In book one, chapters one to twelve of Nicomachean Ethics Aristole’s chief design is to unravel what is good and how an individual arrives at (through what aims) the ends of such intent.
Aristotle begins by asserting that some good comes from every action (3) therefore our aim is to do well in those precise actions. Although our aim is to achieve goodness there is not a sole end rather the existence of two varying ends. End number one being activities, while end number two falling under the classification of products, in which a natural inclination exists towards the latter.
The end becomes the propelling aim behind our actions (4). It is the end that we are searching for. Good can be achieved through two particular aims: one for the sake of good while the second one for the sake of arriving at a different end. Aristotle thinks that if Chief Good (4) is to be attained one most aim for the sake of good. In view of the fact that one should aim for the sake of good, it should come to no surprise that Aristotle believes that the highest master science is political science because it involves the learning of goodness (of what is good).
It would seem that Aristotle believes that knowledge with the usage of reason is the aid needed by all to act with moderation and self-restraint of feelings (4-5) when acting upon our desires although he does specify there are varying limitations given the specific subject. In Chapter 5 Aristotle returns to examine the aim of political science, which is all that is good in turn making its highest aim – happiness. Happiness involves living well and acting well (5-6) however the masses and philosophers seem to differ in their interpretation.
The masses idea of happiness is a straightforward approach modified solely by a current predicament. For example if they are sick their health is what would make them happy, if poor it would be the accumulation of money that would bring happiness and so forth. On the other hand philosophers identify with the truth as the source of happiness even ignoring one’s attachment to friends in order to ensure truth (7-9).
There are three types of life according to Aristotle: a life of politics, pleasure and contemplation. We perform a certain kind of life or what Aristotle would refer to as characteristic activity (10). This activity of the soul and actions, done with reason, leads to a complete life. It is this activity, which is a characteristic of virtue, that makes happiness not only divine and blessed (15-16) but also virtuous (13-15).
If what is good is happiness and our aim is to find happiness then once happiness is achieved it is lasting. Therefore as Aristotle deciphered happiness, it is something considered among the best, deserving more than praise, deserving quite simply honor because it is noble and complete (19-20).
Is happiness truly the highest aim of good? I think so. Our actions indirectly (although I feel they mostly are directly aimed to bring pleasure) bring happiness to our lives. Once we have achieved that happiness through our actions done with reason should we automatically congratulate ourselves in having achieved it or wait till death … to be sure we were happy? I feel that Aristotle does a great job at dispelling this worry by stating that happiness bears changes in fortune in a noble way.
Aristotle., and Roger Crisp. Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy). New York: Cambridge UP, 2000.
2 comments:
My reflection on Aristotle's viewpoint on happiness in Book 1 of Nicomachean Ethics needs some amending. Along with amending certain points I will further clarify his main objectives in this book. First happiness is not defined by the individual. An individual's state of happiness is decided by society. Conditions, such as the amount of political power or affluence, and human actions, such as the kind of company we keep, determine whether we will achieve happiness or not from society's point of view. Further Aristotle believes that to measure an individual's happiness accurately society should wait to decide until after that person is dead. Since fortune is one of the conditions outside of our control, having good fortune at first does not mean that good fortune will be a stable influential factor; therefore happiness will also fluctuate. After death conditions outside of an individual's control are no longer a contributing factor which eases the process of determining if happiness was obtained according to Aristotle.
First, I think between your amending and blog you did a great job explaining Aristotle's view on happiness. I think it's interesting how our mindset today would probably create some differences in how we define happiness. I think very few people would look to their friends or society to determine whether or not they are happy; I know I personally consider it an individual over a social judgment. Also, in class we mentioned how good children was necessary to achieve happiness according to Aristotle, and I wonder how many people today would agree with that?
Post a Comment