This reading was impossible to understand. According to the topic for this reading, it is supposed to be about good and happiness; that much I got, because the word good is mentioned throughout the reading. Otherwise, I could not process any points Aristotle made. I will do my best to reflect on this reading. One point that raised a question for me was, if there is good in every activity, what about evil activities? AAristotle does not address this, but I concluded that even in evil activities, the person performing them does see good in the outcome of the action. Aristotle believes the highest good is political science, because politics are the highest art. He states that happiness is a good life and good activities. He also describes happiness and good as being perfected states that cannot get any better. Like Socrates, Aristotle fails to precisely define good and happiness. In book X, Aristotle continues to speak of good and pleasure. Aristotle relates pleasure to good, saying that they are equal because good is the best, and nothing can make it better, but pleasure can make something good. THEN, pleasure is not equal to good because pleasure is a movement, and good is a final state that cannot be altered. THEN, pleasure “must be one of the things that are whole and complete”. However, “doing” is pleasurable. Isn’t “doing” a movement? I had to read these passages several times and discuss them with several people in order to look at the reading as anything more than words put next to each other that do not form sentences. I’m not looking forward to reading any other philosophical literature.
This reading has to do with happiness and good. Some of the parts in the reading I found difficult to understand. Aristotle speaks about good and that political science is the best good. He said that if we do good activities then we will find happiness. Aristotle made many points but he did'nt define the real meaning of happiness. In Book X, it spoke about pleasure. There was many points made if pleasure is good or evil. At first it said that pleasure is good if you find it's good in itself. Pleasure is a movement and good is final that can't be changed was a point made in the passage. Pleasure differs in kind and the activity that completes it. In the passage they ponted out that the proper pleasure is worthy of the good activity and the unworthy is the activity of bad. Life is an activity and it is completed by pleasure. This was want I could understand in the readings, they give made points but not a real defintion of the words.
In book I, Aristotle talks a lot about what the meaning of good was. Although he did not give us a clear definition, but he did give us examples. One example he gave us was how medics, war strategist and architects, all have a job to do. For example medics heal people, war strategist protect their people, the actions they do, is the definition of good. I hate how Aristotle always wants a absolute definition of a subject but yet can not give one himself. He quotes "for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." He is saying that it is foolish to have probable reasoning and rhetorical proofs. It is also foolish for someone educated to look for a precise answer but yet he always goes around looking for a precise answer. He also talks about happiness, according to Aristotle happiness is being praised or getting a prized for doing something good or being good at something. For example, people will praise you for being the fastest runner and etc... Book X is about pleasure. Aristotle tells us that pleasure can be good or evil. Pleasure also can be different things for different people. For example, for animals food is more pleasant than gold.
In Book I aristotle talks about happyness and the pursuit of it. He talks about how sometimes the process of doing something can actually be better then accomplishing it. He also talks about how political science determines what we think is good and bad and that in itslef could be a good or a bad thing because we are not judging for ourselves but being led. He mentions that their are three different main goals for people in life and how they effect our thoughts of the world around us. In book X he talks about pleasure and how people find pleasure in different things. He states how things can seem improper or worthless to one man and monumental to another. He also says that it can lead to good or evil.
In Book I, Aristotle is discussing what “good” really is. According to Aristotle people love the enjoyment of life due to the fact of pleasure which is somewhat linked to good and happiness. Aristotle believes that every action done by a human being has some good in it but, I do not see how this is even possible. Many people go out in the streets and take the life of innocent individuals and I personally do not see any good in those actions taken. Aristotle believes that good is actually part of political science. The reason for Aristotle thinking is because a politics goals consist of finding the highest end for the human life and good is finding the highest ends within an individual. There are three classes of good, they are: external, soul, and physical actions. Everyone has a different view on what the meaning of true happiness is. I think that being truly happy means that you are satisfied with the things that you have been given and you have your loved ones with you. Being happy does not necessarily mean being rich and being able to afford expensive accessories, someone can have all the money in the world but it may not them happy. From this reading I got the sense that Aristotle is saying that doing good deeds will lead you to true happiness. Similar to other readings by Plato, Aristotle has yet to give us a true meaning as to what “good” is. In Book X, Aristotle discusses justice vs. injustice and the pleasure of both. According to Aristotle pleasure does not necessarily come from a good being but someone can get pleasure out of something which is negative. An individual can get pleasure out of the death of someone, this can be viewed as bad pleasure dude to the fact that someone is dead and another feels satisfied.
Aristotle’s book one is about good and happiness. He said in the beginning of book that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”. This concept seems obvious especially when we fail to recognize the definition of good which is having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified. For instance when an individual got good news from the hospital concerning his or her health, the person sees it as something good. Also doing what an individual considered morally just may be seen in someone else’s judgment as unjust. With these concepts about good, I believe that good is whatever satisfies you as an individual and not collectively. On the hand, Aristotle said happiness is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action and never for the sake of something else. His opinions on these concepts are rooted in deep philosophical thought. I agreed with Aristotle’s concept of happiness that is self-sufficient. The word happiness has different meanings to different individuals. For instance, people pursue happiness in different angles of life, some people consider themselves happy when they’re healthy, and others find happiness in relationships, work, family, children, life achievements, sexual pleasures among others.
