Remember, you don't have to respond directly to my questions (but some of them will be on the exam, so you should in anyt case look for the texts that address them. If you can come up with relevant comments on your own, or additional discussion questions, please do.
Aristotle's "happiness" is flourishing, a life of virtuous rationality or eudaimonia. He differed sharply from his teacher Plato. See Existential Comics, for instance...
Aristotle-LHP 2. Rec: FL 3-4. HWT Sections 1-3
In CoPhi it's time again for Aristotle. A couple of years ago I talked about him in the Honors Fall Lecture Series [slideshow*]... and noticed some affinity between Aristotle and Socrates, maybe more than between Socrates and his supposed devotee Plato... (continues)
==
LHP 2
1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
2. What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by The School of Athens? Whose side are you on, Plato's or Aristotle's?
3. What is eudaimonia, and how can we increase our chances of achieving it, and in relation only to what? Do you think you've achieved it?
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
FL
5. What did Sir Walter Raleigh help invent (other than cigarettes) that contributed to "Fantasyland" as we know it today? Was he a "stupid git," as the Beatles song says?
6. What was western civilization's first great ad campaign? Does advertising and the constant attempt to sell things to people have a negative impact on life in the USA?
7. What did Sir Francis Bacon say about human opinion and superstition? Do you ever attempt to overcome your own confirmation bias?
8. Which early settlers are typically ignored in the mythic American origin story? Also: what about the early "settlers" who were brought here against their wills and enslaved?
9. What had mostly ended in Europe, but not America, by the 1620s, and what did the Puritans think would happen "any minute now"? Why do you think people keep making this mistake?
HWT
10. What is pratyaksa in classic Indian philosophy, and how does the Upanishads say to seek it?
11. There is widespread belief in India that the practice of yoga can lead to what? Do you think it can?
12. What is metanoetics, in Japanese philosophy?
13. What does ineffable mean? Is it possible, though paradoxical, to use words to indicate something you can't put into words?
14. Unlike the west, religion in Japan is typically not about what? And what is it about to you?
==
Aristotle on slavery and the subjugation of women
Aristotle was generally a brilliant ethicist, BUT…
"Aristotle wrote Europe's greatest foundational works of ethics and politics, but only in the context of free Greek males: everyone else was of a lesser nature. This meant women, of course, but also those he categorized as naturally born for enslavement. The way to identify such a person, according to Aristotle, was this: "Someone is . . . a slave by nature if he is capable of becoming the property of another (and for this reason does actually become another's property) and if he participates in reason to the extent of apprehending it in another, though destitute of it himself." This last clause was mainly to distinguish enslaved people from non-human animals, who could not even recognize reason when they saw it. With that proviso, the main point here was that you could spot those who were meant to be enslaved from the fact that they were currently enslaved. For them, clearly, "the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just." Aristotle further clarified the situation by comparing enslavement to the equally natural dominance of men over women. Aristotle's "slave nature" theory was used to justify centuries of later exploitation."
— Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope by Sarah Bakewell
"Aristotle wrote Europe's greatest foundational works of ethics and politics, but only in the context of free Greek males: everyone else was of a lesser nature. This meant women, of course, but also those he categorized as naturally born for enslavement. The way to identify such a person, according to Aristotle, was this: "Someone is . . . a slave by nature if he is capable of becoming the property of another (and for this reason does actually become another's property) and if he participates in reason to the extent of apprehending it in another, though destitute of it himself." This last clause was mainly to distinguish enslaved people from non-human animals, who could not even recognize reason when they saw it. With that proviso, the main point here was that you could spot those who were meant to be enslaved from the fact that they were currently enslaved. For them, clearly, "the condition of slavery is both beneficial and just." Aristotle further clarified the situation by comparing enslavement to the equally natural dominance of men over women. Aristotle's "slave nature" theory was used to justify centuries of later exploitation."
— Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope by Sarah Bakewell
==
Aristotle on the work of a human being
"If we posit the work of a human being as a certain life, and this is an activity of soul and actions accompanied by reason, the work of a serious person is to do these things well and nobly. …But, in addition, in a complete life. For one swallow does not make a spring, nor does one day. And in this way, one day or a short time does not make someone blessed and happy either."
==
"Beyond the reach of social anxiety"
As Eleanor Roosevelt said, "You wouldn't worry so much about what other people think of you, if you realized how seldom they do."
"...in order to feel social anxiety, you have to believe that other people’s negative opinions of you are worth getting upset about, that it’s really bad if they dislike you and really important to win their approval. Even people who suffer from severe social anxiety disorder (social phobia) tend to feel “normal” when speaking to children or to their close friends about trivial matters, with a few exceptions. Nevertheless, they feel highly anxious when talking to people they think are very important about subjects they think are very important. If your fundamental worldview, by contrast, assumes that your status in the eyes of others is of negligible importance, then it follows that you should be beyond the reach of social anxiety."
How to Think Like a Roman Emperor: The Stoic Philosophy of Marcus Aurelius by Donald J. Robertson
Aristotle at Existential Comics... Aristotle in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)... The moral and intellectual virtues listed...
Aristotle's Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life by Edith Hall
Aristotle "developed a sophisticated, humane program for becoming a happy person, and it remains valid to this day. Aristotle provides everything you need to avoid the realization of the dying protagonist of Tolstoy's The Death of Ivan Ilyich (1886), that he has wasted much of his life scaling the social ladder, and putting self-interest above compassion and community values, all the while married to a woman he dislikes. Facing his imminent death, he hates his closest family members, who won't even talk to him about it. Aristotelian ethics encompass everything modern thinkers associate with subjective happiness: self-realization, finding "a meaning," and the "flow" of creative involvement with life, or "positive emotion." 1
This book presents Aristotle's time-honored ethics in contemporary language. It applies Aristotle's lessons to several practical real-life challenges: decision-making, writing a job application, communicating in an interview, using Aristotle's chart of Virtues and Vices to analyze your own character, resisting temptation, and choosing friends and partners.
Wherever you are in life, Aristotle's ideas can make you happier. Few philosophers, mystics, psychologists, or sociologists have ever done much more than restate his fundamental perceptions. But he stated them first, better, more clearly, and in a more holistic way than anyone subsequently.
