Happiness

Total words: 1582

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is an expression of Aristotle's view of what happiness is. Aristotle's "happiness" relates to the Greek word "eudaimonia", which refers to flourishing and living well. Aristotle believes that eudaimonia is the highest end, or telos, in life. Aristotle uses the word telos when he refers to an end or goal. He also believes that we, as humans, automatically aim for happiness. Book I of Nicomachean Ethics starts with, "Every sort of expert knowledge and every inquiry, and similarly every action and undertaking, seems to seek some good." (337) This statement refers to the fact that everybody naturally seeks an appropriate way to satisfy their desires. By satisfying our desires we achieve happiness. I will argue that Aristotle is correct in believing that happiness is relative to each individual.

In Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle does not tell us to live happy, successful lives but tells us what a flourishing life should consist of. Aristotle points out that many people think happiness comes with pleasures, honors and wealth, but he does not believe this to be true. Those three things may make us happy temporarily but Aristotle says that happiness is not temporary or reactionary to the world. Plus, pleasures can only be determined by the person receiving them, so they cannot be used in the general definition of happiness. Honors, on the other hand, are determined by the person doing the honoring. Since each person has different views on what is honorable, being honored cannot constitute happiness. Finally, wealth is not happiness because it can be lost or wasted and happiness is not temporary.

Aristotle states that in order to come up with a distinct definition of happiness, one has to determine what the function of a human being is. He pointed out that the function of a human being must contain characteristics that only humans have. Living is a characteristic that is shared with plants, so that cannot be the function of humans. Life perception is shared with animals and cannot be the function of humans either. Aristotle eventually decided that the function of human beings is, "activity of soul and actions accompanied by reason, and it belongs to a good man to perform these well and finely, and each thing is completed well when it possesses its proper excellence." (341) Finally, the definition of the human good is determined to be the "activity of the soul in accordance with excellence." (341) When there is more than one excellence to consider, it is in accordance with the highest excellence. The ultimate human good is, indeed ,happiness.

Aristotle says that we also need to explore what excellence is, since happiness is the soul's activity having to do with complete excellence. He believes that excellence should be split up into two categories: intellectual excellences and excellences of character. Intellectual excellences include things such as wisdom, knowledge, accomplishments of intellect, and good sense. Excellences of character include being moderate and open-handedness. He goes on to explain more differences between the two types of excellences.

Aristotle points out that intellectual excellences are usually taught to us. We learn them and increase knowledge of them by observing others. Excellences of character, however, come about through habituation. Since habituation is the act of making an object used to something, the fact that excellences of character are habituated causes the realization that none of these excellences com about naturally. This is true because no natural thing can be habituated into doing something else. Aristotle uses the example that a stone which moves downward by nature will never move upward naturally, no matter how many times it is thrown upward. He sums up the presence of excellences in us by saying, "In that case the excellences develop in us neither by nature nor contrary to nature." (342) He then states that excellence develop because we are naturally able to receive them. The excellences are completed by means of habituation.

Aristotle believes that if we can gain an ability through nature, we were born with the capacity for it. We cannot acquire our senses by experiencing them first. Senses have to be acquired and then used or experienced. Excellences are the opposite. We first experience excellences through activities and then we acquire the excellences in ourselves. He compares the acquiring of excellences to expert knowledge by saying, "[This] is also the case with the various expert knowledge - for the way we learn the things we should do, knowing how to do them, is by doing them." (342) Then he continues to say that the way we become just is by doing just things and moderate by doing moderate things. Being just and moderate are excellences.

Excellences can be created from and destroyed by the same things. Just as good and bad builders come about by building and not being taught, excellences can be good or turn out bad. Some people act more justly and become just, while others act unjustly and become unjust. If everybody was taught a standard of what it means to be just, more people would learn how to be just. Simply acting just does not work because not everybody knows what just things are. Being just, moderate, and courageous are learned virtues that we have the capacity for when we are born.

Aristotle explains that since there is no definite rules to follow when it comes to virtues, there is a common understanding that the excellences are the mean between excess and deficiency. An example that he gives is courage. The excess of courage is rashness and the deficiency is cowardice. The mean of the two depends on what is appropriate for the situation.

There are three ways to tell a truly virtuous person apart from someone who accidentally acts in a virtuous manner. Virtuous people act in the right way, but they act that way for the sake of acting virtuous. Also, the way they act becomes part of a virtuous disposition. Eventually Aristotle stated, "Excellence, then, is a disposition issuing in decisions, depending on intermediacy of the kind relative to us, this being determined by rational prescription and in the way in which the wise person would determine it." (345) The excellence depends on intermediacy because virtue lies between two extremes, deficiency and excess. He does recognize that there are some actions and feelings that are, by nature an extreme. Some examples he gives of feelings are malice, shamelessness, and grudging ill will. He also gave fornication, theft, and murder as examples of actions that fall in this category.

I agree with Aristotle when he says that happiness is long-term and it is not a reaction to the world. The difficulty is that people have different views of what happiness is for them. Some people find happiness in wealth, others find it in stability. The people who find happiness in wealth will probably not be truly happy in life, but have a false feeling of happiness.

The people who feel that stability in life brings happiness, are closer to true happiness, compared to those that seek wealth. Stability, however, can be used in reference to many things. Stability can refer to one's career and/or wealth. It can also be stability in the love and friendship talked about above. I do believe that it is important to have stability in one's career, even if it does not mean being wealthy. To be stable in one's career means to be financially stable enough to support oneself and one's family, if he has one. Also, it means that one is satisfied with and enjoys one's job.

Someone may object to this view because he believes that money will make him happy for the duration of life. Such a person would say that money is needed to go to plays, eat, and buy things that he feels he needs. To this I say that money can make somebody feel happy temporarily, but not the happiness that is the goal in life. When someone is wealthy he can buy the material things that he may "need", pay to see plays, and have fancy dinners but he cannot buy friendship and love.

I think friendship and love are two key points in happiness. Love and friendship can help bring contentment in life, and when something goes wrong one can turn to his friends for comfort. Through the give and take that occurs in love and friendship, one will be happy. A person that would rather be alone and does not socialize much may disagree. One may say that he is happy and does not experience love and friendship like others do. To this I would say that since he has probably never experienced the forms of friendship and love that are needed to be happy, he does not know what he is missing. He may have had a bad experience with developing friendships and trouble feeling love. Therefore he does not know how to react when he receives love from others. This would cause someone to feel that he does not need love and friendships to achieve happiness in life, but in reality everybody does.

Even though Aristotle came up with a general definition of what happiness is, he had to explore many topics. I also think that his definition is right in most cases but could be wrong for a few people. Many people recognize different levels of happiness and that it hard to change. I think that the only way to understand true happiness is to experience it for oneself.

-Info from class notes and segments of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.

Add a Review for this free essay

Be the first one to review this free Essay

Sticky Note Text....

Welcome! Not a Member? Click here to Join Now!
Log in
Forgot Password?