Aristotle basically discuses the meaning of good and the persuit of happynes. As in the future text's no exact definition is given but examples are. Aristotle discuses how the process of becoming happy is sometimes more rewarding then the finall outcome itself. I completely agree with that coment because we can see in our time how movie stars work so hard to reach the high point and once they reach that point all they do is through it away by doing drugs and athlets cheating on their wives. We also have to understand that happynes has different meaning to different people so i can understand why no definition was reached. Wat i dont understand is the relationship to political science. As the other text this was dificult as well and it was a little complicated to understand.
What is happiness, is it a trophy that one’s win, or a feeling of pleasure, or nothing just what anybody wants to interpret happiness as. Nevertheless, I do think of happiness as the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world, but this doesn’t really explain much either of what is the definition of happiness. Therefore, in book I of Aristotle 13 small paragraphs had a different meaning of happiness each had an over all point or idea and examples, but not a concrete concept of what is truly the meaning of happiness. Like this question made me wonder “whether happiness is to be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance”, the outcome of this sentence was to end with “for that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the world, and something godlike and blessed” however we can’t really know what is happiness ,how can we know what is virtue other than it wisdom and intelligences but nothing else. In book X it only 11 small paragraphs focusing in justice and injustice like the book of republic, the just has it why’s and the unjust too, which of either society chose to obey is hard to answer. But what is the difference between justice and virtue what the reading talks mostly about. an it interested me alot that this new and weird topic to discussion justice which can be interper as law with widsom, intelligence i can see how they are similar ,but in difference i dont think alot in there differences.
Books I and X by Aristotle was some what difficult to understand. The only thing I was able to understand was that it was a discussion about good and happiness and how they can be identified in many different ways according to a person's way of viewing the concept. In order to show us how good and happiness can be related to different aspect with different meaning Aristotle was not giving the literal definition but instead he was trying to lead us to the concept of both good and happiness by setting down some examples. Paragraphs 1 and 2, were discussing a general topic like science in which they established to mention how human beings applied science into their lives. There were a couple of words I did not know the meaning to; therefore, I looked them up in the dictionary in order to see if I understood the text better.From my understanding in paragraph 3, it is said that someone will be able to succeed in life only if he/she puts their mind to it because knowledge itself would not lead you to finding your future. If I understood thoroughly there are 3 prominent of life: (1) science, (2) political science, and (3) contemplative. In some parts of the reading were very difficult for me to understand do to the fact there was too much information just in one paragraph and to me they did not click into one broad topic. My questions is that why does Aristotle focuses on so many different example of good and happiness instead of focusing on like 2 or 3 and extend them in a way that the readers can understand his main idea of that certain topic. There was a part where he mentions the concept of "itself" and how humans only do things to satisfied themselves and only focus on being happy without even knowing what the emotion happy literally means. The statement "Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action," really called my attention because i believe this statement says that all you need in life is happiness and with it you can be who you want to be without any thoughts of mind. Good consists of 3 different classes, they are: external, soul, and body. I believe that happiness cannot be referred to as an activity because it is an internal emotion one feels when their love ones feel proud about them or when they all shared this family bond without any regrets nor disbelief. The main thing here is that they thing I got out of this reading was that Aristotle was trying to make his readers understand the literal meaning of good and happiness with the use of examples instead of just telling us straight forward.
In reading book I and book X of aristole, which was one of plato students, he was a teacher also. aristole belief was " the good as the aim of all action:,which meant each activity has an outcome to it. he also believed that politics as the master science of the good. Its like saying having a anarchy over others. he wast rying to stretch the pint og being good as just and being not good as unjust.he was trying to prove a point like, most people don't think about what they do, most people just go for the lowest kind of good life, but on the othet hand, some go for the other kind of good life, which can refer to a virtuous life according to aristole, which is quite interesting to me, because i do see it happen like that in reality.
From my understanding Book I is about being happy and doing things that makes you happy. Aristotle said if you are passionate about things go for it and not expect any benefits but do it because you love what you are doing. I feel that he is questioning what is good, he ask many question how actions is achievable by good and that Happiness is the end result of a good action. I think the paragraph where he explains how a man being happy can never be miserable because he will never do anything “hateful and mean” because is he will make best of any the situation. I think that happiness has a universal meaning and understanding everyone has their own happiness, no one really knows what happiness is. In Book X he talks about how pleasure and happiness comes hand and in hand. From what I understand when he mentioned Plato about good and pleasure, that pleasure is something everyone wants and desire and that is not what being good is about. You cannot desire good. He also explains about pain and replenishment of the body that pleasure is replenishment and that it cannot be that because if we are pain while being replenished it is not pleasure. In the fourth paragraph he said that all humans are incapable of continuous activity and that pleasure is not continuous. I agree with his explanation that pleasure does not last long it is only when we find something new and in a state of stimulation and when that finishes it becomes boring. After reading Book X I found it very interesting but somewhat repetitive.
This reading was kind of confusing a little, but I think understand it. Aristotle basically talks about happiness and good. He talks about how good leads to happiness which, I understand. I think that life should be about doing good for you and for others. By doing that it should bring you happiness. Also I wonder what political science has to do with happiness, what is the relation there? I really would like to know, but in my opinion happiness is when you’re comfortable in your own skin and living life. You shouldn’t care what people think of you as long that you’re happy and you doing good.
