Remember, you don't have to respond directly to my questions (but some of them will be on the exam, so you should in any 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 #1
ReplyDeleteA Little History of Philosophy
1.) In short, Aristotle made an argument that children couldn’t be happy; his term of happiness was not one of short-term joy. I disagree with Aristotle’s viewpoint. Anyone can be happy, just as anyone can be sad. Children are born happy—they have no struggles or doubts to worry about. I think we are at our happiest whenever we are children, and the more our struggles pile up, the less happy we will be.
2.) Plato was content with philosophizing what he already knew; Aristotle wanted to explore more, deeper concepts, like senses. I believe this is similar to the cave theory: Plato is still chained, and Aristotle is the man that escaped. I agree with Aristotle on this one. How will we know more about the world if we stick to philosophizing what we know? We won’t. I believe it is best to question any and every worldly concept in order to truly know. At the end of the day, we may never come to a final answer, and that is a key factor in keeping philosophy alive.
4.) It was completely against Aristotle’s viewpoints to fully rely on someone else’s authority. I do tend to rely on other’s information—that is, when it comes to something small, such as the weather. When it comes to something political, I do not care about politics, so I just choose not to educate myself on them and keep my mouth shut.
"How will we know more about the world if we stick to philosophizing what we know? We won’t."
DeleteI thought this was very thought provoking. Without new information to digest and examine, we are incapable of learning more. So a philosopher who never leaves his chair and chooses not to interact with the world also struggles to gain more wisdom. I think this goes to show how each generation builds upon the last, and approaches the world in refreshing ways.
When I read your fourth comment about ignoring politics I could only think of one quote. The quote is attributed to an Athenian Pericles and it goes as such- "Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn't mean politics won't take an interest in you." This is more important than ever. It is our responsibility to change and improve the methods of our system. Similarly to how the chain of philosophers learned from each other, we should also engage in the marketplace of ideas to improve the lives of one another. By educating yourself on politics, you could become an advocate for issues that mean something personal to you, or even become a voice of authority in your community. Education is our first line of defense.
“Children are born happy—they have no struggles or doubts to worry about.”
DeleteI thought this was an interesting take. As someone who is around infants and toddlers quite often, they cry an awful lot for supposedly happier creatures. Maybe their struggles and doubts don't seem that significant to an adult, but since their lived experience is much less than ours, their woes mean a great deal to them in the moment. Their emotions and behaviours depend a great deal on their environment: children in unhealthy environments are withdrawn or they act out. I'm inclined to agree with Aristotle on this point: since his definition of happiness relies on a more fundamental state (as opposed to a pleasant immediate environment), children with little life experience and ambition don't have as much opportunity to reach a state of happiness.
See, their little life experience makes them happy. Yeah, babies cry— but that’s because they want something such as a bottle, or a diaper change. Their cries are not unmotivated, but after their needs are met, they’re as happy as ever. Toddlers, they’re naturally happier. They focus on playing with blocks, toys, etc. that is their happiness because that’s all they know to do. As we get older, we have to find our happiness and find things to make us blissful and happy.
Delete#1
ReplyDeleteReading the selection from "Humanly Possible: Seven Hundred Years of Humanist Freethinking, Inquiry, and Hope by Sarah Bakewell" about Aristotle's views on slavery and women, it sounds a lot like he was trying to rationalize slavery to himself and not admit to hipocracy.
"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)
But his logic breaks down to "they should be slaves because they're clearly capable of being property/I see them as slaves now (irreguardless as to what they were beforehand). Because this is the way it is, this obviously is the way it should be. It's better *for them* this way than the world which they had before which I have no knowledge of.
But is it truly better *for them*, or is it better for you Aristotle? By definition, a slave's life doesn't benefit themselves, their work benefits their master and they have no choice in the matter of to work or not to work. You benefit from having slaves alive and working, slaves only get to stay alive by working.
Those slaves born into the life may not know any other. Likely to them, the grass is greener on the other side but appears unreachable. I've never been to ancient greece, nor have I ever spoken to someone who's lived in generational slavery, but I suspect they would claim they were slaves by nurture, not nature.
Debt, another common way to get into slavery, may agree with your assessment. After all, given a choice between starvation and death due to lack of wealth, or slavery, I suspect few would willingly choose the death, but that is assuming they had a choice in the matter instead of being sold at auction to pay those debts.
With prisoners of war- the most memorable method of gaining slaves: They had a life before you attacked them. They had successes and failures and dreams. Are they better a poor slave in your clearly more powerful city than a poor, medium income, or wealthy citizen in another? What if they get traded or sold into a different city that is about the same power level as their original? Clearly there is no doubt they are worse off now in comparison to their former status as a free person in their home city.
