between surplus and inadequacy.

Plato holds the view that happiness is as a result of justices’ sake and it is maximized by people that experience and practice

justice. In the pursuit of justice, one is bound to arrive finally at platonic happiness. Plato forwards his argument basing on the notion that the just are always happier than the unjust. His cold-eyed perception of reality of justice holds that it is not always entailed in the good reward of happiness in the usual sense of the world. (Sekine, 2005)
Plato seeks to clarify that there is no distinction that can be valid for perfect and imperfect justice and that people must always be just and some form of happiness will always result. In essence acting justly might not lead to achieving happiness in the usual sense but there are always chances for the actions to lead to supreme happiness rather than acting in an unjust manner.

He links happiness to pleasures and fronts that personal happiness should not be considered as an end, but as a means to an end. This gives quite a different view of happiness on comparison to Aristotle and other philosophers of the time. Plato’s conceptions give rise to a different dimension of happiness’ conception in mind.

In relation to pleasures, a clear distinction is provided where pleasures might arise from bodily desires and other higher-ranking pleasures associated with intellects. Plato reasons that the human mind is divided to three parts where each part basically seeks its perception of good. The parts are reason, spirited part and an irrational appetitive part. (Parry, 1996)

The goods sought involve food, drink and sex for the appetite part; and victory, recognition and the desire for achievement for the spirited part. Reason comes in to provide wisdom to in a way come to balance between appetite and

ambition in the process of seeking goods. With reason acting to provide a just rule, the three mind parts coexist and in respect leads to actions directed to others being just. This is the argument that leads Plato make conclusion that with justice in one’s soul, harmony is achieved that is more than any material gains that necessitate ants of injustice.

His reasoning points out that Justice in the soul is each part of the soul performing its individual task. (Parry, 1996) Plato paints a picture of a just person with a soul that has order is a form of happiness than another whose soul has no order. A soul to be considered not miserable will, therefore, have order among the three psyches, without conflict and act justly.

It is evident that Plato connected his view of happiness with psychic justice. Questions asked were therefore how the possibilities of connecting happiness to psychic justice would add up. Plato himself did not give clear connections between a just psyche, justice according to the society and happiness. His views of happiness paint a rather elusive picture and in a way it is possible to conclude that through Plato’s arguments of perception of happiness, there is an indication that it is in a way inhibited.

His views of happiness are in contrary to what most people would view happiness. In most of his work, positive account of happiness tends to treat happiness as a state that is perfect and hard to perceive. This is because they are mostly theoretical and out of the region that is not of understanding by the ordinary. He sometimes gives insight of what is good for

the soul and painting that picture is in a big way hard even to comprehend.

Compared to Aristotle’s views of happiness which had the association of happiness as a state that was self-sufficing for a particular individual. It can also be seen that Moral ideals according to Plato in a big way have happiness appearing as practicing great self-denial with the soul being distant from the pleasures of the body. The individual wishes and aims will in most times remain subdued.

In connecting social justice and happiness, the concept of a city is introduced by Plato. The concept of a just city should tend to view the sections surrounding it as not simply as the traditional morality tell, or to whatever the authority feels as just, but it should be considered that the actions that are just are the ones that contribute to justice in the said city.

Plato defines a just city when he refers to the Republic and seeks to clarify that for justice, the entire population of citizens is expected t take part and always do right. Even in as much as Plato recommends that everyone should do right for citizens in a city to be considered happy, he still tied it back to achieving psychic harmony. His beliefs have a projection that happiness involves behaving in a just manner and in a just city.

Plato distinguished happiness into different sorts with each having the possibility of being ranked. This was on a scale of which one was better than the other. Depending on one’s psychological type, each one of us is capable of achieving different kinds and in return different virtues. This automatically links back

to the three psyche identified. Depending on some state of imbalance, the result is different personalities. The idea fronted here is that in as much as everyone is capable of different levels of happiness, the one who stands out to possess the best is the one whose soul performs its functions best. A state of perfect balance.
In Eudaimonia, a contented state of being happy and healthy and prosperous, Plato and Aristotle made significant attempts in trying to arrive at conclusive theory or system that aims at dealing with good and bad in society. Some set of moral principles were intended to inspire moral duty and obligation to acts of good. They then applied these principles to guide conduct of people or society.

The main premise in this case was that if one conforms to the principles then they were virtuous. Eudaimonia has it that the highest ethical goal is achieving happiness and a person’s wellbeing. This is the point of convergence between the two philosophers as this virtue is placed by both of them as that of some specific moral excellence. Good ranks at the top to leading to happiness according to both Aristotle and Plato.

For Plato, priority is accounted for in living justly and in harmony with one’s self-life, living truthfully to the self which is based on integrity and what appears to be a compounding of the two where the ultimate feeling of happiness has close association to the way or the activity in the path to self-fulfillment. All this is possible only if one maintains to remaining virtuous and the end result is happiness which is a form of good. Aristotle also admits

that good results to happiness. He demonstrates and make suggestions that by being virtuous, the result is human good. This is basically the same concept that is fronted by Plato.
In regards to the differences between the two philosophers, it is clear that even though they arrive at almost similar conclusions, what differs are the means which they are attained. On one end is Plato who has dedicated most of his work in trying to justify being virtuous while performing some action. On the other hand, Aristotle concerns himself to providing virtue in essence.

As the discussions in this essay point out, it is evident that the theme of happiness received immense attention from Aristotle and Plato. Their contributions in this theme create a system of ethics that are based on virtue. In as much as there are some differences in their views, what is important are the points of convergence. Their views have been subjected to debate and discussions in various quarters ever since they presented their ideas up to the modern day. They have influenced thoughts and principles acting as blueprints for guiding and inspiring thoughts on happiness.

References

1. Bartlett, R. C. (2008). Aristotle's Introduction to the Problem of Happiness: On Book I of the "Nicomachean Ethics". American Journal of Political Science, 52(3), 677–687. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/25193840
2. McMahon, D. M.(2010). What Does the Ideal of Happiness Mean? Social Research: An International Quarterly77(2), 469-490. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
3. Sekine, S. (2005). A comparative study of the origins of ethical thought. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
4. Parry, R. D.. (1996). MORALITY AND HAPPINESS: BOOK IV OF PLATO'S "REPUBLIC". The Journal of Education, 178(3), 31–47. Retrieved from
   

http://www.jstor.org/stable/42741824