Aristotle says that anything a person does, whether an action, a pursuit, or an activity, is aimed at doing some good. So, if everything a person does is, in actuality, good, then does that mean that Aristotle doesn’t believe in bad or evil? I’m not sure but I think that Aristotle is just trying to show us that there is a relationship between what we do and why we do it. He also says that people perform certain tasks not for the end result but rather for the task itself. So, for example, if somebody is a shipbuilder, the end product is the vessel or ship. According to Aristotle, people are shipbuilders because they want to be. The vessel is only made possible, or eventually completed, not because the person wants a vessel but rather because the vessel is pursued because people are shipbuilders. This activity, in return, is aimed at doing some good. In this case, the vessel is the good. Aristotle then takes this concept and tries to define happiness but falls short of doing so. He says that this “good” that people aim to do is actually happiness, meaning that everything a person does in life makes them happier. However, based on these readings, I believe that you can’t really define happiness because it changes everyday. For example, if a person is sick, to him being happy means feeling better. However, when this same person becomes poor, his definition of happiness changes to becoming rich. I think I know why Aristotle compares good with happiness. When a person does something that’s good, it’s really just an effect of being happy. So, since a persons definition of happiness changes throughout the day, there is always some “good” or "this will make me happier" that’s seen in his action, meaning that he is pursuing something which he believes will make him happier and this pursuing occurs daily.
In book I of Aristotle had a different meaning of happiness. He made many point and ideas and examples to prove his point. It was very difficult to understand and analyze every paragraph. For what I understood it is about first he tried to explain the meaning good and than lead to happiness. Happiness whether it is pleasure, honor, health, wealth, knowledge. He compared happiness to many ides but didn’t give exact definition. Different people see happiness different way, some people define happiness being wealthy, having lot of cars and fame, houses, other find happiness in what they most desire in life. I believe happiness is something you experience everyday and you gain it by your wisdom. Happiness does not come from money or being rich, it comes from how you see you self, internal will and your belief.
Aristotle raises a good point: only pleasures enjoyed by the right person and for the right reasons are good. This reminded me of something I've read previously by the philosopher Epicurus. Epicurus in a letter on happiness talks about pleasure and happiness through desires. He breaks desire into three parts: unnatural desires, natural but unnecessary desires, and necessary desires. Necessary desires being the absolute necessaries to live like food, water, shelter, etc. Natural but unnecessary desires being things like wanting a mansion when you have shelter, wanting more shoes when you have a pair and so forth. And last, unnatural desires, like power, dominance, and fame. I think it's important to think about what type of desire your having before you act on the desire because like Aristolte says only pleasures enjoyed by the right person and for THE RIGHT REASONS are GOOD. So what I take from that is understand the pleasure and know it's good, otherwise that pleasure might not bring you happiness. For example cheating on your lover might at the time be pleasurable (intercourse) but afterwards are you happy? Do the consequences make you happy? Pleasure is a tricky thing...
Well after reading book I and book X from Aristotle I realize that his work is very hard to understand.He tends to start a topic and then skip it and move on to another topic which makes it very difficult to understand.In book I he talks alot about good and happiness.In book X he talks more about good and pleasure.I think good and happiness should go hand in hand but it's not alsways the case.Some people do good things not because they want to but because they wanna benefit.Some people do good because they really want to do it with no reward.I know people who want to be nurses not because they want to be nurses but because of the money.I think people who wanna be nurses should do it because they want to make a difference and help people who need it.With that doing good and being happy would go hand in hand.This doesnt go for nursing only it goes for any profession.Its better to do it because you have some passion for it than doing it just for the money.
Hammad Syed These readings very difficult to understand from I understood I think Aristotle is talking about good and happiness. I didn’t understand what he is saying about good and happiness. I think he is trying to find out what is good and he thinks good can make people happy. I think for different people good can be different things. Not every good can make them happy. In the X book he is making connection between good and pleasure. He is saying that pleasure is not the ultimate good because good need nothing else to supplement it but pleasure is not sufficient on its own. I also think pleasure is not always good. Some people get pleasure from doing good and some people get pleasure from doing bad.
In book X Aristotle makes a very good argument that if someone brings disgraceful pleasures one may say that these are not pleasant; if things are pleasant to people of vicious constitution, we must not suppose that they are also pleasant to others than these, just as we do not reason so about the things that are wholesome or sweet or bitter to sick people. This makes for a very interesting example to show you that you can’t say what pleasure is unless you are general. He makes a very interesting comment he says one cannot the pleasure of the just man without being just. He opens himself up to be criticized because what you may call just may not be just to others so how can you have the pleasure of another man who may or may not be just. book I i didnt get it but i just might have to read it over to get it like everyone else.
These readings focus on the relationship between Happiness, Pleasure, and Good.
I believe that although the 3 are related, it cant be said that what brings Pleasure/Happiness is always good, and what is Good, always brings Pleasure/Happiness. This because when these 3 are connected, it becomes more of an individual aspect. For example, a person who is poor and chooses to steal feels that he is doing "Good" by keeping himself from starving, but is seen as "Bad" by others because stealing is wrong.
Aristotle mentions that, more often than not people are out to only do good for themselves. This is true, because sometimes, we do things based on how it affects us, wether its good or not is just a simple addition.
For example, a Dentist does good by aiding those who are in pain. However, does he truly do it to provide relief to those in need? Or is it because it is his job to, in order to get paid?
In Book I, it discusses about doing something for the sake of it, or for the sake itself. This was what we were trying to differentiate in class. We all seemed to have a hard time trying to determine what some actions or things are for the good within itself or good for doing. Book I and Book X talks alot about what's good and most thing it relates to pleasure. Men always seem to think living happy and doing well in life means life is good. There's more to that in life than living in contentment.
