a) How can we make sense on the type of contradiction that arises?
Logical, teleological or practical contradiction
-> In the different examples, Kant operates with different formulas of the Categorical Imperative (universal law, law of nature) and there seems to be different types of contradictions (e.g. the suicide example and the borrowing money example)
b) Kant would not tolerate different outcomes when running the different formulas of the Categorical Imperative. How can we make sense of that?
c) How general should a maxim be? (e.g. the example of "Jim and the Indians")
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Kant's Moral Philosophy (Part II)
1 The Categorical Imperative
The main point of Kant's Moral Philosophy is the Categorical Imperative, which is the supreme principle of Morality. All moral principles are derived from it.
- Imperative is a command, that is expressed by an ought. “Imperatives say that something would be good to do or to refrain from doing” (p. 24 [413]) An imperative takes the grammatical form of “should”/“ought”.
- Distinction hypothetical and categorical imperative: A hypothetical imperative is conditioned, i.e. says only “that an action is good for some purpose” (p. 25 [414]). A categorical imperative “holds as an apodeictic (practical) principle.”(p. 25 [415])
- The main form of the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (p. 30 [421])
Out of the main form, different formulas of the categorical imperatives can be derived:
- Categorical imperative of duty (or: formula of the law of nature): “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (p. 30 [421])
- Formula of the end in itself: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (p. 36 [429], reformulation p. 37 [433])
2 Application of the Categorical Imperative
How to judge an action: a) Find the person’s subjective maxim (e.g. “I always lie, when I can take out profit.”), b) try to imagine a world, where everybody acts accordingly, c) find out whether contradictions or irrationalities result, d) if yes, the action is not allowed; if no, the action is allowed or even required.
Perfect duty: To not act according to maxims, which results in a logical contradiction, when we try to universalize them. The proposition “Lying is permissible”, if universalized, would lead to the destruction of the institution of language; similarly the universalized proposition “stealing is permissible”, would undermine the institution of having property.
Imperfect duty: To act according to maxims, which we would like to be universalized. The subjective maxim “Never help someone else, when in need” would, if universalized, not lead to a logical contradiction, but to a “contradiction of the will” as Kant calls it, i.e. we can not will a world where this propostion would be true.
Note: The perfect duty is stronger, then the imperfect one. The imperfect one is relative to preferences.
3 Kant’s anthropological claims with regard to moral philosophy
Man is an end in himself: Is there something which has absolute worth? Yes: man, i.e. all rational beings have to be regarded not only as a means but “at the same time as an end” (p. 35 [428]).
Explanation: Persons exist as ends in themselves; there is no substitution possible of one man through an other. This is because: “rational nature exists as an end in itself. In this way man necessarily thinks of his own existence; thus far is it a subjective principle of human actions.” (p. 36 [429]) And it is the objective principle, because we think of other humans as rational as well.
Kingdom of Ends: is a regulative idea that concretizes the formula of the end in itself. A kingdom of ends would be established if different rational beings live together by common and universal laws they have given to themselves. The kingdom of ends would then consist out of a) the rational beings as ends and b) the particular ends the people set for themselves (p. 39 [433])
Autonomy: At the center of a rational being is his autonomy: “Hence Autonomy is the ground of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature.” (p. 41 [436])
The main point of Kant's Moral Philosophy is the Categorical Imperative, which is the supreme principle of Morality. All moral principles are derived from it.
- Imperative is a command, that is expressed by an ought. “Imperatives say that something would be good to do or to refrain from doing” (p. 24 [413]) An imperative takes the grammatical form of “should”/“ought”.
- Distinction hypothetical and categorical imperative: A hypothetical imperative is conditioned, i.e. says only “that an action is good for some purpose” (p. 25 [414]). A categorical imperative “holds as an apodeictic (practical) principle.”(p. 25 [415])
- The main form of the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” (p. 30 [421])
Out of the main form, different formulas of the categorical imperatives can be derived:
- Categorical imperative of duty (or: formula of the law of nature): “Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature” (p. 30 [421])
- Formula of the end in itself: “Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means.” (p. 36 [429], reformulation p. 37 [433])
2 Application of the Categorical Imperative
How to judge an action: a) Find the person’s subjective maxim (e.g. “I always lie, when I can take out profit.”), b) try to imagine a world, where everybody acts accordingly, c) find out whether contradictions or irrationalities result, d) if yes, the action is not allowed; if no, the action is allowed or even required.
