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
- What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
- Aristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"?
- What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by their body language in The School of Athens (1509-11)? Which Platonic theory did Aristotle reject? Is it disrespectful to contradict your teacher's pet theory? Who would you wish to speak with, if you could be inserted into the scene depicted?
- 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?
- 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.
DeleteHello, Zariyana, I also sometimes tend to believe someone when I know they have authority because I feel like they are masters on the topic, and I also agree that when I don't feel like learning something new, I just listen to the words of someone else.
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.
DeleteI think similarly to Socrates, Aristotle hated the concept of being able to "know" something entirely. To claim happiness means to exist in happiness endlessly, not just periodically. In my opinion this means that happiness, along with all other emotions, are never truly achievable, just experienced temporarily. If we "knew" any emotion truly would we even be human? I think to be human is to fluctuate between every emotion under the spectrum.
DeleteHello Aidyn, I also found that thought interesting because you would think that kids are probably the happiest they'll be in their entire life, but Aristotle said otherwise. But I do agree with Aristotle that we have not lived a full life and do not truly know happiness.
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.
Fall '26...
ReplyDeleteSection 2# Questions
ReplyDelete1. Aristotle was making the point that having a few happy moments does not equate to having true happiness. I agree with Aristotle on his point. So often do people rest in the happiness of small moments that they lose sight that the world is filled with suffering, war, disease, hatred, and inequality.
2. Aristotle was fascinated by the details of his surroundings. I am also quite interested in the details. The phrase the "devil is in the details" has been a staple in my thoughts and outlook on life. It is almost impossible to begin to understand the state of the world and mankind without focusing on the small intricacies of life and thought.
5. Reliance on someone else's authority was directly contrary to the spirit of Aristotle's research. When I am researching things, I generally do not have anyone I defer to consistently. I tend to vary my sources of information as much as possible to get a fuller picture of what I am researching. I do not assume that any party is right until I have researched the topic more holistically.
1. Agreed. And yet, I also believe in the value of enjoying small things (as a sign on the wall of my Airbnb this weekend said).
Delete5. RIght. And it's also contrary to the advice Immanuel Kant offered in "What is Enlightenment?" -
"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!”--that is the motto of enlightenment."
It is incredibly interesting to see Aristotle and Socrates suffer from the same fate. Both icons were against the anti-philosophical nature of accepting something at face value. I think (again) this is why Socrates refused to transcribe his teachings and research. He knew that because of his influence his teachings would be accepted and ultimate truth due to his presumed authority. Similarly to Aristotle, (who was wrong about many things such as the natural cause of slavery and the heavy object issue) Socrates is intimidating to all of those who read about his teachings now. This unintentional intimidation stops people from philosophizing on their own and instead cowering under the teachings of those who came before them. Philosophy relies on continuous movement which is why it is a shame when people unintentionally stall philosophical development by echoing previous teachings. I think both Aristotle and Socrates would be incredibly disappointed by how their works have been received by the public. As said in LHP page 14 "relying on someone else's authority was completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research".
ReplyDeleteOn the topic of Aristotle and Slavery (as well as patriarchy and societal hierarchy as a whole) I believe that one downside that comes with being such a genius is the inflated ego. Recognizing that he was one of few who dared to question reality and become uncomfortable, it is not a reach to assume that this is what led to him believing in a predetermined class / caste system in society. I am sure Aristotle grew tired of others around him refusing to engage in philosophical debate and wrote these people off as "less intelligent" or "less daring" than himself. I think he overgeneralized this observation to people who were forcefully enslaved because of his frustration. Overgeneralization is also inherently anti-philosophical which is ironic considering that Aristotle is revered as one of if not the greatest philosopher to exist. This again just shows the downfall of attributing all things great to a single person because we see a few desirable talents within them. Aristotle was wrong about many things, and I think if he was alive today that sentiment would excite him.
Just goes to show that even geniuses suffer blind spots and significant errors of reason and judgment. One more cautionary tale that ought to keep us all humble.
DeleteContinuing on from your thought of stalling philosophical development, what if we weren't stalling it by echoing previous teachings, but instead it was more of egging on, or encouraging new ideas from old theories. Still growing in ways of thinking. Because when could we reach the end of thoughts to be had on the subject, there are so many varying opinions and perspectives to be had.
DeleteZane Graham (section 1)
ReplyDeleteComment 1: I believe Socrates was correct in his methods of experiencing philosophies through the senses and wondering the earth, because what is the love of knowledge without the physical and social applications.
Comment 2: I really like the concept of eudaimonia; that the little things in life contribute to your over all "joy of life survival". without things to make you happy you will be depressed so don't live life without them.
Comment 3: I enjoy the comparison and contrast of the three ways of war, and the golden mean rule. because often people deal in absolutes with little to no thought about what is actually best.
1. Wondering the earth, or wandering? Or maybe they're the same thing? Empiricists tend to think so.
Delete2. We should be happy, I agree, and (again) should enjoy the little things. But the happiest life, surely, is one committed to the flourishing of oneself AND one's family, communities, and species... and other species & lifeforms as well, as we've come to understand the inter-relatedness of ALL life.