This reading was horrible it was very hard to understand. I did see some refrences to happiness and good but I did not find any clear universal definitions. I do agree with " now each ,am judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge." If a person is not well educated on a subject they should not judge. I also agree that happiness changes under different circumstances i.e. " the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor..." The reading also says that wealth is not good because it is for the sake of something else.
In text one, reading as helped understand and not understanding the good of life. It is easy to say good things about people and their action, but hard to understand the same good thing when people is bad. Justice is one idea of finding good in people and their actions. Life plays very big role in our up bringing and to understand our community. Human life is about understanding the purpose of our actions, but to put together the reason why we came to life. I for one have always find it difficult to understand sometimes why we here in life. Lots of things, human as involved in, have put us today in bad situations. A saying “when ever you right, nobody remembers, but when ever you right nobody forgets”, no matter how good you are has a person you would not be granted freedom. I believe the purpose of this book is tell us that doing good should be the right part of life, but we all need to understand the purpose of our good will. I believe the justice system is one example the book narrated with doing good. Every action we take in life has a purpose, and every bad has a reason. Doing good always have a reason, no every one live a good life, so they doing deserve to treat other good. The community has a whole plays a major part of roles we has human participate in a society. Thing do go good for everyone, so I believe their mind set up would never play good. Doing good is start from the home, like we all know, your first teacher are your parent. The up bring of a child determine he or her future. If thing are bad I believe it sticks and their idea of life would be different. Good on its own is doing your best “virtue”, understand the scope of life and it consequences. The book goes on to say a doctor purpose is to cure patients and it good is to give to health. Not everyone believes in what they practice, but do it just for the purpose of how to succeed in the society. Doing well comes from the heart; it’s a natural gift from God. We has human sometimes don’t care of what we do, but just with the fear of God changes your idea of life, which is doing good. The word happiness means a state of mind or feeling such as contentment, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy. From the book you come to find out that happiness is not just been happy, but understand the role of doing good. Doing well makes you happy and happiness to comes from been successful and having to afford things in life. Happiness and good are two different words which relates in so many ways. They are identical but have different meanings. I believe there would be no need to be happy when your goals in life are not met. Nobody would be happy if the can’t eat, sleep, talk or do things others can do. We all know getting a college degree in good but not happiness. Happiness is a word that has no ending, some derive happiness from doing bad and some from doing good. I for one believe we all need to be happy at all times, regardless of the purpose or aim. Doing good is the beginning of happiness, and happiness is the beginning of success. Having a good life is one good example of happiness, not all times wealth leads to happiness, you could be sick, but the money can get you well, I guess that’s not happiness, but some time been poor is happiness, it gives you more idea about life a whole and teachers more on how you understand the society.
In text one, reading as helped understand and not understanding the good of life. It is easy to say good things about people and their action, but hard to understand the same good thing when people is bad. Justice is one idea of finding good in people and their actions. Life plays very big role in our up bringing and to understand our community. Human life is about understanding the purpose of our actions, but to put together the reason why we came to life. I for one have always find it difficult to understand sometimes why we here in life. Lots of things, human as involved in, have put us today in bad situations. A saying “when ever you right, nobody remembers, but when ever you right nobody forgets”, no matter how good you are has a person you would not be granted freedom. I believe the purpose of this book is tell us that doing good should be the right part of life, but we all need to understand the purpose of our good will. I believe the justice system is one example the book narrated with doing good. Every action we take in life has a purpose, and every bad has a reason. Doing good always have a reason, not everyone lives a good life, so they don’t deserve to treat other good. The community has a whole plays a major part of roles we has human participate in a society. Thing don’t good for everyone, so I believe their mind set up would never play good. Doing good starts from the home, like we all know, our first teachers are our parents. The up bring of a child determines he or her future. If thing are bad I believe it sticks and their idea of life would be different. Good on its own is doing your best “virtue”, understand the scope of life and it consequences. The book goes on to say a doctor purpose is to cure patients and it good is to give health. Not everyone believes in what they practice, but do it just for the purpose of how to succeed in the society. Doing well comes from the heart; it’s a natural gift from God. We has human sometimes don’t care of what we do, but just with the fear of God changes your idea of life, which is doing good. The word happiness means a state of mind or feeling such as contentment, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy. From the book you come to find out that happiness is not just been happy, but understand the role of doing good. Doing well makes you happy and happiness comes from been successful and having to afford things in life. Happiness and good are two different words which relates in so many ways. They are identical but have different meanings. I believe there would be no need to be happy when your goals in life are not met. Nobody would be happy if the can’t eat, sleep, talk or do things others can do. We all know getting a college degree in good but not happiness. Happiness is a word that has no ending, some derive happiness from doing bad and some from doing good. I for one believe we all need to be happy at all times, regardless of the purpose or aim. Doing good is the beginning of happiness, and happiness is the beginning of success. Having a good life is one good example of happiness, not all times wealth leads to happiness, you could be sick, but the money can get you well, I guess that’s not happiness, but some time been poor is happiness, it gives you more idea about life a whole and teachers more on how you understand the society.