In conclusion, Aristotle should do the Socrates thing and go talk to more people about their life experiences before claiming he knows what's best for them and what they are naturally suited to. However, through talking to them, he may have inadvertently admitted they had reasoning skills of about average level, which would have negated the second part of his argument.
#1
ReplyDeleteLHP chapter 2
Question 1 (and also 3)
Swallows in summer I initially misunderstood as drinking (gulps/swallows) instead of the birds. I thought it was about thirst/heat in relation to summer instead of birdwatching. Silly me
Oh, yes, Aristotle was saying that just seeing a few birds doesn't mean schools out. In TN we can readily identify with this one considering the hail we'll sometimes have in April and sunny 70*F Christmases we get despite being in the northern hemisphere. Seeing a few birds out of season isn't unusual.
However, Aristotle didn't live in TN, he lived in Ancient Greece. And he was actually talking about a deeper meaning, it was a metaphor for happiness. A few moments of pleasure doesn't mean you are happy. Hell, in his view of things, stuff you have no knowledge of and even those happening after you die can impact your happiness.
Clearly his definition of happiness differs from ours, probably because he used an entirely different word (eudaimonia) and that's how translation works. The closest word we have to this concept is happiness, but I would argue it also is pretty closely aligned with internal views of success and satisfaction considering the afterlife quality of his definition.
Do I agree with his definition of happiness? No, it's factually incorrect in the English language. Do I agree with his definition of Eudaimonia? Sure, I don't know ancient Greek, and there is a definite vibe in the concept of differences between ephemeral happiness and the satisfaction of a life well lived/spent flourishing. As Children we experience ephemeral happiness and sadness that we can be turned from by distraction or let linger for a while. However, they rarely impact our lives as a whole.
A status of flourishing, of successful growth and the pleasure derived from that is something different all together. I suspect, unlike Aristotle, that it is always there in the background of my mind whenever I push myself and succeed and feel a rush of joy-- even as a child, the happiness was ephemeral but there was something that made me come back to it, a sense of success and blossoming.
We all might have roots of eudaimonia inside ourselves, finding it is naturally harder when you are a child, but you can learn to embrace it and ride the undercurrent of mild positivity quite far in life. I have found my eudaimonia. I have not completed it certainly, it will be a lifelong (and beyond) quest.
The point where I'm at in my eudaimonia is working on not overextending myself, not pushing my growth and flourishing too far too fast, so that when the frost comes I can survive the storm. I am finding my balance to ride undercurrents
We should probably resist identifying eudaimonia with glib notions of "happiness"... Aristotle wasn't trying to be correct "in English," after all.
Delete#1
ReplyDelete2) The School of Athens portrays how Aristotle believed the observable world in front of him was worth studying, while Plato believed in his Theory of Forms, and how the world of the Forms was the ideal area to study and philosophize. I am full-heartedly on Aristotle’s side. Like Dr. Oliver mentioned in a previous class, “How can I drink real coffee out of this mug if it doesn’t exist?!”
4) Aristotle’s research is completely against relying on other important figures to reach conclusions for you. In philosophy, debates, arguments, and doubt are crucial. Just because an important figure says it is (or might be) true, doesn't mean it is. I can’t think of any authorities I tend to defer to. I enjoy exploring their ideas, but I like to leave some room for doubt.
Comment Regarding “Truth by Authority”: Interestingly, I found myself disagreeing with select parts of Aristotle’s theory of happiness, but I dismissed those thoughts when I doubted whether my fledgling ideas could even compare to Aristotle’s brilliance. After reading about the Truth by Authority bias and Aristotle’s subjugation of people, I gained a better understanding of what philosophy should really be.
I second your opinion on the Theory of Forms (question 2), you summarized that very well. Focusing entirely on the perfected ideals of objects may seem deep and meaningful initially, but how is it helpful to the way we live our lives?? This is one of those areas where I feel that abstract, metaphysical thinking is rather useless. Sure, it's an interesting concept, but how is it applicable? How can we use this information to better our lives and the lives of others? I like Aristotle's take on this much better. Studying the world around us through science and the humanities is much more helpful, we can actually improve peoples' lives with that information.
DeleteAbstract metaphysics is the bane of practical philosophy. The Pragmatist's question: "What practical difference will it make...?"