Each part of his prescription for being happy relates to a different phase of human life, but also intersects with all the others. Becoming subjectively happy as an individual, Aristotle insisted, is your unique and momentous responsibility. It is also a great gift—it is within most people's power, regardless of their circumstances, to decide to become happier…"
— Aristotle's Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life by Edith Hall
— Aristotle's Way: How Ancient Wisdom Can Change Your Life by Edith Hall
Section 3
ReplyDelete* 1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
The point Aristotle was making when he wrote of swallows and summer is that a few instances in your life where something has given you some sort of pleasure or has made you feel good doesn’t mean that you have lived a truly happy life. I have to agree because if a person has lived a life full of pain and suffering, only experiencing fleeting yet intense moments of happiness, doesn’t mean that person’s life was not filled with suffering.
* 2. What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by The School of Athens? Whose side are you on, Plato's or Aristotle's?
The philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle, as implied by The School of Athens, is that while Plato looked to the abstract world of his Theory of Forms for his thinking, Aristotle leaned more into the world around him and what he could sense about its perfectly imperfect nature in order to philosophize. I am more neutral in my way of philosophizing, but if I had to choose, I would lean more towards Aristotle’s side of philosophy because I like to think that my experiences and feelings in this world have/will have shaped my way of thinking and going about life.
* 3. What is eudaimonia, and how can we increase our chances of achieving it, and in relation only to what? Do you think you've achieved it?
Eudaimonia is the objective feeling or sensation of flourishing/success/happiness that we humans experience in relation to life in society. We can increase our chances of achieving eudaimonia by making decisions throughout our life to develop the right kind of character and habits/patterns that can affect not just ourselves but others in our society. I do not think that I have achieved eudaimonia just yet because I believe that eudaemonia starts at an early age and continues far past our lifespans on earth. Since I’m still in my younger years, and have not died (yet), I still have many more habits and patterns to create and shape in order to develop the right character that can make a difference in this society. This doesn’t mean that there is a time limit on eudaimonia for all people, I just believe that I will need more time to develop as a person before I can declare that I have achieved eudaimonia.
Section 3
Delete2. I agree with your point about your experiences shaping your life. I'm struggling to understand how Plato was so convinced about his theory of forms, since it seems more like a belief than something he could prove. It makes me wonder if he relied more on logic and reasoning than on actual evidence.
Plato thought that a human's emotions cloud our reasoning and logical thinking. In his own way he was saying we were trapped in our own emotions too often to say that humans have experienced reality in its true form. However, I completely agree that our experiences in life shape our logic and emotions both equally, and in turn both affect how we view reality.
DeleteMatthew Lowe, section #2
DeleteI agree and would like to expand on your point in #1. I believe living a “happy” life is about being in a continuous state of happiness despite of the inevitable challenges that a person may face throughout life and being able to maintain a state of peace and subsequently happiness is something that has to be learned as we grow.
I think it's intersting that the big three philosiphers were students of one another but still had some individuality in their thinking. Especially Aristotle, the chapter acts as though Aristotle's understanding of the world is very different to Plato's even though he was taught by him. Aristotle was able to form his own opinions, but some of the people who read his work just follow everything he says blindly. I feel like if Aristotle was alive today he would not want that to be the case. He would want others to take his teachings and learn from them, but also stay curious and form their own beliefs as well.
ReplyDeleteI very much agree with this. It has been very interesting to see the similarities and differences between the students and their teachers. I also find it very interesting how I can manage to strongly agree and disagree with each of them, all at the same time. The progression of ideas is how society keeps moving forward, as well as being the culprit for when it stagnates.
DeleteI think this a great take. I feel like Socrates and Plato were quite different in the way that they perceived their surroundings and in a way I think that Aristotle kind of bridges the gap between the two of them. Socrates was always asking questions and challenging his peers to branch out their understanding of the world whereas Plato seemed to have more of a declarative "This is how things are and should be" outlook. Aristotle on the other hand had his opinions and beliefs, but as you said, encouraged people to stay curious and form their own beliefs.
DeleteIt is interesting hearing about Aristotle's thinking that a few happy moments don't equal true happiness. In today's world, with consumer culture and the fast-paced life we live, it's easy to think this way. For example, if I see an ad for something on TikTok and think I absolutely need to buy it, when it arrives I feel happy for awhile, but the feeling always dies down eventually. This can lead to overconsumption because people just want to chase that happy feeling they get after buying something.
ReplyDeleteYes I agree very much. Even though society (American Society at least) is pretty much designed for quick dopamine hits, Aristotle's work is timeless. It's becoming harder and harder to achieve this long term joy he hints at.
DeleteI thought the same thing Abby! So interesting to relate this guy from 300 BC to our crazy media and possession obsessed culture. Now, though, we have the science to explain exactly what's happening when we have these fleeting moments of happiness. I think Aristotle would be super interested in learning about the chemicals in our brains and how they influence our actions so heavily.
DeleteI love the example you use it is a really good way of saying temporary happiness isn't really true happiness and how true happiness is one that will last our whole.
DeleteSection 3#
ReplyDelete4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
The reliance of authority alone is completely against Aristotle's research. Me personally, I try to not defer to any authority completely, but If I had to choose somebody, I would always defer to whatever Lebron says. Most people defer to at least ONE person (It could be guardians, politicians, social media figures, etc)
I personally am not the largest fan of authority for the most part. The idea of most people deferring to at least one person is very interesting. Is it possible that I defer to authority that teaches not to defer to authority? In my efforts to go against the norms, have I just conformed to another norm? I have not thought of this before. I suppose for me, my authority figure would be Corey Taylor, the singer of Slipknot. I am curious, do you think one must be aware of their authority to be classified as an authority figure? I tend to believe one can achieve this influential status completely unbeknownst to them. It would be a terrifying realization to wake up one day and realize that others look to you for answers you do not have. I do wonder that exactly Aristotle would say to those who blindly accepted all of his teachings as fact without the need to prove them. That would be a conversation I would love to have.
DeleteBella York, section 3
DeleteI agree that you should not take any person’s words as completely authoritative (unless you believe in a religious text, which of course is a separate topic). However, in my own life, I’ve been realizing that I put my own thoughts and feelings above others’ entirely too much, especially when it comes to older and wiser individuals. In trying to be intellectual, I’ve become arrogant. Now I’m attempting to take an approach similar to Socrates, listening to everyone’s thoughts and opinions with equal respect. Of course, I am not saying that you struggle with the same thing, just that your words reminded me of what I've been thinking about.