This reading was impossible to understand. According to the topic for this reading, it is supposed to be about good and happiness; that much I got, because the word good is mentioned throughout the reading. Otherwise, I could not process any points Aristotle made. I will do my best to reflect on this reading. One point that raised a question for me was, if there is good in every activity, what about evil activities? AAristotle does not address this, but I concluded that even in evil activities, the person performing them does see good in the outcome of the action. Aristotle believes the highest good is political science, because politics are the highest art. He states that happiness is a good life and good activities. He also describes happiness and good as being perfected states that cannot get any better. Like Socrates, Aristotle fails to precisely define good and happiness. In book X, Aristotle continues to speak of good and pleasure. Aristotle relates pleasure to good, saying that they are equal because good is the best, and nothing can make it better, but pleasure can make something good. THEN, pleasure is not equal to good because pleasure is a movement, and good is a final state that cannot be altered. THEN, pleasure “must be one of the things that are whole and complete”. However, “doing” is pleasurable. Isn’t “doing” a movement? I had to read these passages several times and discuss them with several people in order to look at the reading as anything more than words put next to each other that do not form sentences. I’m not looking forward to reading any other philosophical literature.
ReplyDeleteThis reading has to do with happiness and good. Some of the parts in the reading I found difficult to understand. Aristotle speaks about good and that political science is the best good. He said that if we do good activities then we will find happiness. Aristotle made many points but he did'nt define the real meaning of happiness. In Book X, it spoke about pleasure. There was many points made if pleasure is good or evil. At first it said that pleasure is good if you find it's good in itself. Pleasure is a movement and good is final that can't be changed was a point made in the passage. Pleasure differs in kind and the activity that completes it. In the passage they ponted out that the proper pleasure is worthy of the good activity and the unworthy is the activity of bad. Life is an activity and it is completed by pleasure. This was want I could understand in the readings, they give made points but not a real defintion of the words.
ReplyDeleteIn book I, Aristotle talks a lot about what the meaning of good was. Although he did not give us a clear definition, but he did give us examples. One example he gave us was how medics, war strategist and architects, all have a job to do. For example medics heal people, war strategist protect their people, the actions they do, is the definition of good. I hate how Aristotle always wants a absolute definition of a subject but yet can not give one himself. He quotes "for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs." He is saying that it is foolish to have probable reasoning and rhetorical proofs. It is also foolish for someone educated to look for a precise answer but yet he always goes around looking for a precise answer. He also talks about happiness, according to Aristotle happiness is being praised or getting a prized for doing something good or being good at something. For example, people will praise you for being the fastest runner and etc... Book X is about pleasure. Aristotle tells us that pleasure can be good or evil. Pleasure also can be different things for different people. For example, for animals food is more pleasant than gold.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I aristotle talks about happyness and the pursuit of it. He talks about how sometimes the process of doing something can actually be better then accomplishing it. He also talks about how political science determines what we think is good and bad and that in itslef could be a good or a bad thing because we are not judging for ourselves but being led. He mentions that their are three different main goals for people in life and how they effect our thoughts of the world around us. In book X he talks about pleasure and how people find pleasure in different things. He states how things can seem improper or worthless to one man and monumental to another. He also says that it can lead to good or evil.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I, Aristotle is discussing what “good” really is. According to Aristotle people love the enjoyment of life due to the fact of pleasure which is somewhat linked to good and happiness. Aristotle believes that every action done by a human being has some good in it but, I do not see how this is even possible. Many people go out in the streets and take the life of innocent individuals and I personally do not see any good in those actions taken. Aristotle believes that good is actually part of political science. The reason for Aristotle thinking is because a politics goals consist of finding the highest end for the human life and good is finding the highest ends within an individual. There are three classes of good, they are: external, soul, and physical actions. Everyone has a different view on what the meaning of true happiness is. I think that being truly happy means that you are satisfied with the things that you have been given and you have your loved ones with you. Being happy does not necessarily mean being rich and being able to afford expensive accessories, someone can have all the money in the world but it may not them happy. From this reading I got the sense that Aristotle is saying that doing good deeds will lead you to true happiness. Similar to other readings by Plato, Aristotle has yet to give us a true meaning as to what “good” is. In Book X, Aristotle discusses justice vs. injustice and the pleasure of both. According to Aristotle pleasure does not necessarily come from a good being but someone can get pleasure out of something which is negative. An individual can get pleasure out of the death of someone, this can be viewed as bad pleasure dude to the fact that someone is dead and another feels satisfied.
ReplyDeleteAristotle’s book one is about good and happiness. He said in the beginning of book that “every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good, and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim”. This concept seems obvious especially when we fail to recognize the definition of good which is having desirable or positive qualities especially those suitable for a thing specified. For instance when an individual got good news from the hospital concerning his or her health, the person sees it as something good. Also doing what an individual considered morally just may be seen in someone else’s judgment as unjust. With these concepts about good, I believe that good is whatever satisfies you as an individual and not collectively.
ReplyDeleteOn the hand, Aristotle said happiness is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action and never for the sake of something else. His opinions on these concepts are rooted in deep philosophical thought. I agreed with Aristotle’s concept of happiness that is self-sufficient. The word happiness has different meanings to different individuals. For instance, people pursue happiness in different angles of life, some people consider themselves happy when they’re healthy, and others find happiness in relationships, work, family, children, life achievements, sexual pleasures among others.
Aristotle basically discuses the meaning of good and the persuit of happynes. As in the future text's no exact definition is given but examples are. Aristotle discuses how the process of becoming happy is sometimes more rewarding then the finall outcome itself. I completely agree with that coment because we can see in our time how movie stars work so hard to reach the high point and once they reach that point all they do is through it away by doing drugs and athlets cheating on their wives. We also have to understand that happynes has different meaning to different people so i can understand why no definition was reached. Wat i dont understand is the relationship to political science. As the other text this was dificult as well and it was a little complicated to understand.