Delete#3
ReplyDelete1)
The example of "swallows and summer" is meant to showcase Aristotle's belief that true happiness cannot be found in short term joy. While I usually agree with what Aristotle has to say, I just can't get myself to personally believe this. I find so much joy in the little things, like getting a coffee or having a brief chat with a complete stranger who I will never meet again. Though these things are only a tiny blip in my life, every time something little and special happens I am reminded of how wonderful the world can be, even when everything else can seem so bleak.
2)
Plato looks up towards the world of the "Forms", which is where he found perfection, while Aristotle looks out towards the world before him. I am fully on Aristotle's side in this debate.
4)
Reliance on Authority is what is so against Aristotle's research. I personally try not to rely too heavily on one philosopher, although I do have my favorites. My personal philosophy takes large or small pieces from many different philosophers, based on my own discretion.
#2
ReplyDeleteLHP- 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?
Plato is reaching up into the sky, which he called the "world of forms" and Aristotle is gesturing in front of him to the physical world, symbolizing their differences in thought. Personally, I see the value in both, though I lean more towards Aristotle's way. We can come up with some fascinating ideas and conclusions by thinking about the "form" of something in our minds, but also you can learn greatly by investigating the world around you. That's how we learned about science and how things work right? By going outside a poking things. But there are some things and questions you can't answer by going outside and "poke" it, like "Why does the universe exist?" and "What makes someone truly happy?" You cant go "look" at those and get an answer. So I believe there is value in both ways of thinking.
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
It was totally against his teachings to rely on someone else's authority (without asking questions). I want to pull this quote from our book, "This is what's sometimes called 'truth by authority' -- believing something must be true because an important 'authority' figure has said it is." This is a great example of an Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. For example this can be used in an ad or commercial, "Katy Parry uses our makeup brand and says 'its the best makeup ever!' so you should too!" and someone will see it and tell their friends "well Katy Parry said it was the best makeup, so I bought it." This is a silly example, but it gets the point across. See how this could be used wrongly? I think this is why Aristotle was against this idea.
I think a good authority for me to default to is my mom, I ask her for advice when I need it, but I rung it through my mental "fact checkers" to see how it fits into my ideas (which it usually does), I don't just blindly follow it.
LHP 2
ReplyDelete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
He was making the point that “a few moments of pleasure” don’t add up to true happiness. I somewhat agree; I believe someone could be “happy” for only a moment, but I would agree that temporary happiness is different than having a happy or fulfilling life. On his notion that children can’t be happy, I could see the argument that children lack the perspective of what “true happiness” is because they lack experience and wisdom. They can’t see what truly matters and brings true happiness because they lack the experience that would enable them to do so. However, I think that happiness as an emotion can be felt by anyone. If he meant happiness in terms of accomplishment or fulfillment, that would be limited to people who are older.
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?
Plato is more interested in the world of Forms: perfectionistic ideas of things and objects. Aristotle is more interested in the world around us. He believed in examining things with our senses to understand them. I probably tend to side more with Aristotle; how could you truly understand something without experiencing it? I think imagining things may bring us closer to understanding, but I think you would always lack some part of understanding it if you don’t experience it yourself. On the other hand, our senses aren’t always accurate, and we can experience things differently. Knowing that, the world of Forms is also useful in our understanding because we can have a shared image and understanding of something.
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 Aristotle’s idea of happiness and is “your overall achievement in life,” which can be affected by “what happens to others you care about.” We can increase our chance of achieving it by having good character and behaving well. He believed in the importance of developing the virtues instead of increasing pleasure in life. “Eudaimonia can only be achieved in relation to life in a society.” I don’t think I’ve achieved it because it doesn’t seem like something I could achieve at this point in my life. For the rest of my life, I can continue to pursue it, but I don’t think it could ever truly be achieved. I’m also not sure that we as humans could manage to be 100% virtuous all the time. As human beings, we are flawed, so we can keep working towards an idealistic version of ourselves, but it’s probably impossible to achieve.
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
People believed Aristotle was right about everything, relying completely on his authority instead of investigating things for themselves. I don’t think there is an authority I always defer to; usually I’ll refer to my parents or the internet, but I always verify information with multiple sources. I think it’s important to fact-check any source with other sources to avoid being misinformed.
"As human beings, we are flawed, so we can keep working towards an idealistic version of ourselves, but it’s probably impossible to achieve."
DeleteI definitely agree with your assessment of eudaimonia here. Is something impossible to achieve worth pursuing? That's debatable, I could see myself landing on either side of that issue. I understand (and agree with) the value of bettering ourselves, but the pursuit of personal happiness seems rather unimportant to me. There are people in the world with material needs so great they don't have the time or capacity to pursue 'emotional fulfilment', and so while those people still exist, I want my priority to be helping them achieve the same level of physical safety and health I experience in the first world. If meeting those needs fulfills me as a person, fantastic, but that's not why I want to do it. All in all, I don't think pursuing eudaimonia or fulfilment is wrong, I just think making that one's sole priority is a little silly.
