Aristotle is the genius behind the term eudaimonia, defined as "happiness." According to Aristotle, eudaimonia actually requires activity, or action, so that a person is not idle in terms of achieving this state of happiness. Eudaimonia requires not only good character but rational activity. Aristotle clearly maintains that to live in accordance with reason means achieving excellence thereby. In addition, he claims this excellence cannot be isolated and so competencies are also need to be appropriate to related functions. For example, if being excellent at the activity of swimming requires all there is to know about swimming without actually having ever gotten in a body of water, then it is justifiable that one does in fact “know” how to swim. Since reason for Aristotle is not only theoretical but practical as well, he spent quite a bit of time discussing excellence of character, which enables a person to exercise his practical reason successfully. Aristotle’s ethical theory is eudaimonist because it maintains that eudaimonia depends on virtue. However, it is Aristotle’s view that virtue is necessary but not enough for eudaimonia. While emphasizing the importance of the rational aspect of the psyche, he does not ignore the importance of other ‘goods’ such as friends, wealth, and power in a life that is eudaimonic.
Which leads us to this: often times, one may ask himself what the true purpose of their existence is. Do you think the meaning of happiness is justified in terms of its definition being that the virtues of each and every person determines that person’s happiness? In other words, can happiness be so broad as to actually have countless sub definitions so that it is set as the ultimate life goal? Or does one work to juxtapose his lifestyle and actions to mirror the expectations of the descriptions Aristotle heavily stressed?
No comments:
Post a Comment