In his “Mathnawi,” he says: “If love’s pulse does not beat within a man let him be Plato, he is but an ass. To Rumi, growth, evolution, assimilation and unity in this world are manifestations of the form of love. He says, “If there had not been love,” “there would have not been any existence. Had it not been for pure love’s sake, how should there have been any reason for the creation of heavens”. The fundamental difference between the two is that Plato approaches reality through rational inquiry and regards love as mediator between the two worlds.
The important in Aristotle life is the mind and soul is the first intelechy of the body because it is main course ‘cause and principle’ of the body, the realization of the body. So can might put it like this , “The mind is the purposeful functioning of the nervous system. In this topic quiet different strand in the fabric of Aristotle skill thinking, and supplements what we can learn about him from his will. In addition, the good things that what we enjoy is Aristotle like to care wealth and health because have no value if our soul is not good. By experiencing the same emotion of audience is sort of ‘cleansing of the soul’ can through communication of emotion in the work of art.
If we follow this line of thinking there must be a superordinate good that all actions ultimately seek. Aristotle sums this up writing, “Suppose, then, that the things achievable by action have some end that we wish for because of itself… Clearly, this end will be good, that is to say, the best good” (1094a 18-22). Moreover, the existence of a superordinate good does beg the question, of what exactly this good is; the next premise of Aristotle’s argument addresses this very question. As put by Aristotle, “Now happiness, more than anything else, seems complete without qualification. For we always choose it because of itself’ (1097a 37-1097b
Aristotle is the greatest philosopher of antiquity. According to the breadth of his influence on philosophical and scientific thought of antiquity, the Middle Ages and modern times, Aristotle is the figure of exceptional importance. This is not only the breadth of scientific interests of the scientist (a legacy of Aristotle covers the entire spectrum of scientific issues – from global to private philosophy of natural science and humanities), but mostly a special mold of his thoughts, in which subtle analysis is combined with a convincing systematization of concepts and categories (Aristotle and Roberts, 1984). Aristotle (384-322 BC) a great Greek philosopher and scientist, a student of Plato, the founder of the Peripatetic school (Adler, 1997).
In this essay, I will be discussing Aristotle’s conception of the “good life” which he outlined in the Nicomachean Ethics. As we will see, the “good life” for man according to Aristotle is one where we perform the particular activity which is distinctly ours and guides us towards eudaimonia – sometimes translated as ‘happiness’ or ‘well-being’. He shows us how the other conflicting depictions of the ‘good life’ are misguided, and how we should aim for a life of reason. First, however, I will discuss briefly what Aristotle meant by the term ‘good’ and then move on to how he arrived at the conclusion on human happiness. Aristotle believes that the ‘good life’ for a particular organism depends on what that organism is and the conditions it requires
As such, he found the soul of a person to be far superior to their physical body because the organic material that decays after death is no competition for the eternal structure of a human. Plato separates three different kinds of souls that act as levels. On the top, there are gold souls, followed by silver and bronze. Evidently, gold souls are thought to be those of philosophers and only the top golden guardians of a polis have the true ability to achieve happiness. This is because gold souls are not concerned with the basic comforts of that of a bronze, and are substantially fuller in the aspects of knowledge than the silver.
This position of Hobbes brings him in direct confrontation with Aristotle, Stoics, Epicureans, Aquinas and the like. The most important turning point in the history of happiness arises at this junction when Hobbes equates felicity or happiness with the ‘obtaining of those things which a man from time to time desireth’ thus confining the concept of happiness to objective and materialistic
This final end is what Aristotle means by the chief good. The chief good is good for its own sake and all other goods are means. Aristotle purposes that happiness is the chief good. It makes since if we think about it. Happiness is desirable, I can’t use happiness to achieve any
Instead of focusing on consequences, deontological ethics focus on duties and obligation: things we ought to do regardless of the consequences. While utilitarian ethics focuses on producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number, deontological ethics focuses on what makes us worthy of happiness. For Kant, as for the Stocis and other who emphasize duty, we are worthy of happiness only when we do our duty. As Kant explained, morality “is not properly the doctrine of how we are to make ourselves happy but of how we are to become worthy of happiness.” For Kant, morality is not a “doctrine of happiness” or set of instructions on how to become happy. Rather, morality is the “rational condition of happiness”
Second, in the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle applies this principle to discover the end of human beings, arguing that humans, as natural, aim at some specific highest good for humans, which he defines as happiness—virtuous, rational, satisfactory activity (1097a15–1098a15). The teleology of natural objects and a complex virtuous happiness as the end of human beings will figure prominently in later natural law formulations, particularly those of Aquinas. Third, in the Politics, Aristotle argues that living in a political organization is entirely natural for humans. In fact, nature implants in us a social instinct and we can tell by the fact that humans are not individually
Aristotle ultimately describes that humans are superior creatures and can reason like no other creature. Therefore, he concluded that a great telos of humans is the ability to reason. He bases his definition of reason on the conclusion that humans are more superior to all other species. This superior species conclusion is based on three different principles of humans;they have the ability to determine what is right and what is wrong, the ability to think rationally, and finally acting upon what we feel is the best solution. He builds upon this idea of reason by discussing how an individual should try to find the “middle grounds” of every scenario by taking traits and looking at one extreme and comparing with the other and finding the trait that would be in the average of both of those two ideas (like the mathematical idea of adding all the integers up and dividing them by the number of variables).
That is only a small portion of what he did and is still a lot to accompish for just a normal man. He made our country better and tried his very best to make the people happy. He was selfless and caring. The final reason why Thomas Jefferson was the strongest President to live was because he made a huge impact on our society. According to the article, He impacted the educational systems of the growing country.