1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteAristotle was making an argument about the nature of happiness when he wrote of swallows and summer. His point was that joy and happiness are not the same thing, and he expressed this by likening a swallow to a single moment of joy and summer to a state of true, lasting happiness. Mere moments of joy, even if they are frequent, do not amount to a lasting state of happiness. I entirely agree with Aristotle's argument about achieving happiness in life.
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 School of Athens shows the difference between Aristotle's practical and realistic view of the world in contrast to Plato's idealistic theory of Forms. I agree with Aristotle more on this subject, since perfection is essentially impossible to achieve in the unpredictable world we live in. It is a lot more useful to observe the world that actually exists before our eyes than to theorize what a possible "perfect" Form of something might be like. Aristotle's method also reminds me of the scientific method and its use through describing the world by observation.
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 to determine truth is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's philosophy. Even the most intelligent and observant minds can come to flawed conclusions at times. Aristotle understood this, and he would be disappointed if he knew that those who came after him took his word as indisputable fact.
One authority that I always defer to is my elders, particularly those in my family. This includes my parents, my aunts and uncles, and my grandparents. I defer to them because I trust them and know that they have more wisdom in relation to life and the world than I do due to having lived for longer than I have. However, I have had to learn to accept that even those who I trust the most are not perfect. They are usually trustworthy, but their views are subjective just as any other human's are.
On an entirely different note: Are we going to do classes virtually because school is out Tuesday? Or are we just going to do the readings and questions online and skip discussion?
ReplyDelete(Section #1)
ReplyDelete1. Aristotle believed that a handful of happy experiences does not necessarily mean that one has attained a happy life, just as seeing one swallow does not automatically mean that summer is here. I think that I agree with this; happiness is a state of mind that goes deeper than a few fleeting, enjoyable moments. I’m not sure if this is what Aristotle meant, but I think that in order to achieve happiness, we have to learn to find joy in the small moments, rather than constantly seeking out larger moments that we hope will bring us satisfaction or fulfilment or success. For example, if you dedicate your entire life to your career and feel that you must get a promotion to be happy, then either you will get the promotion and temporarily be happy, then need to get the next promotion in order to experience that feeling again, or you won’t get the promotion at all and you’ll feel that your life has lost its meaning. Happiness is not found in a life of scattered achievements, but in a life full of small acts that show us who we are and connect us with others.
2. In The School of Athens, Plato points up at the sky, directing his attention to the Realm of Forms, while Aristotle points out at the world, directing his attention to the physical things before him. Plato believed that everything in the physical world is an imperfect manifestation of the ideal that exists in the Realm of Forms, and we should spend our lives contemplating these perfect forms in order to understand our world. Aristotle believed that we can only understand our world by experiencing it through our senses, and he spent his life learning as much as he could about everything he could. Instead of contemplating the ideal form, he studied the physical object before him. In Weiner’s corollary to the unexamined life, thought and reflection can only go so far; similarly, contemplation has its benefits, but only if it’s followed by action. Keep the ideal in mind, but focus on the tangible world in front of you and learn how to interact with it.
3. For Aristotle, the best way for man to live is by seeking happiness, which in Greek is eudaimonia, or flourishing. The best way to achieve it is by developing virtuous character and learning how to properly interact with others in society. Learn good behaviors (virtues, the median between two opposite extremes) and apply them to your life and your relationships. I like this view of happiness, where it is not external and individual, but something internal and interpersonal. It recognizes that humans depend on and affect each other. I would not say that I have achieved eudaimonia; I think I am certainly closer to it than I was a few years ago, but I still have a lot of areas that need improvement. I’m not sure that complete eudaimonia is even possible in this life, because I think there will always be certain virtues that we can further develop in ourselves.
1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteSimilar to how a summer cannot be defined by one swallow making an appearance, Aristotle was making the point that a life of happiness cannot be achieved by a few brief moments of joy and pleasure. Instead, it was through constant attention and care toward a fulfilling life. I agree with Aristotle’s point and I often examine my life to check in on my happiness. Ultimately, when I die, I would like to look back and see thousands of happy memories. Therefore, it is important to make decisions that will have positive impacts in the present and future.
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?
