How One Ought to Live

Throughout the past few years of my life, I have taken an interest in exploring different
ideologies, different ways to live and most of all, myself. I have gone through an introspective
journey of how I should regard myself, others, and how to handle life as it hits me. I guess one
could say that I have been searching for the answer to how to live a life of excellence. I guess
before one finds the answer, one must define the goal: excellence. Excellence can be perceived
differently by many. One may consider excellence as analogous to materialistic or social
affluence. One may consider it to be dominance over others. I believe that these interpretations
are actually opposing to true excellence. We have constructed our society around narcissism and
materialism. We have created a new definition of excellence than what it naturally should be.
Excellence for me is analogous with justice, genuineness, and true happiness. This endeavor to
achieve excellence is one that many well-known philosophers have contemplated. Each thinker
has come up with their own set of ideals to attain what they consider to be excellence.
For me, philosophers such as Aristotle, Kant, and Rousseau have been most influential in
helping me answer the question how ought I to live my life. I consider Aristotle to be the
backbone and base for answering this question. Aristotle, in particular, focuses on the question
of how to live a life of excellence. His writings about temperance, types of friendships, the
good, and how to eventually achieve true happiness have influenced how I ought to live my life
immensely. Kant and Rousseau have been as equally impactful on my life decisions. Kant, with
his ideas regarding the categorical and hypothetical imperative, has shaped my intentions and
will. Lastly, Rousseau and his work about inequality and what humans have made themselves
into has shown me what type of person I want to be with regards to my ability to shape myself.

These three philosophers have not only given me insight into aspects of our culture, our world
and myself, but their ideologies have combined in my head to aid in the development of how to
answer the question how ought I to live my life. Due to these philosophers, I have been
enlightened and learned much about how to live the good life.
Aristotle was an incredibly well-known Greek philosopher who focused on many fields
of study. The field that resonates most with me is his study of ethics. Within one of Aristotles
best works, Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains his opinions on ethics, the good, and
happiness. He states that all actions are means to some sort of higher end, which is typically
happiness. He considers happiness to be the highest good and what individuals should all strive
for. His idea of happiness is not related to material goods, power, or wealth. Happiness for
Aristotle is living in accordance with the appropriate virtues. Aristotle considers the appropriate
virtues to be ones that are neither deficient nor excessive. By this, he means that one must
always aspire to act with absolute temperance with regards to any virtue. He calls this the mean
between the extremes. For example, when dealing with courage, one should never be cowardly,
yet should not be impulsive either. Reading about Aristotles stance that one should never be
extreme has caused me to realize that I am a very extreme person. I often have trouble
maintaining the mean between the extremes. Although it is extremely difficult to always live
with temperance, acknowledging this fact has made me at least realize my flaw, and work
towards fixing it.
Another idea presented by Aristotle that has influenced how I ought to live my life is his
theory of friendship. He breaks friendship down into three categories: friends of utility, friends
of pleasure, and friends of the good. Friends of utility are based on deriving benefit from
another. Friends of pleasure are based on attraction to appearance or intellect. Friends of the

good, to Aristotle, are the highest types of friendships and greatly surpass the other two. In this
type of friendship, both friends help each other strive for goodness and to make each other better
people. Knowing this has made me reconsider all of my friendships and really discern which
ones are beneficial or are based on superficial means. I have realized that friends of the good are
truly difficult to come by and that I must embrace them wholly and continue to search for them.
Although many of his ideologies are adverse to Aristotles, by reading and comparing
Immanuel Kants writings, I have been able to find a good medium for how I should direct my
life. While Aristotle states that happiness should always be the end goal, and all means are
directed towards some end, Kant argues that it is the intention that matters more, rather than the
end effect. Kant discusses two types of will: heteronomous and autonomous. Autonomous will
is defined by having a single motivation where the action is the end in itself, rather than having
ulterior motives for the action such as in heteronomous. Autonomous will is also synonymous
with Kants categorical imperative. Essentially, by acting with his categorical imperative, one
will always act out an action because of the action itself, rather than because of what the action
will cause. He states that by acting like this, peoples actions will always be dictated by a good
will, and therefore are moral. From this, he states that one should consider their actions as
universal law such that if one acts in a certain way, then they are condoning those actions for all
others. If all were to act in accordance with this concept, then ones duty to themselves would be
their duty to others as well. Kants ideas regarding intentions and living with a good will has
highlighted a fundamental flaw in thought. If one has a great quality, such as intelligence or
good looks, they can still use it for evil. But if one has any quality, good or bad, and good
intentions, then the result will be good. I always strive to act with regards to the categorical
imperative.

Lastly, as Kant and Aristotle have taught me a bit about how I am and how I would like to
change the way I live my life, Rousseau has enlightened me about our society as a whole and
how our civilization ought to exist. Rousseau points out that as humans with free will, we have
created inequality by claiming property and creating law. With this, humans are able to express
dominance over another. Rousseau claims that as we try to become more and more advanced,
we are lead to our downfall. We possess the quality of perfectibility and use it in negative ways.
We have created a veil of narcissism throughout humans where everybody does things for their
image and to fit into society, rather than for the good. I am very familiar with this type of
ostentatious and deceptive behavior and frown upon it. I believe that our society has created
somewhat of a paradox for ourselves. We aspire to create and advance as a whole, yet we are
stripped of our individuality and natural, instinctual ways. Although this may be acknowledged
by many, we have locked ourselves into this continuing process of simultaneous creation and
destruction. I strive to spread awareness of this and hope to aid individuals and myself in
straying away from the temptations of society.
When I ask myself the question how ought I to live my life, I recall Aristotle, Kant, and
Rousseaus beliefs. I believe that the higher good and happiness should always be kept in mind,
while living temperately, but nonetheless one should consider universal law and ensure that their
actions would be favorable for everyone to act out. Hopefully, with these things kept in mind,
humans will see the greater good and rationally return to our natural state, rather than continue in
this societal illusion of success. I believe that due to these ideologies, I have been aided in
answering the question how ought I to live my life.