Philosophy 1000-014 Tech. Building Rm

Ian Adamson

Philosophy 1000-014

Tech. Building Rm. 437

Topic #3

The search for true happiness and fulfillment in life has been a quest of mankind since the beginning of recorded history. Every culture, group and individual has his or her own idea of what happiness is and what steps are required in order to obtain it. I think it’s fair to say that what brings one person happiness, does not always bring it to another. These differing ideas of what happiness is and how we should go about achieving it, can be observed through the competing philosophies of three schools of thought founded in and around ancient Greece: Hedonism, Cynicism, and Stoicism.

One of the earliest and most basic theories of happiness is Hedonism (Soccio p.188). The philosophy of hedonism essentially says that anything that brings pleasure is good, while anything that causes pain is bad. The argument of hedonism as a means of happiness is backed up by our natural, human instinct to avoid pain and seek pleasure. The hedonist asks: “why should we fight against our natural tendencies and natures to avoid pleasure? No baby has to be taught this.” If a baby experiences discomfort, it cries; if a baby is fed it is happy. These reactions are normal and natural for all of us and we need not fight against them. For these reasons, nothing that provides pleasure can be bad (Soccio p.188).

Although ultimately all hedonists believe that pleasure is happiness while pain is always bad, there are among this group differing opinions as to exactly how hedonism should be practiced. The Greek philosopher Aristippus was the founder of Cyrenaic hedonism (named after his home town of Cyrene). This principle of hedonism encouraged unbridled indulgence in any pleasure, regardless of its source. Aristippus believed that the meaning of life could be seen by observing our “actual behavior” (Soccio p. 189). Thus, doing this reveals that the meaning of life is simply to seek pleasure. Not only should we seek it, but we shouldn’t feel guilt or shame in doing so, since we are only following our innate, instinctive desires. Aristippus didn’t believe that one pleasure was necessarily better than another, but that all pleasure is considered good. Aristippus might say that if any pleasure could possibly be considered better than another, it would only be because it is available now rather than later. The most present, of the moment pleasures are the best.

In contrast to Aristippus’ practice of hedonism, Epicurus believed in a more disciplined and moderate way of living the same theory of happiness. Epicurean hedonism advocated that quality of pleasures, not quantity, are what really matter. Also unlike Aristippus, Epicurus taught that there are in fact times when we should avoid certain pleasures when they are followed by too much “unpleasantness” (Soccio p. 191). Not only that, but we should also see certain pains as necessary and more preferable than pleasures. Epicurus’ school the Garden, pioneered a completely new way of thinking. It allowed anyone and everyone including, women, aristocrats, slaves, housewives and people of any race to gather in the same place as equals to learn. Today Epicurus might say if you had the option between a hamburger and a steak, always choose the steak. Or, if you had the option to hear about the latest Hollywood gossip, or the latest Presidential debate, you should always choose the latter. After all, Epicurean philosophy claims that the best pleasures are always intellectual pleasures.

The next theory of happiness, which took rise in ancient Greece around the same time as hedonism, is cynicism. Founded by a man named Antisthenes, cynics claimed that society was corrupt and that individuals needed to separate themselves from society’s norms in order to live a happy life. Dependence on this corrupt society would only make an individual physically and morally weak. The desire for power, material wealth, prestige, worldly success, and acceptance all lead to corruption, complications, and ultimately pain and suffering. A cynic only relies on him or herself to find happiness. Relying on anything or anyone else, a cynic would say, is just a good way to set yourself up for eventual disappointment. Cynics were essentially minimalists who believed the less one needs in order to be happy, the less susceptible he or she is to be let down (Soccio p.193). Diogenes, the most famous advocate of cynicism, slept in a barrel, scrounged for food, and refused to fit to standards of dress and hygiene. Not only did cynics reject mainstream society, but they completely rejected all other theories of happiness, including hedonism and stoicism. Although the theory of stoicism advocated detachment and self-reliance, cynics still found stoicism to be too reliant on others to be fully acceptable.

Stoicism is a philosophy of self-control and calm acceptance of circumstances that cannot be controlled. Like the cynic, stoics believe that happiness is derived from within oneself, from a good attitude toward life and whatever it brings. Outside forces should never affect ones happiness, since they cannot be controlled. Epictetus, a stoic, saw the cynic as a sort of ideal stoic who must whenever possible, teach his principles to other people. Epictetus realized that most stoics are not “called” to a cynic’s extreme way of life (Soccio p.194). Epictetus was a former slave who not only professed a belief in stoicism, but he also had the experience of living by its principles as a slave. In such a position Epictetus had no other choice but to accept his inability to control anything except for his own attitude toward his situation. Even after being freed from slavery, Epictetus continued to live modestly and teach stoicism.

Marcus Aurelius, in stark contrast to Epictetus, was not a slave but co-emperor of Rome. Despite this difference, Aurelius is still considered one of the most influential promoters of stoicism. Aurelius lived a hard life full of massive responsibilities and difficulties as a ruler. His wife was accused of adultery, he lost four of his five sons, and spent the last years of his life away from home on a military campaign (Soccio p.198). Despite all of these hardships, Aurelius was a kind, merciful and wise emperor to his people. He stood by his wife after rumors were spread denying her virtue, even helping to promote those who were accused of being “her lovers when doing so was good for Rome” (Soccio p.198). Both Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius demonstrated examples of “attitudes of courageous acceptance” throughout their lives (class notes).

This quote by Epictetus is a perfect example of the stoic idea of Logos: “Remember that thou art an actor in a play, of such a kind as the author may choose: if assort, a short one; if long, a long one: if he wishes you to act the part of a poor man, see that you act the part naturally: if the part of a lame man, of a magistrate, of a private person (do the same). For this is your duty, to act well the part that was given to you; but to select the part belongs to another” (Soccio p. 201).