Plato had his theory of forms and placed the idea on the top of his philosophical list of priorities. The theory of forms implies that wisdom is gained from looking into the mind's eye and imagining things in their perfect form, rather than looking at something in reality. Aristotle was more interested with the tactile world around him and thought that by studying the senses, a person could gain immense wisdom. Naturally, this made Aristotle fascinated by things like zoology, astronomy, history etc. I am on Aristotle's side. While I enjoy philosophizing in my head and using my imagination to try and explain reality, I trust the physical world around me more. I believe that the scientific method is the truest way to discover the world around us and that through observation and testing we can gain the wisdom we need to progress.
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?
For Aristotle, eudaimonia was a long life of happiness and overall achievement. He believed that eudaimonia was not entirely in our control and that a person’s eudaimonia could be affected by things they were unaware of or even following their death. Aristotle's framework for increasing eudaimonia was to focus on developing the right kind of character. He attributed someone's good character to how they were raised, their habits, and the virtues they possess. Additionally, eudaimonia could only be obtained by cooperating with each other in “relation to life in a society,” according to Aristotle. He frequently highlights that humans are inherently social creatures and that we need each other. I think I am on the path to achieving eudaimonia, but I have a very long way to go. I spend a lot of time thinking long term and making choices to better my future, and as long as I continue to build my character, my eudaimonia should grow too. To me, building character means telling the truth to myself and others, supporting my loved ones and friends, getting educated, and taking care of my body.
4. What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
Reliance on someone else’s authority was against the spirit of Aristotle’s research. I tend to rely too much on people I respect, people who align with my value system, and people I know personally. For example, I used to rely on information I would hear on podcasts, because the hosts always seemed so self aware and the people being interviewed were introduced as experts. Joe Rogan is one of the podcasters I am referring to. After being exposed to real peer reviewed studies and real science, I learned that a lot of the information was completely false and that I had trusted the illusion of authority and not the truth.
1. The point he was making is that "a few moments of pleasure do not add up to true happiness" (9). I completely agree with this. I don't believe that temporary feelings of joy necessarily mean you are content overall. These moments are often distractions from how you normally feel. I believe the way for someone to truly be happy is to change their mindset and how they view life. If your tire goes flat while you are on the way to school, there are two ways you can view the situation: you can get upset and think "my life is horrible I have the worst luck", or you can think "thankfully I have a spare tire in my trunk and I was able to pullover without getting in an accident". I believe the only thing stopping people from reaching true happiness, is themselves and how deal with life.
ReplyDelete2. Plato philosophizes the imperfect physical world as reflections of perfect forms while Aristotle believed the way to understand something was to "examine particular examples of it"(10). I can see both perspectives. I agree with Plato's idea that what we see and experience in the physical world is not necessarily the whole truth. Or that when we are learning something new, we are not really acquiring new knowledge, but rather remembering something we already knew on a deeper level. For example, justice is not something we have to learn, it is something we already understand that our soul may have previously encountered. Perhaps I am not interpreting Plato's ideology correctly, but from my understanding there are things that are instilled in us that we don't need to learn from this world, rather we have already encountered them before we were born. The "perfect form" is what we already know? It makes sense to me but also it doesn't. Aristotle's idea I understand and agree with more. Understanding reality through our senses. As human's, generally we need to look at something physically to understand it. You can't understand what grass is, without seeing and touching grass. Though, Im not sure I completely agree with the idea of form and matter being inseparable.
3. Eudaemonia is the greek term for flourishing or success. According to Aristotle we can reach it by making choices that will lead a meaningful, fulfilled life. The best way is to develop good habits and virtues. I don't think iv'e reached eudaemonia because I often let my fears or procrastination get in the way of accomplishing what I want. I also have not reached nearly half of my goals and usually am never fulfilled because there is always more that I want to accomplish.
Hi! The example you give for question 1 about the flat tire made me think. I also think that happiness is something that is worked towards over time, instead of a few short moments. Someone may think they are happy in one moment when they are not, you know? Your example made me think about the opposite as well. That person with the flat tire can decide that they will have a bad day, a bad week, a bad life, or they can choose to change their mindset. It makes me wonder about this line of thinking and its ideas on sadness. Is sadness also a fleeting moment? If someone doesn't work towards or choose happiness, what is stopping them from experiencing "true sadness", if such a thing exists?
Delete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree? When Aristotle wrote of swallows of summer, I interpreted it as it takes more than a single swallow to determine if it is summer, much like it takes more than a fleeting moment of joy to signal true happiness. I think it’s a compelling perspective and assumes a higher level of degree over happiness and success. Rather than attributing a “good life” to circumstances and luck, we can pursue happiness through intentional development. One bad day does not mean your life is doomed, and likewise, a good day does not ensure others will succeed.
