The Aristotelian Conceptualization Of Self Sufficiency

In the work, Nicomachean Ethics, the philosopher Aristotle creates a guideline for those who are serious about pursuing happiness. Aristotle's recommendations for finding happiness are not accepted today without some struggle and careful examination. In Aristotle's time, slaves, women and children were not truly considered human; so in many cases the philosopher is directing his words towards free males only. It is necessary to understand that by overlooking this discrimination and applying it to all people, one can discover the timeless wisdom of Aristotle.

The three different ways of life according to Aristotle are the life of enjoyment/pleasure, the political life, and the contemplative life. The life of enjoyment/pleasure is a life that is purely devoted to pleasure, good, and happiness; when one lives as if they are a slave to sensual pleasure. Aristotle refers to the life of enjoyment as “completely slavish by choosing a life that belongs fatted cattle (Book I pg. 4)”, meaning this way of life does not correspond or consist of the rational nature in which each individual hold. Political life is a life that honor is used to convince one that their life is good and correlates to our rational nature. However, this life, like the life of enjoyment, is dependent on other people. Aristotle states, “for it seems to be in the ones who give honor rather than in the one who is honored. (Book I pg. 4)” In this way of life honor is a virtue, but it is a virtue that anyone can possess but be unfortunate or not good. Since both the life of enjoyment and the political life depend on someone else, Aristotle concludes the contemplative life is the highest or best way of life. This is because contemplative life on the basis means a life of true happiness and can possibly dodge difficulties. With the contemplative life, one is more than capable of engaging or

In Book 1 of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, he argues that happiness is the best good, and the goal of an individual and of those leading and governing society. Here, happiness is understood as both living well and doing well, rather than the convention sense of happiness as an emotion. According to Aristotle, happiness is achieved though actions involving reason and in accord with virtue, or the best of the virtues of there are more than one. In this paper, I will provide a brief overview of the work and its author, then proceed to provide an overview of the ideas expressed and the argumentation supporting them, before finally performing an analysis and critique of the ideas expressed.

In this paper, I will examine Aristotle’s view on how virtuous action differs from that of craft (techne) action due to its issuing from a firm and unchanging disposition, as well as provide Aristotle’s reasoning as to why this is the case. In order to understand the differences between these two types of actions, one must first understand the similarities that both virtuous action and craft action share. Once the common traits of both virtuous and craft action have been examined, it will be possible to gain a better understanding of the differences between the two types of action, and how significant these differences truly are. Finally, once an understanding of both virtuous and craft action has been established, it will then be possible to examine Aristotle’s claim that virtuous action stems from a firm and unchanging disposition and why it is that we must accept this claim to recognize virtuous action for what it is.

The concept of living “the good life” means something different for everyone. There is a general understanding that living “the good life” is associated with unyielding happiness and lasting satisfaction. The exact meaning of this desired life was pondered by thinkers and philosophers for hundreds of years. They constructed principals of behavior, thought, and obligation that would categorize a person as “good”. Although some of these ancient philosophies about “the good life” had overlapping ideas, their concepts varied widely. This contrast of ideas can be examined through two major characters in two famous works: Aeneas in “The Aeneid” and Socrates in “The Apology”. Aeneas exemplifies the philosophy that the direct route to “the good life" is through faith, trust in the Gods, and family, while Socrates in “The Apology” emphasizes free will, and vast knowledge of life.

In this paper, I will argue that Aristotle view of the 4 kinds of people are accurate. These 4 kinds of people are the virtuous, strong-willed, vicious, and weak-willed. First, I will set out Aristotle’s argument about a strong-willed person who struggles to overcome desires, and does it make them morally wrong. Next, I will show the 4 kinds of persons that Aristotle believes exist, they are the virtuous, strong-willed, weak-willed, and the vicious persons and his arguments concerning them. Finally, I will set out my own position to support Aristotle’s view.

Wealth causes people to ask the question “How much is too much?” Aristotle believed a person could have too much wealth. He believes it is more important to buy leisure time than inanimate objects. Too much wealth leads a person away from happiness according to Aristotle. Honor is something some people have great amounts of, while others have very little. It is good to be honored and respected in life. Some people, such as political leaders and even actors and actresses are honored more than others. Being overly honored can also cause people to be unhappy since most honored people have people who despise and resent them. Aristotle came to the conclusion that it is far better to be honorable than honored. This brings up the final quality of happiness, EXCELLENCE. This quality is key for human’s pursuit of happiness. Aristotle believes in personal happiness and when defining virtue itself, he used the word “excellence.”

