Why we can't be good at everything!

In Book II, Chapter 1 Aristotle states that not everyone is born with the ability to be good at everything. Aristotle wants us to realize that we can't always be good at the things that we wish we were. We sometimes must let the people that are skilled in that certain area take over. There is a reason that we aren't all great teachers because there would be no one to teach. We are not all great homebuilders because there would not be anyone that was good at designing the interior. If we were all the same the world would be a very boring place because each individual would not feel special. They would not be different from anyone else and would no longer feel a need for themselves. I personally feel that we were given our talents for a reason and the talents were God given. You do have the ability to improve at a certain task, but you will never be as good as someone who has the talent originally.

Nicomachean Ethics--Book I

“But then ought one to call no other human being happy either who is still alive, and is it necessary, as Solon said, to look at the end?” 1100a

Socrates is proposing the question of whether any human being can be completely happy while alive, and if, there is worth in looking at the end of happiness. Happiness is a universal pursuit. We are made to chase after happiness and, therefore, are always chasing… always chasing, but never fully satisfied. I believe that we can call a human being happy, and it may be so, but it is only true for a moment. I do not believe that we can call a human being happy in the sense that his or her life is happy. We can only say, “You are happy in this moment.” Happiness must spring from the Good, something we cannot fully know until our spirits are free from our flesh. It would make sense that the Good would let us taste a bi-product (happiness), momentarily, throughout our lives. Because, by this, we come to know that what we are chasing is worth chasing. Now, if happiness is incomplete now, but we, by nature, chase its entirety our whole lives, we, by nature, do not crave something that doesn’t come into existence eventually. This being true, it is eternally important to set our gaze at “the end.”

Nic. Ethics Book I

"...since the young are apt to follow their impulses, they would hear such discourses without purpose or benefit, since their end is not knowing but action. And it makes no difference whether one is young in age or immature in character, for the deficiency doesn't come from the time, but from living in accord with feeling and following every impulse" (1095a lines 5-9). I found this especially interesting because it's something I've never took time to think about in the way Aristotle puts it. Those that are given everything in life without ever having to work for what they get are much more inept to act on impulse because they don't know how hard it is to get there in the event that it's not just given. People of this sort are of any age and don't make decisions in a way that Aristotle finds to be an honorable and highest form of decision-making. Aristotle feels that "the human good comes to be disclosed as a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with virtue" (1098a 16-17). One that lives their life in impulse is not capable of living a "good" life unless they change their discourse at some point to follow virtue.

Nic. Ethics I

"Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good..." (1094a); however, there is no such thing as the common or universal good. As rational beings, we all aim at what we consider good for ourselves and find ourselves basing the "good" on one of three things: enjoyment, honor, or knowledge. But at what does is this good? Why do we so avidly seek what is good? Good is our rationality that makes us distinct from animals or plants...but it's more than that. It's acting out that rationality in "accordance with virtue" (1098a16-17). For many of this, this equates to happiness: our end-all-be-all. That is for which the good aims.

Happiness. Virtuous. For many, these words are synonymous and the way we judge a person and their life. The ones who, in the face of misfortune, persevere without loosing their original virtuous disposition are considered, after their death, to have lead a "happy life." The entire picture of their life is taken into consideration when we judge them; however, while the image of the deceased may be altered by their descendants, there isn't, in the end, any affect on the soul that has gone on. The descendants may neglect pieces of the soul's life and focus solely on a year or a specific period of time during life. The two are completely separate and, I feel, have no effect on one another.

Book X

I know we're onto Nic Ethics now, but I wrote this last week and am only now uploading, so here it is...

Is it possible for the painter to paint the idea? Or do we presume his knowledge of the couch consists solely of that which the carpenter has crafted? If the carpenter is building a couch based on the idea, could not the painter do the same? Could not the painter build a picture of the "nature-begetter?"

598 c "Therefore, imitation is surely far from the truth; and, as it seems, it is due to this that it produces everything - because it lays hold of a certain small part of each thing, and that part is itself only a phantom. For example, the painter, we say, will paint for us a shoe-maker, a carpenter, and the other craftsmen, although he doesn't understand the arts of any one of them. But, nevertheless, if he is a good painter, by painting a carpenter and displaying him from far off, he would deceive children and foolish human beings into thinking that it is truly a carpenter."

