In a world that has undergone upheaval after another, moral degradation, wars, calamity, crimes, and social injustice, people are struggling to understand the meaning of their existence. Why are we here What is my purpose What would make me happy When asked this query, people provide a myriad of answers a brand new car, a house, a successful career, money, fame, and even world peace. For centuries, the nature and purpose of human existence have been intensely debated. It remains an open issue.
Among the most persuasive theories to have surfaced in response to this debate has been the concept of eudaimonia, introduced by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his work Nicomachean Ethics (NE). Aristotles basic assumption is that human are teleological beings all striving toward an ultimate end or a final destination. This assumption, however, has been susceptible of different interpretations, something Aristotle himself recognised Everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the final good they disagree in their conceptions of eudaimonia. This paper builds on this statement and argues that Aristotles conception of eudaimonia is not mankinds ultimate teleological function. In analyzing Aristotles eudaimonia, two assumptions are made. First, that happiness is a condition or a quality of life that is achievable by all, regardless of sex, religion, or social status. Second, the achievement of happiness is not confined solely on the individual level, but on a greater social context. With these assumptions in mind, Aristotles elitist and conservative definition of happiness is incompatible with dearly-held virtues such as social justice and civil rights and cannot be found to be an acceptable assertion of the highest end of human existence.
Aristotles Eudaimonia
The term eudaimonia is the combination of the words eu (well or good) and daimon (fortune in life) which together loosely means living a life well. The general one-word interpretation of eudaimonia is happiness. Other authors detail the definition of eudaimonia as the state of having a Eudaemon (guardian spirit) and as a result, having a lot of good fortune in life, being well-off and being at peace with themselves, or living and doing well.
How can eudaimonia be construed as it is applied in human affairs Aristotle suggests that Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. The manner and values in which we pursue the highest attainable end by action depends, according to Aristotle, on a number of factors. Eudaimonia is constituted by rational activity in accordance with excellence, virtues, non-sacrificial friendships and scientific knowledge.
Critique of Aristotles Eudaimonia
Aristotle believes that eudaimonia consists of living a life that is self-sufficient. To elaborate, he means that eudaimonia is what makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing. In order to achieve the highest potential of human existence, persons must be comfortable in their circumstances. A person who does well, or someone accomplished financially would qualify in his definition. So would a person who is healthy and never lacking in food or sustenance. Comfort is something that is vital to achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle values a life of pleasure above everything else. According to him, the best life is the most pleasurable life. People who achieve maximum pleasure in life are closer to achieving eudaimonia, but this does not necessarily mean that the singular aim of living is pleasure alone.
The highest end of human existence is thus to live without lack or want of things that make for a pleasurable life. Looking back in history, have heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ for instance, achieved eudaimonia Because eudaimonia rules out suffering in its definition, of living and doing well, living in the service of others or for the interest of many and sacrificing ones life in the process is contrary to pursuing the end of human existence. Honour and sacrifice then, could be not construed as viable aims toward achieving happiness, because it is not possible to be a eudaimon while experiencing the worst evils and misfortune. Calling such a man happy would be proper only for the sake of argument. Aristotles conception of eudaimonia places honour outside of the equation. As long as that person maintains a life that is self-sufficient and is living and doing well, though he may be open detested or despised by the community, he can still be considered a eudaimon. So long as that person engages in a life of activity and contemplation, he is presumably able to achieve the highest end of his existence.
In Aristotles conception of the highest end, what are considered infinitely valuable ends such as justice or freedom are not included. The highest end, in Aristotles view need not be acts that aim to pursue ends that are infinitely valuable. He does not make an attempted to measure this good. What he identifies as the good that would qualify for eudaimonia exclude those that are comprehensive and all-encompassing. As stated earlier, honours are not credited, only certain pleasures. This conception is extremely limiting. A life based on justice and good deeds is definitely happier than a life based on injustice and wickedness.
Aristotle seems to suggest that whatever endeavor human beings seek for themselves are geared toward eudaimonia, but he adds certain limitations as to who is capable of achieving happiness and who is not. For one, happiness is accessible by virtue of birth or the circumstances in which one is born into. He considers good fortune as a primary driver of achieving eudaimonia. Good fortune is defined as something we may wish for or pray for, but we cannot choose between seeking it or not doing so. Aristotle wishes to convey that the outcomes of human beings are beyond the realm of human control, and thus, happiness is naturally provided to some and not to others. Despite our modernity, there are many people still attribute life outcomes to metaphysical explanations. This crafts human beings as passive subjects in their own quest for meaning and happiness. If we follow this line of thinking, mans individual or collective capacity to shape his own destiny is taken for granted.
