Near the beginning of the The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's treatise on human character, he makes a sharp break from his teacher Plato's view of what constitutes "the good." Plato sees "the good" as being defined in strictly metaphysical terms: it is the ideal that can only be percieved through the use of abstract reasoning. Aristotle doesn't entirely reject this, but he certainly disputes that it is the one and "true" good. In his view, it would be "difficult to say what is meant by the 'absolute' in anything" (I:IV). There is no "good": the "absolute," Platonic good, and the "secondary," practicable good (I:IV).
Aristotle emphasizes practical reasoning over abstraction, and the questions driving the Ethics are eminently practical, namely, what is the "good" life, and how does one live it? He interrogates his subjects in a manner that's somewhat milder than Plato's Socratic dialectic; he isn't looking for a contradiction that undermines the entire premise of what's being put forth, and he isn't attempting to tease out basic assumptions with repeated questions. Instead, he sets forth a proposition or a question, and he then outlines related answers or responses that he identifies as being wrong in some way. Ultimately, he arrives at an appropriate answer to the issue he's posing. The subjects if the first three books of The Nicomachean Ethics-- the nature of the "good" and happiness, the definition of virtue and vice, and the questions of relative virtue and morality--are all examined in this way.
Character is defined by virtue, and virtue enable one to discriminate between the poles of vice and find the golden mean, whether it is finding courage in between foolhardiness or timidity, or temperance in between licentiousness and asceticism. A major aspect of happiness is finding the balance in one's life.
Monday, April 12, 2010
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Nicomachean Ethics--Book III, Part Two
"Those who are ignorant also appear to be courageous, and are not far from those who are full of hope, but they are worse to the extent that they have nothing they consider worth facing, while others do. This is why the hopeful hold their ground for a certain time, but those who are decieved run away if they recognize that something is different, or suspect it." 1117a, 24-29
Aristotle beautifully articulates a common occurance among men in these few lines. While most can appear courageous, very few actually are when it comes down to it. There can be no such thing as courage in a man when he finds nothing "worth facing." Because it is only when a man is "facing" that courage is needed. There is no need for courage in a complacent, passionless life.
The fuel of courage is passion. In order to be courageous, there has to be some kind of emotion, rooted and worthy, that activates courage itself. Furthermore, courage is the result of something--it is not in place for the sake of itself. What are those things worthy to be faced with courage? And the test of courage is time. Time does not test courage so much as it sifts of cowardice.
Regardless, the courageous will be known in the end. I have found, like Aristotle, that those who are "decieved" only stick around for a short while. They usually flee before a situation presents itself that demands any sort of courage--they never let it get that far before running away.
Aristotle beautifully articulates a common occurance among men in these few lines. While most can appear courageous, very few actually are when it comes down to it. There can be no such thing as courage in a man when he finds nothing "worth facing." Because it is only when a man is "facing" that courage is needed. There is no need for courage in a complacent, passionless life.
The fuel of courage is passion. In order to be courageous, there has to be some kind of emotion, rooted and worthy, that activates courage itself. Furthermore, courage is the result of something--it is not in place for the sake of itself. What are those things worthy to be faced with courage? And the test of courage is time. Time does not test courage so much as it sifts of cowardice.
Regardless, the courageous will be known in the end. I have found, like Aristotle, that those who are "decieved" only stick around for a short while. They usually flee before a situation presents itself that demands any sort of courage--they never let it get that far before running away.
States of Mind
During class, we discussed how the use of coffee to be studious is a temporary state of the soul, therefor it did not count as willingly being virtuous. Neither this example nor the example of the "virtuous" drunkard has totally convinced me that one who is aided by an outside source is incapable of being virtuous.
Modern medicine has provided us with a myriad of psychological treatments; many of them now come in the form of a pill, rather than the form of counseling. Counseling could be considered akin to surrounding yourself with a better person and through them aiming more accurately at virtue and in turn happiness, so we have accounted for that. However, psychological drugs pose an interesting problem. Can one truly be considered a virtuous person if they are unable to maintain stability without the consistent use of this medicine? If their condition is truly a chemical imbalance, as many psychological conditions are said to be, then they are certainly caused by an outside source (assuming they did not willingly subject themselves to severe psychological trauma). Therefor, their condition causes them to act unwillingly when they do bad actions on behalf of it. Through the use of these drugs, they combat this condition, rebalance themselves mentally, and are capable of knowing and pursuing the true good. Could we still say that these individuals are not virtuous based upon this dependency?
