James Skemp presents ...

This semester we have looked at many different philosophers from the pre-Socratic up to Aristotle. For this paper, I will be talking about Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics and my view of what Aristotle states in this work. Specifically, I will be focusing on his view of happiness and comparing it with my view on happiness.

Aristotle first begins Nichomachean Ethics by giving a definition of the good. “The good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.” (Baird, 364) He also states, “In cases where the end lies beyond the action the product is naturally superior to the activity” (Baird, 364), meaning that the product of an action is more important then the action itself. He gives several examples, one of which is the activity of medicine, in which the end product is health. He also states that many activities can be linked under one larger activity, and that the larger activity is more important then the smaller ones.

His example of bridle making points this out very well: “the art of bridle-making, for example, and everything else pertaining to the equipment of a horse are grouped together under horsemanship; horseman ship in turn, along with every other military action, is grouped together under strategy; and other pursuits are grouped together under other capacities.” (Baird, 364) The reason that the products of the larger activities are more important then the products of the smaller activities is because the smaller activities are used in order to obtain the larger activities products.

Aristotle next briefly discusses politics and the role that they play. According to Aristotle, politics is the highest good since it deals with all the other things that we study as well as since it decides what people can and cannot do. Having established that politics is the highest good, Aristotle next talks about happiness. He reiterates his statement above stating, “all knowledge and every choice is directed toward some good” (Baird, 366). Aristotle points out that most people want to be happy, and therefore the highest good attainable to most people is happiness. However, Aristotle points out that most people do not completely agree on what happiness. Happiness changes depending on your current status. If you were poor, then having wealth would allow you to be happy. If sick, then being healthy would bring about happiness. “It is not unreasonable that men should derive their concept of the good and of happiness from the lives which they lead” (Baird, 367) sums up nicely what he is trying to point out.

Aristotle talks about Plato and his idea of Forms as well as some of the problems that arise from this theory. However, he only talks about this to show that Plato’s idea does not completely work. After restating some of the same things that he stated before, Aristotle points out to us that “we always choose happiness as an end in itself and never for the sake of something else” and also that happiness is self-sufficient, which is “that which taken by itself makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing”. Obviously if one is happy, then one desires nothing else, so this would seem to be true.

Aristotle believes that the finding that happiness is the final good is not sufficient, since there still needs to be further backing for this claim. To do this, he begins by talking about the soul. There are two parts of the soul; an irrational part and the rational part, both of which can also be split into two parts.

He first talks about the rational part of the soul, which consists of two different parts. One part is that which obeys reason and rules, and the other part is that which possesses and creates rules. Because of this part of the soul, “the proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle or, at least, not without it” (Baird, 371). In other words, the proper function of man is to follow the rules that have been created by others, as well as himself, if they were created by following rational principles. After deciding upon this, Aristotle states that the definition of happiness is “activity in conformity of virtue” (Baird, 372). He also states that this requires that one follow this principle completely, and for their entire life.

Next Aristotle talks about the irrational part of the soul, which also consists of two parts: the vegetative part and the appetitive part. The vegetative part is that which causes us to grow and has no need for reason, and the appetitive part that consists of our appetites and desires, which influences what we do. The nutritive part lacks reason but the appetitive part has the ability to listen to, or reject, reasoning.

In Book II, Aristotle talks about how virtue consists of two parts as well. Intellectual virtue deals with that which you are taught and therefore requires both time and experience. Moral virtue is from habit, which is this case means doing virtuous acts, and therefore do not come to us with our birth. Not doing virtuous acts would not only destroy what you have learned, intellectual virtues, but would also remove moral virtues. Therefore, if one applied himself to obtain happiness solely through the appetitive part of the irrational soul and seek pleasure, one would never be able to obtain happiness. Part of the education that one receives then should teach one to abstain himself from pleasurable things so that one does things that will bring about happiness.

Aristotle next wants to talk about excess in relation to the virtues. “Every virtue or excellence (1) renders good the thing itself of which it is the excellence, and (2) causes it to perform its function well” (Baird, 382). In order to understand this better he gives a few examples, one of which deals with the eye: “the excellence of the eye makes both the eye and its function good, for good sight is due to the excellence of the eye” (Baird, 382). In order for a virtue or excellence to be at its best, it is necessary for the virtue to be without excess or deficiency. Excess is having too much and deficiency is having too little. For example, one would not want too little fear in a soldier, or they would rush into battle even against a significantly stronger foe. On the other hand, one would not a soldier to have too much fear in a soldier, or he would run away from any conflict. The best then would be the average of the two. This is what Aristotle deems as the median and is the way to achieve that virtue. This mean applies in both emotions and actions, as Aristotle goes on to point out.

