So What's Idea of the Good Life

Society has progressed greatly since the time of the ancient philosophers and authors who penned some of the most influential strains of thoughts in the western world. But that progress is more strictly limited than a modern person may realize. Technologically and scientifically abilities and knowledge has indeed improved exponentially. Yet many of the questions posed by the ancient philosophers are just as relevant to us today as they were to the people who live in their world especially questions about what the good life is.

Firstly there are some things about the ancients and the modern world that just won’t be reconciled. The metaphysical theories of the ancients are mostly incorrect in the view of modern science a far more accurate tool for gaining information about the natural world. many other ideas about nature and theories about life which sought to explain existence or the laws that govern existence are also considered obsolete. But that scientific thought had to begin at some point and time. The Pre-Socratics were natural philosophers in every sense, for them the question of why the world is the way it is required more than just the simple answer of divine intention or intervention. The spirit of science began with these philosophers such as Thales, Xenophanes and Heraclitus who pondered what composed the world, how it came to be that way and without relying explanation on some higher power. It is that notion of a process in the natural world that something inherent in the universe itself allows it to be that carries scientific exploration to new discoveries, paradigms and deeper understanding and it began with these philosophers.

Another point that differentiate that ancient world from the modern; technology. Without doubt the ancients had technology, Archimedes alone can represent the ingenuity of people working with rudimentary knowledge and experience. In fact as modern people with the benefit of the technology that we are able to achieve we must not disparage the sophistication the ancients had in designing and carrying out engineering technology. The point here is simply that the ancient world and the modern world have this feature that most distinguishes one from the other. Technology is not limited to engineering tools but includes medicines and to a degree the vast body of human knowledge that has since accumulated. But in our modern affinities a respect must be paid to the ancients who began the tradition of passing down knowledge and accumulating what the human species may know allowing us today to even achieve these things.

These paragraphs served two purposes; on the one had to make clear the distinction between the ancient and modern world; secondly to show that the modern world is very much an extension of the ancient world. The first domino is a line never touches the last or any other domino yet its effects reach that domino. If it was not for the Classical Age in Greece the Western world as we know it would not exist. So in this the way the ancients are still very relevant as our civilization is a build up from theirs. Let us use the lever as an example; the understanding of the principle of leverage comes from the ancients, Archimedes exploited this understanding time and again to demonstrate engineering mechanisms that could lift incredible amounts of weight. Through the centuries that same understanding has allowing us to build structure thousands of feet high, move tons of material and build structures to connect land masses regardless of environmental challenges. Our ability to build and create anything today has its beginnings with the first people who put their mind to the task of finding solutions to these problems we benefit from their exploration and genius.

The modern world may be built upon the solutions discovered and developed by the ancients but what about the question that have yet to be satisfactorily answered? What is the good life or how to achieve happiness? That question was encountered and solutions provided by Pre-Socratics, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the Epicureans, the Stoics and the Skeptics to name a few. Very much so that question has been encountered by every single human who has lived each finding their own way eventually. What began with these philosophers is carried on today because truthfully no one really knows. Just as there are many today who present an avenue that will lead to happiness so did the ancients. And just as our modern technology is the continuation of ancient knowledge so too is our philosophy a continuation of the conversation began by the ancients. Socrates thought that to be good is to know good, which for him meant constantly questioning and reviewing what he “knew”. Plato thought that through the rational of the intellect, the constant strive to conceive of reality as it really is would lead one to the ultimate good, the good life following from that understanding. Aristotle meanwhile held that the ultimate good was a life of contemplation and that a good life can be had by constantly having the habit of making the best choice from given opportunity. Why is it important to understand what these Fathers of philosophy have laid out as the means to live a good life? Because honestly almost all else that followed in the West is a follow up or response to their philosophy. These men are still very relevant in their pursuit for the good life. For example a perusal of the self-help section will have many methods of how to change life for the better and they’ll have titles such as Build Better Habits for Success or 7 Habits of Successful people. Or the books will offer exercise in self-understanding so that the individual may themselves. And it is not just in these books that the influence of these philosophers is relevant. The Christian tradition has used Aristotelian and Platonic ideas for centuries as well as Platonic. Philosophers have written whole discourse responding or refuting some aspect of their philosophy, over the centuries and even at this very moment. These men are not just relevant they are still a part of the society that we live in today.

