like a hula hula hoop
How should we live?
Sort:
I'm more of a Plato kind of guy. Fun to play with, not to eat.
Oct 20, 2015
0
#4
Plato had a similar theory of ethics, though - at least a similar value dualism as did Aristotle. He believed that when we act, we do so because one fear overrides another fear, like a trading of desires in our mind (or what Plato called soul). But, Plato says, we'd gladly trade all of these fears and desires for Wisdom, or Beauty. The pure form itself of all things is what we should try to reach.
Analyzing Aristotle we can see a similar parallel, is all that I'm trying to make. The pure contemplation is precisely this priceless thing that we should strive to become, but we can't. So we should try to be as good as possible, so in that way we'll be as close as possible to this "heavenly" ideal...
Aristotle and Plato did have differing opinions when it came to the connection of ownership and sense of self.
Aristotle and Plato did have differing opinions when it came to the connection of ownership and sense of self.
Oct 21, 2015
0
#10
A better and related question - how do you come to be who you are?
Through genetics and environment.
Oct 21, 2015
0
#15
ok, so let's call it "good" (as i think you're hinting at by environment). But if good is in idea or ideal in your mind, how will you ever come to be it? In other words how will you ever pay enough charity to reach this ideal.... you'll never be good enough, perfect enough, you'll never come to be who you are.
if you want to be a (bad?) servant, the same regress follows.
so what do you think? or should we try a new answer?
Whatever floats your goat.
Oct 21, 2015
0
#17
CORRECT ANSWER!!!! only by whatever can you come to be what you are. by not trying to be anything can you only become this thing that you are not trying to become.
It's what leads to the life of pure contemplation, Aristotle's supposed ideal in his tenth book. Which solves the apparent contradiction!
And we're done, aren't we!?
Aristotle outlines a whole system of ethics, developing what's known as his function argument: that the road to happiness consists in doing the activities in the way that a human being should do them. By regulating our desires (what Aristotle calls appetite) by our practical reason, we're able to do the splendid or beautiful thing. Like archers who hit the mark, we see the right thing to do and do it, completing virtue or excellence.
However, after two-hundred or so pages of outlining his theory for the good life, he introduces the ideal of pure contemplation, god-like and going beyond that of a human. This, Aristotle says here, is the chief or highest good, and what we strive for. But this is puzzling. Didn't Aristotle say the highest good is to function as a human being, not, as this argument seems to suggest, as one of the "gods"?
In 1986 Princeton Professor Alexander Nehamas published arguably one of the most influential books on Nietzsche and arguably in the history of philosophy, entitled "Nietzsche: Life as Literature." In it, he outlines the claim that this great philosopher saw the consequences in the world as mirroring fictionalist theories, in other words, truth as intersubjectivity, not some objective truth that one can word. Applying this case to Aristotle's quandary may help. According to Aristotle, it seems, the truth of how we should get along isn't objective in terms of something you can find. Rather, you've got to "see" it. Like Nietzsche, it seems, life is indeed like literature - there is some ethical truth, but, it's manifested in the real world, not in some abstract theory.
Now we're in a better position to understand the contemplation argument in Aristotle's tenth book of his Ethics. What Aristotle seems to say is that, precisely because you can only "see" or evidence or the Truth, we're not perfect - in fact, far from it. The contemplation argument, then, serves as a convincing reason against any hope of theoretical truth, and tells us that seeing this truth by living is the best we can do. This end to Aristotle's book is not a contradictory theory but rather an affirmation of his function argument (to do as a human being should), that human nature is faulty precisely in this way that our truth isn't some objective reality, but intersubjective representation. It's not about discovery of something possible, but just an art that one has to master - albeit one that isn't clear-cut.
Thoughts?