Following my comments on the thought of Kant and Epicurus, I would like to look again at the question asked by a reader : “Do you agree with Epicurus that happiness can be seen purely in terms of pleasure, or whether Aristotle and Kant were right about goodness being more about virtue”.  I will now comment on Aristotle:

Epicurus may well have derived some of his philosophy from Aristotle (he was 21years old when Aristotle died).   I must emphasize that most of the writings of Epicurus were expunged by the Christians, so we do not have a full account of what Epicurus really said, and thus Epicurus has never had his full due.  He may have written as copiously as Aristotle. But this much is clear:

Aristotle and Epicurus had much in common.  They both believed in happiness as the ultimate end and purpose of human existence, and both believed in the crucial importance of friendship.   ( so as not to make this post even longer I am posting a separate summary of Aristotle’s views on friendship as a comment).

Where the two men differed was, broadly, that Aristotle called man a political animal and said that the highest form of fellowship was to be found in the state (polis).  Epicurus would have disagreed – his need for peace of mind ( and the dreadful times he lived in) precluded any such thing.  Observing modern day politics it is hard to argue with him.

Aristotle believed in God, while Epicurus believed that there might well be gods on Mount Olympus, but they didn’t involve themselves in the lives of mere human beings.  Thus, the Roman emperors approved of Aristotle’s insistence on taking an active part in the State, and the Christians hated Epicurus, with his wry dismissal of the gods.  Medieval rulers and Popes used Aristotelian ideas to bolster the Establishment (although, to be fair, Aristotle favoured “polity” or democracy as long as it had a large “middle class” element).   Some people look upon Epicurus as a libertarian; I believe he represented a form of humanist counter-culture.

Aristotle thought that happiness was not passing pleasure, nor was it virtue, but the exercise of virtue and the perfection of human nature. He thought that happiness depended on acquiring a moral character, including courage, generosity, justice, friendship and good citizenship, all of which involved striking a “mean” between too much and too little. Lastly, he considered that happiness required intellectual contemplation, because this was the realization of our capacity for rational thought,  and that this could only be achieved at the end of one’s life. It was a goal, not a temporary state.

“He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a10).

Note that Aristotle thought that women were somehow incomplete, half-finished men (thus influencing the good ‘ole boys of the medieval church, only too glad to have exclusive rights of leadership), whereas Epicurus welcomed women into his garden as equals. He was also a genuine democrat who debated with slaves in his garden, as well as women and poor people generally.

Epicurus, believed that pleasure was paramount in life.  Dear reader, please be careful about the meaning of “pleasure” in this context.  Do not fall into the trap of thinking, like the Christians pretended to, that this was about excess.  What is meant here is having a relaxed, pleasant, moderate life with minimal stress, enjoyment of your employment, sufficient money to support yourself, but not too much, the appreciation of nature, and, most importantly, the enjoyment of friends with similar interests.  There are no if’ s or but’s, no prior conditions, like virtue.  Virtue is taken for granted by Epicurus and is not a condition of happiness.  The argument is that, if you have friends who cherish you and enjoy your company, then you are probably unlikely to be a devious, grasping, selfish, dishonest reprobate.  Nor do you have to be an old man to be happy.  You don’t even have to be wise or outstandingly intelligent – just a straightforward, decent guy, who is looked up to and admired ( and can tell some funny jokes).

So I would vote for Epicurus and his take on life.  Aristotle tells us that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character — what he calls “complete virtue.”  Epicurus, on the other hand, was the born humanist.  No elitist he. Where Aristotle wants moral rectitude, Epicurus accepts that none of us, even the old and philosophical, are perfect.  His message is, “Come into my garden, talk to me about life, smell the roses, just be a human being, faults and all.