Ethics Book 10

In book X, Aristotle refined his view on pleasure and the ultimate good. He acknowledges that pleasure cannot be the ultimate good as well as disagrees with the idea that pleasure is evil. Aristotle explains that pleasure is indeed a good but not the Good. He does this by explaining that certain pleasures in life can grow with regards to intelligence and knowledge and the ultimate Good is one that does not change in accordance with anything else, it stand on its own without improvement.

Pleasure cannot solely lead a person to the good life because pleasure that fails to fall under virtue can lead a person to lead a life of appetites or a beastly life. To avoid this, Aristotle explains that pleasure is inherently tied to virtuous actions and therefore habituating those moral actions will result in a pleasurable life. This life consists of pleasures as a result of virtue and reasoning but pleasure in itself is not the goal or purpose of life. The good life consists on contemplation, because contemplation is what seems to be the purpose of man. Unlike any other being, humans have rational thought which seems to be the distinguishing characteristic. We must then use this characteristic which we can most easily do more often to live the good life.

Ethics Book 8 & 9

Aristotle categorizes friendship to be based on one of three things: utility, pleasure, or goodness. According to Aristotle, the most difficult to attain but also the most rewarding is a friendship based on goodness. I agree with his evaluation as I can only evaluate two of my friendships to truly be based on goodness. Though I share a friendship with and care for many people, my most pure friendships are those in which I value the other person’s goodness and where we are both willing to sacrifice much to help the other succeed. Extending the idea of friendship to a government and its people, a corrupt political state is one where there is an imbalance of benefit between the two members. Throughout history, people of the state revolt when they feel that the government is abusing of them and their service without giving enough benefit back to the people. A popular example of this is when the 13 colonies revolted against Great Britain because they felt neglected by their government. History supports Aristotle’s idea that a relationship with an imbalance of benefit will not endure.

Aristotle points out how although some relationships seem to be based on selflessness or appreciating the good in others, that is not always the case. In my life, I value the goodness of certain people, such as my teachers or even classmates, but these feelings sometimes remain as superficial approval for the person and never develop into a friendship. Also, I have met people who I deem to be self-loving; that is, they do a service to others, not because they have a genuine care and friendship with the person, but because it is a noble action that makes them feel good about themselves. This type of relationship is beneficial to both parties, but it remains superficial and has a limit to its benefit. Friendship is a vague term for the relationship between two people and can take many drastically different forms. Because friendship is a dynamic thing that changes with time, though some friendships grow, others also end. If friends begin to develop different goals, they often stop receiving and providing what the other person needs. I agree with Aristotle’s argument that it is appropriate for these friendships to end. Although friendships might end, I also think that it is very beneficial to remember those friendships. Apart from the memory of the friendship being joyous, it is also a means to learn what a person looks for in future relationships. If a person meets a stranger who is very similar to someone who used to be their friend, they can predict that the friendship might not last. Remembering previous friendships and evaluating them is one way for a person to define what they want and do not want in a friendship.

Aristotle's Ethics

Aristotle begins Nicomachean Ethics by introducing probably the most important question that humanity can ask-what is the purpose of life? The purpose to one's actions is always to seek some good and solely for the purpose of that good. For example, one can seek to answer many questions to why they do something, however, there comes a point where the leading questions reach the final question and that it is-- why do you want to be happy? And there seems to only be one answer. We seek happiness for the sake of being happy and that is the ultimate goal for humanity according to Aristotle. Aristotle then points out some definitions of  happiness. The one who lives the whataburger life or the feeding of one's  desires is what Aristotle calls a beast. A beast has no rational and is therefore a slave to its desires but humanity is capable of making rational decisions which is what separates us from the beasts. Aristotle then mentions that those who seek honor cannot be truly happy because honor is dependent to the opinion of others.He also describes that those who associate virtue with happiness can live a virtuous life but also experience tremendous mishaps.Finally, Aristotle explains that to be truly happy one must perform one's function well. To do this, rational decisions that seek virtue are what makes a man happy.