Friday, April 9, 2010
Friendship
Some of Aristotle's ideas in his Books on Friendship seem so much like common sense that I have to strain to consider whether or not there was ever a time when these ideas about friendship were not common sense, eg: the idea that true friends sincerely wish the best for each other, while lesser friends use others with the improper intent-solely utility or pleasure. And pharses like the following:
"Most people want to be loved rather than to love... But friendship seems to consist more in giving that in recieving affection."
But I like, unlike Plato, who could theoretically be a happy man in the world even on a desert island, Aristotle reminds me that while man might be happy by himself, his happiness is far enriched, made even more complete, with deep friendships.
"... man can be content and self-sufficient alone, but it would surely be paradoxical to represent the man of perfect happiness as solitary; for nobody would choose to have all the good things in the world by himself, because man IS a social creature and naturally constituted to live in company... the happy man needs friendships."
"[Friendship] is... most necessary for living. Nobody would choose to live without friendship even if he had all the good things."
And I like the reminder that friendship is a limited resource, and a rare thing. One can be on good terms with many, but one cannot be very close friends with all, because factors like time and shared activity and the effort of intimacy and common dispositions/levels of character are involved. Goodwill is not friendship, though a part of it.
"Most people want to be loved rather than to love... But friendship seems to consist more in giving that in recieving affection."
But I like, unlike Plato, who could theoretically be a happy man in the world even on a desert island, Aristotle reminds me that while man might be happy by himself, his happiness is far enriched, made even more complete, with deep friendships.
"... man can be content and self-sufficient alone, but it would surely be paradoxical to represent the man of perfect happiness as solitary; for nobody would choose to have all the good things in the world by himself, because man IS a social creature and naturally constituted to live in company... the happy man needs friendships."
"[Friendship] is... most necessary for living. Nobody would choose to live without friendship even if he had all the good things."
And I like the reminder that friendship is a limited resource, and a rare thing. One can be on good terms with many, but one cannot be very close friends with all, because factors like time and shared activity and the effort of intimacy and common dispositions/levels of character are involved. Goodwill is not friendship, though a part of it.
Responsibility Involving Free Will?
"In that way too it was in the power of an unjust or dissipated person at the beginning not to have come to be that way, which is why they are that way willingly, but once they have become so it is no longer possible not to be so" (1114a 21).
I find this quote very interesting for Aristotle to write. I agree it is the fault of an unjust and dissipated person to become that way. Do I feel like once they have become that way they can't go back? That's something I've always questioned. Once someone is a certain way, I don't believe they can change without the help of God. I also feel these people are more susceptible to fall back into the way they were, which makes me feel like they are still that way at heart. I understand God can change people, and I truly believe He can, but it's easy to be weary of one who has proved themself to be an unjust person.
Aristotle, however, doesn't address free will in book 3. Free will is the power to make a decision without the constraints of external circumstances. Aristotle overlooks this entirely and only focuses on those actions that we are responsible for. He believes that we are not held responsible for actions we do out of ignorance or impulse. Where is the definition that states what we are responsible for? And also, ignorance or not, an action is an action and you're responsible for what you do. I understand the argument of being under the influence, but one chooses to drink. If it was a forced act of someone making one under the influence then I see how it wouldn't be their fault. However, in this case you can also find choice in the groups you hang out with or situations you put yourself in. I will admit that there are situations that are totally out of your control and in that case there would be an unwilling action.
I feel Aristotle leaves an empty case here for fear of defining what responsibility itself is. This leaves us confused to what we are held resonsible for in relation to our actions we are fully aware of and those we are ignorant of or have acted out of impulse on. Not sure i agree with this vague claim, nor do I feel free will can be completely left out of these arguments.
I find this quote very interesting for Aristotle to write. I agree it is the fault of an unjust and dissipated person to become that way. Do I feel like once they have become that way they can't go back? That's something I've always questioned. Once someone is a certain way, I don't believe they can change without the help of God. I also feel these people are more susceptible to fall back into the way they were, which makes me feel like they are still that way at heart. I understand God can change people, and I truly believe He can, but it's easy to be weary of one who has proved themself to be an unjust person.
Aristotle, however, doesn't address free will in book 3. Free will is the power to make a decision without the constraints of external circumstances. Aristotle overlooks this entirely and only focuses on those actions that we are responsible for. He believes that we are not held responsible for actions we do out of ignorance or impulse. Where is the definition that states what we are responsible for? And also, ignorance or not, an action is an action and you're responsible for what you do. I understand the argument of being under the influence, but one chooses to drink. If it was a forced act of someone making one under the influence then I see how it wouldn't be their fault. However, in this case you can also find choice in the groups you hang out with or situations you put yourself in. I will admit that there are situations that are totally out of your control and in that case there would be an unwilling action.
