In what ways does Aristotle present the human being? In this paper I will interpret how Aristotle understands the human being. In the first part of this paper I will explain the concept of the human telos. In the second part I will present how Aristotle defines knowledge the four causes in his theory. In the third part I will round off the idea of a human being according to Aristotle. In the fourth part I will explain the four causes in Aristotle’s theory. Finally, I will disclose with two types of virtues presented in the theory.
In Aristotle’s theory the notion of human telos can be translated varyingly as end, goal, or purpose. According to Aristotle, we as humans have a telos which our goal is to fulfill. This telos is based on our uncommonly human capacity for rational thought. In Aristotle’s view humans who have a telos based on rationality leads to his conclusion that contemplation is the highest human good. Aristotle proposes a method through which the human telos can be determined, and that is by meeting three specific criteria. Whatever it is the human telos may be, it must be; attainable, meaning it may be achievable by human action. Aristotle did not mean human action as a simple action done because you are human but, he noticed that a human action is one that is unique and distinctive to humans only, which refers to thinking. Secondly, it must be self sufficient, which essentially states that when isolated it lacks for nothing else. Aristotle distinguishes that the telos is what must be self sufficient rather than the human being itself. That is because humans are always in need of external necessities. A human cannot does not have the ability to be isolated and for the human to not lack anything else. Thirdly it must...
... middle of paper ...
...to being. The final cause explains the end or purpose it serves. Natural objects are different from artificial objects in that they have an internal source of change. All causes in change in artificial objects are found outside the objects themselves, but natural objects can cause from within.
Furthermore, Aristotle emulates that the natural world consist of reality. Aristotle refers to the natural world as a cosmos, meaning an ordered universe. Where there is order there is intelligibility. Laws of nature exist and the most constitutional law of nature would have to be law of causality, which is the basic law of the universe, where nothing deserts cause and effect. In Aristotle’s explanations from his text he made no distinction as to what something is to why something is. Every action done is for a particular reason, which therefore makes the universe purposive.
Aristotle 's great-souled man is not only an inaccurate depiction of greatness of soul, honour, perfect virtue and human excellence, but also a hypocritical, short-tempered and insensitive human being. Aristotle describes the great-souled man as being the ultimate person but as Fetter points out in Aristotle’s Great-Souled Man: The Limited Perfection of the Ethical Virtues, we see that there are many flaws in his account. This article looks at the contradictory statements being made about Aristotle’s great-souled man by loyal readers of his works, other philosophers and metaphysicians before Aristotle’s time who seem to have a sense for the worth of honour. We see that nearly all of Aristotle’s statements regarding the great-souled man can
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
Before beginning to understand how Aristotle is applicable, his viewpoint must be examined, such as his version of voluntary action. As he says in Book III of Nichomachean Ethics “…the terms ‘voluntary’ and ‘involuntary’ are used with reference to the moment of action…because the initiative in moving the parts of the body which act as instruments rests with the agent himself” (p.53). So, a voluntary action is one about which we have power. Such as, what to eat in the morning, brushing teeth or even life altering decisions about jobs and marriage. Most of our everyday actions are voluntary, since we do not often act outside our realm of power.
I chose to write about Aristotle and his beliefs about how the virtuous human being needs friends from Book VIII from Nicomachean Ethics. In this essay I will talk about the three different kinds of friendship that (Utility, Pleasure, and Goodness) that Aristotle claims exist. I will also discuss later in my paper why Aristotle believes that Goodness is the best type of friendship over Utility or Pleasure. In addition to that I will also talk about the similarities and differences that these three friendships share between one another. And lastly I will argue why I personally agree with Aristotle and his feelings on how friendship and virtue go hand in hand and depend on each other.
3. The human function is unique to only humans themselves. Aristotle does not seem to consider that unique human features could simply be superfluous; he simply states as a goal that he is looking for a unique function.
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
Aristotle begins his ethical account by saying that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and every choice, is thought to aim for some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (line 1094a1). Though some things might produce higher good than others, Aristotle looks for the highest good, which he says we must “desire for its own sake” and our actions are not decided on some other goal beyond this good itself (line 1094a20-25).[1] This highest good is then realized to be happiness (line 1095a16-20).
Aristotle’s theory of natural law, discussed in Niocmachean Ethics, is mainly teleological because he focuses on the end of all our actions, and how they should lean to happiness. He believed that there were four causes to every object in the world including humans. These were the, material cause – out of what the object was composed of, the efficient cause – what is recognized as being part of the object, the formal cause – the purpose, end, goal or aim of the object. For example, the material cause of a spoon would be metal, the efficient cause would be its shape and structure, the formal cause would be a factory and the final cause would be to use for eating. For Aristotle, the final cause was the most important for humans because it focuses...
Gakuran, Michael. "Aristotle’s Moral Philosophy | Gakuranman • Adventure First." Gakuranman Adventure First RSS. N.p., 21 May 2008. Web.
Modern sciences have either directly emerged from philosophy or are very closely related to multiple philosophical questions. Understanding philosophy, as well as the way problems are addressed by philosophers, is the key to understanding science as we know it today and in the future. There are as many definitions of philosophy as there are philosophers – perhaps there are even more. Philosophy is said to be the mother of all disciplines. It is also the oldest of all disciplines and has given a rise to modern science, both social and natural conclusions. After three millennia of philosophical discourse and disagreement, it is extremely unlikely that we will reach an exact consensus. My thoughts are that a philosopher is basically a person who engages in the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with the intention of improving or reconstituting them; this is otherwise known as the study of philosophy.
In this essay we will discuss and analyze Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean. This topic area can be found in Book II, page 888, 6—15, through 890, 25. The purpose for Aristotle touching on this subject matter was to discern the states of character which are virtuous from those which are not. By this, I mean he is attempting to categorize which virtues are causal of a human “to be in a good state and to perform their functions well”(888—15). In order to keep this paper orderly and comprehensible, we will work in chronological order through Aristotle’s variety of premises and conclusions which lead to his main idea which is ––––––––––––.
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that all things, human beings included, have a good, a purpose or end, which it is their nature to fulfill”. This helps one understand Aristotle’s way of thinking, and provides insight to the basis of his theories. A common theory explored by Aristotle is the Ethics of Virtues, and how to practice them. A theory included in Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics is the unity of all the virtues, and in order to be virtuous, one must exhibit all the virtues. One of these virtues being practical wisdom, or Phronesis.
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.
I agree with Aristotle in the thought that man’s telos is to acquire knowledge and that our inherent human nature is to be “happy.” However, I believe that human nature is driven by a desire to find the answer to one question: what is the meaning of life? I believe that through everything we do, whether it seems like we are learning or not, we are being taught more and more about the world and our purpose in it. Striving to put everything together and creating a sense of understanding of the question “why” leads us to behave and act the way that we do. Although finding an answer is an unattainable goal in a human’s lifetime, the act of living out their lives in a way that was constantly questioning and searching for the meaning of our existence is enough to achieve total happiness.
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.