ReplyDelete2. What is eudaimonia, and how can we increase our chances of achieving it, and in relation to what? Do you think you've achieved it? In the definition presented by the book, Eudaimonia can be compared to flourishing and success- a deeper level of happiness. When I researched the word further, I found that Eudaimonia can also be connected to fulfilling an individual’s potential or pursuing fulfillment. To increase our chance of achieving eudaimonia, Aristotle believed we must improve our character. To further define good character, Aristotle created a golden mean comprised of virtues sandwiched between negative attributes. I think, much like his comparison to a child, I have not experienced enough life to confidently say I have achieved eudemonia. I have so many career goals to fulfill, and I know my character is not entirely aligned with the golden mean virtues.
3. I found the quote by Elanor Rosevelt to be verry profound and I found myself really questioning the way I’ve always thought. I think it’s an inspiring message that you can relieve yourself from social anxiety by challenging your mind to escape the grasp of social phobia. It’s so easy to assume that people are judging you, but that means you assume you are important enough for people to think about it intently. When I go to the gym, I want to remind myself that a stranger’s validation is not worth questioning my own growth and development. While it may seem like intense pressure in the moment, people likely don’t think about you as deeply as you fear.
I find myself agreeing with a lot of the practicality behind Aristotle's approach to a multidisciplinary level of philosophy that challenged his teacher Plato and Plato's teacher Socrates.
ReplyDelete3. Eudaimonia literally translates to 'flourishing' or 'success,' but that does not necessarily encompass the complexity of the word's true meaning. It refers to a fulfilling, good life led with good decision-making and the construction of good habits. This is in relation to life in society. I think this part itself spoke to me; a true and whole sense of accomplishment means devoting yourself to spending time with other people and examining their backgrounds and viewpoints. This is similar to Socrates' view on asking everybody questions if they wanted to engage in conversation with them. I don't believe I've reached eudaimonia; I believe that true eudaimonia isn't really lived up to until someone's passing. Their passing and how they look upon their lives right before their last moments is what creates a true sense of fulfillment if they lived their life right.
Additionally, I think that both sides of Plato's focus and Aristotle's focus have their importance in philosophical debates. I believe that we should think about what exists beyond our own physical reality, much like the Theory of Forms focused on the perfect reality versus appearance. Also, I do believe that we must sharpen our understanding of our physical world through Aristotle's observation to truly start to grasp out-of-bounds topics like separate realities from ours.
Section #1
ReplyDelete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree? Aristotle was making the point when he wrote of swallows and summer that the sighting of one swallow does not make the entire season changed, which translates into real life as a single good act or a single day of joy does not make a person truly happy. I think it is a very interesting perspective and I agree with it. Happiness is a enduring state, that doesn't come from fleeting moments in your daily life, just like the swallow doesn't indicate the seasons beginning or end.
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? In the book, eudaimonia is defined as "flourishing" or "success", rather than "happiness". We can increase our chances of achieving eudaimonia by developing the right kind of character, according to Aristotle. I don't think I have achieved eudaimonia fully, as I still have a lot of life to live and many experiences to experience before I can say i've had a truly successful life.
- One thing that really interested me in the reading was when it said that Aristotle thought children couldn't be happy because they haven't lived enough life to be happy. This really made me think about how much life you have to live before you are able to assess if you are really happy or having achieved euduimonia.
It really is interesting that Aristotle thought kids couldn't be happy. I feel like most of the world see children as the happiest of all. In some ways I feel like kids have their own sense of euduimonia, they just have a different perception of what success actually is because they haven't experienced the world yet.
Delete1. When Aristotle wrote swallows and summer he was making the point that one moment of happiness doesn't make a happy life. I don't really know how to feel about that, I agree and I don't. I don't agree because small moments of happiness are what matters, and sometimes a single small moment of hope and happiness goes a long way. However, I agree because to be consistently happy there needs to be a string of good events. A good thing happening in 2007 won't necessarily make you happy 10 years later in 2017. I've never thought about it like that so I'm a little conflicted, but it's really insightful.
ReplyDelete2. In School of Athens Plato looks up representing the theory of forms and Aristotle looks out to the world around him. I agree with Aristotle, I think the world and how you should look at it lies in the world around you rather than the concepts of things. Aristotle wanted to experience things through the senses, I feel like thats the right way to do it.
3. I think that the concept of Eudaimonia is really interesting. I've never thought about things happening post-mortem contributing to my happiness. I definitely agree that success is a big part of happiness, but alluding to the reference in a book, I dont think after you die your child getting terminally ill affects your success after you die. I don't really know, I feel like that depends on what the afterlife is like.
