The Writings of Mr. Aristotle
The writings of one distinguished philosopher, Mr. Aristotle, shall be discussed in this article. The author of this article felt that it was important to first define the philosopher in order to provide the parties involved in this paper a more comprehensive understanding of what the paper comprises before starting to write the works of this great philosopher. Thus, a philosopher is somebody who engages in philosophy, which involves conducting extensive research on a national level in fields unrelated to science or theology (Finardi, 2013). The word "philosophy" itself derives from the Greek adjective "philosophos," which simply means "lover of wisdom." Therefore, to achieve the aim of this paper, the writer will briefly give the description of Mr. Aristotle's biography and lastly discuss critically his contribution in the field of philosophy.
Aristotle Biography
This great philosopher Mr. Aristotle was born in the Stagira over the decades of years ago, 384 B.C. in Greece. At the age of 17 Mr. Aristotle commenced his education in Plato's Academy. Years later Mr. Aristotle completed his education successfully and started his first job at Alexander the Great. Mr. Aristotle continued to expand his professional ladder. This great philosopher spent most of his life in the city of Lyceum in Athens studying teaching and writing. The works of this great philosopher came to an end after he passed on 322 B.C.
Ideas of Mr. Aristotle
How does Aristotle incorporate the three kinds of goodness in his writings on ethics? What is good and bad about each kind, and what place does each play in excellence and the happy life?
Aristotle first discusses the three kinds of goodness, those external, those associated with the soul, and those associated with the body (Moed, 2012). Throughout his writings Aristotle brings up each of these various kinds of goodness in reference to the vast majority of his teachings regarding things such as virtue, justice, happiness, and friendship. Aristotle claims that people normally talk what is associated with their soul particularly what is good (Moed, 2012).
Mr. Aristotle goes on to explain that pleasure belongs to the soul, and thus the goodness of the soul accounts for all innate pleasures, and passions of an individual, leading to the ultimate end of happiness. Though good of the soul is considered the most governing, goods of the body encompass things such as good health and one's physical well-being, which are integral to attaining happiness. External goods are those things that likely have the least merit, as it only encompasses things that are not directly pertaining to the individual or his well-being, but merely his state of living in reference to society.
Each of these also has the potential to be bad, because desiring any of these goods in excess, can lead to vice. An excess of goods of the soul, body, or external can lead to such things such as self-obsession, health problems, and material obsession respectively. However, in moderation, and in the hands of excellent individuals, these goods lead to the ultimate end of ethical behavior, according to Aristotle, happiness.
What is Aristotle's purpose in writing this book?
What is Aristotle's purpose in writing this book? How does he answer Socrates' suggestion that virtue cannot be taught? Is ethics like math, which is teachable? What does Aristotle think human beings can be taught about virtue? How ought ethics to be taught?
In writing Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle attempts to outline an ethical system in which the final end of all human behavior is happiness. Aristotle discusses many things in his work, arguably one of the most important of which is virtue. According to Aristotle, "habit creates excellence of character (Willmatt, 2012). He further argues that virtue is an active condition, thus it must be habituated, and cannot occur naturally. Socrates claims that virtue simply cannot be taught, whereas Aristotle claims it is habituated. Though these seem like fairly similar claims, Socrates' suggestion does not allow for anyone to be taught virtue at all, whereas, Aristotle argues that 'sort of virtue is attached to pleasures and pains. Which I believe means that so long as someone can be taught as a child what to take pleasure and what to take pain from, they can be taught to be virtuous. In Aristotle's ethics, virtue and excellence are synonymous and thus if at a young age, excellence can be taught, then virtue is as well.
However, ethics is not like math, where it can be taught in a classroom setting. Ethics is centered on virtue, and virtue can only be taught in the sense of habituation, practicing over and over until one is excellent. Aristotle thinks that human beings can be taught the theory behind their virtue, but to actually achieve virtue is impossible without consistent habituation. Ethics ought to be taught at a young age, to make children aware of what to take pain and pleasure in, so that they understand what to actively do and avoid for the sake of virtue.
