Running Head: Happiness in Ancient Greece 1 Happiness in Ancient Greece

Running Head: Happiness in Ancient Greece 1

Happiness in Ancient Greece

Charles C. Elrod

Salt Lake Community College

PHIL 1000-014

Redwood Campus

Question 3

The attainment of happiness has always been one of the great questions of philosophy. This question is relevant to all people of all ages. The life and ideologies of Socrates (470-399 B.C.E.) exacted the greatest influence on the later philosophies of Hedonism, Cynicism and Stoicism, concerning their ideals on the achievement of happiness. This influence, coupled with the ideologies of the Sophist Protagoras of Abdera (481-411 B.C.E.), form the foundation of later Greek and Roman schools of philosophy. In this paper I will illustrate the three major competing theories of happiness, among the ancient Greek philosophies: The Hedonists’ attainment of pleasure and avoidance of pain, as measured by quality and quantity; the Cynics’ pursuit of self-discipline through rational control of desires, appetites and minimal contact with conventional society; and the Stoics’ cultivation of detachment from the externals.

The Hedonistic approach to happiness can be summed up by the maxim: pleasure = good and pain = evil (Soccio, 2010, p. 182). Many of the tenets of Hedonism are likely derived from Sophist ideals such as relativism. These ideologies are evident in the relativistic positions the Hedonists employ. Although hedonistic philosophers share a relativistic approach, there are many variances among Hedonistic philosophies. For the purpose of this paper I will only concern the reader with the Cyrenaic hedonism of Aristippus (430-350 B.C.E) and the Epicurean hedonism of Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.). Ultimately, the true defining characteristics of these two divisions are based on the quality and quantity of pleasure or happiness.

Cyrenaic hedonism failed to institute any objective standard, other than the individual, concerning ethical and moral positions. It is probably the most obviously relativistic of the hedonist philosophies because of their desire to seek happiness through immediate and frequent pleasure or avoid pain and suffering at any cost. Weijers states: “The Cyrenaics believed pleasure was the ultimate good and everyone should pursue all immediate pleasures for themselves.” (2011). This pursuit was individualistic by nature. The attainment of pleasure for the individual always superseded the pleasure of other persons or the whole. Aristippus taught that “The only difference among pleasures is their intensity: Whatever pleases me most at the moment is the highest good there can be.” (Soccio, 2010, p. 184). He argued that hedonism was natural, exemplified by an infant’s desire for that which was immediately pleasurable. Aristippus maintained that this natural state is cowed by social institutions.

Epicurean hedonism was more concerned with the quality of pleasure than the quantity. Like Protagoras, he concluded that a philosophy should ascribe to what works and avoid what does not work. Alternately, any philosophy that does not result in happiness or pleasure has no benefit. In contrast to Aristippus’ teachings, Epicurus believed that the quality of our happiness was more important than transitory physical pleasure. Epicureans were convinced that the greatest pleasure is derived from the intellect, resulting in peace of mind. Unlike conflicts that may arise from Cyrenaic hedonism, “Epicureans train themselves to desire only the very basics, which gives them very little reason to do anything to interfere with the affairs of others.” (Weijer, 2011).

Cynics found solace in self-discipline, rational control of desires and appetites, and minimal contact with conventional society (Soccio, 2010, p. 187). The Cynics’ rejection of social norms was based on their belief that manners and other social expectations were hypocritical or at best phony; wealth made people physically and morally weak; power produces dishonesty; and flattery and fashion detract from individuality making them vulnerable to whims (Soccio, 2010, p. 182). Much like Epicureans, Cynics only desired the very basics, but they took this to a much further extreme, rejecting the importance of social norms and friendships. Antisthenes (455-360 B.C.E.) founded the school of Cynicism, being heavily influenced by Socrates’ lifestyle of simplicity and hardiness. Diogenes (412-323 B.C.E.) was the most famous Cynic philosopher. He divorced himself from all social convention eating, sleeping, and even masturbating in public. The Cynic philosophies can be illustrated by an encounter with Alexander the Great, by Diogenes. Diogenes was sunning himself when Alexander the Great approached him. Alexander offered Diogenes ‘any boon you like.” Diogenes replied by stating ‘stand out of my light’ (Piering, 2006).

Stoics believed that happiness came from detachment from extraneous variables. Stoics believed that everything happened because of Logos (fate), but people retained free-will by establishing what they could control and relinquishing what they could not control. Stoic philosophers rejected emotion as much as possible, instead seeking detached acceptance. Epictetus (55-135 C.E.), a Roman slave, was one of the most influential Stoic philosophers. His status put him in a unique position to appreciate the Stoic philosophy because he was not in control of many of the events during his early life. Despite hardships that he endured, Epictetus remained virtuous and accepting of his fate. One story of Epictetus’ supreme ability to remain detached, describes an event during which his master began twisting his leg because of another slaves mistake. He calmly informed his master that his leg would likely break if this treatment continued. Epictetus’ master disregarded the warning, ultimately breaking Epictetus leg. Despite this violent act, Epictetus remained serene and unperturbed (Soccio, 2010, p. 182). According to Seddon, Epictetus believed that “Our capacity to flourish and be happy (to attain eudaimonia) is entirely dependent upon our own characters, how we dispose ourselves to ourselves, to others, and to events generally. What qualities our characters come to have is completely up to us. Therefore, how well we flourish is also entirely up to us.” (2005).

Another influential Stoic, the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (121-180 C.E.), lived a life that exemplified the stoic struggle. The Emperor kept a personal notebook that we know today as the Meditations. This personal notebook shows how he attempted to internalize Stoic ideas in order to change his behaviors and outlook, and ultimately become detached. Like Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius’ story is fraught with many difficulties that could have embittered any other man, but Aurelius, ever the devoted student, detached himself from the criticisms and stress of his office. Instead of becoming vicious and resentful, he only attempted to control what he could and accepted what was beyond his control. On many occasions people accused his wife of infidelity, and his soldiers questioned his masculinity because he chose to promote the people who were accused of violating his wife’s chastity.

Similarities between all three of these philosophies can be seen in their regression from happiness sustained by physical indulgence, and their progression towards simplicity and self-discipline. These three major competing theories of happiness, among the ancient Greek philosophies influenced later philosophies and Christian theological positions. The Hedonists’ attainment of pleasure and avoidance of pain, as measured by quality and quantity, ultimately fleshed out minimalistic principles that the Cynics would build upon. The Cynics’ pursuit of self-discipline through rational control of desires, appetites and minimal contact with conventional society set the stage for the Stoics’ almost ascetic approach to eudaimonia. The Stoics’ cultivation of detachment from the externals produced ripples that would eventually act as a model for monks, friars and priests. In modern society most people incorporate aspects of all three of these philosophies into their everyday pursuit of happiness. Despite thousands of years of insight, introspection, practice and analysis the question of happiness still remains as elusive today as it was for Greek and Roman philosophers.

Reference

Piering, Julie. Cynics. (April 18, 2006) In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/cynics/

Seddon, Keith H. Epictetus. (July 11, 2005) In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/epictetu/#H4

Soccio, Douglas J. (2010). Archetypes of Wisdom: An Introduction to Philosophy (7^th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learnig

Stoicism. (June 18, 2008) In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/stoicism/

Weijers, Dan. Hedonism. (August 10, 2011) In Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/hedonism/