Aristotle also presents eudaimonia as an end that involves the constant application of moral reasoning. Reasoning separates humans from the beasts so that his happiness, then, is governed by the excellence in which he exercises this peculiar function. Aristotle says of the difference between human beings and animals Man is distinguished from other animals by his power of thought. So the functions of a man- the effective performance of which will make him a good man- are those of his activities which involve thought and which therefore he does not share with other animals. Unfortunately, in Aristotle s view, certain groups of people do not fall within the category of beings capable of exercising their moral reasoning. Slaves, for instance, are essentially no different from animals and are hence incapable of achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle even compares slaves to the animal-like fulfillment of bodily desires Animals obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Aristotle concludes that people born of lower socioeconomic backgrounds cannot achieve happiness not because of the injustice posed upon them by society, but because they cannot perform the peculiar function of the human being, which is to nourish both the body and the soul (reason).
In this sense, Aristotelian ethics reveals its elitist position. Excellence and happiness is reserved only to the mature male adult of the upper class and cannot be possible for those outside the Greek body politic - women, children, non-Greeks, slaves, or laborers. Aristotles elitist ethics have been the subject of criticism by many. David Bostock describes NE as radically innovative but immoral, or it is a recipe for unthinking moral conservatism. This non-egalitarian view of happiness is something that may have been acceptable during Aristotles time, but certainly not at present. The very act of slavery, which Aristotle supports, is in itself immoral precisely because it reduces human beings otherwise capable of eudaimonia to the status of animals. The selective assignment of happiness to a few runs contrary to modern values of democracy. The highest good is that which is supposed to bring the greatest happiness to the greater number.
Another prominent critique of Aristotles eudaimonia is the strict intellectualism it espouses, and its treatment of contemplation as the exclusive good. Aristotle likens study as
...the activity of the gods that is superior in blessedness And so the human activity that it most akin to the gods will, more than any others, have the character of happiness Hence happiness extends just as far as study extends, and the more someone studies, the happier he is, not coincidentally but insofar as he studies, since study is valuable in itself. And so happiness will be some kind of study.
In this regard, for Aristotle, philosophers fall on top of the list of the persons who are most likely to achieve eudaimonia. Others argue that Aristotles emphasis on intellectualism is an advocacy for amorality. Aristotles recommendation on the individual and singular pursuit of intellectualism betrays the functional roles that human beings need to perform for their collective survival. What would the world look like if all of us strive for eudaimonia by leading the life of a philosopher Production of goods and services that are required in any functioning society would be sacrificed. Couldnt a life devoted to excellence in whatever form of activity, labor, or endeavor constitute happiness as well
Aristotles concept of eudaimonia, as one characterised by living and faring well, despite its weaknesses, remains one of the most comprehensive guides to ascertaining the nature and purpose of human existence. While it recognises the virtues of human beings and allows their capacity to achieve happiness, it is elitist and selective as to who is capable of achieving that ultimate end for mankind. It is partial toward the rich and influential and against the disenfranchised such as the slaves, women, non-Greeks and children. Moreover, Aristotles overemphasis on intellectualism as the highest good is impractical as it is individualistic. I believe eudaimonia is not confined within such an exclusivist perspective. Happiness is something achievable by all and pertains to the highest good for the greater number, an objective that is difficult to attain because of the complexities of human society.
Is it acceptable that the highest end for human existence is a self-sufficient end Certainly, there are persons whose singular aim may be eudaimonia. Self-sufficiency may mean wealth, prominence, and glory for some but it may mean service, love, and sacrifice for others. The definition of eudaimonia, then, is highly subjective. Some people may desire for more things while some people desire other things more. In order to live well and fare well, some people might not deem it best to live entirely for their own comfort and pleasure, but for others, and in so doing, experience a sense of self-sufficiency. In placing criteria for happiness, Aristotles conception of eudaimonia falls short. In my opinion, the highest end of human existence is doing the best out of his circumstances to achieve whatever ends he values most.
