Aristotle 's Views On Life

As Socrates was building the city, according to his different accounts of how city ought to be. There were different classes of people and the position they held in the cities community. In a just city as Socrates claims there will be citizens, guardians and a philosopher king as the ruler of the city. In order to maintain order, politics influence on human nature by politically influencing laws such as stopping peoples from changing their division of labour. For example, Socrates claims that it is impossible for an individual to practice many crafts proficiently as discussed by the companions earlier. (Plato, 1992, p. 49). The reason there is division of peoples in the city is so the city can run efficiently, if there were many people doing many thing, there will not be an efficiency of work. For this reason, politics constrained human nature in which individual as human nature wants to do more than one thing, but it is stopped through influence of ideology of how one ought to be. That individual does not want to do one job for the rest of his life; this form of ideology is first form pre capital which was discussed in the republic. Continuing, as politics influence increases in the republic the more constrained human nature becomes. In politics, the political thought of Socrates creates a guardian for city, a protector to defend against an enemy or to conquer land for the city. In

In the ideal city, every individual must occupy a correct role in order to maintain the proper power relationship between the classes of society. Further, one way to limit power is by disallowing property ownership by the leaders. Socrates believes that if this is not done, the rulers will abuse their power in order to obtain more property.

In “Aristotle on the Good life,” Elliott Sober begins the chapter by saying that there are various ethical theories that explains how people are obligated to follow several ethical principles that indicates how people should act in certain situations. Then, he introduces some ethical theories. One is called utilitarianism, which argues that whenever people act in one way and there is another way that they can achieve greater happiness, it is wrong to do that action. The second theory argues that people need to treat others morally and respectfully, which comes Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher who have a major influence on contemporary philosophy. Lastly, there is a theory that argues that people are free to act if they do not invade other

EXPLAIN AND CRITICALLY EXAMINE ARISTOTLE’S CLAIM THAT THE HIGHEST FORM OF LIFE IS ONE DEDICATED TO THOUGHT AND CONTEMPLATION

Similarly, navigating through Plato’s writings, it is conspicuous that he provides the same notion as to how the rulers of the state should act. Plato claims that “law does not make any particular class in the city outstandingly happy but it spreads happiness throughout the city by bringing the citizens into harmony with each other through persuasion or compulsion and through sharing the benefits with each other. The law produces people who make use of the citizens to bind the city together; however, it does not allow them to turn the city into the direction they desire

According to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, there is a direct connection between morality and happiness. Aristotle states that happiness is the main goal of human existence. He follows this idea by saying the only way to achieve happiness is through his account of morality. Aristotle’s “happiness” is a translation of the Greek word Eudaimonia. A definition of Eudaimonia could be “the highest human good” or “well-being”, but it is not simply a word with a definition but a concept that needs to be broken down and understood. In connection with happiness is morality. According to Aristotle, only certain actions have genuine moral worth, which is heavily based upon reason. To live a moral life and achieve happiness one must achieve human excellence through moral and intellectual virtue. To make the connection between morality and happiness, we must understand these concepts in accordance with Aristotle.

Though we’ve discussed many kinds of governments, ideal cities and even ideal rulers over the course of the semester, from Aristotle’s Politics to the city described in the Melian dialogue, there is one that undoubtedly left a greater on me than the other- the city described in Plato’s Republic. From Plato’s remarkably feminist ideals and vague sense of barebones socialism, there’s a lot in this city that I hypothetically would throw my support behind. This is not to say that I think that this is the “best” option of the cities that we studied options, or even that it would even work if applied to real life. However, the ideas brought up about how to create this city and what would be required of all it’s citizens in order to make it work are undeniably fascinating and are never black or white. But what I love about the Republic, and why it so personally resonates with and has impacted me, is that it brings up interesting questions about morality and how far one should go in order to create a perceived “perfect society”. Questions that there is no easy answer to.

