Throughout history philosophers from around the world have taken up the challenge of interpreting life and the transcendental aspects that it involves. Commonly mentioned among these different concerns are themes like, structure of the universe, the existence of the soul, forms of government and the pursuit of a good life. Defining what a good life would be and how would one go about of achieving such a life has been a concern for many philosophers. Here we reach a point where a wide array of radically different answers are provided by philosophers as to what is the good life or complete life. For Plato, the good life was that in which through rational analysis and thought an individual dedicated his life to observing and understanding the highest principle, which he called “the Good”. While for Diogenes, a simple life where one enjoyed the simple pleasures that the earth had to offer, was the best life.

As I attempted to define the good life I found that I was in accordance with Aristotle who believed that the good life was a happy life and that happiness was the end purpose of a good life. However, true happiness, as I see it, is not a term tha

t can be loosely used to describe a life where an individual has large material possessions, fancy cars, and a big fat bank account. No, happiness goes a lot farther than the shallowness of material goods. I believe that the key element in obtaining true happiness is developing as an individual to your fullest capacity. By this I mean developing yourself in a way that you do all that is in your power to be the best you can be and more. It also means developing to the fullest your mental, rational capacity, creating a set of values to which you are consistent throughout life and consciously understand their reason for being (truly knowing yourself and understanding your beliefs) and giving rational thought to higher principles of life. I think that this is elemental because (as frequently happens) people go through life having dogmatic beliefs and never question them or try to understand their reason for being. In short it is the whole nonmaterial development of a person in all the intellectual and spiritual (non religious sense) aspects of life.

Spanish thinker, Jose Ortega y Gasset wrote The Rebellion of the Masses during the period after the First World War. In it he criticizes the demoralization of Europe and its lack of world leadership caused by a rebellion of the masses. By masses he means, in a quantitative sense, the hordes of people; but this term also has a qualitative sense, which is that of being mass or what he also calls the “half man”. In his own words it is, “The common quality, the dense or ignorant society, it is the man in as much as he does not differentiate himself from other men, but rather repeats himself in a generic sense.” This man is a person without personal values and he says to be just like every one else. He is a person who does not demand more of himself and is content being this way. Being is what they already are without any effort upon themselves. I have brought up the work of Ortega y Gasset because I believe that the type of being, which “the mass” lacks, is exactly the type of being which I refer to as essential for complete human happiness. He refers to the “half man” as being content with his mediocre existence and “just getting by” attitude, which is exactly the opposite to what I said, striving and fighting to be the best and most complete individual you can be. So far I couldn’t be more in accordance with him.

I said that Plato was an aristocratic, which I meant in the intellectual sense. He creates a society where the intellectual elite rules and the rest of the society is forced to follow. Now which society do I consider better, that ruled by a philosopher king or a Marxist society? I think they are different in many ways, one is based on a higher concept of Good while the other is based on free labor as the key to man’s realization.

Possibly the philosopher that gives the most complete view as to how an individual can reach a higher level of self fulfillment taking into account the influence of the encompassing environment is Karl Marx. Like Maslow he recognizes the need for social equality but goes much farther than that. For Marx the whole concept of self-realization has to be understood only in connection with his concept of work or labor. For Marx labor was not merely an economic factor but more importantly was the expression of life. Labor is a process that involves man and nature where man uses his capabilities in order to use what is available in nature according to his own desires. Man, before the labor process uses his capacity for creation or imagination in order to give form to the material which he works. By doing this not only will he give shape to the material but he will realize his own purpose and set the norms for the way in which he will proceed (modus operandi) and to this set of norms he will subject his will. Besides using his body, the worker will also have to be paying close attention to what he does. Now the less he

Some topics in this essay:
Ortega Gasset, Plato’s Republic, Motivation Personality, Good” Plato, Marx Maslow, Myth Metals, Good” Diogenes, Plato Throughout, World War, USSR United, ortega gasset, philosopher king, “half man”, specialization labor, contradiction plato’s, self actualization, ideal society, rebellion masses, marxist society, complete individual, plato’s ideal society, self actualization possibly, called “the good”, contradiction plato’s philosophy, jose ortega gasset,