As I was typing my question I came to my own conclusion; Why, even though Aristotle (I'm sure many of his predecessors and successors apply to this) had a thought process that would permit such an idea, did he believe that women and slaves were inherently lesser than? He was able to determine that people should strive to do good and be good to others and yourself, but those two groups apparently did not deserve the same consideration. Although the concept was there; that Aristotle believed in being compassionate, I don't think he COULD have recognized his own contradiction. Aristotle was born, raised, and died in a patriarchal society; therefore, all of his thoughts were derived from the fundamental mindset of that day and age. Slaves had always been in captivity, (from Aristotle's P.O.V. I'm sure it seemed like they were willingly enslaved as he had never experienced slavery) and men had always been valued far greater than women. He had no reason to believe otherwise, so he developed the idea that there was some sort of innate will within these marginalized groups to remain subordinate to others. I think though, it is inspiring how far we have come as a society in that way. I had the privilege to be born in a time period where not many people share the same opinion as Aristotle on this topic, and that I can provide a differing perspective.
ReplyDeleteTruth by authority is something that most young people (especially small children) fall victim to in particular. I struggle with this as well of course, finding a balance between wholly considering what is being taught to me and still remaining skeptical. I guess your beliefs should really be like a stew in the way that you decide which opinions you agree on, (carrots? no carrots?) and after collecting other ideas you mix them all together and get a wonderful medley of flavor. (your personal beliefs)
4. Eudaemonia is Aristotle's idea of true happiness, or more accurately, true flourishment. Eudaemonia is more likely to be reached if one feels the appropriate emotions at the appropriate time, which will aid in future scenarios when you will be readily equipped to react accordingly. Eudaemonia is only achievable in relation to life in a society. I personally do not think I have achieved eudaemonia yet, but I'll get there for sure.
1. He may not have "had reason" to think differently about slavery and misogyny, in the sense that the conventional thought of his milieu did not encourage such out-of-the-box thinking. But he did attest that "all [persons] desire to know," so he had plenty of reason to keep an open mind and to critique conventional thought. So to repeat: even geniuses have blind spots. So we too most certainly have ours. It takes imagination and humility to look for those blind spots and try to correct them. Maybe philosophy can help. But so can time, and the advent of new generations of philosophers.
Delete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteWhen Aristotle states that the welcoming of a swallow doesn't mean that it is summer, he shows that one instance is not enough to declare something as objective. Looking at this in terms of happiness further cements his statement as a moment of happiness does not mean one is truly happy. Moments are fleeting, so to ascribe reality to them based on a brief circumstance would be rushed and inaccurate.
4. 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 further describes what happiness should be envisioned as when he references "eudaimonia". Happiness is commonly found in the search for pleasure; however, Aristotle shows that it can be found in the pursuit and maintenance of success. To attach meaning to one's life based off their own effort shows a longer-lasting form of happiness that should be strived for. I have yet to reach this state, but I am currently pursuing it by following my goals and pursuing what I believe to be my purpose.
3. Which Platonic theory did Aristotle reject? Is it disrespectful to contradict your teacher's pet theory?
Aristotle rejected Plato's theory of forms. Aristotle believed that if one wants to better understand something, not to simply think abstractly but to pick apart the object of discussion. I do not think it is disrespectful to go against your teacher's pet theory as adhering to everything they say enables truth by authority, which limits the progress that could be made. It is wise to absorb the teachings of one's superior; however, that word should not be law.
Let's not call one's teachers "superior," let's just call them senior (but also fallible) mentors. Good teachers welcome a thoughtful, respectful challenge. Good people do, in general.
DeleteI find it interesting that Aristotle associated happiness with success and legacy. He turns happiness into a status symbol of how successful or complete your life is and your life's legacy on the people you affected. Most people in the modern world associate happiness with pleasure, but Aristotle explains that little bits of pleasure does not equal happiness. One particular point that stands out to me is that a person's legacy affects their happiness, but Aristotle's legacy had many negative outcomes from many people blindly following his teachings, which goes against one of his own ideas.
ReplyDelete"Aristotle associated happiness with success" - depending of course on how you define success. He did not define it as wealth or privilege or power. I'd like to think he'd have agreed with William James's critique of success as construed by his contemporaries: “The moral flabbiness born of the exclusive worship of the bitch-goddess SUCCESS. That - with the squalid cash interpretation put on the word 'success' - is our national disease.”
DeleteAnd "legacy" for Aristotle was really more about things that happen after you've gone that undermine the total "flourishing" we can reasonably associate with your life in toto.
Section #2
ReplyDelete1.) Aristotle was fascinated by "the details of everything around him" (Warburton, 10). I would say that I am also fascinated by the details around me. I agree with Plato that sometimes you have to think very deeply to figure out how things work, but oftentimes I feel that you can figure things out by using things around you, such as by exploring the world, experiencing emotions and other experiences, and conducting experiments. I think it's better to actually experience the world around you rather than just thinking about it.
2.) Eudaimonia is having success or achieving something rather than just focusing on feeling happy. Aristotle's answer to increasing our chances of achieving eudaimonia was to " 'Develop the right kind of character' " or as the book puts it, "You need to feel the right kind of emotions at the right time and these will lead you to behave well" (Warburton, 12). So basically, you have to be in the right situation and feel the right emotions in order to behave in the correct way for eudaimonia to be achieved. I don't necessary know if I have achieved this. I just know that I am happy and I'm actively working toward the goals I have, which is what is important to me.
3.) Relying on an authority figure to know the truth just because they have authority was against the spirit of Aristotle's research. I don't think there are any authorities that I believe always know the truth. When I was little, I probably thought that my parents knew everything. Now, while I do think that people in positions of authority such as teachers or parents know a lot, I think it would be wrong to completely trust anyone without ever even slightly questioning them. Not everybody knows the truth about everything, and questioning people when you don't think someone is correct is one of the ways that new ideas and theories are born.