I agree with Aristotle on his view of virtue. It is something that we acquire through life experiences and our rational decisions. It is not something that is within us from birth, it is habit that determines our character. Virtue is also determined by reaching a mean and that mean is different for every individual and every individual's experience. I agree, Kendall gave a nice example in class. If you see the Syrian refugee crises and become enveloped in anger it is not virtuous. As well as if you do not react with certain amounts of anger that would lead to a resolution. It is all about the right amount of the opposing virtue with its vice.

 I disagree with his views on what a person is responsible for. That is encompassed by voluntary actions and involuntary actions. If actions are done involuntarily then he claims they do not belong in the field of ethics. I believe that if a person creates a habit of immoral decisions then those actions that then emerge involuntarily are to my opinion his responsibility. I might have read it differently though. He then goes to say that those actions that are done voluntary do carry moral responsibility and also the consequences of those actions. I also disagree to slight extent,  I believe that someone who is taught immoral  actions is going to execute them thinking that they are for the good, but the responsibility lies on the teacher of those incorrect virtues.

Book X

In Book X of The Republic,Socrates banishes all artists from his ideal state. Socrates tells Glaucon that artists only get close to a representation of the truth and therefore pulling the observers of their works into the world of becoming. I like the example of the table that Socrates portrays, it was clear to understand his point of view. Socrates explains that a true table is the idea of a table and therefore a physical representation of one is not the truth. However, even more separated from the truth is the painting of a table whose image is only portraying physical tables. I understand that Socrates is trying to point out that art is far from reality, but I do not see why that is necessarily a bad thing. Socrates believes it can corrupt the minds of ignorant people who might know nothing of what the painting  is portraying. Artistic work is not an aim of reality and that is why is not corruptive. If the intention of art was to educate in all matter, then art should be limited to only truthful representations, but since art is not that, it is open to illustrate anything and encourage imagination. Along with artists, Socrates bans poets too. Like a painting, the work of poets are only imitations of imitations. Socrates critiques Homer for portraying virtuous actions in his stories because for Socrates, Homer does not know these virtuous actions, he is only portraying them. I disagree with Socrates in that Homer's depictions of virtue can't be useful,  because I believe that through his stories of glorious battles and mighty characters many have been encouraged to be as courageous as some of the men in the stories.

VIII

In book VIII of Plato’s Republic, Plato describes the four unjust states. Plato predicts that the first unjust state, Timocracy, is a natural consequence from the ideal state, and is then followed by the other three unjust states, Oligarchy, Democracy, and Tyranny. 

Plato’s prediction lies in a basis of logic that man will want what is perceived as good, but then this good will corrupt him. For example, a Timocracy forms because in an ideal state the good man has honor and pride. However, when this becomes man’s fixation, it corrupts him and the state develops into a Timocracy. This logic continues because as the ambitious and proud acquire money, the poor associate money with success and then become obsessed with riches. This obsession with money develops into an Oligarchy, in which there is a class division because of money which leads to criminals. As this distinction in classes intensifies, the poor become greater in number until they successfully revolt and for the next unjust state: Democracy. A Democracy, in which there is supposed to be equality, leads to abuse of freedom and intolerance of authority. A tyranny forms when a member of the state takes advantage of the state and collects all the power of authority for himself. He further worsens the state by eliminating any possible threats- the most intelligent and strong of the state. 

Plato recognizes that man is not perfect. On the contrary, man is constantly being motivated by desire of what he does not have. We can see how Plato’s predications resemble real life throughout history. Not a single country or state in the world has remained peaceful throughout all of recorded history. This is because man is full of desires. For example, some of the history’s most famous tyrants, such as Adolf Hitler, rose from a distressed community that was easy to take advantage of. Furthermore, to remain tyrant, he had to cause turmoil and war in order to distract the people and keep control. Though in real life states do not necessarily always pass from one unlawful state to the next in order, all of Plato’s unlawful states have been exemplified throughout the world various times, including the present.

