Sample Essay on Aristotle
In Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle describes several aspects of life and the way that it should be led. This book is a compilation of notes that he had written with no intention of being published. Therefore there will naturally be some changes on his views depending on what he had experienced through the time that passed since he first started writing these notes. In the beginning of the text, Aristotle explains a life of excellence being one where the person is happy. Later on into the book however he contradicts himself slightly from his previous writings. He states some rules that a human must follow to have a good life. By the end of his writings the reader is left with one true answer to having a good life. This is the life of the philosopher. Aristotle believes that a man can reach ultimate happiness by being in touch with the divine part of himself, his mind. This is the argument that he best presents in his Nicomachean Ethics for his conflicting views on excellence. Through the text, Aristotle will make the book seem like a handbook to the good life, a map to the path of ultimate happiness, and also a text book of some sort on how the human brain works. With Aristotle’s description of the life of excellence, he concludes that in order to truly reach the point of extreme happiness, a person must live the life of a philosopher.
In the earlier sections of the text, Aristotle states that every activity has an end or a goal. In which case, also saying that every activity was started as some sort of good. He feels that this is a trait in humans that animals do not have. Humans do not act simply to survive in life. A human being always seeks happiness; pure happiness is the ultimate goal of human life. With this point of view that Aristotle takes, anyone can reach this point in life as long as they were doing things that made them happy. After stating this, Aristotle began to ponder about the things that humans do to become happy. This is what Aristotle tries to answer in the rest of the text. The question at hand being: What activities that achieve happiness for people are “good.” The book turns quickly into a handbook for good living and accomplishing the ultimate goal of life.
Aristotle begins to talk about virtuous acts that will lead a person to greatness. He says that a rational person will commit virtuous acts and that a person’s soul becomes more virtuous with each act they participate in. Aristotle then begins to debate that the highest happiness comes from the life of the mind. Even though it brings happiness to perform a virtuous act, it will never get the person to reach the highest happiness. Since a philosopher reasons and thinks about things from all aspects of the mind, than the life of a philosopher must be the happiest. Of course looking at this question from a philosophical view will raise many more questions to being the supposed highest state of happiness. However none of the arguments raised for the ultimate goal of life and how to get there are better defended than the one of the philosopher. At this point the book could now be looked at as having three different purposes.
At the start of the book, Aristotle’s opinions on what human beings do seem to turn into just that later in the book. Instead of describing how to obtain happiness, it could be looked at as Aristotle’s description of what goes on in the human mind. More of a science text book as to why people act the way they do, instead of describing how they should act. It is his thought that people seek out happiness naturally and they will do things to get them to that point. Rather than saying what acts they must commit or what they must not do, he is simply describing what people do on their own. Towards the end of the text however, Aristotle comes back to the point of what a person needs to do to lead a good life, and explains some rules and regulations along the way.
Happiness is the state of mind that is totally satisfactory in and of itself. To achieve this state of mind, it is not very hard. To challenge this interpretation of happiness, Book X comes to mind. He states in this book that humans do pleasurable things to be happy. Aristotle then also claims that furthering one’s intelligence will make every experience more pleasurable. But what if learning is not a pleasurable act to certain people? That would mean by committing that act they would not be truly happy. He distinguishes pleasurable things from happiness by the fact that pleasure does not seem to be an end to anything else. Since it can build up, and according to Aristotle, be improved upon, than it cannot be the ultimate goal of life. The ultimate goal must be something which cannot get any better. He considers pleasures not to be a process. Since pleasure has no goal, and cannot be defined over a period of time, it therefore never is completely like a process. To attain the most pleasurable experience from an activity according to Aristotle is when it is executed in the correct way. Who is to say what the right way to do an activity is. Is it up to someone else or does the person need to find the most enjoyable way themselves? Being completely in touch with the thoughts in the mind will easily show the “correct” and therefore most pleasurable way to do things. In Aristotle’s mind, only philosophers have that level of thinking that allows them to obtain the most enjoyable experience out of everything.
A person who is good should be trusted about what pleasures and desires are best. What makes this person good? Throughout the book it has been debated a good amount. At this point the good man who can make all the decisions is a philosopher and that is all. Up until this point he has not described the real meaning of happiness. He claims that it is not a state, because activity is needed to get to that point. Happiness is a good to be chosen for itself and nothing else. Happiness can’t be playing or laying down, because these are actions which lead to happiness. These things can pleasure a person and make them happy however they can not give them happiness and without that you can not complete the ultimate goal of life, leaving you with an unsuccessful life.
As the book ends near Aristotle establishes many things. To recap the major points, happiness is the ultimate end. In order to obtain true happiness it must come from the highest part of ourselves. Since our minds are the highest thing in us, than the activity of thought must be the highest form of activity. With all of these points wrapped up Aristotle can finally conclude that the pathway to understanding philosophy will lead a person to happiness. When a person is at the point of understanding they will be self-sufficient, needing nothing except his mind to bring him his pleasures. This can be supported by a few other arguments that Aristotle presents. Although leisure time could be considered as an act to make a person happy, it must be used in the right way, by studying the intellect so the person can get in touch with his mind. Other lives can bring happiness, but none as great as a philosopher’s happiness. The Gods are left out according to this rule. Since they are forced to ponder things because everything else is beneath them, they have to devote themselves to philosophy. But to devote your mind to philosophy and to understand philosophy are not exactly the same thing. The Gods are doing it because they have to, and they can’t get caught up with trying to find true happiness, that is for the people to do. The Gods are noted as supremely happy, however not at the point of happiness. Of course when understanding philosophy a few goods are needed. However these good are only one’s which they need to survive the life processes. Almost as if they are animals just trying to survive, not doing anything to pleasure themselves in anyway, just do the things that to keep them alive.
A philosopher, once they have reached true happiness, must then begin to contemplate if what they have is truly happiness, or what it is that they had to do to get to that point so they can convey it to others. So to put things into perspective, Aristotle says that goodness must be taught, it is not a trait that is giving to a human when they are born. What the person is born with is a mind that is open to understand what goodness is. He feels that the state should teach goodness because law is the best way to make sure that young minds are trained. If the state doesn’t do it’s job, than the parent may. On the same note, the teacher of this knowledge must have some form of knowledge of the state, since the state teaches the goodness the best. Now Aristotle is left with who will teach the goodness to the state? He leaves it with someone who wants to understand how to live happily, instead of just understand the philosophical way of a happy life. He must apply himself to a study of politics to achieve this experience. He now adds on another aspect of the true happy life. This is not an entirely new aspect of happiness because one who understands philosophy enough to have happiness would naturally have some knowledge about politics.
By the end of Nicomachean Ethics, the reader may be confused as to what purpose this book was made for. This is appropriate to think since Aristotle did not know that these notes would be published at all, let alone all in one text. It can be portrayed as an outline of human thoughts, a handbook to good life, and a necessity to reach the ultimate goal in life, happiness. To conclude all of his thoughts, it is said in the end of the book that in order to achieve true happiness, the person must understand the philosophical ways of not only happiness, but of all aspects of life. Not until that point will the person be truly one hundred percent happy with no further pleasures needed. He adds in his notes that the state should be run by philosophers to lead a country and a world to greatness, much like the statement Plato makes in his book Republic. But how would the philosophers take over a job in which they must think about philosophy to rule? It brings the argument back that the Gods cannot achieve happiness because they must devote their minds to the practice of philosophy. If philosophers take over a similar role in the state, than who is going to be left that has or can truly attain happiness?
