One of the most fundamental questions of moral philosophy as it applies to our everyday lives is the relationship between truth and philosophy, and as such, it is appropriate that Plato, as one of the founders of Western philosophy, attempts to deal with them. Before one can fully comprehend how Plato understands this interconnection, it is imperative to understand how Plato understands truth and happiness as separate entities—that is, what is truth and what is happiness? Plato never explicitly declares what the truth actually is; rather, the closest he comes is describing characteristics of the truth (much in the same way he flirts with defining justice until the Republic). One of the central characteristics of truth is its singular nature. There is only one truth, for Plato, which allows for the possibility that it could be found in many forms, all connected by one thread. Happiness, an idea with which most of us believe ourselves to be much more familiar, is supposedly derived from performing one’s duty, as stated in the Republic. Having proceeded in this manner, it then becomes simpler to qualify how Plato sees the relationship between truth and happiness. For the philosopher, there is one truth and there is only one way to find happiness; as such, truth and happiness in some ways become subsumed within each other: happiness, the attainment of which is most often the goal of everyday life, is found in truth.
Proceeding in the same fashion with Plato’s successor, Aristotle, takes us to a slightly different conclusion owed to the fact that Aristotle does not agree with Plato’s view of truth, approaching it with a more dogmatist perspective, or with Plato’s idea of happiness, which he criticizes as too centered on th...
... middle of paper ...
...l as integral to and subject to the necessities of the state. Truth and happiness do not arise from acceptance of one’s place as a manual laborer or merchant but from a life of contemplation and reflection. In this sense, it is as if a modern reader has to choose between the lesser of two evils: Plato, with his intrusive view of happiness and the state, and Aristotle, with his very aristocratic idea of happiness and truth. Aristotle does not believe that individual happiness should have to be sacrificed for the good of the community. In this sense, the two great philosophers diverge on the primary unit of political life. For Plato, the community and its will reign supreme over the lives of its inhabitants. For Aristotle, the individual and the family are the necessary, constituent parts of a greater polis, an idea he more explicitly articulates in the Politics.
Aristotle accepts that there is an agreement that this chief good is happiness, but that there is a disagreement with the definition of happiness. Due to this argument, men divide the good into the three prominent types of life: pleasure, political and contemplative. Most men are transfixed by pleasure; a life suitable for “beasts”. The elitist life (politics) distinguishes happiness as honour, yet this is absurd given that honour is awarded from the outside, and one’s happiness comes from one’s self. The attractive life of money-making is quickly ruled out by Aristotle since wealth is not the good man seeks, since it is only useful for the happiness of something else.
Philosophy can best be described as an abstract, scholarly discourse. According to the Greek, philosophia refers to ‘love of knowledge’. This is an aspect that has involved a great number of clever minds in the world’s history. They have sought to deal with issues surrounding the character of veracity and significantly exploring the endeavors to respond to these issues. This paper seeks to compare and contrast the philosophy of Aristotle with that of Confucius. This is with a clear concentration on the absolute functions of these philosophies and how they take care of the particular responsibility of a person and the broader society and the resultant effects on societies (Barnes, 1995).
Simply defined, happiness is the state of being happy. But, what exactly does it mean to “be happy?” Repeatedly, many philosophers and ideologists have proposed ideas about what happiness means and how one attains happiness. In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of happiness is driven more in the eye of ethics than John Stuart Mill. First, looking at Mill’s unprincipled version of happiness, I will criticize the imperfections of his definition in relation to ethics. Next, I plan to identify Aristotle’s core values for happiness. According to Aristotle, happiness comes from virtue, whereas Mill believes happiness comes from pleasure and the absence of pain. Ethics are the moral principles that govern a person’s behavior which are driven by virtues - good traits of character. Thus, Aristotle focuses on three things, which I will outline in order to answer the question, “what does it mean to live a good life?” The first of which is the number one good in life is happiness. Secondly, there is a difference between moral virtues and intellectual virtues and lastly, leading a good life is a state of character. Personally and widely accepted, happiness is believed to be a true defining factor on leading a well intentioned, rational, and satisfactory life. However, it is important to note the ways in which one achieves their happiness, through the people and experiences to reach that state of being. In consequence, Aristotle’s focus on happiness presents a more arguable notion of “good character” and “rational.”
One of Aristotle’s most influential works, Nicomachean Ethics, lays claim that there is an actual, material definition of what happiness is and ways one may possibly attain the greatest good in life, which is ultimately to be happy. Furthermore, Aristotle distinguishes that there is a difference between higher and lower pleasures that one ought to seek in life. He believed that the highest good one has the possibility of achieving is grasping true virtue. In Aristotle’s eyes, there are different types of virtue; intellectual virtue is learned from the teachings of society, whereas moral virtue is discovered as result of our habits.