Aristotle ends Book II with an explanation of how to attain the mean. The first thing that one should do is stay away from the “extreme which is more opposed to it” (Baird, 387) since that will be the easiest one to stay away from. Aristotle states that since the mean is so hard to obtain, since it is a thin line between excess, the median, and deficiency, one should shoot towards the lesser of the two evils and attempt to obtain the mean.

Book III begins by talking about actions that are voluntary and those that are involuntary. Lawgivers, who, as he stated earlier, deal with the highest good of politics, should be able to differentiate between actions that are voluntary, which deserve praise or blame, and involuntary actions, which deserve pardon and even pity. This deals directly with what he was talking about with the soul. The rest of Book III then deals with how to distinguish voluntary acts and involuntary acts.

Book IV gives a different opinion of high-mindedness then what someone in the present day might think. “High-mindedness, as its very name suggests, seems to be concerned with great and lofty matters.” (Baird, 396) He also states that such a person thinks they deserve great things and actually do deserve these things. For the most part, one who thinks he deserves great things, but does not, is vain, whereas one who underestimates himself in any way is a small-minded person. A high-minded person is also someone who is interested in the good, as well as honor and dishonor. In addition, a high-minded person has an attitude that is the median when it comes to wealth, power, and good and bad luck.

Skipping ahead and looking at Book X, Aristotle comes back to the topic of happiness directly. According to Aristotle, happiness is not a characteristic; instead, it is an activity. The reason that it cannot be a characteristic is because anyone or anything could do it. One example Aristotle gives is plants. If it were a characteristic, then it would be possible for plants to be happy. Therefore, happiness comes from activities. As stated earlier, happiness is something that is self-sufficient.

He points out that pleasurable things too are for their own sake. Some people spend their entire lives and every waking moment seeking pleasure. However, Aristotle says that this is not a life of virtue. He compares these individuals with children, in that neither knows that there is something better then what they value. “Each individual considers that activity most desirable which corresponds to his own proper characteristic condition.” (Baird, 430) Since a good man believes that actions that conform with virtue are the best actions, and since a good man is the best man, then his view is best. Because of this, “happiness does not consist in amusement” (Baird, 430). Anyone, even a slave Aristotle states, could live a life of amusement, but that does not mean that they are happy.

Since actions that conform to the highest virtue are actions that lead towards happiness, then Aristotle argues that that is the best part of us. This statement may lead us towards self-contemplation. However, “a just man still needs people toward whom and in company with whom to act justly” (Baird, 431). Aristotle says that “a wise man is able to study even by himself, and the wiser he is the more he is able to do it.” (Baird, 431) However “Perhaps he could do it better if he had colleagues to work with him, but he still is the most self-sufficient of all.” (Baird, 431) In other words, even other people are necessary in order for one to do what is virtuous.

“We regard happiness as depending on leisure; for our purpose in being busy is to have leisure, and we wage war in order to have peace” (Baird, 431). By this, Aristotle means to show that the opposites of the things that we want are what we need to have in order for our desires to be true. If we never had war, then we would not have any idea of peace, since we would not have something to compare our current condition to.

Aristotle continues talking about the use of a contemplative life. As he stated above, and reiterates later, “it is in our dealings with one another that we perform just, courageous, and other virtuous acts.” (Baird, 432) Therefore, we could not live a purely contemplative life, without anything external to us. However, self-contemplation helps us in self-control, which is as important as our interactions with others. As he stated above, it is best to find the median, or mean, in all things we do.

Overall, I think that Aristotle’s views in Nichomachean Ethics are good ones. I find that his view of happiness not being based on pleasure to be an accurate statement. Some people seem to believe that obtaining pleasure is the most important thing in their lives. When it comes to thinking about other people, they ignore any responsibility that they might have to them and go back to thinking about how they will be able to fulfill their desire for pleasure.

Many people allow that which Aristotle calls the irrational part of the soul to lead them, instead of following the rational part of their soul. Specifically, they focus on their appetites and aversions. Actions that do not give them pleasure right away are actions that they would prefer to stay away from doing.

