He explains that perception is both external and particular. Aristotle states how the perception of productive things is external or goes through the senses such as what is visible and audible. In contrast, Aristotle states that scientific knowledge holds a universal component and are embedded in the soul. The result is that he claims that it is up to “us” or the individual to understand whenever we wish (potentiality) yet we cannot perceive whenever we desire to due to the fact a perceptible object must be present to
Within Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he considers humanity and its relationship with moral virtue. By the end of this essay, I will have summarized how Aristotle sees virtue as something that can be improved through repetition and what sort of ideology is required for an action to be considered virtuous. Also, I will address how one may disagree with Aristotle’s views on how a person learns to become virtuous, thinking that the concept of virtue must be precisely defined rather than as free-formed as Aristotle understands it. Following that counterargument, I shall refute it by explaining how a satisfactory childhood impresses society’s code of conduct upon a youth and how a youth learns how to apply that code of conduct through trial and error. According to Aristotle, each individual has the ability to develop moral virtue, yet, this moral virtue is initially negligible in a person’s life since they do not possess the proper faculties to understand society’s expectations.
Aristotle filled Nicomachean Ethics cover to cover with claims pertaining to happiness, virtue, friendship, and similar concepts. One claim states that happiness is choice worthy in its own right and self-sufficient, as “it is the end of the things achievable in action” (I.7, 1097b). Another claims finds that happiness requires external goods (I.8, 1099b). The purpose of this paper is to create a complete comprehension of these claims before responding to them. Comprehending Aristotle’s Happiness Aristotle’s claim begins with the introduction of the complete—or possibly final or perfect—good.
This ‘good’ is represented first and foremost by the moral virtue, which in its turn is presented through individual’s desire, action and goal and not by the uniqueness of the Face of Other. In Aristotle humanity becomes virtuous rationally by volition and willingness to act. As Aristotle puts it in, “These virtues are formed in man by his doing the actions ... The good of man is a
Aristotle’s ethical theory is a philosophical theory that seeks to explain human beings habits and general conduct. The theory majorly focuses on the ethics of common sense and is based on two main philosophical aspects. The two are naturalism and self-realization. Naturalism is a philosophical aspect that mainly focuses on how things come into being. It discusses the natural components of everything and the philosophical view of how everything started existing.
In Book I of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle brings up the idea that in order to discover the human good we must first develop a certain understanding and identify the function of a human being. Aristotle’s function argument is brought up through his belief that the human function is rational activity, meaning that our good as human beings is rational activity performed fine because this is what leads to living well. The good Aristotle tries to get across can be seen in many different forms depending on how it is viewed, because of the idea that the main function of anything is to reach a final end, the final end is considered the good. “The end of medicine is health, that of shipbuilding, a ship, that of military science, victory…” (Nicomachean,
Within the given extract from Aristotle's ‘Nicomachean Ethics’ one’s interpretation is that Aristotle aims to continue the discussion on what makes a Good Life, which specific focus on what exactly the Good is. Aristotle starts by explaining that cultured men, educated and successful, “identify the Good with honour” as this is perceived to be the “goal of the political life”. Aristotle disagrees with identification, justifying this by explaining honour to be a superficial argument, being that it focuses on the gaining of something (ie power) over others, which is ultimately not Good motivation. Aristotle sees it that “People[...]seek honour in order to convince themselves of their own goodness”. Many would argue that to act only to justify one's own actions is not the entirety of the Good Life, as it has selfish motivations and selfishness is not part of the true nature of the Good Life.
According to Aristotle, everything we do in life, we do for the sake of some good, or at least something we perceive to be good. We call an act good if it satisfies a certain need. The satisfaction of this need is then considered good if it is a means for satisfying some further need, and this in turn is good if it will satisfy still another need. Sooner or later this process reaches a point where it is no longer a means for some further end but is an end in itself. This final end is what Aristotle means by the chief good.
In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle raised a question «How a human can achieve the real happiness?», which was the key issue in this work. First of all, we should to understand why he started to solve this problem. For 2300 years people suppose, that the real happiness includes the tangible wealth, honor and satisfaction of pleasure. But Aristotle argues, that the wealth makes us try accomplishing more and more goals, the honor doesn 't show real personality traits and excessive satisfaction needs influence badly people. Therefore, Aristotle developed the theory of happiness, which is studied nowadays.