Nicomachean Ethics focuses on Aristotle's overall idea of the Good and the lifestyle components that are necessary to achieve it. After reading these thoughts, it is obvious that the element of happiness is present throughout the entirety of the piece as an overarching factor; however, the concept of ignorance in actions is incorporated as well. The cliche 'ignorance is bliss' immediately comes to mind. When a person performs a certain action, or makes a distinct choice, it is likely that they are acting in a way that he or she believes best and will ultimately result in happiness, enjoyment and a 'good' life. But, if the person is misinformed or placed into an unknown situation, it is possible that actions will be made in ignorance because of the outstanding circumstances. Similarly, a man may believe that he is truly happy because he does not know of any possibilities that could potentially prove to be better. Therefore, when considering the idea of happiness, one should also look into the presence of ignorance for the two are oftentimes intertwined.
Regardless of race, age, or gender, happiness is a common goal that is constantly strived for amongst all people and is essential to achieving the Good. However, the feeling cannot simply be defined since "what constitutes happiness is a matter of dispute" (Rackham 11). Because of this, it is possible that no one can ever be truly happy as individual people may have their own opinion of what constitutes happiness and are unaware of anything beyond their own inspirations. Similarly, often times people believe that their desires, either tangible or not, will make them happy; but, "it frequently occurs that good things have harmful consequences" (Rackham 7). When attempting to attain happiness, it is nearly impossible to make choices that are not made in ignorance for many desires are within unknown territory, and actions must be taken despite a lack of information or potential outcomes. It is mentioned that, "Acting through ignorance...seems to be different from acting in ignorance" (Rackham 123). This is important to consider because it provides a kind of general set of guidelines in which it is all right for a person to behave in such a manner. For example. according to Aristotle, it is both acceptable and forgivable for a person to act ignorantly if it is 'through ignorance' because it is then likely that the thoughts behind the actions were affected by an outside condition, such as anger, and therefore not performed with malicious or idiotic intent.
Melissa-
ReplyDeleteI like the tone you interpreted from reading Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics." According to your writing, it seems you saw Aristotle as much more gracious and forgiving than the feeling I came away with after I finished the piece. As I was reading, I thought, "It would have been difficult to live back then." I probably would have had a tough time time keeping up with the social conventions and all the exceptions to the rules. With so many distinctions as to what was truly "voluntary" and what was "involuntary," it seems it would have been difficult to figure out when it was appropriate to forgive a friend and when standing by their side could have meant ostracism. Until I read your post, I thought it was much more likely than not that a person would end up being deemed foolish or ignorant.
I like how you wrapped up your writing, demonstrating that Aristotle was gracious (and (you didn't say this, but) self-promoting) in saying that so much is understandable and forgivable when (mankind) takes an action in the interest of being happy, because (since we don't lead the esteemed lives of pondering that Aristotle advocates), we're not truly in touch with what our dreams and inner desires really are.
I also thought that Aristotle's take on the weight that the concept of ignorance commands with regards to human beings making the "good" choice. He seems to put a lot of importance on the circumstance of every life situation, and that people are never as in control or informed as they may like, which in all honesty is very correct. People always make decisions that are not generally seen as "good" because of aspects like ignorance to outstanding factors or a coinciding consequence. What I don't think Aristotle factors in is that just as circumstance can push a persons hand in their actions, their are many different circles that can interpret those actions as good. His notion of the "Ideal Good" just does not come off as realistic. There is no possible way that every action or choice that a man or woman participates in has a definite good or definite bad. Acting "through" or even "in" ignorance cannot decide that an action was definitely good or bad. Most actions hold degrees of good and bad, and can be perceived by different people in different ways. I like that you brought up the importance of ignorance in Aristotle's discussion of "good." It really got me thinking.
ReplyDelete