Among the most persuasive theories to have surfaced in response to this debate has been the concept of eudaimonia, introduced by the Greek philosopher Aristotle in his work Nicomachean Ethics (NE). Aristotles basic assumption is that human are teleological beings all striving toward an ultimate end or a final destination. This assumption, however, has been susceptible of different interpretations, something Aristotle himself recognised Everyone agrees that eudaimonia is the final good they disagree in their conceptions of eudaimonia. This paper builds on this statement and argues that Aristotles conception of eudaimonia is not mankinds ultimate teleological function. In analyzing Aristotles eudaimonia, two assumptions are made. First, that happiness is a condition or a quality of life that is achievable by all, regardless of sex, religion, or social status. Second, the achievement of happiness is not confined solely on the individual level, but on a greater social context. With these assumptions in mind, Aristotles elitist and conservative definition of happiness is incompatible with dearly-held virtues such as social justice and civil rights and cannot be found to be an acceptable assertion of the highest end of human existence.
Aristotles Eudaimonia
The term eudaimonia is the combination of the words eu (well or good) and daimon (fortune in life) which together loosely means living a life well. The general one-word interpretation of eudaimonia is happiness. Other authors detail the definition of eudaimonia as the state of having a Eudaemon (guardian spirit) and as a result, having a lot of good fortune in life, being well-off and being at peace with themselves, or living and doing well.
How can eudaimonia be construed as it is applied in human affairs Aristotle suggests that Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. The manner and values in which we pursue the highest attainable end by action depends, according to Aristotle, on a number of factors. Eudaimonia is constituted by rational activity in accordance with excellence, virtues, non-sacrificial friendships and scientific knowledge.
Critique of Aristotles Eudaimonia
Aristotle believes that eudaimonia consists of living a life that is self-sufficient. To elaborate, he means that eudaimonia is what makes life something desirable and deficient in nothing. In order to achieve the highest potential of human existence, persons must be comfortable in their circumstances. A person who does well, or someone accomplished financially would qualify in his definition. So would a person who is healthy and never lacking in food or sustenance. Comfort is something that is vital to achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle values a life of pleasure above everything else. According to him, the best life is the most pleasurable life. People who achieve maximum pleasure in life are closer to achieving eudaimonia, but this does not necessarily mean that the singular aim of living is pleasure alone.
The highest end of human existence is thus to live without lack or want of things that make for a pleasurable life. Looking back in history, have heroes such as Mahatma Gandhi and Jesus Christ for instance, achieved eudaimonia Because eudaimonia rules out suffering in its definition, of living and doing well, living in the service of others or for the interest of many and sacrificing ones life in the process is contrary to pursuing the end of human existence. Honour and sacrifice then, could be not construed as viable aims toward achieving happiness, because it is not possible to be a eudaimon while experiencing the worst evils and misfortune. Calling such a man happy would be proper only for the sake of argument. Aristotles conception of eudaimonia places honour outside of the equation. As long as that person maintains a life that is self-sufficient and is living and doing well, though he may be open detested or despised by the community, he can still be considered a eudaimon. So long as that person engages in a life of activity and contemplation, he is presumably able to achieve the highest end of his existence.
In Aristotles conception of the highest end, what are considered infinitely valuable ends such as justice or freedom are not included. The highest end, in Aristotles view need not be acts that aim to pursue ends that are infinitely valuable. He does not make an attempted to measure this good. What he identifies as the good that would qualify for eudaimonia exclude those that are comprehensive and all-encompassing. As stated earlier, honours are not credited, only certain pleasures. This conception is extremely limiting. A life based on justice and good deeds is definitely happier than a life based on injustice and wickedness.
Aristotle seems to suggest that whatever endeavor human beings seek for themselves are geared toward eudaimonia, but he adds certain limitations as to who is capable of achieving happiness and who is not. For one, happiness is accessible by virtue of birth or the circumstances in which one is born into. He considers good fortune as a primary driver of achieving eudaimonia. Good fortune is defined as something we may wish for or pray for, but we cannot choose between seeking it or not doing so. Aristotle wishes to convey that the outcomes of human beings are beyond the realm of human control, and thus, happiness is naturally provided to some and not to others. Despite our modernity, there are many people still attribute life outcomes to metaphysical explanations. This crafts human beings as passive subjects in their own quest for meaning and happiness. If we follow this line of thinking, mans individual or collective capacity to shape his own destiny is taken for granted.