Plato’s ideal city provides its inhabitants with the most basic means of survival, food, shelter, clothing, and shoes. His city is established with a simple division of labor, where each individual is assigned a single job based on their productive abilities. Each inhabitant is required to pull their own weight and to do exactly what they are supposed to do, with the overarching goal of benefiting the society in its entirety. The individual completes their daily tasks without question because they productivity is rewarded by the governing power their most immediate needs are met. Readers are able to acknowledge the great potential within Plato’s ideal state; however, numerous problems arise as he chooses law and order over the necessary ethical practices found within a utopia.

Aristotle and J.S. Mill are two of the most well known philosophers who both believe that some pleasures are seen as higher or more desirable than others. However, do both their theories really relate to each other or is there a degree of conflict between them that reveals their difference in views? Although both Aristotle’s view along with J.S. Mill’s view may originate many years ago, they still have an impact on society today and what we can learn from them, especially in modern-day Canada. Ultimately, we will be looking into both the similarities and differences of these two philosophers views and determining whom we can most learn from as Canadians in today’s society. As their views may differentiate, both these philosopher’s have a

Over the course of the semester, we have read a multitude of books from various authors. Some stand out more than others, and some I agree with more than others. For example, there is almost nothing from Aristotle that I agree with, but I agree with almost everything Berry says. In this essay, I will walk through Aristotle, Berry, and Day, and decide whether I agree or disagree. Then, I will give my own personal view on happiness.

The idea of the ideal society is one that has been debated for centuries. Many theories have been conjured up by intellectuals, all with differing divisions of power, wealth, and labor. Two of these competing theories are those presented in Plato’s The Republic and Aristotle’s Politics. While they both present a wide range of views on many issues, this paper will only focus on two issues that go hand-in-hand: slavery’s role in society, and the divisions of property and power amongst the classes. Aristotle makes a better case for the selection of slaves from inside his society, rather than outside it, and Plato makes a more convincing argument for the public allocation of power and property, as opposed to the individual allocation favored by Aristotle, but neither has arrived at a truly perfect society.

My moral philosophy is what you put in you get back. For example, I put into my life my thoughts, my beliefs and my behaviors. What I get back from this is my reality that my thoughts, beliefs and behaviors have created. In my philosophy like Aristotle, I believe in Aristotle’s views on happiness and human flourishing with his philosophy. (Aristotle 4) I also believe in some of Kant’s philosophy through his concept of its our duty to live up to our highest moral capacity. (Kant 3) I believe it will make the world a better place in the sense that if everyone decides to “put in” good things then the world will be a better place. The negative to that is that if someone decides to “put in” negative things then they will receive negative results. Most people will strive for positive results so we will end up with a better world because more people will put in positive things trying to achieve better things.

Nicomachean ethics is the name of Aristotle’s work on ethics based on his lectures. It is said that Nicomachean ethics were named after either Aristotle’s father or son , as they were both named Nicomachus. Aristotle believed that happiness is what makes a person pure. To prove his point, Aristotle believed that there were four moral virtues that worked together; the virtue of great soul, the virtue of justice, the virtue of practical judgment and the virtue of being a truly good friend. Ten books have been written from Aristotle’s lecture notes.

Aristotle begins book one of 'The politics ' by stating "Every state is as we see a sort of partnership, and every partnership is formed with a view to some good (since all the actions of all mankind are done with a view to what they think to be good)." (Rackman.H, 1885, p3). He emphasises the idea that man is projected into intersubjective bonds which as a result makes him sociable, and naturally apart of the communitarian dimension whereby there is not only 'myself ' but 'ourselves '. Community and citizenship are factors in which Aristotle emphasizes as being natural to humans and thus by being part of a community and being a citizen, naturally everyone aims for the highest good and the most supreme of all is the polis. "It is therefore the state evident that, while all partnerships aim at some good, the partnership that is the most supreme of all and from the includes all the

Along with his teacher, Plato, Aristotle is generally regarded as one of the most influential ancient thinkers, not just in political philosophy, but across a range of fields. In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle describes his account of political science as the most authoritative of sciences. It pronounces how political science that of the city or state, and which science fall under its authority. However, discussions in political philosophy has developed further since Aristotle and therefore it is questionable as to whether they continue to remain significant. Throughout the following then, I will assess whether Aristotelian political philosophy is still relevant today.