Book VII

Rob's explanation of the divided line was very good, I liked all the distinctions that were made between becoming and being. What was amazing for me to realize is that I truly believe that if an instance like the one in the allegory of the cave was real, then the prisoners would see the shadows and perceive them as being as real as the way I view the world. 

This got me thinking that I too, could be living in shadows and I think that is exactly what Plato wants the reader to do, to transcend. Like mentioned in class, maybe our chains are not physical but simply a creation of our own world or our own self. Religion and our view of morality are among many reasons why we cannot leave the cave. If one is too busy then time to philosophize is not present and all we do is keep guessing at the next shadow. Our own religion may have predisposed us to a single minded view of our perception of good, but in reality has only shackled us. We grow and we are taught what morality is, however, it seems that it is something that is always passed down from our parents or another father figure, even religion. Life does not seem to allow for an independent development of morality in this manner. Our parents and religions seem like the puppeteers from the cave. They could be teaching us the good or what they think the good is, but it is up to us to philosophize on our experiences and knowledge to find the real good.

Book 6

In book VI of Plato’s republic, Socrates discusses how philosophers are viewed by society. He argues that philosophers are essentially the greatest truth seekers and so their soul is just. This unique quality, in Socrates’ opinion, is a distinctive point that makes philosophers the most fit people to govern societies. However, people do not possess the knowledge to understand philosophers and have other priorities. Instead of guiding people to seek truth and knowledge, public opinion motivates people are expected and motivated to obtain money. With this priority, obtaining virtue becomes secondary.

Socrates defines virtue as civic-which is common among the people, and intellectual, which is exclusive to philosophers and their search for knowledge.

Socrates discusses the meaning of good for different people- for some it is highest pleasure, for others it is knowledge. Socrates divides the form of the good into the physical realm, which includes objects and their images, and the intelligible realm, which is mathematics, definitions, and then the actual entities of these things. Socrates debates that abstract concepts are independent of physical phenomena. Other philosophers argue that abstract concept are a result of physical phenomena and cannot exist independently. 

Book 5

I appreciated Socrates’ views on woman’s rights, the idea that women should have education and be brought up like men, means a more just society. However, when he introduced the idea of the common wife and children I was not convinced.

I understand that Socrates wants a sense of unity in creating a city that shares partners and the children, but I believe this is counter productive. Not knowing that the person across the street might be a close relative encourages the people to treat one another like family because there will always exist a possibility in their minds that that stranger could be a son or a brother to them. This might reduce conflict and crime but at the same time it creates uncertainty. If might detach people due to a lack of a close family. They might hold back from doing harm to others, but at the same time they are more likely than not to treat one another indifferently for the same reason that they might not do harm. Instead of thinking that they might be a relative they can think to themselves that more likely than not they are not a relative and therefore hold back from being helpful and cooperative. Instead of creating a society that is more united, this will create a detached society that might turn to seek desires and stray from patriotism.

It is an extreme censorship, to be denied knowing the identity of your kin. It will certainly encourage the people to rebel or to become systematic and less passionate. Either way the outcome to reach a unified society will not be reached. Keep woman’s rights Socrates, but censorship and polygamy is not the way to go.

The Noble Lie

 Socrates presents us with the noble lie which is conflicting to me and to all the readers that know how valuable truth is to him. By structuring the state and assigning predestined "metals" to the citizens, he is not just lying to them but is also establishing a functioning structure. As mentioned in class, the question of plainly stating this structure as a lie is interesting. Why would he purposely be so direct in addressing this? But the adjective in this lie is what I think is the most important. It is not just a lie, it is a noble one. To me, this suggests that one way or another this is ultimately for the purpose of bringing about a positive effect on the state, regardless of it being truthful or not. Despite the negative aspects that his caste structure entails, such as censorship, it brings clarification to individuals who are seeking their role on the world and creates a type of unity and functionality because there is less questions to be made: "I'll achieve my role here as low metal and do it right, because I know I can never become gold, simply because it is impossible." I still believe that the ultimate goal of Socrates is to find the truth, and even within this lie his true purpose is ultimate truth. He might think that the truth cannot be reached In a dysfunctional state, and that the purpose of the noble lie is one of a stepping stone to something greater.

