Aristotle And Hobbes And Aristotle's Treatment Of Reason

1929 Words8 Pages
Oxford University defines reason as “explanation or justification for an action, an obvious cause to do something’ which in a way proves that ‘human being is rational by nature. Reason holds a very important place or in other words, it is a basic means of human survival. Philosophers like Aristotle, who strongly believed that best lived life is life devoted to philosophy, which means, reason as a way of life and not simply as a kind of intellectual inquiry, because philosophy is the highest form of rational activity. In this essay, I will explore how does two of the greatest philosophers of their time, Hobbes (1588-1679) and Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC), treatment of reason differ from one another for their own argument. I will do so by examining…show more content…
This statement itself explains us to an extent that there is a difference in Aristotle’s and Hobbes reason of treatment. Where Hobbes is treating it as very pragmatic and earthly concept but at the same point Aristotle is using it as very idle concept in comparison to Hobbes. Hobbes argument is very much earthly and natural whereas Aristotle is using it in a vague term. Of course, we aim at happiness but obviously after knowing that we have what we need for our basic needs. For this statement here an argument can be, is knowing that we have what we want for our basic need, is not happiness? That may not be for some people. That’s where Aristotle forgets to introduce the concept of greed, with need. Fulfilling need and greed can be a happiness but if we look at this argument other way around, what about those people who struggle for a two square meals per day. Is getting food make them happy or they are just satisfied that they will not die of hunger or after getting food they start thinking constantly about next day without celebrating happiness, if they get happiness through that? If they are not celebrating happiness, so are they really aiming for happiness at all? This is where Aristotle is not using reasons to make clear his argument where at the same point Hobbes is making it clear through his reason for every point and also through his central concept of his text, which is ‘self-preservation’. As an example given earlier about needy man getting food is obviously for self- preservation more than happiness. But is not getting your self-preserved makes you happy? The answer to this question would be, to enjoy or to feel our happiness me must be alive. So, our first and basic aim should be to preserve ourselves. At places, Aristotle argument is not logical but rather psychological and ontological. Hobbes reason behind every action is ‘power’ which is very natural and universally accepted because

More about Aristotle And Hobbes And Aristotle's Treatment Of Reason

Open Document