Does human nature really exist? Is there such thing as life purpose? And how is happiness achieved? These are some of the question that has been puzzling philosophers since the beginning of time. In this essay I am going to explain how the Greek philosopher Aristotle and the more contemporary French philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre related to these questions. Let’s begin with discussing human nature. The concept itself is believed to have originated with Greek philosophers such as Socrates and Plato who first introduced the idea of ‘forms’ (by form they referred to the essences of all objects, the very thing that defines them, humans included, and without which the object in question would and could not be what it is) and linked that …show more content…
A God which is immaterial, infinite, eternal and the essence of all forms. The beginning of all causes (hence the ‘Unmoved’ reference). And although some of his view were later on shared by some on the major monotheistic religions such a Christianity and Judaism, he did not believe that God was involved with the affairs of humans but was merely an observer of creation and therefore of itself.
“But virtue, like Nature itself, is more accurate and better than any art; virtue therefore will aim at the mean; - I speak of moral virtue, as it’s moral virtue which is concerned with emotions and actions, and it is these which admit of excess and deficiency and the mean. Thus it is possible to go too far, or not go far enough, in respect of fear, courage, desire, anger, pity and pleasure and pain generally, and the excess and the deficiency are alike wrong; but to experience these emotions at the right times and on the right occasions and towards the right person and for the right causes and in the right manner is the mean of the supreme good, which is characteristic of virtue.” (Aristotle)
“Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement.” (Aristotle)
“… we always desire happiness for its own sake and never as a means to something else, whereas we desire honor, pleasure, intellect and every virtue, partly for their own sakes (for we should desire them independently of what might result from them)but
“Happiness is in the enjoyment of man’s chief good. Two conditions of the chief good: 1st, Nothing is better than it; 2nd, it cannot be lost against the will” (Augustine 264-267). As human
Aristotle argues that virtue, which is a trained faculty of habit, leads to happiness. This follows that the act of choosing a thing that makes a person good results in happiness. Equilibrium and moderation of virtues lead to happiness and contemplation, which involves discovering, and refining virtues assist individuals to be happy. In contrast, Mill provides that moral actions promote the achievement of happiness. Actions are right if they tend to promote happiness and wrong if they produce pain or suffering. Mill notes that the achievement of virtuous living can be considered happiness.
In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.
Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they’re the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed persons. The first person is the virtuous person, Aristotle believes that a virtuous person is a person that behaves in a highly well-mannered way. A virtuous person knows how to act as a mean within the deficiency (too little) and excess (too much). “Hence virtue is a sort of medial condition because it is able to aim at and hit the mean.” (2.6 1106b27-1106b28) The virtuous person often does things through habit and continuous practice rather than having someone teach them because it can’t be taught. “From this, it is also clear that none of the virtues of character comes about in you naturally, since nothing natural can be habituated to be otherwise.” (2.1 1103a18-1103a19) Virtuous persons don’t let things overcome who they truly are, meaning their attitudes are at an even level when it comes to pleasures and pains. Virtuous persons can’t let things get the best of them, which is why the mean is so important because it gives balance and clear judgement.
When talking about happiness and goodness, there must be an important quality present. According to Aristotle, people need to practice balance and moderation in their every day lives. Achieving this middle ground, or mean, translates into being virtuous in Aristotle’s mind. If virtue is present, so is its opposite vise. For every virtue, there are two vices. One vice is excessive while the other is deficiency. Courage works as a great example because it is virtuous. The excessive vise is recklessness and the
Mankind must by this time have acquired positive beliefs as to the effects of some actions on their happiness; and the beliefs which have thus come down are the rules of morality for the multitude, and for the philosopher until he has succeeded in finding better. That philosophers might easily do this, even now, on many subjects; that the received code of ethics is by no means of divine right; and that mankind have still much to learn as to the effects of actions on general happiness, I admit or rather earnestly maintain.