(On the Aristotle video) Aristotle seemed to think that he knew exactly how people should live their lives and if they weren't living it that way, they weren't doing it right. In the video, he says you can't be TOO boring, but you also can't be TOO funny, you have to find the perfect balance of the two. This can be very hard for some people. Aristotle thought that these people just needed the right type of teacher to teach them the way that they are "supposed" to behave in a society. I think that this could be very problamatic because it is teaching people that it's not okay to just be themselves. I think good conversation comes from people that have different personalities and backgrounds. It would be really boring to hear from people that are all "virtuous" and have the same perspectives.
ReplyDeleteI love your idea that "good conversation comes from people that have different personalities and backgrounds." and couldn't agree more with you. Ive always had the idea that the best things in life are born from conflict and I think that relates to your point because if all of our imperfections were fixed we would effectively have no other reason to go on because everything would be as it should be, but it is with this personal conflict that we strive to be the best versions of ourselves and perhaps even look for those who have an characteristics that we ourselves lack.
DeleteI was struck by how profound the idea of eudaimonia truly is. Examining my life, I do not believe that I have reached this state, not yet. The notion that I have it completely figured out would be a foolish assumption, and an arrogant one at that. Interestingly enough, the pursuing a less fleeting idea of joy and happiness has been something that I have been continuously working on over the past few years. It seems eudaimonia is a journey that looks very different to different people. Additionally, Aristotle's thoughts regarding the character of one who might achieve eudaimonia were also very interesting. I agree that character is extremely important. The Golden Mean being a fine line between two extremes is also a concept that I have been examining my life and the lives of others to find evidence of. Perhaps this is how I should approach the direction of my band. We must not be too afraid to take a chance and make a mad run for success, but we also must not be so rash that we overestimate our capabilities and underestimate out realities. However, if I were to lean on the side of one or the other, I would say that life is too short not to go for it. Maybe this will be how I achieve my own eudaimonia.
ReplyDeleteIt seems my name was left off of my comment. The above comment is me.
DeleteBella York, Section 3
ReplyDelete4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
Aristotle would not have liked future philosophers holding his words so high, that they would blindly accept them as truth. My parents have always encouraged me to think for myself, especially when it comes to religion and philosophy. I appreciate that they fostered a sense of curiosity and independent thinking in me, even when it comes to their opinions and beliefs. That being said, I do think my parents are correct in a lot of their beliefs. I realize they have more life experiences and thus wisdom than me, so I defer to them on most things.
“The kind of wisdom that it [Western Philosophy] values is based on argument, reasoning and asking questions, not on believing things simply because someone important has told you they are true. Wisdom for Socrates was not knowing lots of facts, or knowing how to do something. It meant understanding the true nature of our existence, including the limits of what we can know.” (Little History of Philosophy, p. 12)
Eudaimonia is an interesting concept. I agree with him that bodily pleasure is not the end goal of life. To me, it seems that Aristotle is highlighting the emotions that come along with belonging to a society, family, or religious community. Though I've yet to feel the sensation, I imagine I will be the most content when I have a family, a fulfilling career, and am an active participant in my faith. Although I am currently building towards a long-term relationship, pursuing quality education, and am active in the church, I’m years away from what I assume will be my most content years of life.
https://youtu.be/3lkn8MS3n8Q?si=7uTN70hRCKGM1OTf
I agree with your response on reliance to authority. Whether it be family or teachers, I have always felt beckoned to listen to what my parents and other older people in my life have told me to believe. My parents also encourage me to think for myself, but, ironically, they do not hold the same sentiment when I disagree with them. It is interesting when you can see the struggle behind coming to your own logical conclusions about something, but remaining unsure because someone with more life experience disagrees with it.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP 2.
I align more with Aristotle's viewpoint of reality: anything that we experience and that we can sense on Earth. I take Plato's spiritually exclusive mindset as being an inactive human being-- Warburton himself said that the philosopher would have been fine to philosophize in his armchair. Whereas Aristotle seemed to be more active in his philosophy. Instead of just wondering how to to live a fulfilling life or how to be a good person, he formed his own answer in eudaimonia. I think this is a more productive approach to philosophy, like meliorism, where you area trying to improve your life and happiness, not just letting life hit you while you remain idle.
HWT 13.
Things that are ineffable constitutes (in my opinion) feelings rather than words. If something is so meaningful or complex that you cannot put it into words, then you must have strong feelings about that subject. I think that if you have feelings about something either extremely positive or extremely negative (unless it is simply not of this realm of existence and has some type of infinitum attached to it) then you can likely express it into words. And I do not believe that putting these ideas into words lessens the effect in anyway if they are not written with a certain bias or viewpoint in mind. If everyone can have their own interpretation, they can have their own feelings about it as well.
Jay Triplett, Section 2
ReplyDelete1. I agree with this point because fleeting pleasure can happen by chance and be taken away quickly, while eudaimonia, as Aristotle has defined it, is the result of a long life’s work. Eudaimonia also manifests in many forms, including the happiness of the people you’re close to. This is unlikely to change as fast or as drastically as a moment of pleasure can.
2. I think I’m inclined to Aristotle’s view because I don’t get the point of worrying about ideals that are impossible to manifest in our reality. The evidence produced by exploring the physical world is more substantial than internal reflection, meaning the latter will most likely resonate with more people.
4. Aristotle warns against a reliance on authority and previous research, as it inhibits our understanding of science. I think I trust many news sources that align with my bias more than I should. There wasn’t a lot of education on fact-checking in English or Technology classes when I went through Elementary and Middle School, and I think that contributed to the abundance of misinformation online today. Aristotle's advisory against blind trust is one reason why studying old philosophy and history is so important, even millennia removed from the original writer.
I love your answer for question four. I think your idea could be compared to the expression "history repeats itself". It seems that sometimes the most informative reports of what is happening in the modern world can be found by studying what has already happened in the past. And I very much agree with your critique of the education system regarding fact checking. In many ways the education system never seems to teach critical thinking as much as it should, and I think we are seeing the consequences of that today.