Aristotle is a dichotomist, which means that he believes that human beings consist of two major elements, the body and the soul. The body is the physical matter that one can see, where the soul is the feelings and desires one has; the things you cannot touch. Aristotle believes that we have three major elements of the soul which are pleasures, desires, and feelings. These elements are where we find our virtues. In book one of The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses that virtue is the highest human good. This being said, there are two qualifications that the highest good must have, “The good must be something final and self-sufficient,” (Aristotle, 10). By final Aristotle means that which is in desirable in itself, and not sought for the sake of something else. By self-sufficient Aristotle means something that does not depend on other’s bestowing it. Aristotle gives us the sense that he believes that politics is about the human good and one cannot begin to practice politics or political science well; unless one has the idea of what the good actually is. In book one; with many arguments to support his theory, he tells the reader that the good is intellectual and moral virtue. One of his arguments is he believes that you need a moderate amount of both health and wealth to be able to fully develop the virtue. He sees these two aspects as a form of equipment because if one is constantly ill or does not have a sufficient amount of money there will be many obstacles in reaching

Furthermore, Aristotle believes when the virtuous person does an action only through the sake of it self there is no other means to the end and one will eventually become virtuous. However, when the action is preformed for the sake of something else, then a person will not reach the highest form of virtue. The reason for this is when the action that is preformed for the sake of something else, then it will not reach complete happiness because it will always desire more.

Since we have discussed the states of friendship and virtue in relationship to happiness, we must now examine the activities of friendship and virtue that make a happy life easier to attain. Aristotle claimed that of the goods in life “some are necessary conditions of happiness, while others are naturally useful and cooperative as instruments (1099b28-29).” He goes on further to exclaim that “having friends seems to be the greatest external good (1169b10-11).” Therefore this external good would be useful in attaining happiness. Friendship can be used as an instrument in performing virtuous actions necessary for happiness because “the solitary person’s life is hard, since it is not easy for him to be continually active all by himself; but in relation to others and in their company it is easier (1170a6-8).” Friends can also help us achieve happiness but guiding us to do virtuous acts, “for it is proper to good people to avoid error themselves and not to permit it in their friends

In this paper I will argue that Aristotle’s conception of eudaimonia disproves Mill’s utilitarian view that pleasure is the “greatest good.” The purpose of this paper is to contrast Aristotle’s and Mills views on the value of happiness and its link to morality. First I will describe Aristotle’s model of eudaimonia. Then I will present Mill’s utilitarian views on happiness and morality. Lastly, I will provide a counterargument to Mill’s utilitarian ethical principles using the Aristotelian model of eudaimonia.

In order to explain the fundamentals of Aristotle's Virtue Ethics, one must acknowledge his primary motive in this study, which is to understand what it means to live well. Unlike

Many philosophers through history have dealt with happiness, pleasure, justice, and virtues. In this essay there will given facts on virtues between two philosophers who have different views on the topic. Aristotle and Kant have two totally different views on virtue, one being based on the soul and how you character depicts you virtue and the other which is based of the fact that anyone has a chance of being morally good, even bad people. There is a lot of disagreement between Aristotle and Kant, which has examples to back the disagreements. Aristotle takes virtue as an excellence, while Kant takes it more to being a person doing something morally good in the society and for them as a person. One similarity between these two philosophers though, is that these two descriptions of virtue lead back to happiness in the individual. At the end of this essay, the reader should be capable of understanding that Aristotle’s theory is more supported than Kant’s theory. Of course, explanations for both sides will be given thoroughly throughout this comparison.

In the opening lines of Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle states, “Every craft and every line of inquiry, and likewise every action and decision, seems to seek some good; and that is why some people were right to describe the good at what everything seeks.” Aristotle often wrote about happiness, but so did Epicurus. In a broad sense, Aristotle and Epicurus touched on similar points when discussing happiness. They both believed that happiness is the ultimate goal in life, and that all human measures are taken to reach that goal. While Aristotle and Epicurus’ theories are similar in notion, a closer look proves they are different in many ways. In this paper, we will discuss the differences between Epicurus and Aristotle in their theories on happiness, and expand on some drawbacks of both arguments. Through discussing the drawbacks with both theories, we will also be determining which theory is more logical when determining how to live a happy life.

In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics he accounts that humans should make sacrifices and should ultimately aim first and foremost for their own happiness . In the paper I will argue that it is really in a person’s best interest to be virtuous . I will do this by first describing Aristotle’s notion on both eudaimonia and virtue , as well as highlighting the intimate relationship between the two . Secondly I will talk about the human role in society. Thirdly I will describe the intrinsic tie between human actions . Finally I will share the importance of performing activities virtuously .