The Human Function Argument Essay

The body, mind, and soul are said to be capable of extraordinary properties that assist in human understanding. René Descartes, and John Locke are two primary philosophers that have shaped modern philosophy with their views on human understanding. Both philosophers assumed that the proper function of human understanding relies upon processes within the body. The processes involved in this understanding are viewed distinctly by each philosopher.

The next topic to consider, then, is what kind of rational activities fulfill the purpose of a human being. Aristotle feels that as a human, one should actualize the capacities of the soul through activity. Here one encounters the debate of activity versus productivity. In current society, productivity is the measure of success, and activity for its own sake is rarely considered worthwhile. Aristotle does not believe in the importance of productivity relative to one's happiness. Instead, he feels that one should engage in activity for no external end or result whatsoever. Those activities that are chosen simply because of a desire to experience the activity are often the ones that bring the most happiness. Activities that have no product create a sense of existence for the one engaging in the activity. This, however, is not a product. Instead it is merely a way of defining or referring to the activity. An example of this kind of activity is conversation. If conversation occurs in

Throughout this Book 1, the discussion digresses multiple times to explore the method by which the topic will be examined. Realising that concepts such as happiness are subjective, he establishes in the third Chapter that the fruits of the discussion will be satisfactory so long as it holds true universally. He also considers in Chapter four whether the discussion should originate from the principles, or from our experiences, and suggests that we should being from things known and immediate to us, which seems to be a logical choice as the discussions as a whole focus on what a man should do in order to act according to virtue in order to become good and attain happiness. In addition, the sixth Chapter is devoted to criticism of the theory of Forms. Since good can exist in so many different ways, but are undoubtedly good, Aristotle argues that there is no common idea governing it. He also denies the existence of separate Forms that are merely mimicked by what we perceive, since a thing and the Thing Itself has the same

Aristotle’s ‘function argument’ produced in the Nicomachean Ethics, is subject to harsh criticize that seemingly attacks Aristotle as a philosopher whom does not think his works thoroughly enough. The lack of blunt argument-statehood is substantial enough to and unfortunately interferes in proceeding to understanding what Aristotle has set out to demonstrate in the Nicomachean Ethics. Book 1 is merely an introduction to Eudaimonia and the Human Function. It is but a sketch, or rather an outline to what the book informs throughout. Where many believe to be the start of the Function Argument (NE1.7, 1097b30-34), Aristotle produces imagery of human-related objectives to their appropriate functions;craftsman to man and body parts to whole. This is meant to provoke the reader to critically think about their own function--as a human and Eudaimonia (note that we learn about Eudaimonia before the function argument is presented). I will defend the function argument and it’s plausibility in this essay by explaining the method utilized to build up this strong structured argument. This essay will converse with excerpts directly from Aristotle’s work, as well as

Aristotle’s belief is that the happiness a person experiences by living an excellent and meaningful life is much more than temporary pleasure that is found and lost in a short period of time. Aristotle explains happiness as being self-sufficient and is continually sought after in practice. He explains the path to fully understand ultimate happiness is “best done by first ascertaining the proper function of man” (1097b 22-24). The function of man, according to Aristotle, differs from all other natural organism on Earth. Human beings are unique having the ability to understand and reason (1098a 1-5). Because we can reason we are capable of learning from our mistakes and will actively pursue virtue since we understand the consequences of our actions. Aristotle points out that animals and children differ in this respect as they lack the capability of making rational decisions (1100a 1-3).

Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.

Moral virtue is acquired through the habituation of good acts which constantly aim for a mean between excess and deficiency in each circumstance. It is the choice of moral virtue through our acts, which allows us to satisfy a major requirement for happiness. Virtue, for Aristotle is a state in which reason helps us decide to do good acts. This is a part of our natural function as human beings, since reason is our distinguishing characteristic and good is the always the object of “correct reason.” The habituation of good acts, then, is what leads us to states of virtue in our lives. Since action always implies either pleasure or pain, it is our job to maintain the appropriate amount of each in the things that we do.

