Comparing Aristotle's And The Stoics View Of Happiness

I will be comparing and contrasting Aristotle’s and the Stoics’ view of human happiness, and using these theories and views, examining if bodily and and external goods are necessary to happiness, and to be able to back up why I think it either is or is not necessary. The two had many similarities, and differences that can be expanded. The Stoics believed our happiness was based off one thing entirely, and that is virtues. Aristotle breaks down how happiness is the highest possible good. Aristotle wrote the Nicomachean Ethics in 350 B.C. He starts off by writing “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all

Virtue could be giving to someone else, being honest, respectful, forgiving etc. The Stoics say that things like wealth, food, friendships, health are all indifferent to achieving eudaimonia. They say virtues are all that are needed. These are things I would have thought to be virtues, but by technicality are not. I do not think I agree with this statement. To be able to achieve happiness, you must be alive. To be alive, you must need food , and you must have a certain level of health. Without these two things, you would die, and therefore not able to achieve eudaimonia, which is again a main goal in human life. Aristotle seems to have a similar view that I do on this particular situation. Aristotle says that what the Stoics call indifferences are needed to be able to achieve eudaimonia. This is where Aristotle and the Stoics really start to differentiate because since the Stoics claim that virtues is all that is needed for happiness, and Aristotle says that things like health are not virtues, but are needed to achieve happiness, that the Stoics are wrong because of this. The Stoics view on this is absolutely mind boggling to me because they are saying that because virtue is all that is needed, someone who is hungry, without shelter, and not healthy can be just as happy as someone who has food, a home and good health. This is extremely hard to

Money is a great example of this. There is a popular expression that reads “money is not everything.” I believe this is a very true statement. There are a lot of people that are by definition in poverty, that are just as happy as the richest 1% in the country. I have seen both sides of this. I do agree with this statement. However, money is needed so we can live in the way we want to doing what we love. When you go for a new job, your wage is a big decision in whether you take this job or not. Money allows you to do certain things. It is how the world is built. Even though the person who makes 30,000 dollars a year instead of the person who makes 300,000 a year is just as happy, the person with 300,000 can do other things that the person with 30,000 simply can not afford to do. But what does this say about the person who makes 30,000 dollars a year? You could argue that this person could be more enlightened than the person who makes 300,000 because they are able to achieve the same goal of happiness with much less. The common thing between both of these people and their families. External goods are still needed. Both have shelter, both have food, and you assume are able to get medical help if needed. When you look at someone who is homeless on the streets, in dirty clothing, stink because they have not showered in weeks, and are asking for money because they do not have money to buy food.