In brief, Aristotle thought a good life is a life of happiness (eudaimonia)... and he thought we could achieve that by living virtuously, constructing strong characters, and pursuing excellence over the course of a long lifetime. Mostly he thought we should devote ourselves to developing good habits, including the habit of looking out for others as well as for ourselves. But,
"Happiness depends on ourselves." More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines happiness as a central purpose of human life and a goal in itself. As a result he devotes more space to the topic of happiness than any thinker prior to the modern era. Living during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar conclusions. That is, happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, though his virtues are somewhat more individualistic than the essentially social virtues of the Confucians. Yet as we shall see, Aristotle was convinced that a genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being. In this way he introduced the idea of a science of happiness in the classical sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge... (continues)He always emphasized the importance of acquiring the practical wisdom that enables us to do the right thing at the right time for the right reason etc. etc. - and as I interpret and apply that, he would have been open to the suggestion that euthanasia has its time and place. I don't think he'd have been impressed by the idea of slipping into a new "sleeve" when the old one wears out, or you just get tired of it. That doesn't seem like a good habit to get into.
And, given his emphasis on being a virtuous individual in a community of individuals, he'd probably not have thought much of the idea of human cloning...
...but he'd probably have been okay with the idea of cloning body parts for the purpose of extending health and life.
How about you?
How about you?
I love Aristotle's emphasis on practicality; it is one of the qualities that made him a grounding voice of ancient thought. His ideas inspired people over the years who have declared that the naked eye gives us a starting point for investigating truths and reality.
ReplyDeleteHappiness is a word that would likely mean something uniquely different to every interpreter. Dictionaries like Oxford usually say that the English word happiness is derived from the Greek word Eudaimonia. This is the definition from Oxford's quick reference,"The central goal of all systems of ancient ethics; according to Aristotle, the ‘best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world.’ Eudaimonia is a place-holder waiting for further specification, and different ethical theories will fill it out differently. Aristotle conceives of it as the active exercise of the powers of the (virtuous) soul in conformity to reason. Eudaimonia is usually translated as happiness or well-being, but it has some of the same connotations as ‘success,’ since in addition to living well it includes doing well."
So, the moral agents within shouting distance from each other will
Always come together again and again to define words like success and happiness. Donald Davidson says to always remember that words and sentences abstract away from the content that gives them meaning. That paraphrase serves as a great comfort to me from time to time when I become baffled about how cultures and societies decide morality. Something as simple as the idea of happiness shouldn't be a social construct, but we're complex creatures living in a dangerous world of suffering.
To an extent in any human society these days you have to bury your head in the sand to be happy. Americans, in particular, were told that they should work hard and things would be OK. They were never told that everyone in the world is family. So if someone buys that hook line and sinker, they could be fine with the status quo, eat hotdogs, apple pie and watch baseball.
These days the voices of suffering are more easy to hear. Aristotle was a man of his time; he thought that humans were either slaves or not slaves. So if you buy that for a dollar, you might be able to be happy in this world of exploitation. I find myself being comfortable from moment to moment, but I'm usually trying to put paint a smiley face on the tip of an iceberg of sadness. Humankind is so at odds with each other. This quote is from Valentine's Day on CNN "The Defense Department's budget is $686 billion, an increase of $80 billion from 2017, which the Pentagon says is primarily aimed at countering Russia and China."
I'm currently reading Brave New World, and the one world government portrayed by Huxley with all its flaws doesn't seem so bad, but that future didn't come until after a World War that lasted nine years. Aristotle was living in the bronze age.
Although I don't think I'm successful and I'm worried all the time, practical happiness is possible. I try hard to stay in the present and engage people in the moment. Have genuine conversations and treat people with respect. MTSU isn't Harvard, but I don't know if I'd want to be around that kind of culture anyway. I'm happy and grateful to have the chance to go there for an education. It is the equivalent of a significant experience at a public pool, as opposed to being angry that you don't have your pool. Or, public transportation that someone might depend on to survive from day to day. So true eudaimonia takes a ton of luck and still depends on the person and their perspective, while practical happiness is possible from moment to moment like sand slipping through your fingers. Even Sisyphus experienced joy from time to time.
Human Essence:
ReplyDeleteI struggle to put my thoughts into words when it comes to this subject, however I think that in writing, I may be able to do so.
Alas, we are but a collection of cells, come together to form organs, organ systems, and creatures with consciousness. Neural pathways form with time and experience through neurons connecting, and mediated cell death (theoretically). While it's true that science may one day hold the power to replicate these organ systems and memory banks exactly, does that in some way drag the consciousness of the entity itself into the fabricated organism?
Say for a moment that we have the capacity to generate exact copies with the same memories and et cetera. That copy could be generated while one is still alive, and while the memories are there, and the information processing system is the same the material comprising one and the other is separate.
When the original dies, its consciousness is gone as well. The essence of the creature, the consciousness, molecules and atoms that comprises it are gone as well. For the reason that one can't be truly conserved by uploading oneself to a machine, stands as the same rationale by which one can not be conserved by being copied.