DeleteMatthew Kulik, Section 3
ReplyDelete2. When it comes to The School of Athens I align more with Aristotle. While I do believe that trying to think on a higher level outside our surface-level existence like Plato is important, our daily perception and experience is rooted in what Plato would consider "the shadows". Therefore, I think examining the world as most of us see it is likely a more productive use of time in many instances. To me, it seems like the results of philosophizing in Aristotle's realm would serve much more practical significance than working more in the theoretical like Plato.
3. I believe I may be closer to eudaimonia than many, it is hard to pinpoint a criteria for actually achieving it. I am largely happy in my life right now but just like anyone else, there are negatives as well. Perhaps one's ability to achieve eudaimonia is impacted by how they perceive and experience the negative things in their life. I consider myself a largely resilient person and tend not to dwell on bad things, but perhaps a person with the same experiences as me would be farther from eudaimonia depending on how they are emotionally affected by hardship and setbacks.
4. My reliance on authorities has largely diminished throughout the years. In today's age of social media, just about anyone can make an argument and sound correct or claim to be an authority figure on a certain topic. This type of phenomenon stresses the importance of critical thinking in today's age. I might scroll through my feed and see a video of someone making a claim about a controversial and showing off their credentials to back it up, only to find someone else debunking them hours later and discrediting them. For this reason, I have made an effort to think for myself as much as possible and question what I watch.
1. He was saying that one thing (that is a characteristic of another), does not make a larger thing true, of which I am inclined to agree. He uses the analogy of swallows and summer in the same way that a lone tree does not constitute a forest. I agree not only because it is true in terms of real-world applications, but it can also be applied to one's own life. A single bad interaction does not make it bad day in the same way a good day does not make it a good life. This brings us to the concept of eudaimonia.
ReplyDelete3. Eudaumonia is presented as the idea of true happiness being have lived a "full" life. Someone can help their chances of achieving eudaimonia by using their human reason to make sense of their environment and emotions and act accordingly. Aristotle believed that events outside of one’s control do affect happiness, yet how one reacts to them determines overall happiness. Aristotle also prioritized building up one’s character throughout life so that a person is better equipped to handle adversity.
2 and Overall Connection: What really intrigued me about all of this was the relationship between both Plato's and Aristotle's life views. Aristotle believed that true happiness could only be achieved through a living a full life and that one could live a better life through practicing temperance and building up a good, overall character. I would think that based on Plato's "Theory of Forms", that he believed happiness could be achieved through using reason and intellect to distinguish the physical world from the "real", perfect world. In this way, the two views are similar as they both believe in reason being a route to happiness. However, in many ways they are different. I think it would be safe to say Aristotle exercised certain Stoic qualities. Afterall, his philosophy directly condemns hedonism, even going so far as to say that children cannot be happy because all they have is a short collection of positive moments. As well, Aristotle rejected Plato's Theory of Forms in favor of observing the natural world—something much closer to Stoicism’s emphasis on judgment, nature, and reason. And so, one might be ready to think that since Plato's and Aristotle's personal philosophies are so different, then surely Plato's view would have more in common with hedonism, the opposite of stoicism. Afterall, hedonism chases happiness through pleasure, and what could be more pleasurable than finding the "perfect' version of something. However, hedonism is in direct contradiction with perfection, viewing it as an objective, unattainable goal that is a distraction to living a fruitful life. This further brings into question the value of a perfect form and how it is even possible to achieve. Plato addresses the idea of conformity in his "Allegory of the Cave", presenting it as a harmful blight that corrupts the mind, preventing it from seeing the true world. You might then be inclined to think that the perfect forms he speaks of might actually just be a subjective, metaphysical goal. However, these perfect forms are described as objective truths, almost immutable, natural conclusions one would eventually come to. He stresses the importance of non-conformity, yet he presents perfection as an unchanging monolith everyone will eventually make the journey to. For these reasons, I can't help but agree with Aristotle over Plato.
"And so, one might be ready to think that since Plato's and Aristotle's personal philosophies are so different, then surely Plato's view would have more in common with hedonism, the opposite of stoicism." To clarify this comment, I meant this in a way not to suggest Plato was a hedonist, but the opposite. They reject each other in the way that hedonism condemns perfection as a distraction, and as well, Plato—like Aristotle—doesn't believe pleasure in of itself denotes happiness. However, I meant that, at first, someone might think that Plato's thinking would base itself closer to hedonism than stoicism. Specifically, the seeking of pleasure of through ponderance. The key takeaway to be had is that his Theory of Forms doesn't have a strong basis in practical though. This seems to assume, of course, that hedonism and stoicism are the only two valid schools of though. However, I just used these two specifically because Aristotle expressed stoic ideas and because hedonism is in direct opposition to stoicism.
Deletet
Corey Gugino, Section 2
ReplyDeleteFL 6. Western civilization’s first ad campaign was to encourage enough people of England that the “New World” was a paradise ripe with riches for the taking- the most important of them being an abundance of gold. Despite repeated failed attempts by would-be colonists who died in their searches, and the fact that those who did survive had no gold to show for their effort, the English investor propaganda campaign continued to push these theories about valuable minerals in America. This laid the foundation for the early Americans to be the kind of people that are wishful thinkers, those that are susceptible to big promises.
I believe that advertising in America certainly does have a detrimental effect on our population in the modern day. Advertising often preys upon insecurities or sells the idea to people that their life would be so much better if they just had X or Y thing. Whether it’s something that claims it will raise our popularity (a new car, expensive shoes) or, to relate to the old promise of riches, get-rich-quick schemes (dropshipping or “content guru” classes), we are constantly bombarded with the message that our lives are incomplete.
FL 9. By the 1620’s, people had stopped believing that the Bible was literally predicting the end of the world. However, the Puritans still believed that the end-times were not only inevitable but were able to be predicted; future interpreters even believed they could pin down the exact date, and that date always seemed to be “soon.” I would imagine that people continue to fall for this because it often gives a security blanket promise of “any day now, you will be taken to heaven.” It’s that same promise that seems to incentivize continued devotion to the church- you don’t want to be left behind in the Rapture, do you? Of course not! Don’t stray now, only a little longer!