Book 4

Soctates primarily discusses balance within the state and its similarity to balance within the individual.
Socrates emphasizes that the distinction between classes is essential, especially that each class follows its specific role without rebellion. Socrates exclusively associates characteristics of the state to specific classes; The leader’s wiseness defines the state’s wiseness; the soldiers courage defines the state’s courage. Other classes do not contribute to these characteristics because it is not within their role. Soctates defines the courage of the state as true opinion about real danger, such as dishonor, shame and defeat. This courage was designated to soldiers who did not fear battle.
Another attribute of the state is temperance. Temperance is generally defined as the agreement of naturally superior and inferior in their right to rule. This strength of logic over temptation allows for the ideal state to function smoothly with an uneven power scale. In the ideal state, individuals accept their roles because it is what is just. In a state of justice, a leader rules, a soldier fights, and a laborer produces. The sense of justice prevents any need for rebellion.
The just man is similar to the state in that its three parts, the rational, irrational, and spirit, remain within their confined roles. The spirit of the just man supports the rational part of the man, which governs all three parts. Socrates highlights the importance of this relationship between the parts of man by stating that if the parts do not work in such a way, then man suffers.

­­­The Sophists

The sophists are expert rhetoricians, which in exchange for money are willing to teach anyone about knowledge and the art of speaking. I can see how this is both a pro and a con. Because wisdom comes with a price for sophists, anybody with the money is able to learn what was before limited to a couple of individuals. While this creates more opportunity, it also completely excludes the opportunity for someone without money to learn. This is similar to today’s educational system, not everyone can afford college. I liked the Idea of the two mutually correct arguments that Protagoras proposes of false and truth. In contrast to the ideas of the past pre-Socratics, I liked that he was able to take an argument and be able to explain the rational between the two sides, explaining why they are both ultimately correct.  Although I generally think that there is one truth, I understand that as an expert rhetorician, Protagoras is able to explain and arrange words differently in order to make two opposing yet reasonable views, and that expertise is what I find interesting.

The Atomists

The conclusion of the Atomists that everything is made of atoms of different shapes that are infinitely small and cannot be divided is astonishing because it comes close to the idea of the modern atomic theory. What I liked about he idea of the Atomists is the idea of the void, in contrast to Parmenides' idea of the what is not, the void is not something unthinkable. For Parmenides the what is not, can't be reached and can't be pondered upon and it almost seems pointless, but the Atomists define te void as the space between atoms and a space that could be filled with atoms. This interaction makes sense because if the cosmos had no void, then space would not exist as well as what we can call relativity. Because there is room for atoms to move and interact the cosmos is ever changing due to the infinite number of atoms. It troubles me to think that the void itself is infinite because then every space between atoms is infinite. Like watching my computer screen now, there is atoms between my computer and my eyes and there is the space between those atoms which is infinite, so how is it possible that I can see through so many and possibly infinite accounts of infinity?

Empedocles

Empedocles believes the cosmos to be guided by love and strife. There is a clear distinction between him and the material monists. First of, materialism is a result and direct guidance of the force of love and strife and therefore the Arche is not material but instead, intangible things. Those two things seem to be the arche, which might be the interaction between these two elements. Every material and its derivative is the result of the tug and push between love and strife. However, I came to understand that love and strife manage the "roots" or elemets of the cosmos which therefore give rise to everything else, but how were these elements created? Did love and strife give birth to these elements? He seems to to place both the tangible and intangible things as the result of creation as to be able to explain the questions that arise from having one without the other. For if only materialism was the only reality, then many question arise as two what drives the material world. In contrast, if the intangible things are the only reality then what are the materials that we perceive to be. It makes sense to think that he puts these two forces that are infinite as a means to explain the material interactions.