Perfect duty: To not act according to maxims, which results in a logical contradiction, when we try to universalize them. The proposition “Lying is permissible”, if universalized, would lead to the destruction of the institution of language; similarly the universalized proposition “stealing is permissible”, would undermine the institution of having property.
Imperfect duty: To act according to maxims, which we would like to be universalized. The subjective maxim “Never help someone else, when in need” would, if universalized, not lead to a logical contradiction, but to a “contradiction of the will” as Kant calls it, i.e. we can not will a world where this propostion would be true.
Note: The perfect duty is stronger, then the imperfect one. The imperfect one is relative to preferences.
3 Kant’s anthropological claims with regard to moral philosophy
Man is an end in himself: Is there something which has absolute worth? Yes: man, i.e. all rational beings have to be regarded not only as a means but “at the same time as an end” (p. 35 [428]).
Explanation: Persons exist as ends in themselves; there is no substitution possible of one man through an other. This is because: “rational nature exists as an end in itself. In this way man necessarily thinks of his own existence; thus far is it a subjective principle of human actions.” (p. 36 [429]) And it is the objective principle, because we think of other humans as rational as well.
Kingdom of Ends: is a regulative idea that concretizes the formula of the end in itself. A kingdom of ends would be established if different rational beings live together by common and universal laws they have given to themselves. The kingdom of ends would then consist out of a) the rational beings as ends and b) the particular ends the people set for themselves (p. 39 [433])
Autonomy: At the center of a rational being is his autonomy: “Hence Autonomy is the ground of the dignity of human nature and of every rational nature.” (p. 41 [436])
Kant's Moral Philosophy (Part I)
1 General Remarks on the “Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals” (1785)
1.1 Function within Kant’s philosophy: provides a foundation for a concrete “Metaphysics of Morals” (1797), consisting out of a “Doctrine of Justice” and a “Doctrine of Virtue”
1.2 Aim: this foundation should be not empirical, because the answer to the question “what should I do?” has to be applied to all human beings (and rational beings beyond that, as Kant points out).
2 The “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (GMM)
2.1 Organization of the GMM
"First Section: Transition form the Ordinary Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical
Second Section: Tranition from Popular Moral Philosophy to a Metaphysics of Morals" (p. 5[392])
2.2 Starting point„There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” (p. 7 [393])
- All other abilities of man (like intelligence, courage etc.) can be used for negative purposes.
- “Good will” means more than good intention it is already closely related to the concept of duty.
- The good will stands “at a crossroads between its a priori principle, which is formal, and its a posteriori incentives, which is material.” (p. 13 [400])
2.3 Moral acting is acting out of duty
Duty understood as: ought to, should; opposed to the concept of inclination (= what I want to do). Kant defines it as “the objective necessity of an action from obligation.” (p. 44 [439]).
Four cases: 1) against duty; 2) according to duty, without immediate inclination, 3) according to duty, with inclination, 4) out of duty, against inclination. Case 4 is the only case of moral worth. (Although praise and encouragment might be attributed to 2) and 3); same action can have different moral worth;
2.4 Role of happiness and reason
- Happiness is “the natural end that all men have” (p. 37, [430] see also p. 8) The definition Kant puts forward is that happiness is “the sum of satisfaction of all inclinations” (p. 12, [399]) Our natural constitution strives towards happiness, which might be attained by instinct rather then by reason.