I really like your response on FL 6 and think that you really did hit the nail on the head, however I am inclined to disagree with some parts of your statement. With the ending of your last line "we are constantly bombarded with the message that our lives are incomplete" I feel as though this is, in part, what Aristotle was referencing in his swallows and summer. Now don't get me wrong I am not a supporter of "dropshipping or “content guru” classes" but I do believe that true happiness requires a consistent pattern of virtuous activity over time, and in turn that we must never think that our life IS complete. This actually reminds me of one of my favorite Thoreau quotes that goes "launch yourself on every wave, find your eternity in each moment. Fools stand on their island of opportunities and look toward another land. There is no other land; there is no other life but this.”
DeleteLHP 2
ReplyDeleteSection #3
1. Aristotle believed that one or two brief moments of joy is not what makes a happy life. I agree with this sentiment, and furthermore I agree with Aristotle’s belief that it is only upon judging our entire lives can we determine if we were truly happy. Emotions are so often fleeting and uncontrollable. I believe happiness is best measured through something more concrete, such as our life’s goals, accomplishments, and impacts.
3. Eudaimonia in a sense is long-term happiness and achievement, expanding even beyond death. Aristotle believed children could not be ‘happy’ as they lacked the experience needed to achieve eudaimonia, and in a similar vein I do not think I can say I’ve lived a ‘happy’ life. For Aristotle, happiness was less about the joyous emotion and more so in regard to one’s successes and long-lasting impacts. Therefore, I cannot say I’ve achieved happiness as Aristotle describes it since there are so many milestones I've yet to experience and goals I've yet to achieve.
4. Aristotle became so popular that for many years after his death his words were taken as fact, so thus philosophical progress was limited for hundreds of years. In the modern age, I find it difficult to have an authority to consistently rely on. A single individual is unlikely to be extremely knowledgeable in one subject let alone as many as Aristotle was for his time. Corporations, such as news outlets, are also unable to be fully trusted due to undisclosed bias and their lack of accessibility.
I agree with your answer to question 3. I liked that you included the reference to children being able to be happy because they lack experience. I really think the only way to be fully happy is to let go of anxiety and fear, which takes a lifetime to truly do and some people never accomplish it.
DeleteGracyn Schmidt Section 1
DeleteAshton Vincent, Section 1:
ReplyDeleteLHP - I don't rely on any authority figures. Maybe that's me being stubborn, but I have always been a strong believer to think for yourself. I have had many (friendly) debates with teachers, mostly my personal finance and government ones. I love respectfully challenging ideas and learning more about everything. I think I am similar to Aristotle in that way. I genuinely don't think I defer to any figure, albeit in my personal life or any celebrities or historical ones. I regularly talk with my mom and teach her to challenge her beliefs and ideas, many built on what she sees online. Especially with the rise of AI, and AI-generated videos of news casters and celebrities. it is crucial to be able to critically think and not just go based on what someone says.
I find myself leaning towards Aristotle's side, especially agreeing with Aristotle's methods of investigation and research. I prefer looking out, like he does, into the real world- into more concrete, grounded ideas. With the whole world around us, I cannot imagine myself spending my time entranced with the idea of perfection or abstract concepts. That might be a shortcoming of me, but I prefer to spend my time melioristically- if thats a word. Trying to better myself and the world around me.
That goes into my eudiamonia, I guess. I believe that's how I will "achieve it." I don't think I have achieved it by any means. I don't think I'm even halfway. I have a solid start, in my perspective, but who knows if it is achievable? If it is impacted by things outside your control, and things that happen after you die, then is it truly achievable? Something that you can grab ahold of?
Elijah Cummings, Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP 2. I saw that others had answered this question prior but it happened to particularly interest me. The School of Athens displays the directions that Plato and Aristotle looked for enlightenment, highlighting their quite opposite perspectives on the matter. Plato points upwards while Aristotle gestures out around him, displaying how they believed that truth and wisdom were best sought after abstractly (mentally or otherwise outside of the scope of reality), and concretely (experientially through firsthand observation) respectively. On the matter of who's side I am on, I actually don't fully find myself aligned with either. That is, to say, that I have a fundamental disagreement with the foundation of both philosophies: I do not believe in the ability to actually obtain certainty and truth from either method. It is my current perspective (which could always change, that evolution is part of what excites me about philosophy) that the human body (and, by extension, all other things that perceive and experience anything) is not capable of verifying the legitimacy of any fact. We can provide a myriad of support for any claims we attempt to make, but simultaneously, all of the equipment used to perform such a task have very real limits and potential blind-spots. As an example, our vision (widely recognized as the strongest sense in humans), can only take in so much of the electromagnetic spectrum. We cannot see UV or infrared lights because of this, and some people see less. Beyond this, the entirety of all senses could be described as illusions; they create a mental abstraction of what supposedly exists and is occurring around us that siphons an otherwise chaotic jumble of particles into clean categories such as color, decibels, and pressure. There is not a way that I am currently aware of to verify that our senses aren't lying to us or abstracting the true nature of the universe beyond recognition, since anything we could do to test the validity of our senses must then be processed and interpreted through said senses. One could then perhaps believe that I have just sided with Plato, believing the observable world too uncertain to seek truth within, but that would also be wrong. I, in much the same ways, have no way of proving the validity of my own internal logic. Every part of me seems to agree that 2 plus 2 will always result in 4, though I do not believe this means it must be the case. If the human mind (and, again, all other entities that process and interpret information) is subject to the same impurities and uncertainty that the rest of the universe seemingly is (assuming that the mind/consciousness is not an external force such as a soul, and that all of its components are physically present as matter), then I see no reason that it should be any more accurate for seeking truth. In these ways, I do not think that facts and, by proxy, wisdom and enlightenment, are truly verifiable through any means, and that neither way seems foolproof. That being said, I do not care much for certainty (where's the excitement then?) and we have made it this far without it, so I do believe there is utility and intrigue in seeking wisdom despite it. If I had to align myself more so with one than the other, however, I would probably go with Aristotle, given that, no matter what, you must always return to self-reflection and internal abstraction to process any information obtained, internally or externally, so I would rather broaden the scope of my searching to also include my observations the external world.
Ashton Vincent - Section 1:
DeleteI really don't have any comments to make, but you bring up a really interesting point. I haven't thought about it like that before.
Matthew Lowe, section #2
DeleteSame here I currently have nothing to add other then thank you for the very thought provoking comment.