Another thing that I think of when I read this piece is people who do not think about intellectual things, but rely on physical power or reputation to get them by. I believe that one of the things that Aristotle would not agree with is the Homeric tales, such as the Odyssey. The reason that I believe this is because they are searching more for reasons of fame and glory then for what is the good. For instance, if Odysseus had not slain the suitors, but instead had spared their lives, that would have promoted a more just look at things. By simply slaying them, due to the degree of the gods, as well as for him to keep face, leaves nothing truly solved.

Aristotle’s view that activities that are done for their own good are superior to those activities that are not, also seems to be true in my opinion. To elaborate on his example of bridle making, although bridle making is a good activity, the activity of horsemanship is much better, since it uses other activities. His view of politics is by far the best example. The subcategories of politics taken together form the larger category of politics. From politics, we are able to work towards a virtuous society.

Overall, I have to agree with Aristotle when he states that politics is the highest good. It is easy to find within yourself, through self-contemplation, what the best way to live your life is. However, to find the best way for all people to live, and for them to see that this is true, is by far harder, and requires much more work. Plato too seems to believe along these same lines. Is not the Republic based upon how to create a just state? Aristotle’s views, for the most part, could enable us to truly obtain the good for everyone.

Bibliography:

Philosophical Classics Volume I: Ancient Philosophy. Forrest E. Baird and Walter Kaufmann. Prentice Hall, 2000.

So far this semester, we have looked at four different writers of the Renaissance period. Of all of them, I personally found Montaigne to be the most interesting and appealing author. For this final paper, I will be discussing Montaigne’s use of the self and the main points of the pieces that we read, followed by what I think about Montaigne’s writing.

The first piece that we read by Montaigne was Essay 14 in Book I: “That the taste of good and evil things depends in large part on the opinion we have of them”. Montaigne starts out with the Greek saying that “men are tormented not by things themselves but by what they think of them” (Montaigne, 52). Montaigne believes that if this statement were to be found true in all circumstances then human beings could gain the upper hand and do with evil as they will. Therefore, Montaigne would like to show that evil things are in fact not evil, but that humans make things evil by the opinions that they hold.

“If the original essence of the thing which we fear could confidently lodge itself within us by its own authority it would be the same in all men.” (Montaigne, 52-53) Since each man has a different opinion on a great many things, one of which is evil, then it is possible that the minority of people know the true essence, whereas the majority of people believe in something other then the truth. Montaigne’s reasoning behind saying this is to show that if a contrary opinion is held, then it’s possible for either, or both, of their beliefs to be incorrect.

Montaigne first states “our main enemies are held to be death, poverty and pain” and then continues by proving that there exists a differing view of death. Some hold death to be an evil, something to be avoided with all one’s strength, whereas others went forward to embrace it. “We find that most of the philosophers either deliberately went to meet death, or else hastened and helped it along.” (Montaigne, 53) If philosophers, who are lovers of knowledge, look forward to death, is it not possible that death is not something to be avoided? Montaigne also recalls a few instances of people making jokes, or acting as if after their death their lives would continue as they had in the past.

Immediately after, Montaigne starts looking into the customs of other cultures. He talks about wives being buried alive or cremated right along with their dead husband. He also talks about people who’s lands are defeated so often that they eventually take either own lives to get away from their misery. Conviction also leads to people taking their own lives. If one holds their beliefs so high, they will be unable to be persuaded away from it, even by the threats of death. Another tale he tells is of how people would not convert to a different religion, even though to hold on to their belief meant their persecution.

After listing these things dealing with people’s response to death, Montaigne asks if our reason “was placed in us for our torment” (Montaigne, 57) or whether we can use our reason for achieving the good. “Intelligence was given us for our greater good: shall we use it to bring about our downfall by fighting against the design of Nature and the order of the Universe, which require each creature to use its faculties and resources for its advantage?” (Montaigne, 57)

Next Montaigne talks about pain, which he grants as “the worst disaster that can befall our being” (Montaigne, 59), his main reason being that he greatly dislikes it himself. However, he states that we should use our intelligence to lessen the amount of pain that we feel so that we still are able to think rationally. Pain allows us to “respect manly courage, valour, fortitude, greatness of soul and determination” (Montaigne, 59) which are not evil qualities at all. Montaigne then goes on to point out many examples where people are able to put off the effects that pain would normally have incapacitated them.