Regarding authority figures, do you feel we should still listen and take into consideration what they say? Then do what we will with what is given to us? As some authority figures know what their talking about, and others don't.
DeleteYes, I think we should definitely at the very least listen to them, even if they don't know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean we have to rely on what they say, we can just listen to what they think. When it comes to authority figures who do know what they are talking about, I think it's good to take into consideration what they are saying because then we can do more research and form our own opinions about what they said. I feel like that's what I always do when someone gives me advice; I consider what they said and then decide myself what I want to do with the information they gave me.
Delete2. "I am happy and I'm actively working toward the goals I have" - So if you can sustain that, and incorporate a concern for the flourishing of others as well as yourself, Aristotle would say you have a good chance of flourishing too.
ReplyDelete3. These days we need to guard against the false perception that AI knows everything... or that because it "knows" so much, we don't need to think for ourselves anymore. That would be intellectual (and who knows, possibly societal) suicide.
Although I never mentioned anything about relying on AI, I think you make a great point. Just like people, we should never blindly trust everything that AI says, especially since there are many examples of AI providing false answers.
DeleteSection #3
ReplyDeleteWhat point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
His point in saying that “One swallow doesn’t make a summer” was that one pleasure or good thing does not create one whole good thing. That happiness is not made up of little joys nor just a short term reason for contentment. I do agree. But I don’t necessarily think it is as prevalent or important in this day and age. I think that people are far more inclined to see something as ruined just because one aspect is bad than to see something as positively as what the quote is inferring. I would honestly prefer if some people saw one swallow and assumed a summer was good because of that than the way some people become hyperfocused on bad things that are unimportant.
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 a Greek word that, although it can be translated to ‘happiness’, is a lot closer to ‘flourished’ or ‘success’. It is a cumulative happiness that is not made up of simple pleasures, rather, it is made up of experiences and choices over time. Which goes right into how he believed we can increase our chances of it: “Develop the right kind of character”. Aristotle is referring to big devotive acts throughout your life and just the progression of character in general. I do not believe I have achieved this. I have not been on this earth for very long and despite having many many experiences, there is still so much left to go through. I also find myself living in the future and finding small joys through the comfort of the idea of the future being okay. I don’t like this as it causes a lot of anxiety and uncertainty; I’d love to get better at being in the moment. That level is not the content that Aristotle describes.
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. Or truth by authority. This is where his research was so thorough and his brain so intelligent, that people believed everything he said for centuries without any proof further than the fact that he said it. Which is innately against both what he stood for and philosophy in general. I try not to defer to any authority for all things, I like to have a wide variety of people in my life that I consider their opinions frequently. Though I do tend to take what my mom says as truth more often than I am sceptical of her. In terms of people I don’t know personally though, I never take the entirety of what they say as truth. Of course, scholars and intellects have much to offer, that which I do trust, but I wouldn’t ‘always’ defer to anyone. I find that to be much closer to something tribalistic rather than educational. I never want to believe something just because XYZ person says it or I saw it on XYZ, and using the source to justify the information. Instead, I think an approach of pattern recognition, media literacy, and critical thinking can get you a lot closer to a truth after deliberation across a variety of facts and opinions.
Section 3
ReplyDelete1. I think that when Aristotle speaks of swallows and summer, meaning that one swallow does not mean the coming of summer, the allegory towards happiness that this writing shows is something that is very true. We all live our lives and go through many different trials day by day. When things are going well and a bad thing happens, that doesn’t mean life is now miserable, and when things are going poorly, that doesn’t mean that life is going to suddenly become sunshine and rainbows. I do still think that maybe a swallow can be an indication of summer however, such as when things feel hard and all a sudden you start to feel lucky, that that can be an indication of good things to come.
2. Aristotle was fascinated by the true reality of things. I fully agree with him and tend to reject the theory of forms, because if nothing can ever be perfect, then we never have anything. I think looking at reality as it is may be the best way to interpret and make questions, because those are the things that are real and existent. Looking for the “perfect form” of anything can also be very biased as to what one person thinks is perfect versus another person.
3. I think that the implication from Plato pointing up at the forms is a great contrast to Aristotle pointing down at the real world, really showing their differing beliefs. Aristotle rejecting the theory of forms showcases immense respect towards Plato, and I believe that his disagreement is a great depiction of philosophy at its core. If I could be at the scene I would wish to speak to Aristotle as I agree with his beliefs much more than Plato’s, as well as the fact that Aristotle was so great and wise throughout such a broad spectrum of topics, as shown by his curiosity in all aspects of the world.
Section 2
ReplyDelete1. Is Eudaimonia truly possible in humans? Could it be related to 'eternal peace' as stated in the Bible since Aristotle believed it could be achieved after death?
2. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
Aristotle was making the point that true happiness doesn't come from a single moment or even a few moments of happiness. The way he believed said that not even children could achieve true happiness because it's not, simply, a short term feeling. I don't agree with this because true happiness is subjective; what one person finds to be fufilling may not provide the same emotion for the next.
3. Aristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"?
Aristotle was fascinated by "the details of everything around him". The philosophers before him, Socrates and Plato, were more complex in terms of the world. They believed that there was deeper meaning to everything surrounding us. Aristotle believed in focusing on the world in front of us. I agree with Plato more because I don't believe anything has reached its final state in the world. I believe that people and things are continuously growing and changing.
1. Aristotle’s point when he wrote about swallows and summer was that one example or observation does not prove a general rule. Just because we see swallows during summer does not mean that seeing swallows always means summer has arrived. I agree with Aristotle because we should look at evidence and consider other possibilities before making conclusions.