- Reason: “is not competent enough to guide the will safely as regards its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (p. 9 [396]). But reason is “absolutely essential” (p. 9 [396]) to produce a good will. Indeed: reason “recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of a good will” (p. 9 [396])
1.1 Function within Kant’s philosophy: provides a foundation for a concrete “Metaphysics of Morals” (1797), consisting out of a “Doctrine of Justice” and a “Doctrine of Virtue”
1.2 Aim: this foundation should be not empirical, because the answer to the question “what should I do?” has to be applied to all human beings (and rational beings beyond that, as Kant points out).
2 The “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals” (GMM)
2.1 Organization of the GMM
"First Section: Transition form the Ordinary Rational Knowledge of Morality to the Philosophical
Second Section: Tranition from Popular Moral Philosophy to a Metaphysics of Morals" (p. 5[392])
2.2 Starting point„There is no possibility of thinking of anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be regarded as good without qualification, except a good will.” (p. 7 [393])
- All other abilities of man (like intelligence, courage etc.) can be used for negative purposes.
- “Good will” means more than good intention it is already closely related to the concept of duty.
- The good will stands “at a crossroads between its a priori principle, which is formal, and its a posteriori incentives, which is material.” (p. 13 [400])
2.3 Moral acting is acting out of duty
Duty understood as: ought to, should; opposed to the concept of inclination (= what I want to do). Kant defines it as “the objective necessity of an action from obligation.” (p. 44 [439]).
Four cases: 1) against duty; 2) according to duty, without immediate inclination, 3) according to duty, with inclination, 4) out of duty, against inclination. Case 4 is the only case of moral worth. (Although praise and encouragment might be attributed to 2) and 3); same action can have different moral worth;
2.4 Role of happiness and reason
- Happiness is “the natural end that all men have” (p. 37, [430] see also p. 8) The definition Kant puts forward is that happiness is “the sum of satisfaction of all inclinations” (p. 12, [399]) Our natural constitution strives towards happiness, which might be attained by instinct rather then by reason.
- Reason: “is not competent enough to guide the will safely as regards its objects and the satisfaction of all our needs” (p. 9 [396]). But reason is “absolutely essential” (p. 9 [396]) to produce a good will. Indeed: reason “recognizes as its highest practical function the establishment of a good will” (p. 9 [396])
Kant's Theoretical Philosophy
Kant's theoretical philosophy is mainly put forward in his “Critique of pure Reason” (CpR, 1781)
1 Initial question: Is metaphysics as a science possible?
2 Conceptual distinction to answer the question:
- necessary - contingent
- A priori (prior to experience) - a posteriori (from experience)
- analytical (predicate contained in subject) - synthetical (predicate not contained in subject)
Metaphysical knowledge has to be: unchangeable, everlasting, and therefore: necessary, a priori. And: it has to be synthetical, because it must tell us something about the way the world is. These a priori synthetical propositions are “mysterious” (although possible for logic, mathematics and physics).
3 The problem with metaphysics
Certain metaphysical questions lead to antinomies (= logical contradicting answers to questions from reason). Kant discusses four antinomies:
1. Thesis: “The world has a beginning in time and is also enclosed within bounds as regards space. Antithesis: “The world has no beginning and no bounds in space [...]” (CpR, A 426, B 454)[1]
2. Thesis: All things are either a) composite out of simple parts or b) not consisting out of simple parts
3. Thesis: “The causality according to laws of nature is not the only causality, from which the appearances of the world can thus one and all be derived. In order to explain these appearances, it is necessary to assume also causality through freedom.” (CpR, A 445, B 473) - Antithesis: “There is no freedom, but everything in the world occurs solely according to laws of nature.” (CpR, A 445, B 473)
4. Thesis: “There belongs to the world something that, either as its part or as its cause, is an absolutely necessary being.” (CpR, A 453, B 481) - Antithesis: “There exists no absolutely necessary being at all, neither in the world nor outside the world, as its cause.” (CpR, A 453, B 481)
Comment I: We necessarily run into these antinomies, when we try to answer a certain type of metaphysical questions. These questions are imposed on humans: “Human reason has a peculiar fate in one kind of its cognitions: it is troubled by questions that it cannot dismiss, because they are posed to it by the nature of reason itself, but that it also cannot answer, because they surpass human reason’s every ability.” (CpR, A vii) Both answers to the question (the thesis and antithesis) can be thought through without contradiction – but they are contradicting one another.
