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. Aristotle argument continues, “goodness rather than honour is the end pursued in public life”. Perhaps here it can be said that ‘goodness’ is the unselfish pursuit …show more content…
Due to taking the Good Life to only be acting in accordance with goodness, this levels all lives, whether one is suffering or living in luxury, where in reality it is not the case that any life can be a Good Life if only one lives in accordance with goodness. However, it can be said that just because one suffers all their life does not mean they have to be unhappy though one feels that this is not what Aristotle is meaning to argue. Instead, one believes Aristotle to accept that suffering does not mean a bad life, however, this fact in itself means that goodness is not enough for a Good Life and that the true nature of the Good Life is not revealed in
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues that the human good is the soul’s activity that expresses virtue. Aristotle concludes this from an invalid argument. On the one hand I do agree that the activity expressing virtue is a requirement for the human good. But on the other hand, I insist that the human good is a state and not an action. By modifying this argument, I believe we can reach a new conclusion that will help us better understand what Aristotle meant by these concepts.
On the contrary with Aristotle, right off the bat he says that most people will not reach true happiness. When one knows off the top that they will not accomplish something, one of two things will happen. They will either give up or they will push or work even harder. The question then changes for Aristotle from what is happiness, to will enough people challenge themselves enough to reach for the impossible? It is those people that push themselves harder that will reach true happiness.
Inherently, not all people have the capability to live morally upright lives. Virtues are learned traits, and while a person may have a good disposition, his choices, which he makes based on learned information, affect the kind of life he lives. Therefore, there are just people and unjust people, as there are just actions and unjust actions. The ancient philosopher Aristotle wrote about an ideal city called “The Polis,” in which citizens lived a certain way in order to achieve a common good. Although Aristotle believed that everyone should live the good life (one of happiness), he also believed that in order to achieve the good life, people should get what they deserved, even if it meant injustice was a necessary consequence for some.
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book ll, he explains that virtue is a habit of right action, formed by acting rightly (Nicomachean Ethics, p. 71). What he means by this is that everyone has the chance to act virtuously, but we must for work at doing what is right. Aristotle thought we should be virtuous because if we live virtuously than we will have a better life over
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,
“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) Aristotle was the first philosopher who wrote a book on ethics titled, Nichomachean Ethics.
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?
Since “any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate virtue”(1098a15), a good performance of function (which is a display of goodness) is virtuous. For example, a good lyre player is a virtuous player. In the previous part, he concludes that function of humans is rational activity, or the soul acting in accordance to reason. In humans’ case, a good performance of rational activity is thus a display of virtue. For example, as morality is a part of rationale, the good performance of morality can lead an individual towards a virtuous and good life.
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.
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.
(“Sparknotes on Nicomachean Ethics”) which includes success, fulfilment and flourishing. He advocates the aggression of young adults to strive for higher social status and to pursue public office. Living with virtues would be an element which builds up our disposition and attains to happiness (1103a, 1171b). The virtuous soul promotes behaviours with rationality and aims for perfection and distinction (1098a). Serving in the public office not only could help others, but it also enriches our knowledge and benefits our soul.
In short knowing and doing are in the same line. In knowing the truth your virtues will ultimately be guided by this knowledge. The “telos” or ultimate goal of human life for Aristotle is to attain “happiness”. “Happiness” here is does not mean the common meaning which we use everyday but it is more synonymous to the war “eudaimonia” which means to be in a state of being that is in good spirit. This emphasis that happiness is not just a temporary thing but a permanent outlook on life which means that they only way for us to truly know whether we have had a happy life is when we die.
In other words, good life mean to me when life looks like a blessing than a burden. This essay aims to provide more than one answers about what does a good life mean? Human beings, since their apparition is often misled what it is really mean a good life. We have been seen on the television or magazines that having a good life means being rich or famous when many of them, in reality, are miserable by a problem that wouldn’t affect ordinary people.
Essential Virtues: Achieving a Good Life Man has always sought after what he deemed a “good life”. A good life is being able to achieve one’s goals, pursuit of happiness, or when life’s blessings outweigh the burdens. Virtues help guide one to become morally excellent and live a fulfilling life. A virtue can be a behavior, personality trait, or habit that affects one’s emotions, perceptions and choice in life.
So a good life can be understood in at least six ways. Having a good education can be considered as a factor to live a good life. Both Plato and Aristotle agree that a good education is a way to acquire virtue. Even though, they have a different view on how a person should be