Aristotle, a famous philosopher, is one of the most renowned Greek scholars, and was an influential force in ancient Greece and in modern society. He was the head of the Macedon royal academy, where he taught Alexander the Great, his most famous pupil. He founded the famous Lyceum in Athens later in his life, which is portrayed in Raphael’s painting “School of Athens.” Aristotle is known for his interest in nature and science, and his emphasis on empirical evidence to prove his points has become the keystone of modern scientific research. As a result, one of the topics he studied is the cause of human difference. He discusses in Book I of his series Politics the nature of the human soul and how different

Aristotle believed that there are three sections to the human soul. The first is a silly one that can likewise be available in creatures. This is the vegetative or dietary goodness. This temperance permits people and plants to have legitimate sustenance and to develop. The following part is the craving or good temperance. This excellence is both unreasonable and balanced in the meantime. This part controls one's feelings and longings. Both creatures and individuals can likewise have the craving. Aristotle perceived that creatures, and additionally individuals, can have wishes, but since the hunger is likewise objective, it permits one to control the goals that creatures can't control. The part that recognizes people from creatures is the third

"An animal or plant is an organic whole, a complicated system of interrelated capacities" ("Aristotle on Teleological Explanation", pg. 76), which serve as self-maintaining, according to Aristotle. He also believes that this "capacity--to maintain functional states through self-nutrition and to propagate them through reproduction--is the mark that sets off the living from the lifeless ("Aristotle on Teleological Explanation", pg. 76) and also means that the facility to ingest and use food is essential for life. He claims that "self-nutrition, with reproduction, is 'the first and most common capacity of soul, the one in virtue of which life belongs to all that has life'" ("Aristotle on Teleological Explanation", pg. 76). Describing more upon his elucidation of this subject matter, Aristotle looks deeply at what, in essence, makes life, saying that the "parts of a plant, like the parts of an animal, are for-the-sake-of life" ("Aristotle on Teleological Explanation", pg. 76). Specific parts work together to create and sustain life for a thing, for Aristotle's peace of

At the outset it should be noted that Nussbaum’s account relies heavily on her exegesis of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics (NE) II.7. In this chapter, Aristotle explicitly references a chart—which we are supposed to imagine hanging in his classroom—that lists the particular virtues of character of which he writes. Nussbaum attempts to reproduce Aristotle’s original chart in her essay. Nussbaum’s chart should not be problematic as long as we accept the central claims of her interpretation of NE II.7. According to Nussbaum, Aristotle isolates the common spheres of human experience (i.e. those in which humans regularly, or necessarily, have dealings). Since the

Aristotle defines the function of a human being as an activity of the rational soul. He argues that most functions of humans, such as being alive or having sense perception, are shared with plants and animals and cannot be distinct functions of human beings. The only remaining possibility which is not shared with things other than human beings, according to Aristotle, is the part of the soul that has reason. Human function, therefore, is an “activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason.” But further qualification must be made when referring to the something’s function in the context of a greatest good; in this case, it is not sufficient for something to simply function, it must also function well. For example, the function of a pianist is to play the piano, but the function of a good pianist is to play a piano well. According to Aristotle, adding a function’s best virtue to it will work without qualification to make something excellent in every case. So, the function of a human being is an activity of the rational soul and the greatest good for a human is activity of the rational soul in accordance with its virtue.

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

Aristotle’s theory will be discussed in full length on his theory of virtue. Now Aristotle did believe in a multitude of theories that are all based off of virtue, but also the soul. To Aristotle, virtue is an excellence, which comes after happiness and achieving our final goal. When Aristotle talks about an individual’s final goal and excellence of that

A pinecone planted upon the plain or mountainside becomes a great forest providing wildlife with food and shelter; from that forest emerges great trees, trees which become lumber and the lumber in the hands of a carpenter that came from a seed to builds homes and vessels for the greater well-being for the world in which he dwells. A carpenter would not forget to build the roof on a house or fail to allow for a doorway to enter the house as each has its own unique function and is necessary for the completion of a house as it is for a family to make the same structure a home. The function of a house is to become a home to a family, as it is the function of the family to contribute to the community and the community to benefit the city and the city to prosper the county and so forth; each in turn having a function to serve and benefit from the lesser to the greater and the greater to the lesser. Aristotle contends in the De Anima that the soul dwells in all living things and therefore all living things can know of fear, passions, virtues, and happiness that is found in the Nicomachean Ethics. Should the soul be conformable in the body or shape in which the soul (psyche) dwells and happiness (eudaimonia) issues from that form then all things according to Aristotle have a function (ergon); a function that is necessary for the survival of the species and therefore as the hand is necessary to feed the body; the hand also must procure the food in order to administer to needs of the