Comment II on the third antinomy: According to the theoretical philosophy of Kant, we cannot know whether there is human freedom. However, in the “Critique of practical reason” (1788) he postulates the existence of immortality, human freedom and God as requirements for practical philosophy.
Note: What cannot be proved by pure, theoretical reason is a presupposition for practical philosophy!
4 Kant’s “Copernican revolution”
Trying to answer metaphysical question, we run into antinomies, therefore we have to concentrate on epistemology (what and how we can know); the subject is primary, and what matters is how we perceive reality, which is structured through our perception. In other words: We can only know about the phenomenal appearances of things, and not know the things themselves; a philosophical theory called “transcendental idealism”.
[1] Kant, Immanuel: Critique of pure reason, trans. Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996
1 Initial question: Is metaphysics as a science possible?
2 Conceptual distinction to answer the question:
- necessary - contingent
- A priori (prior to experience) - a posteriori (from experience)
- analytical (predicate contained in subject) - synthetical (predicate not contained in subject)
Metaphysical knowledge has to be: unchangeable, everlasting, and therefore: necessary, a priori. And: it has to be synthetical, because it must tell us something about the way the world is. These a priori synthetical propositions are “mysterious” (although possible for logic, mathematics and physics).
3 The problem with metaphysics
Certain metaphysical questions lead to antinomies (= logical contradicting answers to questions from reason). Kant discusses four antinomies:
1. Thesis: “The world has a beginning in time and is also enclosed within bounds as regards space. Antithesis: “The world has no beginning and no bounds in space [...]” (CpR, A 426, B 454)[1]
2. Thesis: All things are either a) composite out of simple parts or b) not consisting out of simple parts
3. Thesis: “The causality according to laws of nature is not the only causality, from which the appearances of the world can thus one and all be derived. In order to explain these appearances, it is necessary to assume also causality through freedom.” (CpR, A 445, B 473) - Antithesis: “There is no freedom, but everything in the world occurs solely according to laws of nature.” (CpR, A 445, B 473)
4. Thesis: “There belongs to the world something that, either as its part or as its cause, is an absolutely necessary being.” (CpR, A 453, B 481) - Antithesis: “There exists no absolutely necessary being at all, neither in the world nor outside the world, as its cause.” (CpR, A 453, B 481)
Comment I: We necessarily run into these antinomies, when we try to answer a certain type of metaphysical questions. These questions are imposed on humans: “Human reason has a peculiar fate in one kind of its cognitions: it is troubled by questions that it cannot dismiss, because they are posed to it by the nature of reason itself, but that it also cannot answer, because they surpass human reason’s every ability.” (CpR, A vii) Both answers to the question (the thesis and antithesis) can be thought through without contradiction – but they are contradicting one another.
Comment II on the third antinomy: According to the theoretical philosophy of Kant, we cannot know whether there is human freedom. However, in the “Critique of practical reason” (1788) he postulates the existence of immortality, human freedom and God as requirements for practical philosophy.
Note: What cannot be proved by pure, theoretical reason is a presupposition for practical philosophy!
4 Kant’s “Copernican revolution”
Trying to answer metaphysical question, we run into antinomies, therefore we have to concentrate on epistemology (what and how we can know); the subject is primary, and what matters is how we perceive reality, which is structured through our perception. In other words: We can only know about the phenomenal appearances of things, and not know the things themselves; a philosophical theory called “transcendental idealism”.
[1] Kant, Immanuel: Critique of pure reason, trans. Werner S. Pluhar, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1996
"An Answer to the Question: 'What is Enlightenment?'" (By Immanuel Kant)
"Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude!1 “Have courage to use your own understanding!” — that is the motto of enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts."
