Reading Response: Aristotle on Happiness - The Supreme Worth of Contemplation - selections from Nicomachean Ethics
Many people would agree that the "highest good attainable by action" is happiness. When people try to define what happiness is, however, it gets a little fuzzy. A sick person would say health is happiness, while a poor person might say wealth is happiness. Do excellence or honor bring happiness? Is happiness even the goal?
Perhaps happiness, according to Aristotle, is living out your function in life. But what is our function as humans? Is it simply to live? Aristotle believed that the function of humans was to live a certain kind of life, a "complete life"- one filled with good and proper actions, excellence, and virtue. He said, "But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a spring, nor does one sunny day." Even though this sounds like a great proposition, if one were to think it through, he would realize that Aristotle has not really told him anything he did not already know. Isn't it reasonable to think that "a good life" will lead to happiness...even if you don't exactly know what a "good life" entails?
Aristotle then comes to another conclusion - "if intelligence is divine in comparison with man, then a life guided by intelligence is divine in comparison with human life." So he determined that the best action for a person is contemplation, because it is the only action that is worthy in and of itself. For example, wealth is only beneficial because it allows it's owner to have other things - wealth in and of itself is worthless. Contemplation, or the cultivation of the mind, is the only thing that has intrinsic value.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Wealth and Poverty
Reading Response: Plato's Republic - Justice in the City and the Soul
What is justice? What is injustice? We seem to use these terms often, but do we ever really think about what they mean? In Plato's Republic, we have a transcription of Socrates asking Adeimantus similar questions. Socrates' idea was that if we can decide what is justice/injustice in the State, we can then see what it is in individuals.
Socrates made a proposition that society would be more benefited if each person did that for which he was best suited and did only that. Then, all people in the State would provide for one another based on their own skills. For example, a farmer would grow crops for him and his neighbor, and a carpenter would build houses for himself and his neighbor. Then the farmer would provide food for the carpenter, and the carpenter would provide shelter for the farmer. This Utopian society seems plausible until Socrates begins asking more questions: Where would the farmer get his oxen and plows? Where would the carpenter get his tools? Where would either of them get their shoes or clothes? Or healthcare? Or protection? Soon the imagined society would need many more people. Adeimantus brought up another slant to the whole proposition: can people live and be happy in such a society or would they begin to want the luxuries of life in addition to the necessities?
Socrates determines that "wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and [poverty] of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." It is interesting to point out that Socrates did not believe people should try to change their class or social status because that would disrupt the society and thus be unjust. So can there be an ideal society in which every one does only that at which he is skilled, shares his skills with his neighbors, and gets neither too wealthy nor too poor? If there can be, that society would be truly just in Socrates' opinion. As he said, "...our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole."
What is justice? What is injustice? We seem to use these terms often, but do we ever really think about what they mean? In Plato's Republic, we have a transcription of Socrates asking Adeimantus similar questions. Socrates' idea was that if we can decide what is justice/injustice in the State, we can then see what it is in individuals.
Socrates made a proposition that society would be more benefited if each person did that for which he was best suited and did only that. Then, all people in the State would provide for one another based on their own skills. For example, a farmer would grow crops for him and his neighbor, and a carpenter would build houses for himself and his neighbor. Then the farmer would provide food for the carpenter, and the carpenter would provide shelter for the farmer. This Utopian society seems plausible until Socrates begins asking more questions: Where would the farmer get his oxen and plows? Where would the carpenter get his tools? Where would either of them get their shoes or clothes? Or healthcare? Or protection? Soon the imagined society would need many more people. Adeimantus brought up another slant to the whole proposition: can people live and be happy in such a society or would they begin to want the luxuries of life in addition to the necessities?
Socrates determines that "wealth is the parent of luxury and indolence, and [poverty] of meanness and viciousness, and both of discontent." It is interesting to point out that Socrates did not believe people should try to change their class or social status because that would disrupt the society and thus be unjust. So can there be an ideal society in which every one does only that at which he is skilled, shares his skills with his neighbors, and gets neither too wealthy nor too poor? If there can be, that society would be truly just in Socrates' opinion. As he said, "...our aim in founding the State was not the disproportionate happiness of any one class, but the greatest happiness of the whole."