Book IX: Why is the friend another self?
Do we need friends to live a happy life? Do we choose friends or good things according to self-love, or not?
Aristotle begins Chapter Four of Book Nine by claiming that the things by which friendships are defined, claiming that they are related to one's own self, discussing what unifies friendship as opposed to the varieties between them. Friendship, as defined by Aristotle, as the person who respects himself and values herself / himself and whatever he/she does is for the benefit of him/herself (Van Gusteren, 2013).
By discussing the type of friendship that arises due to mutual goodness and alikeness in virtue, it becomes apparent that each individual in that sort of friendship would act for their friend as if their friend was an extension of themselves, thus I believe that the friend is another self. I do not believe that Aristotle explicitly states whether or not friends are a necessity to living a happy life, but he does argue, that friends and friendships that are another self tend to hardly be present in people of low character. Aristotle states, Aristotle's states that people with such kind of character do not typically enjoy themselves since their soul is victimized by the civil wars. (Finardi, 2013).
This heavily implies that though they may be able to live a happy life somehow, those of low character tend to despise themselves, and thus despise those in similar states, that would be their friends. Thus I believe that Aristotle means that those that are devoid of friends are unhappy, and thus in such a state that it is difficult to create friendships. I believe that we do choose friends according to self-love, as self-love, as previously stated, implies a love of those that share goodness and are both actively virtuous. However, as mentioned in Book Eight, not all friendships are based upon alikeness in virtue, which even those could be argued to be chosen due to self-love, as they are created for the purpose of being of some use or pleasure to the self. Would Aristotle consider choosing friends based off of usefulness or pleasure unethical, or merely not as important?
Book VIII: Why is friendship between people alike in excellence more long-lasting than pleasure or usefulness?
Why is there no justice among friends? Why is friendship a better model for ethical life than justice, according to Aristotle?
In the article of Nicomachen Ethics by Aristotle he discussed the virtue of friendship. The author Aristotle explains the virtue of friendship as people who have the common interest of helping each and that they share out their problems and seek solution together. They wish good things to each other he further retaliate that such kind of friendship last for long time (Van Gunsterean, 2013).
Friends that share the qualities of being good and share the same virtue will ultimately last longer than any friendship merely based off of pleasure or usefulness. Relationships that are based off of only pleasure or usefulness are essentially one sided, making them incidental friendships, as they are based entirely off of wanting something good from the other party, thus they tend to dissolve or wither once the usefulness or pleasure fades. There is no justice between friends, because as Aristotle explains, in respect to justice, equality is in accordance with whatever is observed consequently, in friendship equality is in respect to amount and also what is observed (Willmott, 2012).
In a situation regarding friendship, justice is not the same, as equality comes first to what is deserved. Aristotle does not necessarily believe that friendship in itself is a better model for ethical life, but rather that friendship akin to brotherhood is a better model for ethical life than justice. Aristotle claims that even though all friendships vary slightly, comrades and brothers hold the strongest relationships, and thus it is more terrible to cheat or hurt a comrade than anyone else. Thus, if all were to achieve brotherhood and community with all those that they interact with, the end result would be a much more ethical society. Why is it that Aristotle claims that there is no justice among friends, when it is simply a different type of justice?
References
Finardi, U. (2013). Correlation between journal impact factor and citation performance: An experimental study. Journal of informetrics, 7(2), 357-370.
Moed, H. F., (2012). Citation-based metrics are appropriate tools in journal assessment provided that they are accurate and used in an informed way. Scientometrics, 92(2), 367-376.
Willmott, M. A., Dunn, K. H., & Durance, E. F. (2012). The accessibility quotient: A new measure of open access.
Van Gunsteren, W. F. (2013). Die sieben Todsünden akademischen Handelns in der naturwissenschaftlichen Forschung. Angewandte Chemie, 125(1), 128-132.
Van Gunsteren, W. (2015). On the pitfalls of peer review. F1000Research, 4.