The final evil that Montaigne talks about is poverty. Much like death and pain, poverty is something that everyone views differently. Someone on the streets who is considered to be in poverty might be happy, whereas someone who is rich may be very unhappy. In fact, even those people who are somewhat well off, or at least not living on the streets and worried about food, believe that they are living a poor man’s life. Obviously, poverty is not as evil as some people believe.

By the end of the essay, Montaigne hopes that he has proven his point that good and evil actions are based largely on what individuals hold. This essay clearly shows Montaigne’s view of the importance of the self in analyzing day-to-day affairs.

The second piece that we read by Montaigne was Essay 31 in Book I: “On the Cannibals”. In this essay, Montaigne would like to discuss ‘Barbarians’ and natives. Montaigne starts out the essay with the story of King Pyrrhus, and how when he entered Italy, he found that the people there were in fact not barbarous, contrary to what he had been told. Montaigne tells us that “We should be similarly wary of accepting common opinions; we should judge them by the ways of reason not by popular vote” (Montaigne, 228). Instead of blindly following others, one should go out and try to find things out for oneself. However, he realizes that sometimes it is impossible for someone to see something for himself, so one must rely upon others.

He also tells us that he found that those who are ‘common’, or uneducated, are better then the educated when giving an account of what they had seen. “Those clever chaps notice more things more carefully but are always adding glosses; they cannot help changing their story a little in order to make their views triumph and be more persuasive” (Montaigne, 231). Clearly, it would be better to get an unbiased view, so that it is as if you were there, and could make up your own view.

Next, Montaigne states that he believes that “every man calls barbarous anything he is not accustomed to” (Montaigne, 231) and his opening story of King Pyrrhus, appears to show this. Montaigne begins by talking about the ‘savages’ of the new world.

First, Montaigne states that he believes that ‘savages’ are still close to nature, as opposed to man who is much further away. Because of this, he believes that they have a kind of purity that a philosopher like Plato would have liked to have found in his time. Montaigne believes that these ‘savages’ would in fact be the citizens of the perfect state, like that described in Plato’s Republic. He assures that he has been told that “they inhabit a land with a most delightful countryside and a temperate climate” and that “they never saw a single man bent with age, toothless, blear-eyed or tottering”. He goes on to list many of the other things that make their lives so simple and joyous.

There is war as well as peace, but they fight hand to hand and have no fear of death. He describes what happens to those that are killed, as well as those who are taken captive. Although their ways may seem barbaric, Montaigne also tells us that they abandoned their previous way of eating their captives and began to use one that they learned from explorers. Montaigne tells us that he is not saddened that we realize that they do such horrible things, but that “while judging correctly of their wrong-doings we should be so blind to our own” (Montaigne, 235).

Montaigne points out that doctors use dead bodies in order to further their knowledge of the human body while the ‘savages’ use it because it is a part of their warring methods. Their methods are much better then the methods of various methods of torture by other nations as he described above. How is it that they can be cannibals when ‘civilized’ humans do much worse?

Montaigne finishes his essay by describing a meeting he had with three natives that made three very valuable points, one of which most applies to his topic. “Since they have an idiom in their language which calls all men ‘halves’ of one another – that they had noticed that there were among us men fully bloated with all sorts of comforts while their halves were begging at their doors, emaciated with poverty and hunger: they found it odd that those destitute halves should put up with such injustice and did not take the others by the throat or set fire to their houses” (Montaigne, 241). They may have some things that seem barbarous to us, but we have some things that seem barbarous to them.

As with the first essay, he continues with the belief that good and evil, or civilized and uncivilized, are based on what individuals hold.

Montaigne’s third essay was the first part of Essay 12 in Book II: “An apology for Raymond Sebond”. The part we read had to deal with whether or not humans are superior to animals. Montaigne deals with eight attributes that supposedly make us better then the animals.

The first attribute that he talks about is language. He eliminates this attribute by saying that other animals appear to have languages as well. How can we say that they have no language simply because we cannot understand them? Can we understand a foreigner if we don’t know their language? The second attribute that he discusses is their incapacity to form societies. He eliminates this attribute by stating that other animals do in fact form groups and packs. The third attribute that he discusses is that animals do not develop technology. This he eliminates by stating that other animals use tools and do simple calculations. This too is not purely an attribute of human beings. The fourth attribute that he speaks of is that animals have no morality. However, Montaigne shows that animals do care about other animals, and even recognize harm that they do to other animals and human beings.

