Hellenistic Philosophy

The farther man here comes, the more he developed his thinking and perfected, ever more perfect he his man in the cosmic order and the State community filled with other words, the greater happiness. It is easy to see that this ancient conception of happiness, which thrives on a prior understanding of metaphysical being and which has been adopted in shapeshifted also of the Christian Middle Ages, has shaped the Western culture over the centuries. And also, the fact that it puts the individual at the Center, introduces a certain arbitrariness in the concept of luck is that they are categorically different from the modern conception of individualization. It seems that we behind this requirement of the modern concept of happiness of the individual human being is the only and final determinant of what we Call lucky not to come back. The man can no longer recognize external, superior purposes, he has not even set. At the same time the indication that this “rather leads anything goes not necessary to more happiness, but in the long term to more discomfort. There are increasing but New and constantly growing needs quite not parallel with both increasing happiness.

Rather, the experience that the progressive and technical mastery of nature produces only increasingly conflicting needs or just changing needs, rather than allowing it teaches us to eliminate. An answer to this situation can deliver again Greek thinking us, namely in the form of Hellenistic Philosophy, whose great figures and attitudes we know as Epicureanism, stoicism and skepticism. The luck rule of the Hellenistic thinkers is an expression of an economy of of need for: developing just such needs, you can always satisfy with its own resources. Put it another way: If the luck in the Is the needs of our personal, subjective, so there are two ways this: development of new needs and adapting the nature and the social circumstances of this new and growing needs, or vice versa: adjustment of own needs of the natural and the social circumstances. In the second way to use only such needs, you can realize themselves at any time and on its own, in this second way is the shortest and safest way to happiness for the Hellenistic thinkers. Happiness is self limiting: so that I can do, what I want, I must do what I can. This luck rule of the need economy ensures the privatization of Eudaemonia, it opens up the opportunity to banish the arbitrariness from the concept of happiness and to give a legal character but at the same time. Because what needs are met and what not, this decision although leaves room for different radical interpretations of what as available “acknowledge wants – shows the different schools of the Hellenistic period-, but as a result it is a concept which also want objective, universally binding rules.” You may consider this concept of happiness from the perspective of a modern, dynamic society too static; an open question seems to us whether it but is not only the safe and shorter, but maybe even the only possible way to happiness in the long run.