First two paragraphes from Kant's text. The text is quoted from and the whole text can be found at: http://sap.ereau.de/kant/what_is_enlightenment/
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a proportion of men, long after nature has released them from alien guidance (naturaliter maiorennes), nonetheless gladly remain in lifelong immaturity, and why it is so easy for others to establish themselves as their guardians. It is so easy to be immature. If I have a book to serve as my understanding, a pastor to serve as my conscience, a physician to determine my diet for me, and so on, I need not exert myself at all. I need not think, if only I can pay: others will readily undertake the irksome work for me. The guardians who have so benevolently taken over the supervision of men have carefully seen to it that the far greatest part of them (including the entire fair sex) regard taking the step to maturity as very dangerous, not to mention difficult. Having first made their domestic livestock dumb, and having carefully made sure that these docile creatures will not take a single step without the go-cart to which they are harnessed, these guardians then show them the danger that threatens them, should they attempt to walk alone. Now this danger is not actually so great, for after falling a few times they would in the end certainly learn to walk; but an example of this kind makes men timid and usually frightens them out of all further attempts."
First two paragraphes from Kant's text. The text is quoted from and the whole text can be found at: http://sap.ereau.de/kant/what_is_enlightenment/
Aristotle and virtue ethics in the context of the course
1 Differences between Aristotle and the Utilitarianism and Kantianism
Aristotle asks: What type of person should we be? Or: How should we develop our character? His ethics is focussed on the agent and his character (character-centered ethics). Kant and Mill try to provide – a bit simplified – a decision making procedure. The question there is: What should we do? These ethics approaches focus on action.
2 Relativism?
As virtues are based on the community, the question arises whether Aristotle’s ethics is relativistic.
In defense of Aristotle and virtue ethics, one might argue the following:
- An ethics discourse might be seen rather as persuasive then prescriptive.
- Part of virtue ethics is an inquiry into our human nature; we have to “know ourselves” as humans
- Going beyond Aristotle, one could come up with the standard that virtues should be universal applicable, as a sort of testing method, in order to determine whether a virtue is truly one.
Aristotle asks: What type of person should we be? Or: How should we develop our character? His ethics is focussed on the agent and his character (character-centered ethics). Kant and Mill try to provide – a bit simplified – a decision making procedure. The question there is: What should we do? These ethics approaches focus on action.
2 Relativism?
As virtues are based on the community, the question arises whether Aristotle’s ethics is relativistic.
In defense of Aristotle and virtue ethics, one might argue the following:
- An ethics discourse might be seen rather as persuasive then prescriptive.
- Part of virtue ethics is an inquiry into our human nature; we have to “know ourselves” as humans
- Going beyond Aristotle, one could come up with the standard that virtues should be universal applicable, as a sort of testing method, in order to determine whether a virtue is truly one.
Aristotle on Virtue
What are virtues?
Distinction intellectual and moral virtues:
Intellectual: sophia and phronesis, understanding
Moral: e.g. self-control, courage, generosity, etc.
- Moral Virtues exist not by nature - but are formed by habit:
“Hence it is no small matter whether one habit or another is inculcated in us from early childhood; on the contrary, it makes a considerable difference, or, rather all the difference.” (1103b 25)
- Aiming at the mean:
Excess and deficiency destroys virtue (analogy strength)
Mean = relative to us
Median cannot simply be put as an arithmetical relation
- Mark of virtue:
Doing the right thing, at a right time, towards the right person, for the right reason, in the right manner.
“bad men have many ways, good men but one.” (1106b 35)
Distinction intellectual and moral virtues:
Intellectual: sophia and phronesis, understanding
Moral: e.g. self-control, courage, generosity, etc.
- Moral Virtues exist not by nature - but are formed by habit:
“Hence it is no small matter whether one habit or another is inculcated in us from early childhood; on the contrary, it makes a considerable difference, or, rather all the difference.” (1103b 25)
- Aiming at the mean:
Excess and deficiency destroys virtue (analogy strength)
Mean = relative to us
Median cannot simply be put as an arithmetical relation
- Mark of virtue:
Doing the right thing, at a right time, towards the right person, for the right reason, in the right manner.
