Coşkun Tunç Yılmaz
There are two perspectives when we analyze happiness. One of them is the view of Aristotle. According to his approach, happiness is determined by objectively. His ideas are shaped through the objectivity and rationalization. However, Neo-Aristotelians disagree with Aristotle in the evaluation of happiness. They support that happiness is subjectively but evaluated objectively. Thanks to this, they are sharply separated from each other. We can exemplify Kraut’s approach as Neo-Aristotelians. His observations include both some similarities and differences with Aristotle in the subjective and objective conceptions of happiness. In this essay, I will follow the view of Kraut and starting from this point of view I will compare and focus major differences between subjective and objective happiness rather than some similarities.
Kraut who is a Neo-Aristotelian philisopher agrees with Aristotle in the conception of happiness. Both of them share same argument with regard to the importance of happiness. In addition they both assert that happiness is a manner towards human's life and it also measures up to certain standards. Nevertheless, it includes some differentiation. As we examine, Aristotle claims the standards for objective happiness extreme high, while Kraut alleges that happiness is more flexible and subjective. In addition to this Aristotle mentions epistemic certainty concerning the human nature and it causes the formation of his approach of happiness. Though, Kraut emphasizes that it could not be claimed this kind of certainty. According to Aristotle, happiness is just a certain state of the mind and Aristotelian eudaimonia which means happiness or welfare but ''human flourishing'' is the more exact definition, is used as the term for the highest human good and it is a focal point in Aristotelian ethics and philosophy. This eudaimonia involves an objective standard that is derived from a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document