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Keys and Keyholes
Reading Response: In Praise of Idleness by Bertrand Russell
Which would you say is the better use of one's time - idleness or hard work? Most people would say hard work, after all, "Idle hands are the Devil's playground." But when people are working hard all day long, nearly everyday of the week, how are they to have time to do anything else? Either they are working or are exhausted from working. And what about those who are unemployed because of the hard workers "taking" all of the available jobs and accomplishing all of the necessary tasks? Society ends up with a large exhausted population, a large poor population, and a small wealthy, idle population.
Russell's solution to this problem was to more evenly distribute the jobs among the people. By cutting hours to four hours a day, more people would be able to be employed. Also, one would have more free time to be able to pursue whatever he wished, while also receiving the satisfaction (and salary) of hard work. Implementing this plan in society was not as much a part of Russell's desire as it was to shake up the perspectives of his readers. He was writing in the midst of the Great Depression - many people were unemployed and were feeling like they were not doing their "duty" as Americans, or even as humans, because they were not working. Russell wanted his readers to realize that idleness was just as beneficial to people as was hard work. After all, without time spent in pursuing one's own interests, great works of literature may never have been written, electricity may never have been harnessed, and people may have never gotten off the ground...or flown to the moon, for that matter.
Which would you say is the better use of one's time - idleness or hard work? Most people would say hard work, after all, "Idle hands are the Devil's playground." But when people are working hard all day long, nearly everyday of the week, how are they to have time to do anything else? Either they are working or are exhausted from working. And what about those who are unemployed because of the hard workers "taking" all of the available jobs and accomplishing all of the necessary tasks? Society ends up with a large exhausted population, a large poor population, and a small wealthy, idle population.
Russell's solution to this problem was to more evenly distribute the jobs among the people. By cutting hours to four hours a day, more people would be able to be employed. Also, one would have more free time to be able to pursue whatever he wished, while also receiving the satisfaction (and salary) of hard work. Implementing this plan in society was not as much a part of Russell's desire as it was to shake up the perspectives of his readers. He was writing in the midst of the Great Depression - many people were unemployed and were feeling like they were not doing their "duty" as Americans, or even as humans, because they were not working. Russell wanted his readers to realize that idleness was just as beneficial to people as was hard work. After all, without time spent in pursuing one's own interests, great works of literature may never have been written, electricity may never have been harnessed, and people may have never gotten off the ground...or flown to the moon, for that matter.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
So what's with the name?
Synonyms and Antonyms - where did that come from?
I was wracking my brain, trying to come up with a good title for a Meaning of Work blog other than "Casey's Meaning of Work Blog." So I pulled out the thesaurus to look up synonyms of the words "meaning" and "work" hoping to come up with some interesting word play for a title. When I looked up the word "work," this is what I found:
Word: work
Synonyms: labor, chore, drudgery, toil, undertaking, commitment, stress, industry, etc...
Antonyms: entertainment, fun, pastime
It dawned on me that, so often, we try to categorize and separate work and play, when perhaps they aren't so exclusive. So the title of my blog speaks of bringing together both literal and proverbial synonyms and antonyms and as a result, blurring the lines between the two.
I was wracking my brain, trying to come up with a good title for a Meaning of Work blog other than "Casey's Meaning of Work Blog." So I pulled out the thesaurus to look up synonyms of the words "meaning" and "work" hoping to come up with some interesting word play for a title. When I looked up the word "work," this is what I found:
Word: work
Synonyms: labor, chore, drudgery, toil, undertaking, commitment, stress, industry, etc...
Antonyms: entertainment, fun, pastime
It dawned on me that, so often, we try to categorize and separate work and play, when perhaps they aren't so exclusive. So the title of my blog speaks of bringing together both literal and proverbial synonyms and antonyms and as a result, blurring the lines between the two.
So what the heck is this all about?
The meaning of work. What is the meaning of work? Is there a meaning of work? Is the question crucial or irrelevant? Does the question even make sense?
Throughout this coming semester I, along with my classmates, hope to explore these ideas. In this blog I'll be posting reading responses, interesting discussions from class, and my own reflections on what I learn.
There is much to be discussed, learned, explored, rejected, accepted, turned-upside-down, turned-right-side-up, and all around "tinkered with." Ready?
Throughout this coming semester I, along with my classmates, hope to explore these ideas. In this blog I'll be posting reading responses, interesting discussions from class, and my own reflections on what I learn.
There is much to be discussed, learned, explored, rejected, accepted, turned-upside-down, turned-right-side-up, and all around "tinkered with." Ready?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