There is further the idea of a proper and healthy lifestyle or at least the idea that there is a best way to live life. The big three of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle provided answers to what the good life was and how a person may achieve it. And yes they did offer a lifestyle it being the constant questioning and pursuit of knowledge and lifelong contemplation. But while it is great to have a person like Socrates who does these things, not everybody wants to be Socrates. The Epicureans and Stoics maintain their relevance through their philosophy which is accessible to and attractive to all kinds of people. The Epicureans hold pleasure to be the greatest pursuit of life, while the Stoics maintain that happiness comes from oneself as a matter of perspective. These simple starting points makes this a lot more of an attractive philosophy. This is a lifestyle philosophy because from these basic pursuits one arranges their life to satisfy the ultimate goal of happiness. The Epicureans value the pursuit of pleasure, this needs clarification because it is not the pursuit of pleasure in the sense of satisfying our primal desires, but pleasure as being free from pain and anxiety of the mind. The Epicureans did not hold on to some divine aspect of the universe but held on to nature itself, so that the good life begins and ends with the individual. Much the same with the Stoics who, for the purpose here, may simply summed up as understanding that unhappiness comes for the judgment of a situation as being bad. These philosophies deal with the question of what can be the source of happiness and both answer that that source is the individual themselves. Through living in the proper way one may be happy for the Epicureans that is maximizing pleasure and limiting fear; for the Stoics that is fulfilling one duty to live a good life by dealing with what appears in this world with the best intent.

These philosophies are relevant because somehow people have yet to find a way to achieve lasting happiness. I say somehow because it really seems like a simple thing yet people subsume to drugs or materialism simply pleasures that produce brief condiment. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle will continue to be the loudest voices in philosophy even if it is just an echo because their minds did what most do not, they remained curious those of us who have come after my think on our own but cannot ignore their thoughts. Finally we just have to realize that the modern world is not that much sophisticated from the ancient world. The modern world is more developed in certain aspects but in many ways we have not finished the discussion.

How Can We Be Good

Be good is a phrase often heard every person is likely to have it said them at least once. But what if there is no good to be, no good to emulate or practice. Can philosophy provide an reasonable position as to whether there good or not. It can and does, though we may not “know” what the good is or how something could be the of the good philosophy based on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics provides a guide of what can be considered good.

The Euthyphro Dialogue presents the issue of the groundless nature of the good which is shown by the many reformulations the definition of piety Plato presents. Here will be a brief treatment of definitions presented in the dialogue and an explanation of why each is inadequate. Euthyphro first defines, “[p]iety [as] doing as I am doing, prosecuting anyone who is guilty of any great crime, whether he be your father or mother, or whoever he may be; and not to prosecute him were impiety” rather than define what piety is Euthyphro only presents a particular case (E., 5-6). Socrates wants to understand what the pious, what is distinctively pious that its characteristic may be identifiable in every case where it is concerned, that is the definition which he aims at. Socrates asks for a general definition to which Euthyphro responds by presenting his second definition asserting that, “[p]iety is that which is dear to the gods; that which is not dear to them is impious or unholy” (E., 8-9). The problem with this second definition; if the what the gods love is pious and that which they don’t impious how are we to understand piety and impiety if some gods love some action or behavior while other do not love the same action or behavior. Socrates amends his definition, it now asserting that, “[p]iety is that which all the gods love; and the contrary, that which all the gods hate, is impious”. Here Socrates hits with his most direct and powerful question, “is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious; or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?” The problem may then be stated as thus: if actions are good without the gods that implies that there is an independent standard of good. If, however, there is no independent standard of the good then the good is only what the gods wills to be good. How can they know that their commands will lead to moral goodness if there is no foundation of moral goodness in their command?

