Aristotle baffles me with his absolute language in Nicomachean Ethics. First he dives into the definition of goodness and/or pleasure. He seems to believe that there is one absolute good and one correct answer to be a good person. However, he then spreads the meaning of goodness into branches upon branches of endless possibilities until I have lost a concept never grasped: What is goodness? Or, at least, what does Aristotle think it is?
Later in Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle mentions three separate lives: "Life of Enjoyment" (13), "Life of Politics" (15), and "Life of Contemplation" (15). This brings me back to the topic of goodness. Which of these, I wonder, does Aristotle deem "good"? Can there be one without the other, or does a person deed components from all lives to be good? To be happy? I wonder this because of Aristotle's standpoint on who can live certain lives and who cannot. For example, a child may certainly enjoy himself, but cannot participate in politics (9). This leads to the question, is there a certain age when Aristotle believes a man can be good?
These questions may not be meant for connecting, and yet I am intent on forcing Aristotle's views to fit into a perfect puzzle so that they all agree and relate.
Jaylyn, I also attempted to focus in on Aristotle’s mention of the three different lives. After contemplated it for some time now, I have come to the most realistic decision I can: they are all related; however, a person cannot have one without the other two.
ReplyDeleteShorty after Aristotle introduces the “Life of Politics,” “Life of Contemplation” and “Life of Enjoyment,” he begins to explain his reasoning behind the three differentiated categories (15). This can be seen has he discusses how some of these sections can be applied to different people. For example, he says, “Men of refinement….think that the Good is honour—for this may be said to be the end of the Life of Politics” (15). If this is true, then it must be that the three lives are interconnected because in order to determine what the Good is, one must ‘contemplate’ their emotions and opinions in order to make a decision, and therefore ending any politics involved. Similarly, if a man achieves his idea of what the Good is, it is inevitable that he will most likely be enjoying his life at the time.
Jaylyn and Melissa, while reading Aristotle I honestly didn’t quite pick up on the three different lives as being interchangeable in any way, or even related. I find that Aristotle is very conscious in the fact that everyone is unlike in their own character. Rather than force connections between the three different lifestyles in consideration of “good” it is easier to view them as branches or an umbrella (to create a visual understanding) from the “Universal Good” he examines (17). Aristotle claims “things that come under a single Idea must be objects of a single science” which enables the notion of viewing the different lifestyles as different categories of the concept of “Universal Good” and look at the lifestyles as genres of discourse for people to attempt to strive towards the “Idea” of a “Universal Good” (19). Furthermore Aristotle presses time and time again that “good is not a general term corresponding to a single Idea” and in my opinion is it clear that is implying forcing connections will get you absolutely nowhere in pursuing the concept of good because of its diversity (23).
ReplyDelete