Virtue, then, is a matter of personal motivation as much as it is part of knowledge. These materials are copyrighted c by Harry J. In my opinion, Aristotle had a closer definition to happiness than John Stuart Mill. It must be one of three elements of the soul: How virtues and vices are formed A certain type of situation elicits certain responses in us actions and passions.
Broadie points out several questions that occur as a result of this intellectualist view - only a few are listed here: Remember, the highest good is intrinsically good.
Both John Stuart Mill and Aristotle spent a lot of time contemplating happiness. Aristotle accepts from popular opinion that the end is 'happiness' eudaimonia - and agrees that this means the same as living well and doing well.
On the other hand, the coward, who lacks moral fortitude, suffers from deficiency of character or virtue. Research tells us how subjective the nature of happiness can be with individuals being the best judge of their own happiness.
And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. Now goods have been divided into three classes, and some are described as external, others as relating to soul or to body; we call those that relate to soul most properly and truly goods, and psychical actions and activities we class as relating to soul.
Knowledge is good, but knowledge is supposed to translate into action. Empirical Answers to Philosophical Questions. But if it is better to be happy thus than by chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so, since everything that depends on the action of nature is by nature as good as it can be, and similarly everything that depends on art or any rational cause, and especially if it depends on the best of all causes.
A virtuous act requires that we do the right thing knowingly and willingly, that we act in character, and that we do the act for its own sake and not from an ulterior motive or reward.
And what ever the choice is, will determent on whether the animal is going to be happy or not. This is the world of the polis, or community. After all, some people are very fortunate, while others are not.
As long as we do not think of a 'fixed gaze' often associated with that word, it probably best describes Aristotle's perfect happiness. The final good that is obtainable by humans is happiness.
Animals contemplate on many choices as well as we humans do. Suffice to say, Aristotle thought that people lived to be happy. 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 thembut we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy.
Just like the saying that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I feel that happiness depends on each person. We are responsible for what we do and who we are.
Similarly with regard to actions also there is excess, defect, and the intermediate. Because of that personal and individual goal, it does seem as if the study and discipline of philosophy would be best accomplished simply by personal and individual study.
But while in the body we see that which moves astray, in the soul we do not. And for those of you with pets know what I am talking about. Most people do not believe this way.
Sure, the animal cannot mentally contemplate many of the choices that are facing us, but to say that an animal does not contemplate it's own actions is insulting to the animal itself. For the former think it is some plain and obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however, from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor; but, conscious of their ignorance, they admire those who proclaim some great ideal that is above their comprehension.
Physical pleasures, indeed, can tempt us with excesses and lead us away from virtue and happiness. Now the excellence of this seems to be common to all species and not specifically human; for this part or faculty seems to function most in sleep, while goodness and badness are least manifest in sleep whence comes the saying that the happy are not better off than the wretched for half their lives; and this happens naturally enough, since sleep is an inactivity of the soul in that respect in which it is called good or badunless perhaps to a small extent some of the movements actually penetrate to the soul, and in this respect the dreams of good men are better than those of ordinary people.
This argument has some plausibility, but seems to clash with the procedure of the sciences; for all of these, though they aim at some good and seek to supply the deficiency of it, leave on one side the knowledge of the good.
Souls According to Aristotle All living things have souls, where a soul is simply whatever it is that makes the difference between life and death. By unhappiness, Mill means pain and no pleasure. In Aristotle's works, eudaimonia (based on older Greek tradition) was used as the term for the highest human good, and so it is the aim of practical philosophy, including ethics and political philosophy, to consider (and also experience) what it really is, and how it can be achieved.
Aristotle is obviously one of the great thinkers in history, and he is known for his work in nearly every area of man's life. In addition to his oft-quoted treatises on logic, his legacy includes. Dec 03, · Aristotle believed that it is virtues that lead to happiness. All men agreed that happiness is to “live well”, but Aristotle furthers this into a whole lifestyle, not just a state of being.
He believed that happiness is, “not a habit or a trained faculty, but it is some exercise of a faculty”. Aristotle Aristotle develops the view that happiness, eudaimonia in Greek, is a life lived “in accord with virtue and focused on the contemplation of scientific and philosophical truths.”3 Aristotle examines happiness in his writings in Nicomachean Ethics written nearly 2, years ago.
A sick person might wish for good health and a less fortunate for monetary benefits but, Aristotle believed that those wishes/wants fail to achieve the highest status. Aristotle divided life into three main categories: the first consisted of people who identified happiness as sensual pleasure. According to Aristotle, how is it that being a good person will also lead to happiness?
what you do are in harmony." - Mahatma Gandhi AS "Happiness depends upon ourselves." - Aristotle In Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues the highest end is the human good.According aristotle being good person also lead happiness