Go Back   Flash Flash Revolution: Community Forums > General Discussion > Critical Thinking
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-30-2007, 03:08 PM   #1
devonin
Very Grave Indeed
FFR Simfile AuthorFFR Veteran
 
devonin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 36
Posts: 10,098
Send a message via AIM to devonin Send a message via MSN to devonin
Default [Essay] The Nichomachean Ethics

This is a short little expositional paper I wrote back in first year in a "Philosophy and Human Nature" course. It's basically a quick overview of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics

In his work Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle investigates that which makes people ‘happy’, how such a state comes to exist, and how one can enter that state and stay that way. In the course of his writings, he addresses several logical objections to his theories as well.

Quote:
Firstly, Aristotle attempts to create a proper definition of happiness. He states that if there is such as “an end in the realm of action which we desire for its own sake…then obviously this end will be the good, that is, the highest good.” (Pg 48) he points out that to the masses and the intellectuals alike, the term ’being happy’ is usually synonymous with both ‘living well’ and ‘doing well.’ Where these two groups differ is their definition of ‘happiness’ itself. The common people, says Aristotle, think happiness is something clear and obvious, “such as pleasure, wealth, and honor [sic].” (Pg 49) Where, in turn, the philosophers believe that there is some greater good which is “good in itself and by itself.” (Pg 49)

Next, Aristotle looks to deepen his definition of happiness, and does so by looking at the form it takes. Happiness, the highest good, he says, is final. It cannot be a means to another end, since it is by definition the final good to which all other things aim. He gives the examples of honour, pleasure, intelligence and virtue, and says that we choose those, both because of themselves, and because we feel they are a means to the final good of happiness. From this he concludes that the purpose of a man is in the proper function of those things that create happiness.

The next, and most vital portion of Aristotle’s arguments revolve around just what type of man will be happy, and how one can tell if such a person is happy. Arguing that happiness is the result of an activity, and that activities must produce results, Aristotle shows that “the good and noble things in life are won by those who act rightly.” (Pg 54) He then goes on to detail how actions that conform to virtue are naturally pleasant, and that people who find them pleasant therefore, do those actions from a sense of pleasure inherent in the actions themselves. He rules out children from being happy, since they haven’t led enough of a life to be yet called happy. He says that when one calls a child happy, they are speaking to the child’s potential for future happiness.

Likewise, he raises the idea that perhaps, quoting Solon, he can count no man at all happy until he is dead, since calling him happy while he is alive is foolish, as something could still happen to make him unhappy. He deals with this objection by stating that happiness has a sort of permanence about it that precludes becoming unhappy in anything less than the direst circumstances. Since his happy man does things that are virtuous more for the fact that they contribute to his happiness, than for the things that come from them, if doing a virtuous deed has a negative consequence, that will not make the man unhappy, because he cares more for how the just act contributes to his happiness and virtue. So by that logic, you can indeed call someone happy while they are still alive, because happiness has a permanence that can’t be wiped away. So at the end of all that, Aristotle concludes that “if this be granted, we shall define as ‘supremely happy’ those living men who fulfill and continue to fulfill these requirements.” (Pg 58)

Having concluded what makes someone happy with respect to what type of person they are, Aristotle undertakes to define what a virtue or excellence is, seeing as happiness is living in accordance with the soul, and the soul needs be both virtuous and excellent to be happy. Aristotle remarks, “Every virtue…renders good the thing itself of which it is the excellence, and…causes it to perform its function well.” (Pg 61) So in the same way that the excellence of an eye makes not only the eye good, but the function of the eye, sight, good as well. In the same way, argues Aristotle, the virtue or excellence of a man both makes him a good man, and enables him to perform his function as a man well, too.

The way in which Aristotle shows what he considers to be the excellence of being a man is a very interesting one. He first states “the ‘equal’ part is something between excess and deficiency.” (Pg 61) For example, if twelve is many, and four is few, then the median is eight. This operates for the median taken only in relation to it itself. That is to say that in each case, the median is something different. So the expert in any given field aims to find the median and choose it, as opposed to an excess or deficiency.

This applies to happiness in the sense that since the median is the most praiseworthy state, and virtue and excellence in a man are praiseworthy, then the median must be what defines virtue and excellence.

Aristotle has now set out the crux of his definition for happiness, and how it is attained, and just what precisely it is. Happiness is the term given to the ultimate good at which all things aim. It is attained through the excellence and good of a man acting in accordance with his soul, a soul governed by the rational seeking of the median in all things, never going to excess or deficiency, and once attained, it is final, and permanent.
Things to think about/discuss:

1/ Do you agree/disagree with Aristotle's concept of "Happiness"?
2/ Do you agree/disagree with Aristotle's concept of "The Good in itself"?
3/ What are some of the more obvious defense of his position?
4/ What are some of the more obvious objections to his position?
devonin is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution