Ultimately, his system seems to the best for a number of reasons, including ease of understanding. Aristotle is clearly trying to define happiness while still noting how to live happily, while Epicurus is simply giving advice on how to live a happy life. Happiness certainly means different things to different people, as these two men show, but Epicurus seems to have a deeper understanding of it, while Aristotle is still struggling to define it, before he can live it. As a reader of both philosophies, it seems Epicurus was a just man who wanted happiness for everyone, while Aristotle was a snob, who felt the "masses" did not understand the true nature of happiness. They were shallow, and could not possibly lead fulfilled and happy lives. That alone makes Epicurus' beliefs more appealing and more equitable for all, rather than the "superior" beings Aristotle believes can only find happiness. Aristotle also believes happiness is a gift of the gods, and if this is true, then many people can never be happy, and that simply does not seem right, fair, or equitable. Epicurus had a better outlook it seems, and did not have to reduce his philosophy to only a chosen few or the highest members of society. It is a better philosophy that includes everyone and excludes no one, regardless of rank or station.
Epicurus' theories could be made even better by only a few minor adjustments. He believes some items are up to chance, and so, cannot be controlled by man. However, man always has control over his emotions and his responses, and how he reacts to these items of chance are certainly under his control. For example, a man loses...
Epicurus would say that was an item of chance. However, how the man reacts to losing his job is not chance, and it can affect his happiness. He can look for another job with enthusiasm, network with his friends, update his resume, and keep a positive and upbeat attitude until he finds another job. On the other hand, he can become depressed, never leave the house, live on unemployment, and then blame everyone but himself for his misfortune. Clearly, these two reactions are quite different, and just as clearly, they both affect the happiness of the individual. The person with a positive reaction may have stress and worry, but his outlook will be happier than the person who chooses to be depressed with a decidedly negative reaction. Epicurus believes things happen by chance. By living a prudent but happy life, and choosing to react positively to circumstances, a person can live an even happier and more complete life than even Epicurus imagined.
In conclusion, these two philosophers clearly value happiness above all else in life, but certainly not at the expense of responsibility and moderation. Aristotle has a more scientific and unemotional view of happiness and what it means, while Epicurus has a more emotional and down to earth view of happiness. Both men find happiness essential for life, and one of life's most important pursuits, yet they go about finding it and defining it in very different ways. It is difficult to say which way is best, but there are certainly positive parts of each philosophy. Happiness, both men agree, bring a better world, and ultimately that is all life is really…