It's interesting how Aristotle's philosophical teachings are so similar to Socrates when it comes to wisdom although they never knew each other such as Plato knew both. Socrates believed that one has to be curious to be wise and has time and time again taught his students to question their own definitions of wisdom and knowledge of the world around them. He believed in conversations instead of written texts and in my personal belief planted the root of philosophical questions. He was never an authority figure in that sense but more of a guide. Aristotle, a lot like Socrates, went to the world for answers instead of following his teacher, Plato's, Theory of Forms. He did his research based on what the world's experience of the subject was instead of the Form of it. However, although very similar to his former teacher's teacher, he became an authority figure through his written notes about philosophy and in an unfortunate circumstance went against his own philosophical spirit. In that sense Socrates and Aristotle deferred. I'll reiterate that for me Socrates was the root of philosophical questions and following that line of thought, Aristotle was almost the end of them, however unintentionally it might've been.
ReplyDeleteFollowing Aristotle's philosophy of eudaimonia, I both agree and somewhat disagree with his thoughts. It is true that true happiness comes from not fleeting moments but an overall understanding of achievement in life, however, it is very hard to judge what good character is and whether one can stay in the middle of two extremes when it comes to certain virtues. I believe it to be subjective to the person. What's the definition of good character for them? Are their virtue's extremes the same as ours or not? Does our definition of good character change as we grow up in life? It all affects Aristotle's teaching of eudaimonia.
Skylar Bishop, section 3
ReplyDeleteLHP 2:
1. I am in agreement with Aristotle. I think that we most certainly cannot assume the whole of something from just a hint. In most unserious cases, lying one time does not make someone a full on liar, missing a question on a test doesn't mean you don't understand the material, so on and so forth.
2. I do not know if I align more with Plato or Aristotle. I think I agree with Plato's theory of forms in more of a metaphorical sense. I think that in terms of non-physical things, like news, knowledge, and insight, it will always be a shadow. There will always be an aspect of truth that we're missing. In terms of the physical world, I agree with Aristotle. I think that things are just things, and that there is not a higher world of reality that they reflect.
3. I too would like to know how to achieve this Eudaimonia. I think that we can train ourselves to be good people through habits, like Aristotle implied. I think that we can also train ourselves to enjoy more in our lives, the little things.
12. What is metanoetics, in Japanese philosophy?
ReplyDeleteMetanoetics is a concept in Japanese philosophy that comes from Hajime Tanabe. It’s about recognizing the limits of our own reasoning and ego, and then going through some kind of transformation. Instead of relying only on logic or personal effort, metanoetics is about turning toward something beyond yourself, like faith or a higher power, to reach deeper understanding or gain more wisdom. I think it’s interesting because it challenges the idea that reason alone can solve everything, and it makes philosophy feel more personal and humbling.
- Jayden Flores
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteLHP 2- The difference between Plato and Aristotle was that Plato believed in one perfect form being what we should think of when wanting to think of what the ideal was, but Aristotle believe that multiple forms was what we really needed to see, we needed to experience with our senses and see for ourselves the world beyond. Both Plato and Aristotle had their ways of thinking, while I don't personally believe either one is wrong for thinking either way, I do see more of Aristotle's view, I believe philosophy thrives off going further into the different views of the world from different perspectives not just one form that is considered the perfect form.
3- Eudaimonia means to flourish/ feel success / happiness. To aim for this Eudamonia Aristotle believed that one must from a young age build upon character and become a person with virtues, He believed that for example one who acted upon fear in a cowardly manner was not a person that is working towards it, while a person who acted on fear in a brave way was. I believe this truly is very important to think about , we should always be working to better ourselves and think of long term characteristics we want to have that will lead to us making better decisions therefore having not as a stressful life as those who don't care to better themselves.
I find it very interesting that for many 100s of years after Aristotles death people just accepted his word on topics without looking further into it for themselves, as philosophers such as Aristotle and Socrates always encouraged questions and broadening your knowledge beyond what just one person said.
I accept that Aristotle's idea of Eudaimonia is too grand for me to really understand precisely what it is at this time. I think it's possible for me to potentially reach it someday but until I do I don't think it is possible to slap a definition to it. It sounds kind of similar to what I've heard about the Buddhist state of Nirvana. (Just without all the reincarnation stuff). While I maintain the belief that I cannot know Eudaimonia until I reach it, I have a few working theories. I think that there are people in my life that bring me love and joy. This kind of love and joy does not seem to be temporary. I believe that art is transcendental to the human condition and can provide peace and enlightenment in times of calamity and darkness. But, I am really just trying to stay open to everything at this time. This seems to be the best way to go.
ReplyDeleteHey Eric, I also drew the connection between Eudaimonia and Buddhism. The transcendental nature of Karma in Buddhism is similar to the way Aristotle describes happiness in that in continues after death. I also agree this is hard to grasp just because I don't know how much I believe that something after your death really affects your life. Maybe i'm not a high enough thinker to understand that!
DeleteAllie Stanfield
DeleteThe concept that Eudaimonia is something that we cannot describe until we achieve it is something that I did not think of before my response, but I think is true. We can only describe what our thought of it is, but we truly do not know until we've experienced it. This is a great point of view.
2. I would agree more with Aristotle since he's focusing on the physical world he lives in rather than the "world of Forms." I don't think I could just imagine what a cat could look like without a baseline first (I wouldn't even know where to start). I think you first need to look at the object/thing, then you can make more forms in your head (cat+dog=catdog). And some forms don't need to exist physically in order to be in your head.
ReplyDelete3. I don't think I've achevied eudaimonia yet. I'm only 19, and there are many things I haven't explored/done. Yes I've had wonderful, happy moments, but I believe over time I could reach it by making good choices.
4. When it comes to the law, I usually just accept it and follow. But recently, I have begun questioning more. I usually do my own research anyway, but with how the government is right now, I'm not sure who to trust in higher power...
I completely agree with you about the world of forms. I thought that that way of thinking was impractical, and focused on ideas that didn't help anyone achieve anything. Living in the physical world makes a person more grounded, and helps that person make the best of the world they live in.
DeleteI have a similar answer to question four as well. The law is obviously a good thing to follow, however, it's also very important to not take it, or any authority for that matter, at face value. I'd love to say that I'd default to myself on authority, because I think it's important to trust yourself and your judgement, but I am decidedly not quite confident enough for that. If I had to choose one realistically, I'd probably choose my parents, as I trust them and they have similar beliefs and morals to me (being the ones that imparted them on me.)
