Aristotle, a Greek Philosopher and a prolific writer, focused his writing on earthly phenomena especially pertaining to human behavior. He made a lot of contribution in fields of mathematics, metaphysics, physics, biology, ethics, politics, medicine, dance and theatre amongst other areas. He is also famous for having rejected the theories of some equally famous philosophers. For instance, he refuted some of Plato’s assertions, even though he himself was Plato’s student, putting forward theories of his own. Some of his most famous works are detailed theories on human nature, his theory on virtue and his notion of happiness. This paper will take a look at each of the three theories and will compare them to see whether or not there exists any relationship between them.
Aristotle rejected Plato’s theory that human beings are composed of two substances, a material body and an immaterial mind. According to Aristotle, this is untrue and instead he believed that, living things are composed of plants, animals and humans. In this case, he explained that each living things had a specific way of functioning. Plants had a structure which allowed them to take in nutrients and to reproduce. Animals on the other hand, had this structure too and in addition had a structure which engaged senses to help it interact with the outside environment. Human beings on their part, had a rational structure and was thus unique. He therefore goes further to explain that it is the specific pattern or structure of something that defines how it functions. He further states that no human being was born immoral and further that, no one can blame their immorality on their human nature as one is born without knowledge, therefore, no one can blame immorality on their human nature. He claims that, it is the choices that human beings make in the courses of their lifetimes that makes them immoral.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Human Nature and Virtue
Aristotle does not suggest that there are any flaws in the human nature and puts across the idea that, there is a common reason as to why man does what he does. He calls this telos wherein he suggests that, there is an end to everything human beings do, and it is this end that drives them. This ends include happiness, well-being, living-well and perfection. According to the new translation of the Nichomachean Ethics by Fielding & Aristotle (2006), Aristotle seeks to find out what human beings desire most and thus asks, “Will not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object.” (Fielding & Aristotle, 2006)This shows that knowledge of the human desire will help us understand the difference between right or wrong or what is virtuous and what is not.
Aristotle further goes on to explain that, human beings are social beings and that human beings should seek fulfillment of this nature. As a result of this nature, Aristotle concludes that, man is a political animal with a natural drive to creating a society and fitting into that society. In their book A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics , Miller states (1991), “Humans are by nature political animals.” This desire to fit into a society makes man’s sense of self to be connected to his role within society. Society therefore, sets standards as to what is virtuous and as to what is not. Due to human nature, which desires to be part of a society and seeks to be accepted within that same society, man will act according to what society believes to be virtuous. Aristotle argues that, human habit is as a result of past action or the environment that same human is in and therefore, if the social or political environment dictates something to be virtuous and another one to not be virtuous, man will follow this since his nature makes him want to be part of this social or political environment. The writer further argues out the political human nature stating that, “Human speech serves to reveal the advantageous and the harmful and hence also the just i.e. the common advantage and the unjust. Humans alone have the perception of good and bad and just and unjust; and the community in this things makes a household and polis.” (Miller 1991)This further emphasizes the connection of human nature and the notion of virtue.
Human Nature and Happiness
According to Aristotle’s teachings, happiness fully depends on human beings and their natures. In his work the Nichomachean Ethics, he strives to find out what is the purpose of human existence. According to Jonathan Lear (1988), “If there is some end of things we do which we desire for its own sake, Aristotle says this must be the chief good.” This means that, Aristotle did not view happiness as feeling good or having pleasure or fun as many people today describe it. In the Nichomechean Ethics, Aristotle argues that most people agree that the end to human life is happiness but they differ on what happiness is. Some may say happiness is achieving health, and some others wealth. Although he acknowledges that such factors can play a role in attaining happiness, he maintains that happiness is living a complete life according to our rational nature as human beings.
In his essay Happy Lives and the Highest Good- An essay on Aristotle’s Nichomechean Ethics, Lear Richardson (2004) argues that, “All goods we the goods and activities we pursue would be worth pursuing for the sake of eudaimonia and that we would choose them for that reason. In particular, we would choose the goods we already value for themselves- like friends, moral virtue and honor-for the separate good that is eudaimonia” This means that human beings themselves have the nature to determine what according to them, makes them happy, the order of achieving thess things and the actions they take in their lives are as a result of them seeking eudaimonia. Eudaimonia is a Greek term meaning happiness. Whatever human beings consider to be of the highest good, gives order to the pursuit of things that are valuable to them. Friendships for example, have the ability of making one’s life complete, therefore, bringing happiness. Aristotle, however, maintains that those friends should be complete or perfect, not imperfect. This is because imperfect friendships are only meant for pleasure and advantage. Kant explains what Aristotle means by this and says that, “The key to Aristotle’s claim about a primary sense of friendship is his distinction (that flows from biology) between the parts or events that make up the life of any organism and its life as a whole. Friendships for mutual pleasure or advantage are partial friendships; they concern particular aspects of our lives. What virtue friendships have that partial friendships do not, is that they take seriously the problem of a life as a whole.” (Salkever, 2008).Aristotle considers perfect friends as those who help people live a complete life and this is the key to happiness according to him. Happiness according to according to Aristotle is something public and not a private affair.
Virtue and Happiness
Virtue can be described as the right manner of doing things. According to Aristotle’s teachings, how a person behaves begins right from a tender age and therefore, virtue is something that cannot just be attained or be stumbled upon, but is something that’s practiced throughout one’s life. A man who is seeking to be virtuous and achieves this will be happy, just like in the way, if a person wants to show bravery and is able to be brave in a difficult situation, he is happy with himself. This means that, virtue contributes to living a fully accomplished life and therefore, contributes to happiness. Aristotle argues that, most human beings are unhappy because they have not yet grasped the concept of happiness and are deficient of virtue. He insists that virtue is something personal and not something one does in order to be approved by fellow human beings. He does this by pointing out as per the Nichomachean principle that, although honor is what most political men seek in order for them to be assured of their goodness, it might not bring complete happiness. In Aristotle’s-Work translated under W. D. Ross (1976), he maintains that, “One might even suppose this to be rather honor, the end of the political life. But virtue seems actually compatible with being asleep.” This implies that, virtue is not about what one has achieved but rather who a person is, and that is what brings about happiness, knowing that one is virtuous.
Conclusion
Not everybody might agree with the works of Aristotle but there definitely exists some truth in it. Human nature, virtue and happiness are all interdependent and it is up to human beings to realize that. For one to be happy, one must be in touch with his or her human nature. Virtue on the other one hand, can be as a result of both human nature and the desire for happiness as it can be seen to give one joy. This three key topics by Aristotle can contribute to one living better rights, if clearly understood.
References
Fielding, H., & Aristotle (2006). A new translation of the Nichomachean ethics of Aristotle . London, England: Hesperides Press.
Lear, G. R. (2004). Happy lives and the highest good: An essay on Aristotle’s “Nicomachean ethics” (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ, United States: Princeton University Press.
Lear, J. (1988). Aristotle: The desire to understand . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, F., ‘Nature, Justice and Law in the Politics’, in A Companion to Aristotle’s Politics, eds. D. Keyt and F. Miller (Oxford, 1991), pp. 293-298
Salkever, S. (2008) Taking Friendship Seriously: Aristotle on the Place(s) of Philia in Human Life, in Friendship and Politics: Essays in Political Thought, eds. von Heyking, J., and Avramenko, R., (Notre Dame, 2008), pp. 53-83.
Ross, W. D. (1976). Aristotle: Selections . Littlefield Adams.
