Through the act of possessing or controlling something human kind has shown ownership of things in many different ways. Ownership is an interesting idea, that stems from the beginning of time when the strongest cave man took what he wanted, leading to the smartest lawyer filing the best lawsuit to attain his goals. Whether because of the lawyers paper work or the neanderthals biceps, ownership is a concept that takes certain strains of thought to understand, and decide the worthiness of this endeavor. Ownership of the self however is a transcendental idea that is crucial to being human. The thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, and Sartre, argue different points involving the benefits of ownership in developing the self. First that ownership of tangible goods is detrimental to character, second that ownership is developing to morals, and finally that ownership includes things beyond the physical realm. Independently, I believe in the thoughts expressed by Plato, in the way …show more content…
Stating material things give moral character an opportunity to develop, Aristotle argues his students previous point. It could be said that through the hard work given to achieve the tangible goods of this earth, a character could develop, along with traits that are eternal and meaningful. An appreciation and gratitude for the things in this life is a trait that serves the owner well in making relationships by virtue of the humility associated with it. With cognitive attention to the judgement of Aristotle, the importance of material items make an impact on human development. Paired with the thought of Sartre, it is clear that when skills are obtained through hard work, that may involve obtaining possessions, the human soul is increased. The actual acquiring of things do little for the human development, but the physical work put in increases the developing of moral
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.
The identification of the soul parts as the contributors and main elements for the function of the most important human activity (reasoning), marks the inevitable psychological asset of Aristotle’s thinking; specifically, the classification of human virtues derives from the analysis of the soul’s types, attributing to human beings the ability of reasoning which distinguishes human beings from the rest of ‘natural bodies.’ Indeed, reason exists in two parts of the soul, namely the rational and the appetitive (desires or passions), and so it expresses within two different virtues, the moral and intellectual ones. Moral virtues satisfy the impulses of the appetitive part and the intellectual virtues hav...
It is one sad existence, to live and die, without discovering, what could have been. The question is often asked, what is the meaning of life? Or even, what is the purpose? There is no clear answer, and yet there is a search in every moment, every breath, and every corner, for a minute hint. In a societal setting, identity is merely determined by the amount of tangible things owned. Society places the ideology on individuals that those who own the most tangible things are above others. An individual can trump all those societal values by owning the self. This brings equality to all, and levels the playing field. This has been true throughout history, however behind all of this, there are individuals learning to conquer themselves. It begs the question, what defines a person, the physical or the metaphysical? There is obviously a compelling relationship between ownership and the sense of self or identity. But, is it ownership that determines the sense of self or is it perhaps, that the sense of self determines ownership. The
ABSTRACT: I show that Aristotle’s ethics is determined by his notion of communities which are in turn determined by hundreds of themes in his Topics-sameness and difference, part and whole, better than, etc. These are tools for all dialectical investigations into being and action (viz. Top. I.11 104b2) for they secure definitions and get at essences of things or their aspects. Reflecting structures of being and good, they allow Aristotle to arrive at objective reality and good. Being tools for all investigations into being and values, we are not free to reject them, nor can we have any discourse or claim to reality or good. I show how permutating the combination of these topics allows for subsequent ‘sub-communities’ which are common to some. I offer an Aristotelian explanation for the origin of these topics and conclude that ethics is determined by communities, which in turn are determined by education.
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.”
To achieve this topic, I have sectioned my paper into three main sections, in which I have subsections supporting. In the first section, I will provide much information about Aristotle and his beliefs in virtue and obtaining happiness. Using information from his book of ethics I will provide examples and quote on quote statements to support his views. In the second section, I will provide my agreements as to why I relate and very fond of Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics. In the third section, I will provide research as to why there are such objections to Aristotle’s book of ethics, and counter act as to why I disagree with them. Lastly I will conclude much of my and as well as Aristotle’s views on ethics and why I so strongly agree with this route of ethics for humans.
...tional elements of the person. Aristotle tries to explain what this harmony consists in by exploring the psychological foundations of moral character. A person is good if he has virtues and lacks vices. A series of good choices can change a vicious character if he becomes virtuous by performing virtuous acts. Aristotle says, "We become just by performing just acts, and temperate by performing temperate acts" (N.E.18-19). In order to perform virtuous acts virtuously “the agent also must be in a certain condition when he does them; in the first place he must have knowledge, secondly he must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sakes, and thirdly his actions must proceed from a firm and unchangeable character" (N.E.30-33). Teaching also provides knowledge of why certain acts are virtuous to people with the right habits, the well-brought-up (N.E. 2-17).
