Aristotle Essay, Research Paper

Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it can

be. It seems different in different actions and arts; it is different

in medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise. What then

is the good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything else is

done. In medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture

a house, in any other sphere something else, and in every action and

pursuit the end; for it is for the sake of this that all men do whatever

else they do. Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this

will be the good achievable by action, and if there are more than

one, these will be the goods achievable by action.

So the argument has by a different course reached the same point;

but we must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently

more than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes,

and in general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly

not all ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something

final. Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what

we are seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of

these will be what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself

worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit

for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable

for the sake of something else more final than the things that are

desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing,

and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always

desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else.

Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this

we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else,

but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for

themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose

each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness,

judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the

other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general,

for anything other than itself.

From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to

follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by

self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man

by himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents,

children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens,

since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this;

for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and

friends’ friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine

this question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we

now define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking

in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think

it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good

thing among others- if it were so counted it would clearly be made

more desirable by the addition of even the least of goods; for that

which is added becomes an excess of goods, and of goods the greater

is always more desirable. Happiness, then, is something final and

self-sufficient, and is the end of action.

Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems

a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This

might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of

man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and,

in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good

and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem

to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and

the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he

born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each

of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man

similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this

be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what

is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition

and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also

seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There

remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle;

of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient

to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought.

And, as ‘life of the rational element’ also has two meanings, we must

state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean; for this

seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function

of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational

principle, and if we say ’so-and-so-and ‘a good so-and-so’ have a

function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player,

and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of

goodness being idded to the name of the function (for the function

of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player

is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function

of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or

actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function

of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if

any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with

the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns

out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there

are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.

But we must add ‘in a complete life.’ For one swallow does not make

a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does

not make a man blessed and happy.

Let this serve as an outline of the good; for we must presumably first

sketch it roughly, and then later fill in the details. But it would

seem that any one is capable of carrying on and articulating what

has once been well outlined, and that time is a good discoverer or

partner in such a work; to which facts the advances of the arts are

due; for any one can add what is lacking. And we must also remember

what has been said before, and not look for precision in all things

alike, but in each class of things such precision as accords with

the subject-matter, and so much as is appropriate to the inquiry.

For a carpenter and a geometer investigate the right angle in different

ways; the former does so in so far as the right angle is useful for

his work, while the latter inquires what it is or what sort of thing

it is; for he is a spectator of the truth. We must act in the same

way, then, in all other matters as well, that our main task may not

be subordinated to minor questions. Nor must we demand the cause in

all matters alike; it is enough in some cases that the fact be well

established, as in the case of the first principles; the fact is the

primary thing or first principle. Now of first principles we see some

by induction, some by perception, some by a certain habituation, and

others too in other ways. But each set of principles we must try to

investigate in the natural way, and we must take pains to state them

definitely, since they have a great influence on what follows. For

the beginning is thought to be more than half of the whole, and many

of the questions we ask are cleared up by it.

The excellence of humans is linked to their growth towards to some realization of his best nature. Once he has established the notion that all human activities are directed by some final goal, Aristotle proceeds to define the final goal in human life should be. He searches for the most important activity that we pursue for its own sake, something above all other goods. This final goal is happiness. He gives a sense that happiness is derived from success. A full happy life will include success no only and necessarily for oneself, but for all of one’s family as well. We do not achieve happiness by actively seeking it, but rather by following the pursuit of all the other goods. Aristotle then proceeds to explain that every object, living or dead has a specific function for which it is designed. The excellence of a person will be derived by how well he fulfills his function. Sine a human being is designed above all to be a social and political being, then excellence in humans should be measured by how well they can carry out their political or social roles. By putting together all of the above notions, Aristotle offers his listeners a fundamental moral principal. A good man is one whose life, which should consist of trying to achieve set goals, is in conformity with excellence or virtue. It is understandable that there is a difference between being successful and being morally good. But the truth is that success must be evaluated in how well it is carried out in a social environment. Since human beings are social beings, their excellence must be rated in social terms. Human excellence is a measure of how well one can contribute to their society. Personal pleasure, honor, or money cannot be the final end to human life. Although happiness is achieved by striving for these goals, human beings would not be carrying out their function correctly if they were to seek these goals for no one else but themselves. It is in striving to attain these goals for one’s society that humans achieve excellence. I am a firm supporter of putting other people’s needs before my own when making an important decision. Yet this is not a completely unselfish action. My own happiness is derived from instilling happiness in the lives others.