The fifth attribute is religion. However, Montaigne tells us that elephants seem to thank some higher being when they raise their trunks to the sky. He also uses elephants to eliminate the sixth attribute friendship, by giving an example of elephants taking projectiles out of their human companions. The seventh attribute is human beings beauty. This however Montaigne believes to be untrue in the first place, since human beings dress themselves not only to hide their ugliness, but also to look more like animals. The last attribute that humans believe make them superior to the animals is their ability of high-level reason. This Montaigne says do not make us superior since our reasoning does not necessarily make us happy.

After stating each attribute and eliminating it from making humans superior to animals, we see that we are in fact no better then the animals, which is what Montaigne wished to prove in this essay. Following with his beliefs of the importance of the self, we see that one would naturally believe himself to anyone, or anything, else.

The last essay that I will briefly touch on is Essay 2 in Book III: “On repenting”. In this, Montaigne wishes to prove that repentance is unnecessary. To sum up what he states in this piece, he believes that since the only constant is change, it is impossible to regret anything that one has previously done. After all, what is wrong today may very well be accepted in the near future.

He also believes that should “live the life of man in conformity with his natural condition” (Montaigne, 913). Since each man normally does what he believes is the best for himself, every act that follows your will cannot be wrong. To do otherwise would be to go against nature. Since we do what is natural, we cannot repent for previous actions, although we can regret them, which is different then repentance. Montaigne gives an example of his speaking Latin after fainting, even though he had not used it in many years, which is clearly an example of “nature, against long nurture, breaking forcibly out and finding expression” (Montaigne, 914). Once again, we see no matter what we do, nature will eventually have the final say. Because of this, Montaigne never has, nor never will, repent since there is nothing he or anyone else, truly has to repent for.

Overall, as I stated above, I find Montaigne to be the best writer that we looked at this semester. One of the main reasons that I find him so interesting is the fact that he looks within himself for the answers. He uses self-reflection to find out what he thinks about things, and then writes them down; much like one would do for a journal. From that, he looks at what others think about the same topic and either agrees or disagrees their view.

For Montaigne, he is the one that he should follow; his ideologies are primary, not secondary after another’s. Montaigne’s ideas often times contradicted the popular beliefs of the time. For example, in his essay “On the Cannibals” he attacks poverty and the upper classes, and could have brought himself under fire about stating the natives view on this. However, the knowledge of this possibly happening did not stop him. Along with this, his view that animals are no different then humans, especially stating that animals seem to worship a higher being could also have got him into a lot of trouble. Montaigne knows what he believes in, and lets others know as well.

I too believe that the ideas that you hold should have prevalence over all other ideas. For me, the self plays almost as an important role in my life as it did in Montaigne’s. The only ideas that you can truly know are your own, and the only person that you can truly know is yourself. An example of this from Montaigne is in his essay on repentance where he states that one should “live the life of man in conformity with his natural condition” (Montaigne, 913). To me the natural condition of man is a dependency on himself. Although this may seem to be outrageous, I do not believe it is. We must consider that we must make our own choices in life, even if one of those decisions is to forfeit our choice to make decisions to another.

Another reason that I believe that the self is the most important authority in one’s life is because all other authorities are made up of, or created by, groups of individuals (if not solely individuals). Why is it that one individual, or group of individuals, knows more then I know? As Montaigne states, you need to find things out for yourself. If someone tells me that I should do something, and either their explanation fails or my happiness with their explanation fails, then there is no reason that I should follow them.

Another thing that I agreed with Montaigne about was our difference, or lack of, from animals. When thinking about the self it’s important to not forget completely about other people and that they too wish to guide their lives by their own authority. In the essay, he shows, pretty well in my opinion, that we are not different from animals. This too can be applied to people that are different from us because of various reasons, such as locale or mental capacity. In On Cannibals, he states this better in his opening paragraph about King Pyrrhus and his impressions of a “barbaric” people. These supposedly barbaric people were in fact fairly well off. It is simple to draw similarities between animals and barbarians, and from are other readings we find that many people believed this way. From this, I see that although the self can be an authority, it’s important to look at other authorities.

This too is something that Montaigne did. By taking other authorities, and using them, but keeping the self as his primary authority, he was able to see from many different perspectives. Perhaps that is why I see Montaigne as the most important writer of this time, because he has a perspective that not only uses some of the same authorities as the other authors that we’ve read but also his own.

Bibliography:

Michel Eyquem de Montaigne. The Complete Essays. M.A. Screech, Editor. Viking Penguin, 1993.