I agree with much of Aristotle’s philosophy. However, one of
his ideas did not sit right with me when it was first presented in class. Aristotle
claims that the telos, or the aim, of human existence ultimately is to find
happiness which, if you think about it, makes complete sense. Everything thing one can imagine that is done
in the course of human existence can arguably fit into this parameter. Even taking
self-depraving religious vows ultimately leads to happiness. Happiness, that
is, defined as a closer relationship with God.
Which brings me to the problem I had with Aristotle’s philosophy, I was
positive that his definition of happiness sucked. In his defense, it wasn’t his definition per
say but his cultures. In ancient Greece, happiness was not seen as a state of
mind; instead, the Greeks viewed it as a lifestyle “living well and doing
well.” This seems harmless enough, but I
could not wrap my head around the idea that the poor could not be happy within
this definition. All I could think about were my youth group days and how we
would touch base after mission trips. One thing that would inevitably come up
is how as a group we felt we got more out of the trip then the people we were
helping and how it is beautiful to see happiness in people who have so little.
When I was doing my
reading, I revisited the idea of the suckyness of Greek definition of happiness.
When I read Aristotle’s arguement for
virtue not being the end of the political life (The political life being the
highest science, making the end of the political life the aim of mankind), I
thought of the biblical character of Job. Aristotle claims that virtue cannot
be the end of the political life because someone could be completely virtuous
and have a terrible life and no one would consider her happy. Immediately, I thought I had Aristotle beat. Job is a biblical character who did well in
the sight of the Lord. Satan gambled with God that the only reason
that Job served faithfully is because God had blessed him with riches, a beautiful
family, respect, etc. To prove that Satan was wrong about Job, God took
everything from him including his family. Despite all of this, Job remained a
happy servant of the Lord, or at least that how I remembered the story. After
rereading it, I found out that I was miserably (although not as miserable as
Job) wrong. Job was anything but happy,
but he maintained his relationship with God. What I eventually realized is that
the Greeks definition of happiness actually not far from the truth. Living well
and doing well is not dependent on the amount of stuff that you have. That is
what I should have learned from all of those mission trips. Poverty can take
many forms and so can a happy life.
I thought this was a really interesting way to look at this. I agreed with Sam on the concept of happiness not really working for me that Aristotle put forth. It just didn't make conceptual sense. I hadn't really thought about it after that, but reading over his ideas and the effort he put into analyzing this definition he's convinced me to agree with this definition of happiness.
ReplyDeleteSam,
ReplyDeleteI was able to gain a greater understanding of Aristotle's definition of happiness through your example with Job. Each person has their own concept of happiness, but thinking about it from another person's point of view (in this case, Job) changes my whole concept of happiness. It is not just what I think is happiness, but what happiness is to others. It is interesting that you made the point that even though Job was not happy, he continued to have a relationship with God. This further proves that happiness is not one thing, it is a combination of many things that work together.
This is an excellent endorsement in support of youth groups and collegiate service organizations. (SOS!)
ReplyDeleteIt also supports the idea that understanding virtue comes from doing virtuous things.
Sam,
ReplyDeleteI can really relate to how you felt at first about Aristotle's definition of happiness. The idea that impoverished people cannot achieve true happiness did not sit well with me either. It was difficult for me to wrap my head around the "living well and doing well" concept of. And at first I thought it could be seen as relative to the person and situation, much like the golden mean of virtue. Maybe could be similar in some way? Just in my opinion, not in Aristotle's point of view of course. Your last line "Poverty can take many forms and so can a happy life." made me consider this.
I found your post interesting and very thought provoking. By creating a parallel between something that I understand well (the Bible) and the just introduced concept of Aristotle's "happiness" you showed the variation between each person's own happiness. Also, shown here is the actual idea of making someone happy; you have shed light on a concept: happiness is relative. Happiness to own person may not be the same as another. As mentioned above, it is a multitude of things that work in harmony to create happiness
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed the connection between Aristotle's definition of happiness and the story of Job. One aspect that you have to consider is that ultimately Job would find happiness after death. The promise of Paradise could have maintained his relationship to God. Also, when discussing whether or not poor people could be happy, the act of "living well and doing well" was for the Greeks the road to happiness. Although I agree that being poor doesn't necessarily mean you are unhappy, you can not be happy if you do not have basic necessities in life. In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, we see that before one can reach "happiness" he or she needs to make sure his or her basic needs are taken care of and that he or she feels safe. Without the feeling of security, it becomes harder to reach a state of happiness.
ReplyDelete