ReplyDeleteWhat is happiness, is it a trophy that one’s win, or a feeling of pleasure, or nothing just what anybody wants to interpret happiness as. Nevertheless, I do think of happiness as the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing in the world, but this doesn’t really explain much either of what is the definition of happiness. Therefore, in book I of Aristotle 13 small paragraphs had a different meaning of happiness each had an over all point or idea and examples, but not a concrete concept of what is truly the meaning of happiness. Like this question made me wonder “whether happiness is to be acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training, or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance”, the outcome of this sentence was to end with “for that which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the world, and something godlike and blessed” however we can’t really know what is happiness ,how can we know what is virtue other than it wisdom and intelligences but nothing else. In book X it only 11 small paragraphs focusing in justice and injustice like the book of republic, the just has it why’s and the unjust too, which of either society chose to obey is hard to answer. But what is the difference between justice and virtue what the reading talks mostly about. an it interested me alot that this new and weird topic to discussion justice which can be interper as law with widsom, intelligence i can see how they are similar ,but in difference i dont think alot in there differences.
ReplyDeleteBooks I and X by Aristotle was some what difficult to understand. The only thing I was able to understand was that it was a discussion about good and happiness and how they can be identified in many different ways according to a person's way of viewing the concept. In order to show us how good and happiness can be related to different aspect with different meaning Aristotle was not giving the literal definition but instead he was trying to lead us to the concept of both good and happiness by setting down some examples. Paragraphs 1 and 2, were discussing a general topic like science in which they established to mention how human beings applied science into their lives. There were a couple of words I did not know the meaning to; therefore, I looked them up in the dictionary in order to see if I understood the text better.From my understanding in paragraph 3, it is said that someone will be able to succeed in life only if he/she puts their mind to it because knowledge itself would not lead you to finding your future. If I understood thoroughly there are 3 prominent of life: (1) science, (2) political science, and (3) contemplative. In some parts of the reading were very difficult for me to understand do to the fact there was too much information just in one paragraph and to me they did not click into one broad topic. My questions is that why does Aristotle focuses on so many different example of good and happiness instead of focusing on like 2 or 3 and extend them in a way that the readers can understand his main idea of that certain topic. There was a part where he mentions the concept of "itself" and how humans only do things to satisfied themselves and only focus on being happy without even knowing what the emotion happy literally means. The statement "Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end of action," really called my attention because i believe this statement says that all you need in life is happiness and with it you can be who you want to be without any thoughts of mind. Good consists of 3 different classes, they are: external, soul, and body. I believe that happiness cannot be referred to as an activity because it is an internal emotion one feels when their love ones feel proud about them or when they all shared this family bond without any regrets nor disbelief. The main thing here is that they thing I got out of this reading was that Aristotle was trying to make his readers understand the literal meaning of good and happiness with the use of examples instead of just telling us straight forward.
ReplyDeleteIn reading book I and book X of aristole, which was one of plato students, he was a teacher also. aristole belief was " the good as the aim of all action:,which meant each activity has an outcome to it. he also believed that politics as the master science of the good. Its like saying having a anarchy over others. he wast rying to stretch the pint og being good as just and being not good as unjust.he was trying to prove a point like, most people don't think about what they do, most people just go for the lowest kind of good life, but on the othet hand, some go for the other kind of good life, which can refer to a virtuous life according to aristole, which is quite interesting to me, because i do see it happen like that in reality.
ReplyDeleteFrom my understanding Book I is about being happy and doing things that makes you happy. Aristotle said if you are passionate about things go for it and not expect any benefits but do it because you love what you are doing. I feel that he is questioning what is good, he ask many question how actions is achievable by good and that Happiness is the end result of a good action. I think the paragraph where he explains how a man being happy can never be miserable because he will never do anything “hateful and mean” because is he will make best of any the situation. I think that happiness has a universal meaning and understanding everyone has their own happiness, no one really knows what happiness is.
ReplyDeleteIn Book X he talks about how pleasure and happiness comes hand and in hand. From what I understand when he mentioned Plato about good and pleasure, that pleasure is something everyone wants and desire and that is not what being good is about. You cannot desire good. He also explains about pain and replenishment of the body that pleasure is replenishment and that it cannot be that because if we are pain while being replenished it is not pleasure. In the fourth paragraph he said that all humans are incapable of continuous activity and that pleasure is not continuous. I agree with his explanation that pleasure does not last long it is only when we find something new and in a state of stimulation and when that finishes it becomes boring. After reading Book X I found it very interesting but somewhat repetitive.
This reading was kind of confusing a little, but I think understand it. Aristotle basically talks about happiness and good. He talks about how good leads to happiness which, I understand. I think that life should be about doing good for you and for others. By doing that it should bring you happiness. Also I wonder what political science has to do with happiness, what is the relation there? I really would like to know, but in my opinion happiness is when you’re comfortable in your own skin and living life. You shouldn’t care what people think of you as long that you’re happy and you doing good.
ReplyDeleteAristotle says that anything a person does, whether an action, a pursuit, or an activity, is aimed at doing some good. So, if everything a person does is, in actuality, good, then does that mean that Aristotle doesn’t believe in bad or evil? I’m not sure but I think that Aristotle is just trying to show us that there is a relationship between what we do and why we do it.