“bad men have many ways, good men but one.” (1106b 35)
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Aristotle on Happiness
1 Starting point
„Every art or applied science and every systematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seem to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.“ (1094a1)
Everything and everyone is directed towards a good, everything has an end (or purpose): a knife to cut, a car to drive etc. Also actions of people have an end: health of medicine, boat of boatbuilding, victory of generalship etc. A good boatbuilder is one making good boats etc.
2 Happiness
However, the different goods are not all equally important. There is a hierarchy of the goods. The highest good of them is eudaimonia: happiness, living well (doing well) or perhaps best translated as human flourishing. This is the central subject of the Nicomachean Ethics: happiness is pursued as an end in itself and everyone strives towards it. (Moral and intellectual virtues and pleasure are pursued as end in themselves as well as for happiness’ sake.)
3 Definition of Happiness
“Happiness is a certain activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue.” (1102a5)
“The soul of an animate organism ... is nothing other than its system of active abilities to perform the vital functions that organisms of its kind naturally perform, so that when an organism engages in the relevant activities (e.g., nutrition, movement of thought) it does so in virtue of the system of abilities that is its soul.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#4)
Necessity to understand our nature ("Know Thyself!")
Aristotle provides two definitions of the human being:
a)“zoon logon echein” and b) “zoon politicon”
a) Everything has a function, so do human beings. Human function is "logos", which is the characteristic that distinguishes him from other beings.
b) “man is by nature a social and political being” (1097b11 a)
Importance of man leaving the "oikos" an engage others in the "polis".
4 Further Key Sentences on the relation of happiness, virtue and rationality
- “The proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle.” (1098a6)
- “The good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue.” (1098a15)
5 Happiness and External Goods
Aristotle denies the view that prosperty equates with happiness. Although the possession of external goods is necessary for a happy and virtuos life.
- for a virtuos life: wealth and health is required to perform virtuos actions (e.g. generosity requires a certain amount of money, courage requires health to excercise it)
- for a happy life: “If we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary and childless” we can not be said to be happy. (1099b4)
„Every art or applied science and every systematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seem to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that at which all things aim.“ (1094a1)
Everything and everyone is directed towards a good, everything has an end (or purpose): a knife to cut, a car to drive etc. Also actions of people have an end: health of medicine, boat of boatbuilding, victory of generalship etc. A good boatbuilder is one making good boats etc.
2 Happiness
However, the different goods are not all equally important. There is a hierarchy of the goods. The highest good of them is eudaimonia: happiness, living well (doing well) or perhaps best translated as human flourishing. This is the central subject of the Nicomachean Ethics: happiness is pursued as an end in itself and everyone strives towards it. (Moral and intellectual virtues and pleasure are pursued as end in themselves as well as for happiness’ sake.)
3 Definition of Happiness
“Happiness is a certain activity of the soul in conformity with perfect virtue.” (1102a5)
“The soul of an animate organism ... is nothing other than its system of active abilities to perform the vital functions that organisms of its kind naturally perform, so that when an organism engages in the relevant activities (e.g., nutrition, movement of thought) it does so in virtue of the system of abilities that is its soul.” (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ancient-soul/#4)
Necessity to understand our nature ("Know Thyself!")
Aristotle provides two definitions of the human being:
a)“zoon logon echein” and b) “zoon politicon”
a) Everything has a function, so do human beings. Human function is "logos", which is the characteristic that distinguishes him from other beings.
b) “man is by nature a social and political being” (1097b11 a)
Importance of man leaving the "oikos" an engage others in the "polis".
4 Further Key Sentences on the relation of happiness, virtue and rationality
- “The proper function of man, then, consists in an activity of the soul in conformity with a rational principle.” (1098a6)
- “The good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue.” (1098a15)
5 Happiness and External Goods
Aristotle denies the view that prosperty equates with happiness. Although the possession of external goods is necessary for a happy and virtuos life.
- for a virtuos life: wealth and health is required to perform virtuos actions (e.g. generosity requires a certain amount of money, courage requires health to excercise it)
- for a happy life: “If we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary and childless” we can not be said to be happy. (1099b4)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)