Aristotle also discusses the correlation between the nature of happiness and education. He suggests that education allows us to be good judges. Thus, education provides humans with the opportunity to be if not happy at least content in their decisions. Also, Aristotle argues that it is the nature of man to have different perspectives on the nature of happiness. Aristotle states some of the elements that are mistaken for happiness but are not attributable to the nature of happiness such as wealth.
Thucydides focuses more of his observations on practical experience. He takes into account what has happened and what can be common sense. The Melians would not win with the Athenians purely because the did not have might. Thucydides deduced that by this manifest truth that if someone was able to hold their own against other conflicts, the good life would come naturally. On the other hand, Plato takes a stance of a more theoretical view.
His definition equivocates knowledge and courage itself, rather than saying knowledge is necessary for courage. However, knowledge is not the only necessary condition for courage in his definition. Thus, the particulars of fearful and hopeful become problematic for Socrates. As Socrates points out through further questioning if one were to have such knowledge as stated by Nicias - one would have knowledge of all virtues, “of practically all goods and evils put together” (199d1). The elenctic method draws out contradictions in Nicias beliefs, leading again to a conflicted answer.
She goes on to explain that other virtues can supersede benevolence, which provides proof that benevolence is not the ultimate end. “We find in our ordinary moral code many requirements and prohibitions inconsistent with the idea that benevolence is the whole of morality.” (48). If benevolence is not the overall end of morality, but instead the end of one virtue within morality, then it cannot be the basis for morality as a
Confucius, Aristotle, and Lao-Tzu—all incredibly influential thinkers—did not always agree on how one ought to live; where Aristotle believed that thought or study led to virtue, Lao-Tzu placed focus on inaction, and Confucius taught that rituals paved the way to the best life. A few ideas, however, tie Confucius closer to Aristotle than to Lao-Tzu. Because Aristotle also placed importance on names, emphasized the need to find a mean of behavior, and believed that rulers should most critically be moral, Confucius would have preferred Aristotle to Lao-Tzu. Names—Aristotle utilizes them, even though he recognizes the difference between what exists in reality and the form represented by its name, while Lao-Tzu, on the other hand, maintains that names only serve to put limits on the named, and, in fact run the risk of creating opposites. According to Lao-Tzu, “Recognize beauty and ugliness is born.
Thus from the analysis of this excerpt, morality is unnatural for human beings but brings about desirable social goods. Initially in the discourse between Plato and Glaucon, Glaucon argues that only those who are too weak to inflict injustice or defend themselves from injustice being done upon them, are the ones to devise a contract against it. Glaucon states “The purpose of the compact is to bind them all to neither suffer injustice nor commit it” (Glaucon 110), demonstrating how this pact of justice merely provides solitude for
On that note, Socrates believes that virtue is a general form (eidos), meaning that there is a pattern (Plato 50). Although the two characters are both from esteemed backgrounds, unlike Meno, Socrates claims to know nothing and therefore is aware of his own ignorance. However, Socrates does know that virtue is like a recollection (anamnesis) of knowledge (Plato 49). In other words, virtue cannot come from instructions (as we learned that there are no teachers of virtue), but from an innate understanding of the soul (Plato
Within the second book of Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics”, he expands upon the ultimate human good of happiness, and interprets virtues of character in order to clarify his connection between the two. Although virtuous activity is differentiated into irrational and rational desires, a combination of both is important for one’s soul (Aristotle). Furthermore, an excessive or deficient amount of any activity is capable of corrupting one’s virtue of character, but can be counteracted by properly habituating these extremities to intermediary levels (Aristotle). However, distinguishing between too much and too little effort can be complicated and that is why humans rely on feelings in order to interpret their progress in life. Aristotle interprets
After reading The Defense of Socrates, many may question the premises on which Socrates’s argument rests. However, I believe there is a more important matter to consider that lies not within his words Socrates, but within his deductive reasoning and the unstated conclusion of said rash reasoning. The cornerstone of Socrates’s dashing defense is simple: one should value tr¬¬uth, wisdom, and self-worth over superficial gains and reputation. However, in making this case he also crafts a potentially controversial claim: that the best life is one in which one ignores their reputation and superficial desires. While reputation and materialism are not the crux of Socrates’s argument—they are really just asides he brushes off—they are an aspect of
the Republic, Socrates argues that justice ought to be valued both for its own sake and for the sake of its consequences (358a1–3). His interlocutors Glaucon and Adeimantus have reported a number of arguments to the effect that the value of justice lies purely in the rewards and reputation that are the usual consequence of being seen to be just, and have asked Socrates to say what justice is and to show that justice is always intrinsically better than is acting contrary to justice when doing so would win you more non-moral goods. Glaucon presents these arguments as renewing Thrasymachus’ Book 1 position that justice is “another’s good” (358b–c, cf. 343c), which Thrasymachus had associated with the claim that the rulers in any constitution frame
In this text, Aristotle establishes that happiness is the ultimate end which we all seek. He goes on to explain that to define what true happiness is, we must first understand what function we have as humans. This in-depth analysis of happiness at its roots solidifies my belief that ethical reflection requires you to also question what purpose any given concept of morality has to
By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts. To do this I must first explain several concepts of Aristotle which are: (1) how he concludes that the human function is reason, (2) what he means by happiness and how it is the human good, and (3) why he believes that the activity of the soul must be virtuous to become
According to history, some have claimed that Thucydides makes empirical claims and that Plato makes normative claims. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to identify the different philosophy between Thucydides versus Plato on the Nature of the Good Life. Consequently, reaching a better understanding specifically on empirical and normative claims. As a result, the outcome should illustrate a detailed explanation on such claims with supported evince. Plato indeed advocated normative thinking; In other words, his claims are about human well-being, moral thought, and virtue.
If a person is not happy, that means he failed to choose the right path or decision. If a man is happy, it is because he has made the best choice and has done well as the ideal version of himself. Therefore, a good person is a happy person. Aristotle also believes that a person becomes happy because of the activities that he does that promote the well-being of nature, which has will and intellect. Thus, the happiness of a person depends