ReplyDeleteHe also says that people perform certain tasks not for the end result but rather for the task itself. So, for example, if somebody is a shipbuilder, the end product is the vessel or ship. According to Aristotle, people are shipbuilders because they want to be. The vessel is only made possible, or eventually completed, not because the person wants a vessel but rather because the vessel is pursued because people are shipbuilders. This activity, in return, is aimed at doing some good. In this case, the vessel is the good.
Aristotle then takes this concept and tries to define happiness but falls short of doing so. He says that this “good” that people aim to do is actually happiness, meaning that everything a person does in life makes them happier. However, based on these readings, I believe that you can’t really define happiness because it changes everyday. For example, if a person is sick, to him being happy means feeling better. However, when this same person becomes poor, his definition of happiness changes to becoming rich.
I think I know why Aristotle compares good with happiness. When a person does something that’s good, it’s really just an effect of being happy. So, since a persons definition of happiness changes throughout the day, there is always some “good” or "this will make me happier" that’s seen in his action, meaning that he is pursuing something which he believes will make him happier and this pursuing occurs daily.
In book I of Aristotle had a different meaning of happiness. He made many point and ideas and examples to prove his point. It was very difficult to understand and analyze every paragraph. For what I understood it is about first he tried to explain the meaning good and than lead to happiness. Happiness whether it is pleasure, honor, health, wealth, knowledge. He compared happiness to many ides but didn’t give exact definition. Different people see happiness different way, some people define happiness being wealthy, having lot of cars and fame, houses, other find happiness in what they most desire in life. I believe happiness is something you experience everyday and you gain it by your wisdom. Happiness does not come from money or being rich, it comes from how you see you self, internal will and your belief.
ReplyDeleteAristotle raises a good point: only pleasures enjoyed by the right person and for the right reasons are good. This reminded me of something I've read previously by the philosopher Epicurus. Epicurus in a letter on happiness talks about pleasure and happiness through desires. He breaks desire into three parts: unnatural desires, natural but unnecessary desires, and necessary desires. Necessary desires being the absolute necessaries to live like food, water, shelter, etc. Natural but unnecessary desires being things like wanting a mansion when you have shelter, wanting more shoes when you have a pair and so forth. And last, unnatural desires, like power, dominance, and fame. I think it's important to think about what type of desire your having before you act on the desire because like Aristolte says only pleasures enjoyed by the right person and for THE RIGHT REASONS are GOOD. So what I take from that is understand the pleasure and know it's good, otherwise that pleasure might not bring you happiness. For example cheating on your lover might at the time be pleasurable (intercourse) but afterwards are you happy? Do the consequences make you happy? Pleasure is a tricky thing...
ReplyDeleteWell after reading book I and book X from Aristotle I realize that his work is very hard to understand.He tends to start a topic and then skip it and move on to another topic which makes it very difficult to understand.In book I he talks alot about good and happiness.In book X he talks more about good and pleasure.I think good and happiness should go hand in hand but it's not alsways the case.Some people do good things not because they want to but because they wanna benefit.Some people do good because they really want to do it with no reward.I know people who want to be nurses not because they want to be nurses but because of the money.I think people who wanna be nurses should do it because they want to make a difference and help people who need it.With that doing good and being happy would go hand in hand.This doesnt go for nursing only it goes for any profession.Its better to do it because you have some passion for it than doing it just for the money.
ReplyDeleteHammad Syed
ReplyDeleteThese readings very difficult to understand from I understood I think Aristotle is talking about good and happiness. I didn’t understand what he is saying about good and happiness. I think he is trying to find out what is good and he thinks good can make people happy. I think for different people good can be different things. Not every good can make them happy. In the X book he is making connection between good and pleasure. He is saying that pleasure is not the ultimate good because good need nothing else to supplement it but pleasure is not sufficient on its own. I also think pleasure is not always good. Some people get pleasure from doing good and some people get pleasure from doing bad.
In book X Aristotle makes a very good argument that if someone brings disgraceful pleasures one may say that these are not pleasant; if things are pleasant to people of vicious constitution, we must not suppose that they are also pleasant to others than these, just as we do not reason so about the things that are wholesome or sweet or bitter to sick people. This makes for a very interesting example to show you that you can’t say what pleasure is unless you are general. He makes a very interesting comment he says one cannot the pleasure of the just man without being just. He opens himself up to be criticized because what you may call just may not be just to others so how can you have the pleasure of another man who may or may not be just. book I i didnt get it but i just might have to read it over to get it like everyone else.
ReplyDeleteThese readings focus on the relationship between Happiness, Pleasure, and Good.
ReplyDeleteI believe that although the 3 are related, it cant be said that what brings Pleasure/Happiness is always good, and what is Good, always brings Pleasure/Happiness. This because when these 3 are connected, it becomes more of an individual aspect. For example, a person who is poor and chooses to steal feels that he is doing "Good" by keeping himself from starving, but is seen as "Bad" by others because stealing is wrong.
Aristotle mentions that, more often than not people are out to only do good for themselves. This is true, because sometimes, we do things based on how it affects us, wether its good or not is just a simple addition.
For example, a Dentist does good by aiding those who are in pain. However, does he truly do it to provide relief to those in need? Or is it because it is his job to, in order to get paid?
