Comparing Aristotle's The Gay Science And Nicomachean Ethics

1867 Words8 Pages

What is considered living well? Is it living your life continuously happy? Is it living your life morally right? Is it both? There are many definitions and examples on how to live well in both Friedrich Nietzsche's book The Gay Science and Aristotle's book Nicomachean Ethics. Even though their two definitions have similarities and differences, Nietzsche's explanation of living well is stronger in my opinion.
Living well for the philosophers are approached differently. Aristotle philosophy on living well is overly positive and assumes all men are noble. Nietzsche philosophy on living well to me is more realistic. Nietzsche assumption that we are ubermensch is more agreeable to me because I believe that we are perfectly imperfect. Ultimately, I believe Nietzsche's meaning of living well is stronger to me because Nietzsche's approach is more modern and realistic compared to Aristotle's overly positive and arguably outdated approach, which was published in 350BC. …show more content…

Ultimately, living well means being happy. For Aristotle, in any case, happiness is a objective that includes the totality of one's life. Aristotle states, "For as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy (Aristotle, Book I)." The great life is not an end express that we are continually making progress toward, yet rather a method for living that comprises of periodically virtuous activities. It is not something that can be picked up or lost in a couple of hours, as pleasurable sensations. Pleasure is not coincidental to the great life; it is the sentiment fulfillment we have when living well. Living well is more similar to a definitive estimation of your life as lived up to this minute, measuring how well you have satisfied your maximum capacity as an