I feel Aristotle leaves an empty case here for fear of defining what responsibility itself is. This leaves us confused to what we are held resonsible for in relation to our actions we are fully aware of and those we are ignorant of or have acted out of impulse on. Not sure i agree with this vague claim, nor do I feel free will can be completely left out of these arguments.
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Screw Your Courage to the Sticking Place
Why be courageous? Because, as Aristotle repeatedly points out, "it is a beautiful thing and not to do so would be a shameful thing" (1117a 17-18). Our ideas of courage, however, can often be clouded and mistaken. Whether it be taking the one who is shameless to be courageous because he seems to fear nothing, thinking the man a coward who fears "insolence from his children and wife" (1115a 22), mistaking someone who is moved by spiritedness/passion without the complete intention of courage, or believing the professional soldier to be courageous simply because he has experienced war before, we often misjudge another's intention and true disposition.
One point Aristotle makes a strong case as to the reliablity of "professional" or hired military. While the professional soldiers do have the equipment and the experience of war, they often lose their nerve and courage when the danger and threat pushes them too far and are often the first to cut ties and save themselves. The citizens, however, fight until they can no more because, to them, it is a shameful and painful thing to run. While this leans further away from courage and into spiritedness, spiritedness (passion and bravery) and courage are close.
On a side note, however, I would like to address the inquiry about coffee allowing one to be studious and, in turn, virtuous. In many ways this is exactly like the example of someone who is drunk doing nice things like helping out at an orphanage. The use of a substance to alter, especially knowingly, one's state is not virtuous because it alters what one truly is. The state is not entirely stable and it detracts from issues at hand.
One point Aristotle makes a strong case as to the reliablity of "professional" or hired military. While the professional soldiers do have the equipment and the experience of war, they often lose their nerve and courage when the danger and threat pushes them too far and are often the first to cut ties and save themselves. The citizens, however, fight until they can no more because, to them, it is a shameful and painful thing to run. While this leans further away from courage and into spiritedness, spiritedness (passion and bravery) and courage are close.
On a side note, however, I would like to address the inquiry about coffee allowing one to be studious and, in turn, virtuous. In many ways this is exactly like the example of someone who is drunk doing nice things like helping out at an orphanage. The use of a substance to alter, especially knowingly, one's state is not virtuous because it alters what one truly is. The state is not entirely stable and it detracts from issues at hand.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Book 3: Part 1
Book 3: Part 1
Much of Book 3 concerns with how we can measure and define virtue. Aristotle states that virtue is concerned with feelings and actions, and we must distinguish between what is a willing act and an unwilling act in order to define these acts as virtuous. Obviously, a shameful willing act is not virtuous, but at the beginning of Book 3, Aristotle states that for “unwilling actions there is forgiveness and sometimes even pity”. Unwilling acts are those that happen through ignorance or from the result of some external force. However, if we are responsible for our own ignorance than the act is deemed willful. Aristotle also states that bad people are merely ignorant people who wish and choose for what is apparently good but is actually bad. However, in Book II Aristotle says that moral virtue is acquired through habit and constant practice. If there is no one to instruct someone to what good moral virtue is, than it is impossible for these people to develop virtuous habits because they do not know how to practice them. I might disagree with Aristotle’s definition of ignorant people as being “bad” people because it’s not necessarily they’re fault that they’re bad; if in their mind they’re doing what is good, how can we speak of them as being bad? Without an established code of morals within a society, “good” and “bad” people is incredibly open for interpretation. An example in our present society is abortion. Some view people who get abortions as bad people, and others don’t find it significant.
Much of Book 3 concerns with how we can measure and define virtue. Aristotle states that virtue is concerned with feelings and actions, and we must distinguish between what is a willing act and an unwilling act in order to define these acts as virtuous. Obviously, a shameful willing act is not virtuous, but at the beginning of Book 3, Aristotle states that for “unwilling actions there is forgiveness and sometimes even pity”. Unwilling acts are those that happen through ignorance or from the result of some external force. However, if we are responsible for our own ignorance than the act is deemed willful. Aristotle also states that bad people are merely ignorant people who wish and choose for what is apparently good but is actually bad. However, in Book II Aristotle says that moral virtue is acquired through habit and constant practice. If there is no one to instruct someone to what good moral virtue is, than it is impossible for these people to develop virtuous habits because they do not know how to practice them. I might disagree with Aristotle’s definition of ignorant people as being “bad” people because it’s not necessarily they’re fault that they’re bad; if in their mind they’re doing what is good, how can we speak of them as being bad? Without an established code of morals within a society, “good” and “bad” people is incredibly open for interpretation. An example in our present society is abortion. Some view people who get abortions as bad people, and others don’t find it significant.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