ReplyDelete2.Aristotle was fascinated by the natural world and how things actually work. He believed that we can learn about reality by observing and studying the world around us. I agree more with Aristotle because I think what we can observe and experience is important for understanding reality, although I also understand Plato’s idea that there is a deeper reality beyond what we see.
3.In *The School of Athens*, Plato points upward while Aristotle points forward/downward. This represents their different ideas about reality. Plato believed that true reality was found in the eternal Forms, while Aristotle focused more on the physical world and what we can observe. Aristotle rejected Plato’s Theory of Forms because he did not believe Forms existed separately from physical things. I do not think it is disrespectful to disagree with your teacher as long as you do it thoughtfully and respectfully. If I could be inserted into the scene, I would want to speak with Aristotle because I would like to ask him how observation and experience can help us understand the world.
Hey Adedoyin, I very much agree that Aristotle was fascinated by the natural world and that learning about it is an important part of our life. I also agree with your reasoning for swallows and summer and that one good thing doesn't mean you are truly happy.
DeleteSection H01:
ReplyDelete1. Aristotle was saying that one swallow does not mean it's summer. In other words, one good thing does not prove that someone is truly happy or living a good life. A person needs a pattern of good choices and actions over time to have a good life. I agree because one successful moment does not define someone's entire life. What matters more is how the person acts over their entire life.
4. Eudaimonia means "success" or "flourishing". Aristotle thinks that it comes from living a life of virtue and making good choices. We can increase our chances of achieving it by developing good habits, and practicing good virtues. Aristotle's idea of happiness is in relation to a complete human life, rather than just a small amount of time when someone is temporarily happy. I don't think I've completely achieved eudaimonia because I'm still young and have a lot of my life ahead of me. However, I think I can work toward it by developing good habits, making good choices, and trying to become a better person.
5. Reliance on authority alone, without looking at evidence or thinking for yourself is against the spirit of Aristotle's research. Aristotle emphasized using reason to investigate the world. I don't think there is an authority I would always defer to because even experts can make mistakes. However, I would take experts seriously when they have strong evidence and experience in the subject. I think it's important to respect knowledgeable people while still thinking for yourself.
Section 3
ReplyDelete2) * Aristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"?
- Aristotle was fascinated by the details of everything around him. However, I don’t think I fully agree with him, nor do I fully agree with seeing the world as a pale reflection of true reality. True reality doesn’t have to be shallow and pale, it can hold so much beauty and wonder. It can create so many questions.
1. When Aristotle wrote Swallows and Summers, he used the metaphor that seeing one swallow does not mean it is summertime yet. He meant to say that just because one good or bad thing happens, it does not define the course of life or make a stone observation just based on one thing. I would completely agree with this. While bad things have happened in my life and I have done some bad things also, it in no way means that my life is bad or that I am a bad person. It is the same thing with other people. Even villains have done good things, and even saints have done bad things. I also think sometimes that good and bad is subjective. Something may happen to you that someone else may take as a blessing, and vice versa.
ReplyDelete2. Aristotle was fascinated by discovering how things worked in nature.While I am too fascinated by the way things work in reality, I do agree with other philosophers like Plato and Socrates in thinking that there is far more to the world than just plain reality. In fact, I think the reason I find true meaning in reality is because I interpret it on deeper levels than just how it factually runs itself.
3. Eudaimonia is the greek concept of overall success and happiness in life. Aristotle believes that by developing the right kinds of character traits such as the traits needed to carry a successful conversation. Personally, I think there is always further to go with Eudaimonia as a concept. You can always push to better yourself and succeed more and seeing as my life is just starting, I will continue to do that every day. By working towards goals and striving every day to be your best self and embodying the person you want to be, I think you work to bring this concept into your life.
4. Aristotle defied relying and trusting authority to the fullest. As we discussed last class, the "king philosopher" or the philosopher that everyone listens to should be someone who is aware and honest about the fact that they don't know everything. I believe a person who thinks they know everything is dishonest, and boastful. No human being can answer all of earth's questions. Obviously, I believe it is good to have faith in authorities who are educated on their prospective topics. But, there is a reason a true democracy is allowed to question their authority. It is because without questions, we cannot get the answers and truths we deserve.
section 2
ReplyDelete1. I resonated with Aristotle's fascination with the details of everything around us because I believe that it is important to stay in the present. It is valid to question the future but questioning the little aspects to current life is, if not more, important. I think he brings up a good point about happiness not just being a feeling but instead describing it as eudiamonia, which is living and fulfilling virtuous life.
2. When I read Aristotle's belief that children are not truly experiencing happiness at first I was pretty thrown off, gradually his point started to grow on me, but now after more reflection I think that it is unfair to say that the little time they have been alive they were not able to live in happiness. While it may not represent exactly Aristotles ways of living a fulfilling life through objective actions and decisions it raises my question of can happiness be achieved through smaller moments in life or is it precisely based off of a lifetime of behavior?
3. In The School of Athens Plato is pointing up and Aristotle is motioning to whats around him. This difference in their body language is extremely telling to how their views countered one another. Plato placed high significance to the unknown of what's beyond the physical world and Aristotle found importance in gaining knowledge from the existing patterns we encounter in daily life.
Baker Kilmartin section 1
ReplyDeleteQ1
I think his point can mostly be put down to don’t judge a book by its cover as he says one swallow can’t tell you summer is here, which I would say does have truth to it, however to be able to know what what you think of something, or what something means to you, you have to a be able to judge it without the full knowledge of what it is. That doesn’t mean, though, that you can’t learn more and change your opinion on it later.