DeleteLHP 1: I think Aristotle's point was mainly about virtue and happiness. I think the point was that true happiness comes from a lifetime of good deeds and character, rather than just one day being the deciding factor of "the good life."
ReplyDelete3. Eudaimonia happiness, but not in a fleeting sense but rather a deep permanent sense. We can achieve this feeling by living a consistently good life and surrounding ourselves by good, fair people. I am a happy person, however, I think happiness to this level takes a lot of time, exploration, and experience on this earth. I also think it takes your environment being one that fosters this sort of happiness.
Gracyn Schmidt
DeleteSection. 1
Makenzie Collins Section 1
ReplyDelete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
Aristotle's main point when he wrote Swallows of summer was that one moment or one season of pleasure doesn't mean you have attained true happiness. That happiness comes from permanent frame of mind or contentment. I do agree to an extent; i agree that one moment of bliss doesn't make your whole life blissful. However, I do not believe happiness can be permanent in the first place. I believe that happiness itself is a temporary bliss. It is prompted by superficial things or people that will fade away. However, joy comes from things that will last forever such as true love, God's love, and the hope of eternal life with him.
I absolutely agree. I think happiness is a fleeting moment of good feelings, whereas joy is a lifelong and sustaining thing only truly achieved through God and his fulfillment of you. I think Aristotle had the right idea, but what we would consider happiness today is not the same as what he considered happiness.
DeleteCorbin Medley, Section 3
DeleteI somewhat agree with your perspective of Aristotle's thoughts on happiness; I believe that simple pleasures do not manifest into a life of true happiness and fulfillment, but I do not agree that happiness itself is a temporary bliss, at least with my definition of the word being synonymous with joy. Even during low moments of life where things are not at their greatest, you can still generally be living a happy life full of fulfillment and satisfaction which I would reason to be true happiness -something beyond the superficial.
I agree. I believe the only true, permanent state of happiness can be found through God. This life and world will end someday, but eternity with God is forever. While it's good to have some things on Earth, we all should strive to spread the love of God, and that is where true happiness comes from.
DeleteI really enjoy "The School of Athens" by Raphael; first, because the realism style in the renaissance era is a beautiful way of painting, but the meaning behind this one is incredibly interesting as well. Plato vs Aristotle in the painting is meant to illustrate a similar rivalry between Raphael and Michelangelo. On Plato's side you see free thinkers who lounge and discuss the world to try to understand it while on Aristotle's side you see scientists and mathematicians—people who seek hard evidence to explain nature. Conceptual thinking vs logic based thinking seems to be a common theme in the "which philosopher is better" conversation though neither can exist without one another. I think that the scientific approach is a refined version of the conceptual thinking—sort of like applying the concepts you've dreamed up. This even makes sense in the progression of philosophers (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle) because they all learned from and built off each other. For this reason I tend to side with Aristotle's "see the world and experience things" way of thinking.
ReplyDeleteKate Pennel, section 1
ReplyDeleteWhat reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
The reliance on authority is against the spirit of his research. I have realized that I am very dependent on my parents' authority and what they say is true or not, as I trust and respect them. I was raised by them and people do naturally tend to heavily lean towards the beliefs of the people that raised them if the experience was good. I think that as I grow I will continue to explore and test what I believe to make my beliefs my own.
Donyae Keeler section 1:
ReplyDeleteIn the School of Athens, Plato is portrayed as a thinker focused on the heavens and ideas above our comprehension. This reflects his theory of forms was focused on abstract ideas of perfection that don't exist in our own reality. On the other hand, Aristotle is shown as grounded and attentive to what surrounds him, indicative of his down-to-earth perspective on philosophy. I think both perspectives are important to a well-rounded approach to life, appreciating and realizing the importance of what surrounds us while also acknowledging and aspiring towards the impossible world of forms Aristotle created. I think Aristotle was cooler though.
Corbin Medley, Section 3
DeleteIt is fascinating to me that each philosopher's theories reflect how they are perceived as human beings and as teachers. It only makes sense to associate the two but I find it interesting nonetheless that their personalities were reflective of their philosophical concepts. I also think Aristotle was cooler.
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteAristotle was very much so an empirical philosopher in my mind and in turn was not a fan of blind faith or superstition due to his grounded views. In my opinion I tend to agree with Aristotle, however I believe that in order to live the good life that Aristotle himself theorizes on we must have blind faith at some points. I am personally a religious individual so I am of course biased in this regard but even beyond my religious affairs I believe that there have been times in my life that without blind faith I may have missed opportunities that turned out well for me in the end.
I agree with you. I am also a religious individual, a Baptist to be specific. I completely agree with you. I think going on blind faith can be the right move. That's how I ended up here at MTSU, and so far, everything has worked out way better than I could have imagined.
DeleteThis is a link to a video by the Horses project that I find incredibly interesting where he discusses "The Only War You Will Not Win" referring to the conflict we have every day with ourselves and our "Shadow" https://youtu.be/2JlJR9XSCiQ?si=oXNQ4oeMItIYNHW5 .It doesn't pertain fully to any one idea of todays questions but I do think it does some ideas of todays discussion and bring them out to other logical conclusions.
ReplyDeleteCorbin Medley - Section 3
ReplyDelete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
The point Aristotle was making when he wrote of swallows and summer was the idea that it takes more than a single, fleeting and temporary, moment(s) of joy to create a life of true happiness. I absolutely agree with this ideology, his concept of Eudaimonia. I believe that a life of general hedonism is not one of quality or genuine substance, rather than moments of immediate satisfaction with no real achievement or improvement in being.
2. What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by The School of Athens? Whose side are you on, Plato's or Aristotle's?
I believe Aristotle's philosophical outlook looking to the world is much more appealing than Plato's meta-physical philosophical reasoning. To truly understand and appreciate life you need to go out and experience it rather than summarize the notion of existence as superficial without what is seen beyond it.
3. What is eudaimonia, and how can we increase our chances of achieving it, and in relation only to what? Do you think you've achieved it?
Aristotle's concept of Eudaimonia is true happiness that is found through living a life of quality and substance, not just of simple pleasures and hedonism. I do not believe I've lived long enough to say I've achieved a life of significant quality and achievement, but for my age I'd like to say I've done well in experiencing, learning, and appreciating the world.
