Chapters 11-14 in Book VII of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics consider the idea of pleasure (acknowledging what other philosophers think of it, whether or not it is ultimately good or bad, its relationship to happiness, and the role it plays in the physical body). Book 13, specifically, contains one of Aristotle’s most important arguments, insisting that some pleasures play a productive role in happiness.
In Chapter 12, Aristotle concludes that pleasure is an activity. This observation allows him to compare the functions of pleasure and happiness (which he also considers to be an activity) in Chapter 13. In Chapter 13, Aristotle explains how the best good results from an uninhibited form of pleasure. Similarly, he points out that happiness is most choice worthy “if the activity is unimpeded” (Nicomachean 116). Aristotle concludes that the ideal existence is one with incessant happiness interwoven with the resulting incessant pleasure. Following the aforementioned claims, Aristotle warns his readers against the idea that happiness could result from a “fall into terrible misfortunes” (Nicomachean 117).
In response to Aristotle’s apparent disapproval of misfortune, I am inclined to argue that misfortune is, in fact, necessary in order to attain happiness. I think that without misfortune, happiness would have no way of being measured and/or appreciated. It seems to me that incessant happiness and pleasure would result in a form of ethical disorientation, no longer allowing people to put their own happiness/pleasure into perspective. For me, this ensuing disorientation would neither make me happy nor bring me pleasure.
Despite hearing my qualms with his argument in Chapter 13, I believe Aristotle would maintain his original understanding concerning pleasure and pain. I think Aristotle’s rebuttal to my criticisms would entail him pointing out the fact that I am a human and that my distaste for a static form of happiness stems from my creaturely/materialistic tendencies. I assume that Aristotle would, in his defense, quote Chapter 14, stating how “for just as it is the inferior human being who is prone to variation, so also the nature that needs variation is inferior, since it is not simple or decent” (Nicomachean 119).
While I may take slight objection to Aristotle calling me an “inferior human being”, I admit that my understanding of the value in a static form of pleasure and happiness is probably limited by my material/human mind. Maybe if I lead a slow and meditative lifestyle, similar to that of a Tibetan monk, I might be able to impress Aristotle.
2 comments:
I found your blog very amusing and agree with you that we must first experience sadness and pain before we can appreciate/recognize happiness and pleasure. However I do believe Aristotle is focusing more on the ideal, as he believes happiness as the greatest good. Although I do believe his description of the human being as inferior contradicts his general statement that human beings are virtuous in their ability to reason, and I am confused as to how we are inferior, as there is no implication of a supreme being to be inferior too. Perhaps I am picking on certain unimportant characteristics of his argument however, it does seem impossible to live up to the Nicomachean standards of virtue.
I think you make a good point, Stephanie. Having discussed the ideas of pleasure and happiness more thoroughly in class, I think I can better try to answer our questions. Stop me if I'm going in the wrong direction haha.
First, I think that the "ideal" state of pleasure/happiness (like you mentioned) resides in a certain mean. For example, I think Aristotle would agree that with us in saying that you can't JUST be experiencing pleasure all the time; that would be a life of excess. I think Aristotle is a big fan of having everything in modest proportion. Just the same, I think that finding the appropriate mean with happiness/pleasure also indicates that, while you might not be experiencing an excess of pleasure, you certainly aren't experiencing any "terrible misfortunes."
Second, I think that Aristotle doesn't compare humans to a supreme being so-to-speak. I think that he looks to truly virtuous people in order to understand what is right/wrong. These virtuous people set the standard. I do agree, however, that it is hard to know what comes first: virtue or the virtuous person?
Post a Comment