In Book I, it discusses about doing something for the sake of it, or for the sake itself. This was what we were trying to differentiate in class. We all seemed to have a hard time trying to determine what some actions or things are for the good within itself or good for doing. Book I and Book X talks alot about what's good and most thing it relates to pleasure. Men always seem to think living happy and doing well in life means life is good. There's more to that in life than living in contentment.
ReplyDeleteThis reading was horrible it was very hard to understand. I did see some refrences to happiness and good but I did not find any clear universal definitions. I do agree with " now each ,am judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge." If a person is not well educated on a subject they should not judge. I also agree that happiness changes under different circumstances i.e. " the same man identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor..." The reading also says that wealth is not good because it is for the sake of something else.
ReplyDeleteIn text one, reading as helped understand and not understanding the good of life. It is easy to say good things about people and their action, but hard to understand the same good thing when people is bad. Justice is one idea of finding good in people and their actions. Life plays very big role in our up bringing and to understand our community. Human life is about understanding the purpose of our actions, but to put together the reason why we came to life. I for one have always find it difficult to understand sometimes why we here in life. Lots of things, human as involved in, have put us today in bad situations. A saying “when ever you right, nobody remembers, but when ever you right nobody forgets”, no matter how good you are has a person you would not be granted freedom. I believe the purpose of this book is tell us that doing good should be the right part of life, but we all need to understand the purpose of our good will. I believe the justice system is one example the book narrated with doing good. Every action we take in life has a purpose, and every bad has a reason. Doing good always have a reason, no every one live a good life, so they doing deserve to treat other good. The community has a whole plays a major part of roles we has human participate in a society. Thing do go good for everyone, so I believe their mind set up would never play good. Doing good is start from the home, like we all know, your first teacher are your parent. The up bring of a child determine he or her future. If thing are bad I believe it sticks and their idea of life would be different. Good on its own is doing your best “virtue”, understand the scope of life and it consequences. The book goes on to say a doctor purpose is to cure patients and it good is to give to health. Not everyone believes in what they practice, but do it just for the purpose of how to succeed in the society. Doing well comes from the heart; it’s a natural gift from God. We has human sometimes don’t care of what we do, but just with the fear of God changes your idea of life, which is doing good.
ReplyDeleteThe word happiness means a state of mind or feeling such as contentment, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy. From the book you come to find out that happiness is not just been happy, but understand the role of doing good. Doing well makes you happy and happiness to comes from been successful and having to afford things in life. Happiness and good are two different words which relates in so many ways. They are identical but have different meanings. I believe there would be no need to be happy when your goals in life are not met. Nobody would be happy if the can’t eat, sleep, talk or do things others can do. We all know getting a college degree in good but not happiness. Happiness is a word that has no ending, some derive happiness from doing bad and some from doing good. I for one believe we all need to be happy at all times, regardless of the purpose or aim. Doing good is the beginning of happiness, and happiness is the beginning of success. Having a good life is one good example of happiness, not all times wealth leads to happiness, you could be sick, but the money can get you well, I guess that’s not happiness, but some time been poor is happiness, it gives you more idea about life a whole and teachers more on how you understand the society.
In text one, reading as helped understand and not understanding the good of life. It is easy to say good things about people and their action, but hard to understand the same good thing when people is bad. Justice is one idea of finding good in people and their actions. Life plays very big role in our up bringing and to understand our community. Human life is about understanding the purpose of our actions, but to put together the reason why we came to life. I for one have always find it difficult to understand sometimes why we here in life. Lots of things, human as involved in, have put us today in bad situations. A saying “when ever you right, nobody remembers, but when ever you right nobody forgets”, no matter how good you are has a person you would not be granted freedom. I believe the purpose of this book is tell us that doing good should be the right part of life, but we all need to understand the purpose of our good will. I believe the justice system is one example the book narrated with doing good. Every action we take in life has a purpose, and every bad has a reason. Doing good always have a reason, not everyone lives a good life, so they don’t deserve to treat other good. The community has a whole plays a major part of roles we has human participate in a society. Thing don’t good for everyone, so I believe their mind set up would never play good. Doing good starts from the home, like we all know, our first teachers are our parents. The up bring of a child determines he or her future. If thing are bad I believe it sticks and their idea of life would be different. Good on its own is doing your best “virtue”, understand the scope of life and it consequences. The book goes on to say a doctor purpose is to cure patients and it good is to give health. Not everyone believes in what they practice, but do it just for the purpose of how to succeed in the society. Doing well comes from the heart; it’s a natural gift from God. We has human sometimes don’t care of what we do, but just with the fear of God changes your idea of life, which is doing good.
ReplyDeleteThe word happiness means a state of mind or feeling such as contentment, satisfaction, pleasure, or joy. From the book you come to find out that happiness is not just been happy, but understand the role of doing good. Doing well makes you happy and happiness comes from been successful and having to afford things in life. Happiness and good are two different words which relates in so many ways. They are identical but have different meanings. I believe there would be no need to be happy when your goals in life are not met. Nobody would be happy if the can’t eat, sleep, talk or do things others can do. We all know getting a college degree in good but not happiness. Happiness is a word that has no ending, some derive happiness from doing bad and some from doing good. I for one believe we all need to be happy at all times, regardless of the purpose or aim. Doing good is the beginning of happiness, and happiness is the beginning of success. Having a good life is one good example of happiness, not all times wealth leads to happiness, you could be sick, but the money can get you well, I guess that’s not happiness, but some time been poor is happiness, it gives you more idea about life a whole and teachers more on how you understand the society.