Q2
What I got from reading LHP’s chapter on Aristotle, I find that he believes that others' information on the world is very valuable, their insights as to why they act the way they do, and what previous events in their life lead them to the conclusion they now hold. I think I agree more with Aristotle than with Plato and Socrates. Yes, we as a society don’t know the real, true information to answer questions with, or even the correct questions to be asking; however, knowing what other people think and how that affects their lives is, to me, is a more powerful and productive task to undertake.
Q4
Eudaimonia, from my understanding, is the positive energy around what you have done, are doing, and will do. For instance, if you planted carrots, that positive energy would stick with you, especially when you get to collect the fruits of your labor and eat said carrots, which again would provide you with more positive energy. All of which culminates in your overall Eudaimonia, a collection of happiness. I don’t think I am anywhere near having enough of this positive energy to have achieved Eudaimonia, but I have little doubt that I won’t achieve it one day.
Section 1
ReplyDelete1. When Aristotle wrote "One swallow, doesn't make a summer" he was using that expression as a way of relating summer and life, in order to show that a happy life cannot come from happy moments alone. I found this concept to be very interesting and something that I personally resonated with. I agree that in order to live a genuinely happy life, you have to find a deeper and broader sense of happiness than superficial things and experiences. However I disagree with his idea that children cannot be truly happy, because I think that as far as their minds can comprehend they are happy.
2. Aristotle was extremely interested in learning about things by observing them in real life rather than the "form" of them. I found this very interesting, and while I agree that reality and the things in front of us are very important, I think that the way we perceive and interpret things is a part of what makes life so beautiful. So the idea that we should only focus on the reality rather than the "idea", is one that I don't personally agree with.
One thing that I noticed was that Aristotle believed in slavery, but not necessarily in the same context that we are used to in the U.S. For him it had nothing to do with race and more so to do with the class that a person was born into. I found this very interesting because Aristotle's teachings were used centuries later as justification for the expansion on what qualified someone as a slave. This makes me wonder how many other times societies have taken the word of a philosopher or a man they deemed as wise, and twisted it into fitting whatever narrative they wanted it to fit.
1. I think Aristotle's point with the swallows and summer was really that one moment or one example isn't enough to prove that something is true. Just because you see swallows doesn't always mean summer has arrived, just like how experiencing one happy moment doesn't have to mean that someone has a happy life. I understand what he means, although I don't completely agree with it. I think small moments of happiness still matter, even if they don't mean that your entire life is happy. Someone can have a difficult life and still have genuine moments where they are happy, and I don't think those moments should be dismissed just because they aren't permanent. You also have to keep in mind, without the bad you'd never get to experience the good! I think it's very important to keep that in mind.
ReplyDelete2. Aristotle was really interested in the world around him and in understanding it by taking the time to observe and study it. I think I'm much more on Aristotle's side with this. I like the idea of questioning things, but I feel like there's a lot we can learn from actually going out and looking at the world and seeing how things work instead of only trying to reason our way to an answer. Plato's idea of a deeper "true reality" is interesting for sure, but I have a hard time accepting that the physical world is somehow less real just because it isn't perfect. If anything, I think our imperfections are part of what makes the world worth studying in the first place. I find beauty in all the imperfections of the world. After all, how can we even define perfection when everyone has a different personal definition of what it looks like to them?
4. Eudaimonia is basically the idea of living a good and fulfilling life, rather than just experiencing temporary happiness. Aristotle seems to think that it comes from developing good habits and virtues and using reason to live well. I think our chances of achieving it increase when we're intentional about the kind of person we want to be instead of just chasing and/or chosing whatever makes us happy in the moment. I don't think I've achieved true eudaimonia, but I don't think it's really something you just finish and check off a list either. I definitely think it's more of a lifelong process. There are parts of my life where I feel like I'm doing well and becoming more of the person I want to be, but there are also a LOT of things I'm still figuring out. For me, a fulfilling life would probably have more to do with continuing to grow and finding a meaning in what I do, rather than just experiencing happiness. I don't think life is complete without experiencing the full range of emotions we as human beings get to live through in our day to day lives
Zander Gomez
ReplyDeleteSection 1
1. The “one swallow doesn’t make a summer” concept that Aristotle proposed is a well representation of how happiness does not derive from small, temporary euphoria, but instead only comes to fruition when “flocks” of said sparrows are apparent. I heavily agree with his outlook on the way people tend to claim happiness despite allowing the small joys in life to carry their emotions astray. I believe that we should focus on the larger aspects of life and avoid living in the moment.
2. I believe that Aristotle’s fascination with the way things functioned and how they existed is much more appealing than Plato’s belief in forms. In order to understand the “form” of an object, one must rely on their own consensus, or the imaginary consensus of others. I feel that this creates a dilemma of false understandings due to Aristotle’s opinions on authoritarian influence. But by witnessing the forms of objects through the use of senses, people are much more inclined to voice their opinions as well as have proof to enforce their beliefs. It also allows for a greater understanding among people.
3. Eudaimonia is the sensation of something more than just happiness, it is based on success and prosperity. A person’s ability to better themselves and others boosts their eudaimonia. I find that true eudaimonia, the way Aristotle described it, is extremely improbable in today’s world. I believe that the only people who can bring themselves as close as possible to such an emotional state would be those who lack sympathy. Sympathy for others can create negative emotions and disparity, but someone who lacks such interest in other people’s issues can simply ignore such things and pursue the path to eudaimonia. I do not believe I will ever achieve something like eudaimonia.
you said that happiness comes to fruition when flocks are apparent, also forgive if this sounds rude I am just trying to understand, but wont the flocks eventually have to leave when winter comes thus in a sense mean that even when things look really good eventually it will come to an end? I'm probably looking into the analogy to much but do you think it would be better to search for a place where the flocks stay year round or simply just wait for the swallows to come and go. what really trying to say is would it be better to attempt to find a constant perpetual happiness or just wait for temporary pleasures to come and go? because personally I believe that the pursuit to find happiness that does not rely on temporal thinks to be a much more fruitful pursuit.