Gakuran, Michael. "Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy | Gakuranman • Adventure First." Gakuranman Adventure First RSS. N.p., 21 May 2008. Web.
According to Aristotle, ownership of tangible goods can help to develop one’s moral character. I agree with his philosophy. Owning an object or other goods helps one to discover certain virtues, such as responsibility or purpose in caring for what you own. All objects you own, you must acquire, either through purchasing or through gift. Depending on how you acquire the object, defines its value, either monetary or sentimental. These different values help to develop one’s sense of self, as one grows as a person and develops one’s moral character. By learning these important skills, such as responsibility and purpose, one has a better understanding of oneself.
Without this “equipment,” he says “it is impossible or not easy for someone” to do what is noble. In agreement, to be a great-souled man requires one to also be concerned with external goods—albeit in measured ways. The great-souled man is concerned with “wealth, political powers as well as all good and bad fortune.” These external instruments correspond with honor, yet they are not great honors so their presence or lack thereof does not cause much grievance to the great-souled man. In fact, honor, itself is deemed the greatest external good. More importantly, Aristotle introduces the natural segment of the conversation by inferring that the “wellborn” perhaps deem themselves superior and therefore worthy of honor. He makes the same point about those who are not by nature superior, but are deemed so by convention. They are the ones who possess political power or wealth and also view themselves superior and worthy of honor. Although these external prosperities bring honor to one, the person who is honored due to his goodness is as a result more honorable. Those who are both good and possess external goods are then deemed to be the truly great-souled so long as they maintain the middle term and discharge in measured
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
To achieve complete happiness, Aristotle says that we need three kinds of goods. The first of these goods is that of the soul, which is moral character and practical wisdom. Aristotle explains that in order to maintain the soul, we must also have external and bodily goods. He says we need external goods such as friends, food, and some money; without these, we are not able to flourish. Furthermore we need goods of the body, which are the basic supplies for health, strength, and beauty. According to Aristotle, if we have all these we are able to live our life to the fullest, which means to live well and to do things well (NE 1098b20). Particular to this paper I will focus on why Aristotle thinks external goods are necessary for happiness. Aristotle says, “He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance period but throughout a complete life” (NE 1101a15). It is Aristotle’s explicit view that virtue is necessary but not sufficient for happiness. He views external and bodily goods as instruments deemed necessary to live a virtuous life. He says, “it is impossible or not easy for someone without equipment to do what is noble: many things are done through instruments, as it were—through friends, wealth, and political power. Those who are bereft of some of these (for example, good birth, good children, or beauty) disfigure their blessedness, for a person who is altogether ugly in appearance, or of poor birth, or solitary and childless cannot really be characterized as happy; and he is perhaps still less happy, if he should have altogether bad children or friends or, though he didn’t have good ones, they are dead. Just as we said then, [happiness] seems to require some such external prosperity in addition” (NE 1099b5). This quote contradicts in many ways with how Aristotle previously described happiness. Aristotle says happiness is
Throughout the history of philosophy, there have been many fundamental disagreements on the matter of human nature versus human condition. When we contemplate human nature, consider the distinguishing characteristics of humans, including ways of thinking, feeling and acting, that humans tend to have naturally and independently of the influence of culture. However, when we contemplate the human condition, we consider what things encompass the unique features of being human including the meaning of life, the search for gratification and the awareness regarding the inescapability of death as unalterable parts of humanity that are innate to human. While many philosophers have deliberated these matters, three philosophers who had drastically differing views on the topics were Socrates, Hobbes, and Sartre. To compare these philosophers we must first consider their views on human nature versus human condition, after which we can compare their ways of thinking as they relate to moral theory.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
Life should be lived in equilibrium. Even nice possessions, tracked or accomplished without modesty, can become a cause of misfortune and distress. This idea is found repetitively in the texts of philosophers. Many of them perceived moderation as the answer to most of life’s mysteries. When people live beyond reasonable means, they become overwhelmed and tend to be dealt negative consequences. For this reason measuring balance and harmony, in the right proportions makes life worth living. In turn, when excess is given the opportunity to take over this balance, acquiring a life worth living becomes