Aristotle: The Ultimate Goal Of Human Life

In this section I would like to compare two different approaches of the before mentioned concepts of ethics and desire. The first theme that I started my paper with is ethics. Both Levinas and Aristotle in their philosophies strove for the higher good, which for one of them was represented by happiness and for another by the notion of G-d. In their perception this higher good is the eternal truth and understanding of the world. For Levinas, however, the ‘good’ is infinite in a sense that it is not concerned in what is common among all things, but what is entirely unique about each person or thing. In other words, it is based on singularity of things and the absolute uniqueness of objects. For Plato the ‘good’ is neither stable nor material as well, but the means of acquiring it are different. In Plato’s understanding the higher good could be achieved through moral virtue that a person himself has to acquire. 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

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,

Question :1. What is the significance of Alcibiades and his speech in the Symposium as a whole? Make sure to support your interpretation with evidence from the text.

Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics begins by exploring ‘the good’. Book I argues that, unlike other goods, “happiness appears to be something complete and self-sufficient, and is, therefore, the end of actions” (10:1097b20-21). In other words, happiness is the ultimate good. But how does one achieve happiness? Aristotle formulates this in the context of work, since for all things, from artists to horses, “the good and the doing it well seem to be in the work” (10:1097b27-28). Much like the work of a harpist is to play the harp, “the work of a human being is a being-at-work of the soul in accordance with reason” (11:1098a7-8). Moreover, in order to achieve the good, it is important that each being performs his work excellently. While all harpists’

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he outlines the different scenarios in which one is responsible for her actions.  There is, however, a possible objection which raises the possibility that nobody is responsible for their actions.  Are we responsible for some of our actions after all?  If so, under what circumstances?  Based on an evaluation of Aristotle’s arguments and the objection that stands against it, people are responsible for voluntary actions and involuntary actions whose circumstances or particulars they themselves have caused.

For instance, one might go to college with the telos of bettering their future. When Aristotle identifies happiness as the highest goal, he is claiming that happiness is the ultimate telos of any action. We might understand this idea of an ultimate telos by imagining the child who constantly asks, “why?”: “Why are you going to college?” “To become a dental hygienist.” “Why do you want to be a dental hygienist?” “So that I can make more money.” “Why do you want more money?” “So that I can support my kids better.” “Why do you want to support your kids better?” “Because that makes for a happy life.” “Why do you want a happy life?” “I just do.” Every action has a telos, which is an answer to the question, Why are you doing this? Happiness is the ultimate telos because there is no further telos beyond happiness and because the ultimate goal of all our other activities is

Aristotle was philosopher that truly believed that happiness is the goal of living, and we must distinguish the difference between pleasure and happiness. Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue according to Aristotle and this is seen

C.S. Lewis once said that “Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is watching.” While reading Calvin Coolidge’s Senate Speech, it was this quote that lingered in my mind most prominently. Integrity is a major value that is discussed throughout Coolidge’s speech and a value that is becoming increasingly relevant as the world continues to grow, technology increases, and society becomes more corrupt. Integrity, in itself is a very important quality that a public servant must possess, in order to be an effective leader and in order to navigate through the trials and difficulties of modern day society.

In his more specific discourse on the nature of happiness, Aristotle comes to the conclusion that happiness lies in the contemplative life because “contemplation is the highest form of activity” (Aristotle 268). Aristotle views the activities of the mind to be the most sophisticated element of human life, and thus he believes the greatest good must come from the greatest aspect of life. In this view of happiness, Aristotle assumes that “happiness is an activity in accordance with virtue,” and that in order to live the contemplative life, one must also live a morally virtuous life (Aristotle 270). This connection between morality and contemplation coincides with Aristotle’s view of the superiority of contemplation over all other human activities. Aristotle asserts that contemplation in and of itself is separate from virtue, but that “in so far as he is a human being and a member of society [the contemplative man] chooses to act in accordance with virtue” (Aristotle 274). While there is much scholarly debate over the exact relationship between morally virtuous activity and contemplation, there is a sense of agreement that “a commitment to contemplative activity is a necessary feature of moral activity,” and thus contemplation is the “end of morally virtuous activity” (Bush 54). Essentially, the purpose of a virtuous activity is to achieve contemplation, which is happiness. As Aristotelian happiness is achieved by choosing to live a contemplative life and through contemplation itself, it is much different from the more materialistic 21st-century view of

Debate surrounding the question of citizenship, and the ensuing ideals about what makes a good life, has existed for as long as citizenship itself – providing many contrasting views and interpretations about the peak of human flourishing. Aristotle himself recognizes this fact, stating that “…there is often dispute about the citizen…since not everyone agrees that the same person is a citizen” (Politics 65). This is indicative, then, of the fact that there will be many different interpretations of human existence and its purpose; due to the fact that there is not even agreement on citizenry and what the ideas of it reflect for human life. The juxtaposition of two such views, those of Aristotle and Locke, allow thinkers to evaluate not only two

“Every skill and every inquiry, and similarly every action and rational choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good has been aptly described as that which everything aims. But it is clear that there is some difference between ends: some ends are activities, while others are products which are additional to the activities. In cases where there are ends additional to the actions, the products are by their nature better than activities.” (Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, as translated by Crisp, 2000, p. #3)

In The Republic, Plato writes about his thoughts on good, justice, and how we can achieve it. He starts off by stating that for human happiness and to live the best life philosopher-kings are needed. Not everyone can become a philosopher; certain people simply are non-philosophers also called lovers of sights and sounds. Plato makes the distinction between lovers of wisdom(philosophers) and lovers of sights and sounds clear using beauty as an example. Non-philosophers see ''fine tones and colours and forms and all the artificial products that are made out of them''(476b) but are unable to see or to understand absolute beauty. While lovers of wisdom will search for knowledge in everything and seek to find true beauty.

Initially, Aristotle claims that every human action is done for some greater goal. These final goals are referred to as “…the good achievable by action” (1097a 23). Those who practise painting for example, do so for the goal of becoming a great painter and the goal of obtaining good though this action. Yet through painting they will also attain happiness. Happiness becomes the greater goal, rather than becoming a good painter, through the action of painting. The final end, the final good, to all human actions is happiness. Aristotle argues that we do not choose actions such as honour and virtue for the sake of themselves, but for the sake of the happiness that they grant us (1097b 5). Now Aristotle also claims that happiness is the most desirable and worthwhile goal to pursue. He also places constraints on happiness, by stating that happiness is final and self-sufficient. (1097b 20). In this case, self-sufficiency is described as “lacking in nothing” (1097b 16), thereby explaining why happiness is so desirable. The finality of happiness simply reiterates the fact that happiness is the

How the idea developed from Aristotle to Enlightenment provides us with deeper insight into the European thinking. Early modern Venetian records, made by permanent ambassadors in Constantinople of the Ottomans, played an important role in shaping the idea of Oriental despotism, as Lucette Valensi argues. These texts were ‘reliable indicators of change both in the political discourse of that part of Europe and in the perceptions of the Ottoman state between the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries,’ because they were heavily detailed and accurate, containing information on the Ottoman army, navy, government and state, as well as manpower and resources. Although the ambassadors were not in favour of the Ottomans, there was a clear indication

Other things also play a role, as Aristotle recognizes: “happiness obviously needs the presence of external goods as well” (I 8 1099a30); and “[good fortunes] are required as complementary to a fully human life” (I 10 1100b5). In the next paragraphs, I will explain what Aristotle means by this.