I completely agree with your point on Aristotle's happiness and honestly loved the way you explained it. It's such a complex subject that I can honestly see both sides. One moment of happiness will not give you joy throughout your life, but constant moments of happiness that almost build off of each other certainly can.
Delete1. Aristotle was pointing out that having small bursts of pleasure here and there does not mean a person has lived a truly happy or successful life. Happiness, in his view, must be judged over the course of an entire life, not by isolated moments. I agree with this idea because life involves a range of emotions and experiences that occur at different stages. It would be inaccurate and unfair to define the happiness of someone’s life based only on brief moments of pleasure that naturally come and go.
ReplyDelete2. The philosophical difference implied in The School of Athens is that Plato believed the true nature of an object, substance, or idea exists in the mind as an ideal Form, while Aristotle believed that the true nature of things can only be understood by observing them in the real world. Plato focused on abstract perfection, whereas Aristotle focused on experience and observation. I side more with Aristotle because, although the mind can imagine perfect versions of things, our understanding is shaped by the physical world. The way I see it, it’s kind of like when an engineer designs a product: the idea or form in their head guides the design, but the true nature of the product is what actually exists, what people can see, use, and observe. Those real-world imperfections often say more about what something truly is than a perfect idea ever could.
3. Eudaimonia is Aristotle’s idea of true human flourishing, often translated as happiness, but it means more than just feeling good. It refers to living well over an entire lifetime, not having brief moments of pleasure. According to Aristotle, we increase our chances of achieving eudaimonia by living virtuously, using reason well, and developing good character through habit. Eudaimonia is achieved in relation only to a whole life, not to individual moments or short periods of success. A single good day or achievement is not enough to judge whether someone has truly lived well. I do not think I have achieved eudaimonia yet, because Aristotle believes it can only be assessed at the end of a complete life, and my life is still in progress. Like Aristotle said, A child can’t be ‘happy’ because they haven’t lived long enough. While I probably can’t be classified as a child anymore, I don’t think I have achieved Eudaimonia yet because I’m still on the path of groing and developing character and living virtuously.
4. Aristotle was strongly opposed to relying on authority as a source of truth, especially when something is accepted simply because it is said by someone viewed as superior or unquestionable. His approach emphasized observation, experience, and reason over blind acceptance. As a Christian, the main authority I tend to defer to is the Bible. Growing up, it often functioned as a kind of rulebook that shaped how I thought about certain issues. However, I eventually realized that I was relying more on what others said the Bible meant rather than understanding it for myself. In that sense, my earlier reliance conflicted with Aristotle’s spirit of inquiry. Recently, I’ve made an effort to read and engage with the Bible personally, which aligns more closely with Aristotle’s idea that understanding should come from direct engagement rather than unquestioned authority.
7. Sir Francis Bacon observed that when people adopt an opinion, superstition, or belief, they tend to focus on evidence and events that support it. Even when there are many examples that contradict their belief, those are often ignored or rejected outright. As much as possible, I try to avoid and overcome my own confirmation bias because I see it as the first step toward being open-minded. Being able to acknowledge events and experiences that don’t align with my views helps me make better decisions and be more understanding of others.
I really like your pint with Saint Frances. People can be so blinded by what they want to believe in that they stop believing their own two eyes. It is always important to take a step back and think about the material that is being shown to you. Like our Dr. said on our first day, it is extremely important to distance yourself from certain points and beliefs in order to create a more complete picture about the subject matter.
DeleteSection #2
ReplyDeleteAristotle believed that a handful of happy experiences does not make a happy life. Happiness is a much more complex concept that takes much more than the feeling of being happy. To Aristotle, living a long life that develops excellent character and good virtues leads to happiness, or as he called it, eudaimonia. I personally agree with some of Aristotle's views, but disagree with many key points. I absolutely believe that every person should live their life to the fullest potential. There is a saying that says, "it doesn't matter what you do, as long as you do it well." You could be a garbage collector, but as long as your are striving to better a little by little each day, then you are living a fulfilling life. Building good character is also extremely vital to building happiness. Good character sets your mindset up for success, and spreads positivity to others. That is really fulfilling and uplifting. However, that is not all it takes. I disagree with Aristotle that happy moments do not lead to a happy life. There have been many instances where genuine good people who have done nothing in their life but follow good morals and help others up feel empty inside. The term "my life flashed before my eyes" helps me understand this concept. Scientists say that during death, happy tidbits in one's life play right before death to comfort someone. That creates a sense of peace and happiness. This leads me to believe that people still need to go out and do things to make them happy in order to reach true happiness. They go hand in hand. Living a happy life to me means finding/doing things that make you happy but also living your life to the fullest and striving to be a good person. I believe that I am in the process of achieving eudaimonia because I try to better myself little by little everyday. I work on my character as much as I possibly can. My dad is my hero and he is one of the kindest, most caring people I have ever met. I aspire to be like him.