DeleteSection 3
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
1. Aristotle’s point was that one swallow—or one warm day—does not prove that summer has arrived. In the same way, a few pleasurable experiences do not automatically mean that a person is truly happy. Aristotle believed happiness had to be judged over an entire life, not just by temporary feelings. I agree with him because someone can have fun or experience pleasure while still making bad choices or living an unhealthy life. True happiness seems like something more lasting than just feeling good for a short time.
2. Aristotle was fascinated by almost everything around him. He studied zoology, astronomy, history, politics, drama, and many other subjects. He wanted to understand the real world by observing particular examples. I agree more with Aristotle than Plato on this issue. Plato believed that the world we experience is only a reflection of a deeper reality made up of perfect Forms. That idea is interesting, but Aristotle’s method seems more practical to me. For example, if we want to understand cats, it makes more sense to study real cats instead of only thinking about the perfect Form of “cat.”
4. Eudaimonia means human flourishing, success, or living well. It is more than simply feeling happy or experiencing pleasure. We can increase our chances of achieving it by developing good character, practicing virtues, using reason, and trying to avoid extreme behavior. Aristotle believed eudaimonia could be achieved only in relation to life in a society. Human beings need relationships, justice, and cooperation with other people in order to live well. I do not think someone has to be happy every moment to achieve eudaimonia. Personally, I would say I have not completely achieved it, but I am working toward it by building meaningful relationships, making responsible decisions, and trying to become a better person.
LHP
ReplyDelete1. What point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
Aristotle was trying to make the point that a few good moments don’t equal true happiness. I agree with this to an extent. You can have happy moments and still not feel satisfied with your life but for me personally those small moments are what I cherish most. Without them life wouldn’t be worth living in my opinion.
4. 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 means success or flourishing. You can increase eudaimonia by developing the right kind of character. You need to feel the right kind of emotions at the right time. I don’t think I’ve reached eudaimonia yet and most likely won’t at least not for a while.
HTW
2. There is widespread belief in India that the practice of yoga can lead to what? Do you think it can?
There is a widespread belief that yoga can lead to knowledge of various universes. I believe yoga can lead to a deeper understanding of yourself which in turn may lead to a better understanding of those around you but I don’t think this transcends universes.
Amanda Maldonado - Section H03
ReplyDeleteWhat point was Aristotle making when he wrote of swallows and summer? Do you agree?
Aristotle said that you cannot tell it is summer by one warm day, by “one swallow”. He believed life must be lived before you could experience happiness, more than one swallow. A small moment of pleasure does not equal happiness. I tend to agree with this. Small happy moments can really sustain us for a good while, but similarly moments of sadness can drag us down for long periods of time. It’s the life lived on the whole, all the moments added up, and how you perceive each moment that generates a happy life. It’s becoming the best version of yourself, not just for you but for those whose lives you come in contact with, even indirectly.
Aristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"?
Aristotle was fascinated by everything, all the details. I LOVE this outlook. I am a curious person and find myself “squirreling” to dive heavily into a new topic that ran across my mind. This often leaves me with unfinished projects that I neglect to instead learn about my newest interest. I would have left the cave to find out what was out there!
What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by their body language in The School of Athens (1509-11)? Which Platonic theory did Aristotle reject? Is it disrespectful to contradict your teacher's pet theory? Who would you wish to speak with, if you could be inserted into the scene depicted?
Plato was an “armchair expert”, while Aristotle wanted to seek out experience and knowledge. Aristotle rejected the theory of forms and no, I don’t believe it is disrespectful to contradict your teacher’s pet theory. In fact, as philosophy goes, as those that seek and love wisdom, I think a new school of thought would be welcome. I’m someone that loves science and discovery, new data that disproves a hypothesis means your experiment worked, even though it failed and your “pet theory” was wrong, we learn from those discoveries, often more than we would have if we’d proven ourselves right.
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 happiness, but not the kind that is fleeting. To achieve this, Aristotle says we must ‘develop the right kind of character’ and can only be achieved within society. If our happiness is akin to being a flower that needs water and light to be sustained, do we ever actually achieve Eudamonia? If it is not fleeting and must be maintained, we are always chasing.
What reliance is completely against the spirit of Aristotle's research? Are there any authorities you always defer to? Why or why not?
Relying on someone else’s authority was against Aristotle’s research. For me, it depends on the situation. Oftentimes, even if I agree with someone, I will find myself taking the opposing position in my head and trying to look into the topic. However, on some more serious topics, I do have authorities I defer to, especially in subjects I am not well versed in. While I will strive to allow my thoughts to be changed by facts, I tend to gravitate to my trusted sources initially. Example with cancer research / blood cancer in particular, I have found that if a study has a particular medical professional’s name attached, I take it with full authority.
Section 2
ReplyDeleteLHP Chapter 2
2. Aristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"?
Aristotle was fascinated by the details of everything around him, rather than the abstract, as Plato was. Between the two philosophers, my perspective is closer to Aristotle. I am more interested in the workings of the minutiae, as I believe understanding the smallest processes is crucial to building an understanding of the largest ones (i.e. the universe), as experimentation and observation is more accessible and testable in smaller details. If I had a more abstract mind, I would favor Plato’s “true reality”.
