This essay examines two influential ancient philosophical accounts of happiness: Plato's vision of a just, harmonious republic in which individuals fulfill predetermined social roles, and the Stoic philosopher Epictetus's counsel to cultivate inner equanimity and accept what cannot be changed. The paper contrasts these frameworks with modern, success-oriented conceptions of happiness and identifies shared ground between the two thinkers — particularly their rejection of pleasure and material wealth as routes to true well-being. It concludes by arguing that neither philosophy is fully adequate on its own, but that a synthesis of Stoic mindfulness with active engagement against injustice offers the most viable path to happiness today.
In modernity, people struggle with attaining a state of happiness just as they did in the ancient world. If attaining what we call "a state of happiness" were not a challenge, self-help books would not stock the shelves of so many bookstores, nor would there be any need for antidepressants and therapy. However, when reviewing the writings of the ancient philosophers — such as Plato — it is important not to conflate our ideas of what constitutes "happiness" with theirs. In the modern world, particularly in contemporary America, happiness is often seen as a synonym for success: having a certain level of income, a stable marriage, and a socially prestigious occupation. The fact that individuals who possess all of these attributes do not necessarily feel happy or content is often forgotten.
For Plato, happiness was synonymous with justice and symmetry, and with creating a world in which human beings were perfectly suited to the roles they were called upon to fulfill. Plato's vision of happiness did not focus on the individual, but on the individual's place in society and the larger cosmos. Plato drew a sharp distinction between pleasure — the mere satisfaction of bodily appetites — and attaining a state of true happiness. Happiness meant living one's life in accordance with one's ideal purpose, effectively aligning one's existence with the ideals of the world of the Forms: a world that the real one resembled no more than shadows on the wall of a cave. Rather than an internal state created by striving to fulfill personal desires, Plato saw happiness as a harmonious activity that integrated one's life into the order of an ideal republic.
In fact, little credit is given in the Republic to the individual's ability to seek out personal happiness. Someone deemed to be an ideal cobbler might unhappily strive to be a philosopher-king, but according to the rules of the republic, he or she must remain in his or her place. In Plato's view, because of the appropriate education given to all members of society, such a misplaced desire would be unlikely, and most people would not yearn to exceed the bounds of their social function. As Plato writes:
"When the cobbler or any other man whom nature designed to be a trader, having his heart lifted up by wealth or strength or the number of his followers, or any like advantage, attempts to force his way into the class of warriors, or a warrior into that of legislators and guardians, for which he is unfitted, and either to take the implements or the duties of the other; or when one man is trader, legislator, and warrior all in one, then I think you will agree with me in saying that this interchange and this meddling of one with another is the ruin of the State" (Plato 19).
A society lacking in social mobility is, by Plato's account, a happy state. Democracy and social mobility mean that "unfit" individuals may enter positions for which they are unsuited; a happy state is one in which everyone performs the activity at which he or she excels.
There is some truth to what Plato says, in the sense that finding one's true purpose in life can feel like an "aha moment." But in contemporary culture we are allowed to find such arenas of excellence ourselves, without our lives being predetermined. The idea that infinite choice creates unhappiness and uncertainty is not confined to Plato's philosophy, but his ideal Republic offers a seemingly secure way of eliminating any chance that someone might suffer under the burden of too many choices. Even the philosopher-kings who lead the republic have no choice other than to rule. By delivering human beings from the evils of being governed by those unfit to rule, and incorporating each person's social contribution into a wider ideal, Plato believed he could provide a perfect society. All humans can transcend the base pleasures of merely fulfilling their own desires — including the desire of someone "more fit" to be a cobbler to become a philosopher. Of course, the question of who determines who is "most fit" to rule remains unanswered in Plato, and the possibility that bloody dictators or self-serving weak men might consider themselves "born philosophers" is overlooked.
In contrast, the Stoic philosopher Epictetus focused on changing one's mindset to accept the ways of the world, rather than striving to reshape the world in order to achieve happiness. His tone is very different from Plato's. Rather than focusing on transforming the structure of society, in his Enchiridion Epictetus focused on bending the mind to accept whatever life may bring. Epictetus would no doubt say to Plato that creating an ideal society is virtually impossible to achieve in reality. Instead of the philosopher yearning after an ideal that cannot be realized, it is far better to focus on how to live in the here and now.
One similarity Epictetus shares with Plato is a deep distrust of common notions of happiness being equated with pleasure. Pleasure is seen as transient and ephemeral. Being happy cannot be equated with gaining material wealth or accomplishing externally-directed goals. Epictetus's philosophy is close in spirit to the serenity prayer that asks for the strength to change what can be changed and the ability to accept what cannot: "The things in our control are by nature free, unrestrained, unhindered; but those not in our control are weak, slavish, restrained, belonging to others. Remember, then, that if you suppose that things which are slavish by nature are also free, and that what belongs to others is your own, then you will be hindered" (Epictetus 1).
Epictetus has an almost Buddhist philosophy in the way he seeks to empty the mind of fluctuations and yearnings and to accept everything and everyone with equanimity. "Remember that you are an actor in a drama, of such a kind as the author pleases to make it. If short, of a short one; if long, of a long one. If it is his pleasure you should act a poor man, a cripple, a governor, or a private person, see that you act it naturally. For this is your business, to act well the character assigned you; to choose it is another's" (Epictetus 3). Striving for power means little: "When, therefore, you see anyone eminent in honors, or power, or in high esteem on any other account, take heed not to be hurried away with the appearance, and to pronounce him happy; for, if the essence of good consists in things in our own control, there will be no room for envy or emulation" (Epictetus 4).
"Shared rejection of pleasure and personal choice"
"Critiques of passivity and rigid social order"
"Blending Stoic mindset with active pursuit of justice"
You’re 74% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.