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
The reliance on authority and the acceptance of what is said to be true is against the spirit of Aristotle's research, and furthermore his predecessors. All three of them (Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle) emphasized the necessity to always question the world and continue to make your own judgements, own thoughts, rather than accepting someone else's ideas as the whole truth. I am guilty of accepting the authority of information provided by those I trust rather than creating my own thoughts on the subject.
Kaitlyn Young section 2:
DeleteI also agree with Aristotle's view that for a life to be fully happy and filled you need more than just fleeting moments of joy. Having moments of joy is nice and good, but without the presence of contemptment, happiness is fleeting.
Mackenzie McDonald #3
DeleteI agree with your view that you must experience life in the moment and in real time because if you just have a secondary experience it will not be as gratifying. In order to form your own opinions on society you must gain your own knowledge and experience because if you just follow along with what other people are preaching it can stain your mindsent on certain views of life.
Mackenzie Harris, Section 2
ReplyDelete1. The point Aristotle was making when he wrote of swallows and summer is that you can't just see something once and make a claim about it. I agree because for me it's like when people ask where something is before they even look. Like it says in the LHP you have to feel the warmth for so many days before you can definitely say it is summer.
2. The main difference between Plato and Aristotle was that Aristotle didn't believe in the Theory of Forms and he believed that you had to examine examples before you can definitely define something. I'm on Aristotle's side because I think the same way of seeing things a bunch before trying to identify it.
3. Eudaimonia is success, flourishing. I think it would be impossible to fully reach this like state of mind just because usually the most successful people can be the unhappiest because yes, they are surrounded by money and wealth, but do they truly have happiness in their life. I think pure happiness is usually accomplished by people who surround themselves with people they love and great memories.
Allie Stanfield - Section #2
ReplyDeleteAristotle's concept of Eudaimonia is something that is difficult to grasp at a young age, like the one that my peers and I are at. His description of it is a sense of total satisfaction with life and the things you have achieved during this time. All your experiences combine to create your personality and morals. The time to reflect on such things and where you grow from your mistakes is what builds your life.
I agree, Aristotle is more focused on the 'bigger picture' in life. He believes we must live out our purpose to our full potential, and that working hard and our accomplishments in life will make us content, even if we are miserable.
DeleteSection #1
ReplyDeleteEudaimonia really caught my attention in the texts as it really makes you think about life. Do we take too much for granted? Or do we not take enough? I believe what he is saying is don’t just focus on a few things to look forward to in a day but enjoy the day as a whole. As life goes on and you get older he believes true happiness is found through time spent enjoying life itself rather than just particular parts of it. This really changed how I think about the pleasures of life as you don’t look forward to the parts leading up to a certain pleasure, but maybe we should learn to enjoy the entire experience.
Section 3
ReplyDelete1. for me I think the main point Aristotle was trying to make is that happiness isn't just some feeling you get after doing something you like or having fun but instead is how you live your life and what you were able to accomplish.
2. Plato just believed in having a basic understanding something was enough to understand it and you never really had to do a deep analysis to truly know something while Aristotle wanted to know every little thing and that he would never be satisfied but what he had and how he was always trying to know more and more.
3. eudaimonia means to be happy with a well organized society around us I think he is trying to say in order to have eudaimonia we need to be able have happiness in every little thing in life and be able to live happily with the community around us. I think I have eudaimonia.
4. I think number 4 is asking what did people do that was agent Aristotle teaching I think the main thing was always listening to everything he did and not actually trying to think for themselves. I don't get the second part of the question.
Jeremiah Frizzell, Section 3
ReplyDelete1. I mostly agree with Aristotle’s point about swallows and summer. For most things, fleeting moments of joy don’t necessarily add up to a fulfilled and happy life. However, I still think that fleeting moments of joy can contribute to one’s “purpose of life” and give them a reason to pursue what makes them happy. These moments, while short, can remind a person of what they value and motivate them to create a deeper and lasting sense of fulfillment. In this sense, fleeting moments of joy play a meaningful role within the journey to find eudaimonia.
2. I like Aristotle’s approach because it values going out into the world and studying what you see. This aligns more with practical reasoning and modern science. However, Plato’s emphasis on abstract thinking is still important. Realistically, you need to find a balance between the two.
4. While I respect the guidance of authorities, like my parents, I always try to make my own reasonable judgments. Their wisdom and experience are invaluable, but I believe it is important to put your own input into the mix. This has never really been a problem, though, because my parents and I share the same views, but the point is the same. Blindly following someone just because they said you should isn’t always a good idea, especially if they have proven to be untrustworthy in the past.
9-2
ReplyDeleteLHP Chapter 2
Aristotle made the point that a few moments of pleasure don’t add up to true happiness.
Aristotle rejected the Theory of Forms.
Eudaimonia is flourishing, or success, and you can increase it by developing the right character.
Truth by authority is against the spirit of Aristotle’s research. I am always for my parents as my authoritarian figure, because they have gained wisdom from experience.
I found Aristotle's concept of Eudaimonia interesting because what he views happiness to be is not like the happiness we are searching for, the feeling, but instead he explains it as being content and finding a sense of accomplishment in life. Working hard and being the best at whatever your called to in life is the way to reach Eudaimonia. Being able to know that all your hard work and efforts meant something; instead of searching for a fleeting emotion.
ReplyDeleteAntonella Comaschi section #3
DeleteBennie McTier Section #3
ReplyDelete1. The point Aristotle was making was that bouts of happiness do not equate to an entire happy/fulfilled life. I do agree to some extent. Though as long as you can look back and not regret life, then that is what matters and makes life fulfilled.
2. The philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle, is where they gain their philosophical ideas. "Plato points upward to the world of forms... Aristotle is reaching out to the world in front of him." I lean more towards Aristotle's belief. The world in front of you is the one you need to think about and find what makes the world. Considering the world of Forms is not a real instance of what a thing claims to be.
3. Eudaimonia is how you achieve "success" and "flourish" in your life. We can increase our chances of Eudaimonia by not living with regrets and pushing ourselves to be the best version we can. I believe that you can never avoid a regret because some choices are binary. Though you can be the best version of yourself, even in sickness. By being right in what you believe in.