Virtue: The Goodness beyond Crudeness
“Perceiving
that one lives belongs among the things pleasant in themselves, for
life is by nature a good thing, and to perceive the good present in
oneself is pleasant… especially for those who
are good, existing is good for them and pleasant, for in simultaneously
perceiving what is good in itself, they feel pleasure.” (205)
Aristotle
begins at an understanding that humans and nature have an inherent
goodness: “good is that at which all things aim” (Aristotle 1). With
regard to humanity, Aristotle determines that
there are two actions that can be judged for their goodness, works and
activities. He argues that works or rather intentions (1) are “naturally
better” (1) than activities. Aristotle continues to dissect human works
and actions into two categorical subsections that
epitomize human intentions in a highly empirical way. He describes
people as either pursuing passions or knowledge. The attainment of
knowledge encompasses the fundamental goodness of humanity: “For to
those of that sort, that as to those lacking self-restraint,
knowledge is without benefit. But to those who fashion their longings in
accord with reason and act accordingly, knowing about these things
would be of great profit” (4). Under Aristotle’s definition knowledge
and the desire for goodness through action are
synonymous for happiness (5). However, this perception of happiness can
be distorted.
As
this course relates to the philosophy of nature, it is important to
connect Aristotle’s ideals of human nature to our relationship with the
environment. The crude parts of humanity that seek
pleasure above knowledge and goodness are more apt to exploit nature for
personal gain and self-gratification: “the many and crudest seem to
suppose, that the good and happiness are pleasure. And thus they cherish
the life of enjoyment” (6). Yet for those people who desire knowledge and have a refined conviction for achieving good, qualities such as honor
and virtue are more desirable than crude pleasures. A
virtuous person looks for achievements beyond self-gratification and
the physical realm. Therefore, they are more likely
to value the environment in its natural goodness and not exploit its
abundant pleasures and richness: “The blessed person… has no need for
pleasure from without” (203). Aristotle supports the inherent goodness
in simply living which he determines to be perception
and thinking (204). He concludes that by saying that which is living is by
nature good by the evidence that all people “long for it” (204). What’s
more, the attainment of this goodness through knowledge, perception and
thinking is what creates a separation between
the pleasure-evoked and virtue-evoke lifestyles.
Discussion Questions:
What merits goodness? How can a person achieve virtue? What activities
and works identify a person who is good and virtuous? How can being good
foster a relationship between humanity and
nature that extends beyond pleasure?
I think you make a really good point that those "good" humans who gain happiness through contemplation actually require less stuff. This must be a comment on consumption, or at least on our relationship with nature. What is interesting to me is that Aristotle keeps providing us with hierarchies--ranking the progression of souls and ways of attaining happiness--that separate some humans from others but also clearly separate humans from nature. It is interesting, then, that even though we are better (Aristotle is so normative that this is how I read it), the best of us will interfere less with the environment, by not needing material things. I would have expected an argument that places humans as normatively better than animals would also be an argument encouraging man's manipulation of nature.
ReplyDeleteI also like your last discussion question. Aristotle seems to emphasize our differences from nature (we can contemplate, nature can't, so we should spend our days contemplating), yet he also places value in it. He seems to mean that we can still connect with nature, but we are not as much a part of it as we often like to think.
I like how you summed up Artistotle's take on the difference between the false goodness that people seek through pleasure and self-gratification and the ultimate, true goodness that is achieved through a refined conviction and prioritization of the whole above oneself. Therefore, like you said mixed within society we have pleasure-evoked and virtue-evoked people. Your question on how being good can foster a relationship between humanity and nature that extends beyond pleasure I believe is something that our nation is progressively striving for as environmental issues over time have increasingly played a larger role in our nations politics. Aristole places hope in the political art for the widespread achivement of this ultimate, virture-evoked goodness. In Book 1, Chapter 3 Aristotle praises the political art "because it legislates what one ought to do and what to abstain for, its end would encompass those of the others, with the result that this would be the human good"(lines 5-7). Through virtue-evoked politics I do believe that a relationship between humanity and nature can foster beyond pleausure. But, in order to do so we would need to elect those political elites who live more of a virtue-evoked lifestyle rather than as you phrased a pleasure-evoked. That may be where we fall short.
ReplyDeleteYour distinction and explanation between the two types of people, those who seek pleasure and those who seek virtue, definitely helped me to understand this past reading a bit better. I often wondered whether it was harmful to separate people this way, though. As you said, Aristotle constructed many hierarchies, both between humans and the natural world and between different types of people, and I think this could be harmful to our understanding of how humanity interacts with nature. If we believe that we are superior to nature and that some people are superior to others, it could easily cause the "best" of humanity to dominate the others.
ReplyDeleteI think your last question is the most interesting, and I do agree with what Arthur said about virtue-evoked politics. I think it's interesting that Aristotle claims that the best of humanity are those who do not need many material goods, but strive for knowledge and contemplation, while others only think of pleasure and decadence. Could the more virtuous, simple way of living bring us closer to nature by highlighting the similarities between the virtuous and the animals and plants we strive to protect?