The problem presented in the Euthyphro is unavoidable if there is no grounding of what the good is then why should anyone be good? Though this is an issue I say that it is not a major issue that should hinder ethics as is. Regardless of whether we know what the true good is people still propose normative ideas. People actively think about and recognize what the good is and we discuss what we ought to do. This does not exclude issues regarding what the right is, nor does it mean that people will do the good. What can be concluded is that people have the capacity and do think about the good. Aristotle makes the point that the good and right something which through the use of reason humanity may be able to learn about the good and discover what the moral life is by, according to Aristotle, observing man in his daily life. Morality, then, arises from the reflection of the good embedded in human nature, in human behavior, and without reason we would not have any moral capacity. Reason is key because one must be able to think about their actions and differentiate between the good and bad and why the good is so, “for good action and its opposite cannot exist without a combination of intellect and character” (BK. VI, 1138b35-1139b5, NE). What then is practical wisdom and why is intellect and character requisite for good action? Aristotle’s key thesis is the doctrine of the mean, the act of choosing the intermediate between two extremes, the extremes of excess and deficiency. To do this one must be able to discern what the mean between two extremes even is. Furthermore, one must be aware of their own state of character as the mean is a relative to the individual. Thus individuals use their reason to understand what the mean is relative to themselves taking into account the situation and their character.

Practical wisdom then is knowing what the mean of virtue is; by which one may choose to act on, “this being determined by a rational principle and by the principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it” (Bk. II, 1106b36-1107b26, NE). Practical wisdom then is highly dependent on reason and the use of that reason in the correct fashion. Aristotle distinguishes between two types of reason, the theoretical and the practical. Theoretical reason is the gaining of knowledge of principles in nature or philosophical wisdom. Practical reason is a guide to our actions under the particular circumstance of a given situation. Practical wisdom deals then with choice; choosing the right action given the circumstance one is acting in while also being aware of one’s moral character.

Practical choice is a focus of morality; practical choice is the deliberate movement toward being virtuous. Although morality, or the good, is inherent in human nature it does not entail that humans will be moral. Some, or indeed many, people never exercise their moral capacity despite being capable of doing so. Given that a person may reflect on their actions and by doing so choice the good it is clear that each individual is responsible for their choices. Morality is a choice and to be moral requires this responsibility of each individual over that choice as Aristotle asserts:

"What affirmation and negation are in thinking, pursuit and avoidance are in desire; so that since moral virtue is a state of character concerned with choice, and choice is deliberate desire, therefore both the reasoning must be true and the desire right, if the choice is to be good, and the latter must pursue just what the former asserts." (BK. VI, 1138b35-1139b5, NE)

Choice is central, note also that Aristotle discusses the desire to choice the right action; to want to choice the right action. Being good then is dependent on the person voluntarily being good, “[t]he origin of [moral] action… is choice, and that of choice is desire and reasoning with a view to an end” (BK. VI, 1138b35-1139b5, NE). Each individual is responsible to the end toward which they aim at and so is responsible for the achieving that end. As has been stated right behavior is a potentiality of humanity, “[n]either by nature, then, nor contrary to nature do the virtues arise in us; rather we are adapted by nature to receive them, and are made perfect by habit” (Bk. II, 1103a4-1103b2, NE). The ultimate end to which humans must aim for, then, is the consistent choice and desire to act in a moral fashion. Aristotle makes the point that this end is achieved by the cultivation of the virtues through habit.