Both Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics deal with the issue of justice. In both of these pieces of writings, the authors are trying to determine what is the perfect city, and how justice plays a role in the city, and in turn how justice is present in both society and individuals. While some similarities may be present between Aristotle and Socrates’s thinking, they approach the situation completely differently. Socrates first builds what would be a perfect city to him. He then examines what makes the city perfect and relates it to the individual. On the other hand, Aristotle looks at the relationships between humans that exists in society and then looks for those relationships within the human soul.
Plato vs. Aristotle How do we explain the world around us? How can we get to the truth? Plato and Aristotle began the quest to find the answers thousands of years ago. Amazingly, all of philosophy since that time can be described as only a rehashing of the original argument between Plato and Aristotle. Plato and Aristotle's doctrines contrast in the concepts of reality, knowledge at birth, and the mechanism to find the truth.
We have two great philosophers, Plato and Aristotle. These are great men, whose ideas have not been forgotten over years. Although their thoughts of politics were similar, we find some discrepancies in their teachings. The ideas stem from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle. Plato based moral knowledge on abstract reason, while Aristotle grounded it on experience and tried to apply it more to concrete living. Both ways of life are well respected by many people today.
For over two thousand years, various philosophers have questioned the influence of art in our society. They have used abstract reasoning, human emotions, and logic to go beyond this world in the search for answers about arts' existence. For philosophers, art was not viewed for its own beauty, but rather for the question of how art and artists can help make our society more stable for the next generation. Plato, a Greek philosopher who lived during 420-348 B.C. in Athens, and Aristotle, Plato’s student who argued against his beliefs, have no exceptions to the steps they had to take in order to understand the purpose of art and artists. Though these two philosophers made marvelous discoveries about the existence of art, artists, and aesthetic experience, Plato has made his works more controversial than Aristotle.
Throughout The Republic, Plato constructs an ideal community in the hopes of ultimately finding a just man. However, because Plato’s tenets focus almost exclusively on the community as a whole rather than the individual, he neglects to find a just man. For example, through Socrates, Plato comments, “our aim in founding the
Aristotle once stated that, “But if happiness be the exercise of virtue, it is reasonable to suppose that it will be the exercise of the highest virtue; and that will be the virtue or excellence of the best part of us.” (481) It is through Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics that we are able to gain insight into ancient Greece’s moral and ethical thoughts. Aristotle argues his theory on what happiness and virtue are and how man should achieve them.
... state. In Plato's argument for the ideal state, the fundamental bonds which hold together his republic are unity and harmony. He explains how the just state is held together by the unity of each individual in each social class, and harmony between all three social classes. Plato explains how the ideal state must have citizens who are united in their goals. It is not the happiness of the individual but rather the happiness of the whole which keeps the just state ideal. At the same time, Plato argues that there must be harmony within the individual souls which make up the state. The lack of unity and harmony leads to despotism through anarchy which eventually arises within a democracy. Plato makes a clear argument, through The Republic, that without the unity and harmony of the individual and the state there can be no order and therefore there can be no ideal state.
Aristotle rejects the idea of universal happiness by explaining how Plato does not incorporate the large number of variants. Aristotle believes that good is not a single, common universal, because what it is to be good is particular to the essence of the individual. One might also argue that other common factors associated with happiness were wealth, pleasure, knowledge, and honor. Aristotle disagrees and found each of these limited to the notion of the good of man. Some benefits that may motivate them to seek better opportunities within their career may be the thought of money bringing happiness and also they will practice living the good life. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations. The general idea that happiness is a result of the wealth is skewed from reality. Wealth is a means to happiness, not actual happiness, one who is wealthy, but is unable to actually use the money is not happy. Aristotle feels the good for man is something that is not dependent on anything else, so being wealthy is not something desirable. Happiness is not pleasurable sensations that can be gained or lost, it is what we seek when acting and is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one
Greek philosophers Aristotle and Plato were two of the most influential and knowledgeable ancients in our history. Their contributions and dedication to science, language and politics are immensely valued centuries later. But while the two are highly praised for their works, they viewed several subjects entirely differently, particularly education practices, and human ethics and virtue.
I argue that Plato's psychological theories are motivated by concerns he had about moral theory. In particular, Plato rejects the modern account of rationality as the maximization of subjectively evaluated self-interest because, had he adopted such an account, his theory of justice would be subject to criticisms which he holds are fatal to the contractarian theory of justice. While formulating a theory to remain within ethical constraints sometimes violates the canons of scientific theorizing, Plato avoids this mistake.
Happiness can be viewed as wealth, honour, pleasure, or virtue. Aristotle believes that wealth is not happiness, because wealth is just an economic value, but can be used to gain some happiness; wealth is a means to further ends. The good life, according to Aristotle, is an end in itself. Similar to wealth, honour is not happiness because honour emphases on the individuals who honour in comparison to the honouree. Honour is external, but happiness is not. It has to do with how people perceive one another; the good life is intrinsic to the...