John Stuart Mill and Aristotle both address the idea of happiness as the goal of human life. They explain that all human action is at the foundation of their moral theories. Mill addresses the Greatest Happiness Principle, which is the greatest amount of pleasure to the least amount of pain. Similarly, Aristotle addresses happiness through the idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing. According to Aristotle, eudaimonia is happiness, it is the state of contemplation that individuals are in when they have reached actualized happiness. Also referred to as happiness or human flourishing, it is the ultimate goal of human beings. Happiness is “living well and acting well.” He explains that once general happiness becomes recognized as the moral standard, natural sentiment will nurture feelings that promote utilitarianism. According to Aristotle, happiness is a state of being. Both Mill and Aristotle agree that in order to attain true happiness, human beings must engage in activities that are distinct to humans and that make them happy. Aristotle’s idea of eudaimonia and human flourishing is a more compelling argument than Mill’s for happiness and the final end because Aristotle explains that the virtues bring human beings to happiness.
For most of us, achieving some state of Happiness is a core objective. Indeed, in a great many of the philosophical musings on the very purpose of our lives here on Earth will tend to focus on the importance of achieving happiness, of sharing happiness and of bringing happiness to others. It is therefore reasonable to propose the knee-jerk response that happiness is the end in and of itself. However, as Kant asserts, this is an incomplete understanding of our supposed purpose here. As the 18th Century German philosopher asserts, happiness lived without the principle of good will, can have the capacity to be a rather unsavory force. According to Kant, in fact, this concept of good will is a core determinant as to whether the characteristics by which we can be defined may be considered virtues or vices. Kant argues that this truth "holds with gifts of fortune; power, riches, honor, even health, and that complete well-being and contentment with one's condition which is called happiness make for pride and often hereby even arrogance, unless there is a good will to correct their influence on the mind and herewith also to rectify the whole principle of action and make it universally comfortable to its end." (Kant, p. 7) This principle underlies the initial rejection of the assumption that Happiness, however formulated, is the
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).
Therefore, happiness is the highest act of virtue because it is the only end in every action we preform. A person that preforms an action for the sake of being happy requires many steps to eventually reach the stage of happiness. When there are steps involved to reach happiness, then the action is preformed for the sake of something else and not in itself. Such as a person who wants to eat healthier because their end motive is to be happy. Therefore, the action is not preformed for the sake of just to eat healthy but to reach happiness. However, to become virtuous, a person will preform actions that make them virtuous with a firm and unchangeable character. It is a skill that is made through a habit, Aristotle states, “legislators make the citizens good by preforming habits in them”(NE, P.23), such as preforming acts of bravery. But, a brave person needs to find a balance because being too brave will lead to excess
In fact, however, the pleasures differ quite a lot, in human beings at any rate. For some things delight some people, and cause pain to others; and while some find them painful and hateful, others find them pleasant and lovable…But in all such cases it seems that what is really so is what appears so to the excellent person. If this is right, as it seems to be, and virtue, i.e., the good person insofar as he is good, is the measure of each thing, then what appear pleasures to him will also really be pleasures…and if what he finds objectionable appears pleasant to someone, that is not at all surprising: for human beings suffer many sorts of corruption and damage. It is not pleasant, however, except to those people in these conditions.
Now happiness, more than anything else, seems complete without qualification. For we always choose it because of itself, never because of something else. Honor, pleasure, understanding, and every virtue
Aristotle’s theory will be discussed in full length on his theory of virtue. Now Aristotle did believe in a multitude of theories that are all based off of virtue, but also the soul. To Aristotle, virtue is an excellence, which comes after happiness and achieving our final goal. When Aristotle talks about an individual’s final goal and excellence of that
“We are left alone, without excuse. This is what I mean when I say that man is condemned to be free” (Sartre 32). Radical freedom and responsibility is the central notion of Jean-Paul Sartre’s philosophy. However, Sartre himself raises objections about his philosophy, but he overcomes these obvious objections. In this paper I will argue that man creates their own essence through their choices and that our values and choices are important because they allow man to be free and create their own existence. I will first do this by explaining Jean-Paul Sartre’s quote, then by thoroughly stating Sartre’s theory, and then by opposing objections raised against Sartre’s theory.
The Doctrine of mean is essential to Aristotle’s virtue of ethics. Based off the doctrine of mean virtue is a mean state between extremes of excess and deficiency. Aristotle's Doctrine is teleological. Theoretical reason is important to Aristotle, but even theoretical reason can be done to excess and is reflected in his doctrine. Aristotle talked about this as an “intermediate relative to us” and to find the state of character that “correct reason” requires. The main aspects of the doctrine are that virtue like health is produced and preserved by avoiding extremes. The next aspect is that virtue is a related to us. Third, each virtue is a mean between two flaws, one of excess and one that lacks in substance.