How is the painter different from the carpenter? Could not the carpenter build a farm based on a picture painted of the original idea of a farm? Does painting, poetry, and indeed all art not have perhaps a better grasp on the intangible things that are than those things which we physically touch (couches)? Words and art and songs, I would argue, reach further for the idea of the couch than the physical one crafted by the carpenter. What the carpenter builds is a certain couch, but what a melody and rhythm and even lyrics evoke seem far closer to me to the idea of the couch than a certain one. The certain couch build by the carpenter is confined to it's weight, mass, and other physical qualities, but art, much like form or idea, is not. With painting, and even poetry to some extent, it is easy to argue that the picture on the wall is of certain angle of a certain couch, though I would suggest that was not necessarily the artist's intent, but with music especially it is difficult to assume that a melody and rhythm and orchestration (all those qualities that make a song) come together as an imitation of a certain thing. Rather, this musical art in particular, even without words, searches for truth, and in its own way is almost philosophical in that search.

That said, I understand that Socrates' accusation is focused on the specifically imitative side of art, and that he admits not all art is imitative. I think his couch analogy is a bad one, as I have just argued, but I do not think his argument is necessarily. The just city filters everything through the Noble Lie (except for the philosopher kings), so why not art too? I don't think Socrates is suggesting anything new to us here, but rather reiterating his previous point. In the city, his argument works, especially if we are focusing on the city as an analogy for the soul. In pursuit of justice, we filter everything through calculation before it has a chance to overwhelm our spirit or desire. So art too should be approached with caution.

Who is more Knowledgeable?

As I was reading Book X, the part about the three arts caught my attention. The text says that there are three arts for each thing: one that will use, one that will make, and one that will imitate. It goes on to say "the man who uses each thing will be most experienced and he will report to the maker what are the good or bad points in actual use of the instrument he uses . . . doesn't the man who knows report about good and bad flutes, and won't the other, trusting him, make them?" (601d and 601e) I was a little bothered by this reasoning because I don't feel like it rings true in every situation. When you think about it, it could go either way, but I would argue that the maker knows more than the user. A person who builds computers undoubtedly knows way more about how they work and what constitutes a good computer versus a bad one, while an end user can simply know how to turn it on and access limited functions. In this scenario, how would the user be more knowledgeable?

I agree with Socrates that the imitator has to trust one of the other two when he paints (or whatever his form of imitation is), but I feel that it's more of a give and take between the maker and the user, a mutually beneficial relationship that leads to the best possible outcome. The maker receives feedback from the user and turns it into knowledge of why something doesn't work properly and then can therefore craft it differently to solve the problem. Without the user's feedback, the maker couldn't fix the problem, but without the maker knowing HOW to fix the problem, then the user's critique is of no use.

What I have brought up may seem like a small aspect of the chapter, but I think it is a valid point to consider when going on to discuss who has the knowledge of fair and right, and who else is just following orders.

Couches--Book X

I would like to adress the three types of couches that Socrates discusses. They are as follows: the painter, the couchmaker, and the god (597b). The couch is obviously a symbol for truth. Therefore, the god (or God) produces truth. Then, we have the couchmaker. This is someone who has knowledge of the truth, but not full knowledge. Finally, we have the painter--or the imitator. This person can paint a picture of truth, but lacks the actual substance of truth itself.

I think we can find that each person is either a couchmaker an imitator (this includes the apathetic).

Although couchmakers aren't fully knowledgeable, they are still knowledgable enough to teach someone else how to make a couch so they can start making couches for themselves. They can offer the "structure" for a couch, but ultimately it is up to the other person to be wise, recieve, and follow through with their desire to learn about the couch.

Although an imitator can have the apperance of being knowledgable, what it seperates him is the fact that he has nothing to give away that comes from himself. Everything he says is adopted. However, this is not to say that when he DOES find truth, it will be the same truth that other men have found. Asking someone not what they believe in, but why they believe in it, most almost always reveals whether they are a couchmaker or an imitator. At least, that's what I've found.