3. What philosophical difference between Plato and Aristotle is implied by their body language in The School of Athens (1509-11)? Which Platonic theory did Aristotle reject? Is it disrespectful to contradict your teacher's pet theory? Who would you wish to speak with, if you could be inserted into the scene depicted?
In The School of Athens (1509-11), Plato is illustrated as reaching up, while Aristotle reaches in front of himself, depicting the difference in their philosophical focuses. Aristotle rejected Plato’s Theory of Forms, believing that our senses do serve a purpose in understanding the universe. I don’t believe it is disrespectful to reject a teacher’s theory, conversely, I believe it shows the skillfulness of Plato in teaching Aristotle to be curious, to think philosophically. If I could be inserted in the scene, I would wish to better understand Plato’s perspective, as it differs greatly from my own.
4. 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 flourishing and overall success of one’s life, achieved by developing one’s character in relation to society, improving the lives of the community while improving one’s own. I don’t think I’ve achieved eudaimonia because I believe it is only achieved at the end of life. The success and flourishing of one’s actions in life can only be determined by the effects they have on other people, which continue until the end of human life altogether. Though I agree with the concept of eudaimonia, I believe it should include one’s effect on all life, including plants and animals. In that case, eudaimonia is not achieved until the end of life completely.
September 1
ReplyDeleteAristotle was fascinated by what? Are you, also? Or do you agree more with Plato about "true reality"
Aristotle was ‘facisnated by the details of everything around him.” I really love Aristotle’s approach to life in this sense, seeing the beauty in how things were crafted or even just put on this earth. Also, his need to experience the world is completely different from Plato’s more abstract idea that there is a better world to be had. I think this is the world we get, and should be the one we cherish. Plato, to me, was a more cynical man, and I believe the way you chose to see the world dictates the world you see. Aristotle was more free and entranced in the beauty of what surrounded him, and I like his approach much more.
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 flourishing in life, beyond happiness and simple pleasure. To achieve it, Aristotle thinks luck is partially it, but mostly developing good values. Like I said, there is luck in this as it’s easier to have good virtues if you are raised by virtuous parents. You must live well, reason with your surroundings and build habits that generate good. Eudaimonia is not easy to achieve, and I think sometimes in my life I have acheived it, but other times I question that. I do not know if I am a good person, a lot of people might tell you I am, but some may tell you I’m not. I have made mistakes that have impacted people and not only their view of me, but maybe their view of theirselves, and I think it takes wrestlng with that to find Eudaimonia, because I don’t think it can only be being virtuous bit also at peace with your choices, and reason with those choices enough to be able to justify them. I think that, yes, I strive to be virtuous, but people are complicated. Just yesterday I spoke without a clear head, and maybe I didn’t say anything rude, but I didn’t speak with grace and Eudaimonia is only achieved in relation to society. So, I’m close, and make mistakes, but being aware of my shortcomings I think makes me closer.
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 goes against Aristotle’s research. I believe I generally fall on some political authorities, as sometimes it’s easier to agree with the side you are more closely knitted in values and attacking the other side, rather than forming your own opinion on a matter. It’s not at all something I’m proud of, but something just doesn't interest me and I don’t want to research them.
this may be a jump to conclusions but in the opening of chapter 2 true happiness I honestly agree with the fact that children cannot be happy but not it the sense that you might be thinking of. Aristotle claims that true happiness comes not from short term pleasure but something that I'd say is more eternal and present throughout our lives, and children not having knowledge or wisdom yet as they have lived short lives so far cannot understand what truly makes them happy. the best example I can give of this is that as I kid I would always want the new toy on the shelf at target because it seemed cool and it made me "happy" when I had it. Now I cant understand what the point in that toy was. I've yet to think about any item I had as a child that still makes me happy. I was immature and did not have the wisdom to know what made me happy.
ReplyDeleteadditional, this is just going off of my own beliefs, I would argue in this same sense that children can also not be sad. in the same example from before if I didn't get what I wanted sure I would be upset, but at this point in time I couldn't care less for the material things that I lost and brought me "sadness." yet again like before a child doesn't know what truly brings them sadness as the lack the wisdom to truly know pain and grief. even now I cant say that i truly understand it as I believe I've simply just been lucky enough to never experience it, but if I had to what grief could be it would be the loss of something you thought would be true happiness after discovering it as you now could never have that happiness again or vis versa. idk just some food for thought maybe it makes sense maybe it doesn't but yet again I like to ponder sooo yeah hopefully my rant makes sense.
Section #2 (1pm)
ReplyDelete1. Aristotle was pointing out that just because at one moment you are happy does not mean that you have reached true happiness. I can agree with parts of what he says. You can be happy in the moment, but it is only temporary. You can still have the edges of doubt and sadness while being happy. True happiness in his belief was more about how good you were/are and your actions. I believe that all these things contribute to you being happy, but happiness should not be measured by society's definition of achievements/success. Everyone has their own definition of what success is. In society's eyes, there are plenty of people who are successful, but are they happy?
3. Plato believed in this other world that was above everyone. Aristotle was more grounded and was seeking out the world before him. Aristotle rejected Plato's Theory of Forms. In my opinion, his rejection of the Theory was not disrespectful. It is healthy to raise questions and explore your own thoughts and opinions. It is not disrespectful to disagree with someone if doing it out of seriousness. I would want to speak to Aristotle since it can be scary to disagree with someone who you deem an authority figure, especially since Plato was his teacher.