Virtues according to Aristotle are of two kinds the intellectual and the moral. Intellectual virtue, similar to practical wisdom is simply the learning of right action, additionally the ability to teach virtue once it has been learned. Moral virtue for Aristotle is the cultivation of the habit of doing right. Habits is understood to be the practice of regularly and consistently performing a behavior. As stated previously the end which humanity should aim for is the habitual performance of moral actions. Habituation makes for moral behavior without hesitation or thought. The right action is performed in a sense because one is hardwired to do that action. Yet this is an incomplete understanding, the action should not merely be an automatic response there is need of judgment, the exercise of one’s practical wisdom. Virtue then is a state of being, “it is a state of character concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us” (). The doctrine of the mean has already been presented as, “…a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect [deficiency]; and again it is a mean because the vices respectively fall short of or exceed what is right in both passions and actions while virtue both finds and chooses what is intermediate” (Bk. II, 1106b36-1107b26, NE). Through practical wisdom one has the knowledge of what is right and understands from whence to act and to act in accordance with this mean. It is an active philosophy; it is the choice of right action. In this choice it is key to understand that one is doing, “what is right in both passions and actions” (Bk. II, 1106b36-1107b26, NE), meaning controlling how one feels about their action and proceeding to do the right. This can be clarified, our emotions are powerful and are not geared toward the right action by default. By cultivating this degree of control and understanding in their individual selves on works of toward the end of being a person of moral virtue.

A central question in the Nicomachean Ethics is what the end or purpose of man is. Firstly, the question of whether man even has a purpose or not must be answered. Now we deal with the question of what it means to succeed in achieving this end for Aristotle it was this:

"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,… and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the function…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.”(Book I, NE, 1098a)

From this adduce we may begin treatment of the topic of Eudaimonia. The activity of soul is the rational nature of man. What is reason’s role in the ultimate end of man firstly, it must be explained why reason is the most esteemed of human qualities. Aristotle maintains that the good lies in activities which are done for themselves. The more self-sufficient an activity is the more ‘good’ it is, “[a]nd the self-sufficiency that is spoken of must belong most to the contemplative activity” (Bk. X, 1177a12-1178a8, NE). Aristotle holds that this is true because contemplation is the most unique human quality. He places the ultimate good with the what can only be ascribed to humans and no other lower forms of life. The highest form of this, then, is exercising reason for its own sake; meaning thinking about the world for the sake of thinking about it. This is also the most self-sufficient as, “the philosopher, even when by himself, can contemplate truth…” (Bk. X, 1177a12-1178a8, NE). Further as stated earlier to act in accordance with one’s mean also requires the use of reason as the mean is, “determined by a rational principle, and by the principle by which the man of practical wisdom would determine it” (Bk. X, 1177a12-1178a8, NE). This is the full use of reason to control the passionate aspect of our natures. The passionate aspect of our nature is not only our emotions, but also our appetites which can be lowly and base. The ultimate good of reason is our ability to control ourselves, to not be motivate by mere passionate impulse. This control is the choice to cultivate and act in virtue, to be aware and whole, this is Eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is a state of life, not something which happens to a person but something which is developed over and through time. A state of flourishing, of fully realizing one’s human capacity for reason. Eudaimonia is a state of being where good habits led to better choices, this is a state of life where one actively makes good choices and pursue the right thing.

What’s best is that one is making that choice or pursuit by their own means, their own standard for the good in concurrence with the understanding of what is right overall for all. To be in the state of Eudaimonia, “[a person] must be in a certain condition…[they] must have knowledge, secondly [they] must choose the acts, and choose them for their own sake, and thirdly [their] action[s] must proceed from firm and unchangeable character[s]” (Book II, NE,1105a). Character is not merely a part of a person it is the person. By cultivating the state of virtue people think better, Eudaimonia is an accomplishment it is something that is achieved through effort and conscious discipline. It comes from the practice of honing excellence in the virtues, it is having these virtues and doing well in life in general. Still Eudaimonia is true to the realities of life; in that doing well and being excellent does not guarantee a happy life. There is no reasonable way to know what will come your way or why it occurred to be so. But in Eudaimonia there is contentment; the contentment of living the good life in terms of human potential. Yes, it may be tragic to be in this state of achieving excellence in virtues and doing well in terms of how one responds to the world and proceeds through life and still be unhappy because of circumstance. This does not take away from the fact that one achieved this state of excellence and doing well it is an inner life of flourishing and that is beautiful.

#Philosophy #Ethics #Socrates #Aristotle #Ancient #History