Section H01
ReplyDelete1.) When Aristotle made his argument about the nature of happiness, he said that "one swallow does not make a summer". When he wrote this, he meant it to imply that happiness is something that comes with time, not just a temporary feeling as many think it to be. He also said that children cannot experience true happiness because of this, because children haven't had enough time on this earth. I only agree with Aristotle somewhat. I think children can be happy, but their happiness is a purer, lighter form of it; I think of it as the difference between "te quiero" and "te amo" in Spanish. That lighter form of happiness doesn't have as much understanding to it, just as saying "te quiero" is more of a casual, non-committal phrase. True happiness, which comes with time, understanding, and patience, is like saying "te amo", a phrase which is only reserved for commitment and dedication.
10.) "Pratyaksa" in Indian philosophy, is the first of the five means of knowledge. It means perception, and it is believed to be achieved when a person has a correct cognition of the world. What I believe this means is that a person has both an understanding of their physical perceptions as well as their mental tuition. The Upanishads say to seek pratyaksa through introspection, yoga, and meditation; the best way to understand the world around you is to understand yourself.
12.) "Metanoetics" in Japanese philosophy is the belief or philosophy of repentance. In more understandable terms, metanoetics is being accountable for yourself and your mistakes. Embracing your limitations, contemplating your mistakes, and thinking ahead of them are all ideas in this branch of thought. It is also seen as a form of philosophy that acknowledges and accepts the limits of thought.
Thanks for looking at HWT. The west clearly has no monopoly on the quest for wisdom.
DeleteI find it interesting that Aristotle thought that children can't truly be happy because it demonstrates a new perspective to children's naiveness. Many people believe children are always happy because they don't know the darkness in the world. But doesn't that mean they don't know what happiness feels like? Also, Aristotle's view on happiness sticks out to me because I think too many people focus on things that make them happy for 5 minutes rather than something that can change their entire life.
ReplyDeleteI think it's not that Aristotle thought children "can't be happy" but that they just haven't lived long enough yet to be declared happy OR unhappy. These are (from an Aristotelian perspective) characterizations of long experience, not of fleeting moments.
DeleteIt's important to remember that countless children throughout the world do NOT lead the charmed and innocent lives of advantaged western children.
Yes, I think in the context of long-term happiness, which Aristotle described as Eudaimonia, Children might not necessarily have grasped what it means to be Happy. With that being said, there are children opportuned to have Joy, and we do have so many children out there in different parts of the world where a basic daily meal is a miracle, and in that context you can clearly see very unhappy children.
Delete#2
ReplyDeleteLHP- q2- Eudaimonia means flourishing and success rather than happiness being a short term event. People achieve eudaimonia by making choices that'll be beneficial to them in future and making them with the intent of their choices helping their body and mind. I don't think I have achieved eudaimonia because there is still things I can do right now to make my life better.
Thanks, all, for engaging with these questions during the Big Chill. Let's hope we don't lose any more class time this semester!
ReplyDelete#2
ReplyDeleteIt is quite interesting to see how Aristotle was really able to clarify what we consider pleasure, fleeting moments of joy, from the true happiness of Eudaimonia, which is a more long-term and overall concept. Choices form a key component in achieving eudaimonia. A good example is college majors: many people don't end up doing what they studied in college for various reasons, chiefly because they did not find happiness in that field. This is why a key factor when I came to college and picked a major was to ensure I really understood, liked, cherished, and saw a possibility with my major, Mechatronics engineering.
Section #2
ReplyDeleteI found the perspectives very interesting in this chapter, especially how Aristotle did not believe children could be happy. I would argue that while adults who have experienced more of life may experience a deeper and more impactful happiness, that does not necessarily mean that the happiness children experience isn't real. Just perhaps they experience joy on a shallower plane of understanding.
I also don't fully agree with his stance on success being a measure of happiness. How can we truly measure success? Not everyone that is overly wealthy would consider themselves "happy" just as those that have tight budgets won't automatically assign themselves as "depressed" or "unfulfilled." There are trends to be observed between money and happiness of course, but especially now does that really have a lot to do with true happiness or does it have more weight in the context of economic stability and the seemingly impossible standards we may feel the need to reach.