5. The reliance on authority was against the spirit of Aristotle's research. Aristotle, himself, disagreed with his teacher. I can see where this reliance comes from though. Someone who seems very educated can come across very reliable so you believe that this person cannot be wrong. It can also be that the idea is so believable and aligns with your value that you agree with no questions or desire to dig deeper. I think there are authorities that I defer to like a boss or professor. Of course, even in these instances you cannot follow blindly.
Aristotle says the meaning of life is to seek happiness but the way to go about that is by having Eudaimonia. the b est way I can personally describe that is by having a goal that you want to achieve something that will in turn bring you "happiness." However, I believe that this goal cannot be some lofty spur of the moment want or desire like what I said in my earlier comment is that this has to be something you are truly sure will make you happy and content and it must be a goal that once achieved will last and need to be maintained. the reason I say and put things in this order is because based off of my personal beliefs and texts I've read so far. additionally the example given in LHP is that of watering a and nurturing a flower. first you must water and care for it and then when it is fully grown you must still care for it and nurture it, but it also says that you could end up with an unattractive plant. due to this I believe it skips the first step of knowing what plant you are trying to grow because the worst outcome would be regretting you spent time growing, but even so it's easier said than done to just know what you think brings you happiness and then try to acive it.
ReplyDeleteAristotles words regarding swallows and summer is an interesting insight to the mind of Aristotle. Sure we can understand the mechanism that he is communicating, but its more interesting, to me, to recognize the category that he is pointing to. He is commenting on the category of statistics, which when juxtapositioned with Plato's category of the forms, renders the psychological process of the two. Plato, thinking about essence, while aristotle derives mathematical principles and relationships. Plato extrapolates, while Aristotle interpolates.
ReplyDeleteEudaimonia is an aggregation of the facets of the "personal". The way you are remembered, the way you existed, the perceptions of others. In language terms, every sentence that could be seen as true, as it applies to the category of "you". Another facet of eudaimonia, what could be considered a definition, is "the life well lived" proving as a maxim for a wanted state of affairs. The irony is that it is impossible to know whether one has achieved the maxim. Given that it is calculytic in nature; lim-> infinity, or that existence itself must cease to warrant the attribution, I would say no one has ever, or will ever reach eudaimonia. Even if we were to grade on a curve, it would be pointless because no one would be there to evaluate the category, which heavily relies on other people making the input resolve in a syntax error. All of this aside, its probably a useful tool to ground yourself in the sociality you exist in. Anything that makes you recognize the necessity of others reveals ethical principles.
Ineffable means something that cannot be properly understood through words. The word is totally nonsensical. Private languages dont exist. What is actually happening is closer to a circuit overload in which the user itself doesnt comprehend. The user has no meaning but wants to attribute qualia for some given want. These wants are the epistemic root. This is to say the reasoning is fallacious. This is not a dialectical marvel where truth and meaning can be found within the experiential as we would like to personalize, it is a lie proselytized by giddy puppies. I don't know though. Who doesn't love a giddy puppy?
Section #3 (2:40 P.M.)
ReplyDeleteLHP 2
1. Aristotle used swallows and summer as a sort of metaphor to describe happiness; he explains that similar to how the arrival of one or a few swallows does not quite mean that summer has come, a few moments of pleasure do not necessarily mean that someone has achieved true happiness. And personally, I agree with this statement; I feel as though true happiness and satisfaction with life does not come from momentary joy, as it can wear off just as quickly as it came.
2. Aristotle was fascinated deeply by the physical world and the natural history of it; he focused on direct observation, dissecting animals and studying plants, categorizing everything he could see.This was much unlike Plato, who believed that the physical world was only an imperfect reflection of a higher reality. Plato felt that the true world existed in forms and ideas, which couldn't be understood through our physical senses. I lean more towards Aristotle's beliefs here, as I am more interested in the physical world myself.
4. Eudaimonia, as Warburton explains it, describes the idea of "flourishing" or "success" instead of just simply being happy. The best way to achieve it is to find middle ground, such as being humble and modest while also remaining confident in yourself, and only humans can achieve it because of our ability to reason. I do not think I've achieved it yet, because I am still young and I have a lot to learn. My mind isn't fully developed yet, so I still have a ton of growth to be done. I'm still building up the long-term habits I want to keep throughout my lifetime, as well as still figuring out the things I'm interested in, what makes me happy, and what I want to do. I cannot say yet that I am flourishing because of the amount of growth that still needs to be done.
1. The point Aristotle was trying to make when writing about, "swallows and summer" was that happiness is not defined as small spurts of it, but as a truly fulfilled life. he also argued that true happiness required a long life. I agree with this. Although I think happiness does come in spurts and seasons of life, when you're looking back on your life you don't think of the tiny seasons of happiness. Rather, you think of the overall fulfillment that you felt over the span of your life.
ReplyDelete4. Eudaimonia is translated as, "flourishing" or "success". Aristotle's answer to achieving this was "develop the right kind of character". We naturally have some sort of human nature that helps us to dictate our decisions, but it also depends on upbringing. We need to "feel the right things at the right time" in order to behave well and achieve this. I don't personally think I've achieved this yet, I think I'm still developing the right kind of character.
5. Relying on what an "authority" figure says to be true was against Aristotle's research. The authority I always refer to is my dad. I am definitely the kind of person that believes what the "authority" figure in my life says to be true. My dad has a way of wording things that makes you immediately believe any piece of advice he has to offer is the next step you should take. That, and I completely trust his judgement.