Aristotle also presents eudaimonia as an end that involves the constant application of moral reasoning. Reasoning separates humans from the beasts so that his happiness, then, is governed by the excellence in which he exercises this peculiar function. Aristotle says of the difference between human beings and animals Man is distinguished from other animals by his power of thought. So the functions of a man- the effective performance of which will make him a good man- are those of his activities which involve thought and which therefore he does not share with other animals. Unfortunately, in Aristotle s view, certain groups of people do not fall within the category of beings capable of exercising their moral reasoning. Slaves, for instance, are essentially no different from animals and are hence incapable of achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle even compares slaves to the animal-like fulfillment of bodily desires Animals obey their instincts. And indeed the use made of slaves and of tame animals is not very different for both with their bodies minister to the needs of life. Aristotle concludes that people born of lower socioeconomic backgrounds cannot achieve happiness not because of the injustice posed upon them by society, but because they cannot perform the peculiar function of the human being, which is to nourish both the body and the soul (reason).
In this sense, Aristotelian ethics reveals its elitist position. Excellence and happiness is reserved only to the mature male adult of the upper class and cannot be possible for those outside the Greek body politic - women, children, non-Greeks, slaves, or laborers. Aristotles elitist ethics have been the subject of criticism by many. David Bostock describes NE as radically innovative but immoral, or it is a recipe for unthinking moral conservatism. This non-egalitarian view of happiness is something that may have been acceptable during Aristotles time, but certainly not at present. The very act of slavery, which Aristotle supports, is in itself immoral precisely because it reduces human beings otherwise capable of eudaimonia to the status of animals. The selective assignment of happiness to a few runs contrary to modern values of democracy. The highest good is that which is supposed to bring the greatest happiness to the greater number.
Another prominent critique of Aristotles eudaimonia is the strict intellectualism it espouses, and its treatment of contemplation as the exclusive good. Aristotle likens study as
...the activity of the gods that is superior in blessedness And so the human activity that it most akin to the gods will, more than any others, have the character of happiness Hence happiness extends just as far as study extends, and the more someone studies, the happier he is, not coincidentally but insofar as he studies, since study is valuable in itself. And so happiness will be some kind of study.
In this regard, for Aristotle, philosophers fall on top of the list of the persons who are most likely to achieve eudaimonia. Others argue that Aristotles emphasis on intellectualism is an advocacy for amorality. Aristotles recommendation on the individual and singular pursuit of intellectualism betrays the functional roles that human beings need to perform for their collective survival. What would the world look like if all of us strive for eudaimonia by leading the life of a philosopher Production of goods and services that are required in any functioning society would be sacrificed. Couldnt a life devoted to excellence in whatever form of activity, labor, or endeavor constitute happiness as well
Aristotles concept of eudaimonia, as one characterised by living and faring well, despite its weaknesses, remains one of the most comprehensive guides to ascertaining the nature and purpose of human existence. While it recognises the virtues of human beings and allows their capacity to achieve happiness, it is elitist and selective as to who is capable of achieving that ultimate end for mankind. It is partial toward the rich and influential and against the disenfranchised such as the slaves, women, non-Greeks and children. Moreover, Aristotles overemphasis on intellectualism as the highest good is impractical as it is individualistic. I believe eudaimonia is not confined within such an exclusivist perspective. Happiness is something achievable by all and pertains to the highest good for the greater number, an objective that is difficult to attain because of the complexities of human society.
Is it acceptable that the highest end for human existence is a self-sufficient end Certainly, there are persons whose singular aim may be eudaimonia. Self-sufficiency may mean wealth, prominence, and glory for some but it may mean service, love, and sacrifice for others. The definition of eudaimonia, then, is highly subjective. Some people may desire for more things while some people desire other things more. In order to live well and fare well, some people might not deem it best to live entirely for their own comfort and pleasure, but for others, and in so doing, experience a sense of self-sufficiency. In placing criteria for happiness, Aristotles conception of eudaimonia falls short. In my opinion, the highest end of human existence is doing the best out of his circumstances to achieve whatever ends he values most.
No comments:
Post a Comment