4 ms·

See, every time I try to enjoy ancient philosophy, I get going and then bump into a comment like this. >Nobody would call a man ideally happy if he has not got

See, every time I try to enjoy ancient philosophy, I get going and then bump into a comment like this. >Nobody would call a man ideally happy if he has not got a particle of courage nor of temperance nor of decency nor of good sense, but is afraid of the flies that flutter by him, cannot refrain from any of the most outrageous actions in order to gratify a desire to eat or to drink, and ruins his dearest friends for the sake of a penny… If Aristotle means that the general lack of these qualities leads to unhappiness than he just needed to have some more profligate friends. I've known cowards, adicts and individuals with terrible practical instincts who were all happy people. If he specifically means the total lack of one of these traits well then no s---. Of course those individuals have a harder time being happy. They're lacking a significant tool the rest of us pack around in tool box for dealing with day to day life. And there's a decent chance they're suffering a debilitating neuroses. In the first case it's naive. In the second it's inane. Obviously Aristotle wasn't an idiot but I find the same flaw among nearly all ancient Greek philosophers. He was retroactively fitting a moral reasoning to his own secular but restrained moral instincts. There's a way of living that felt right to him and he reasoned himself into thinking it was "best". I may be more sympathetic to the Stoics and the Epicureans but I get the same vibe when I read their works.

atmosx 8y ago
You've known addicts who were happy ? What's your definition of happiness? Most addicts I know off, are extremely miserable. I don't know many, just a few, but none of them look even remotely happy to me. They were well aware of their situation and the repugnant feeling that their presence caused to others. They can/could barely stand themselves.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- DubiousPusher 8y ago
  I think you may be confusing addicts with the popular notion of a "junky". But yes, I've known alcoholics, pot heads, pill poppers and a few dope fiends who lead productive fullfilled lives, seem extraordinarily content and actively contribute back to their communities. If those aren't signs of happiness, I don't know what are. Of course I've known many more for whom addiction has been a total disaster. So I'm not recommending it or anything but I don't think it should be a disqualifier for considering one "happy". And yes when I say "happiness" I mean something beyond momentary satisfaction. This just strikes me as more of the same old school dudes conflating control or self discipline with virtue and conflating virtue with happiness (not that they have nothing to do with each other but I'm not sure they're the same things.)
  - keiferski 8y ago
    You are projecting a modern definition of “happiness” onto Aristotle. Think of it instead as “thriving” or “reaching your potential in all aspects of your life.”
    - DubiousPusher 8y ago
      Uh, yes. Cause the premise of this article was why we as modern people we should appreciate Aristotle's reflections on happiness, not why I should appreciate the meticulous perfection of the internal logic of his world view. In my opinion, either Aristotle should've broadened his view of "virtue" or "happiness" to not worry so much about personal weakness or vice. Or his notion of these aren't really worth taking up as a modern measure against one's life.
fmoralesc 8y ago
> I've known cowards, adicts and individuals with terrible practical instincts who were all happy people. Aristotle's retort would be that what you are ascribing as 'happiness' is not what he is talking about. There's a reason he speaks of an 'ideally happy' person. I recommend you to read the section 'The Human Good and the Function Argument' of this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooFunArg https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooF...: > Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. > Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. [...] These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind. > No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being eudaimon is the highest end, and all subordinate goals—health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought because they promote well-being, not because they are what well-being consists in. But unless we can determine which good or goods happiness consists in, it is of little use to acknowledge that it is the highest end. To resolve this issue, Aristotle asks what the ergon (“function,” “task,” “work”) of a human being is, and argues that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
flattone 8y ago
Warning: reddit-esque reply Yeah none of that's is true. Failing to know persons in suffsiciently deep level. Any addict, terrible friend etc who has core faculties in place to reflect on themselves knows what's missing. A person unaware of this can disagree. They could also disagree with climate change and gravity but I believe it's for what progress we have today as a whole... Generally accepted that unhealthy behaviors and "happiness" are at odds. (Please forgive any typos 5am reply here) Specifically @ the last point it's sad to read. I get and have gotten a sense of uptick that the nobody tries to live well for a root cause outside themselves.. and see politically etc how this is a popular behavior. But it.. in my gut-analytical self feels de-evolution-y of our, well of what we could be doing.
0x445442 8y ago
> There's a way of living that felt right to him and he reasoned himself into thinking it was "best" Yep, and this is at the core of C.S. Lewis' work. To me the notion of a base morality contrived by man seems wildly arbitrary. Taking the most obvious case of murder; without some entity or force outside/independent of man exercising judgment for the act I don't see why one would naturally be compelled to submit to this morality. Especially if said morality could be justified in one's mind as impeding on their own well being.
- fjsolwmv 8y ago
  There are many many murderers in the world, who are not naturally compelled to submit to this morality. If everyone naturally submitted, there would no need for Laws or Commandments.
lr4444lr 8y ago
In The Nichomachean Ethics Aristotle wrangles at long length hashing out the difference between pleasure and happiness ("the good"). It's an unfair assessment to lift a quote like that out of context.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  I was NOT prepared to see someone reference Ethics as a rebuttal because that's precisely what I was preparing to do. You have to wade through quite a bit of setup, especially as Aristotle ponders questions of the origins of virtue in book two in order to appreciate the quote from GP. Contextomy and Aristolean philosophy are like oil and water.

atmosx 8y ago

You've known addicts who were happy ? What's your definition of happiness? Most addicts I know off, are extremely miserable. I don't know many, just a few, but none of them look even remotely happy to me. They were well aware of their situation and the repugnant feeling that their presence caused to others. They can/could barely stand themselves.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
DubiousPusher 8y ago
I think you may be confusing addicts with the popular notion of a "junky". But yes, I've known alcoholics, pot heads, pill poppers and a few dope fiends who lead productive fullfilled lives, seem extraordinarily content and actively contribute back to their communities. If those aren't signs of happiness, I don't know what are. Of course I've known many more for whom addiction has been a total disaster. So I'm not recommending it or anything but I don't think it should be a disqualifier for considering one "happy". And yes when I say "happiness" I mean something beyond momentary satisfaction. This just strikes me as more of the same old school dudes conflating control or self discipline with virtue and conflating virtue with happiness (not that they have nothing to do with each other but I'm not sure they're the same things.)
- keiferski 8y ago
  You are projecting a modern definition of “happiness” onto Aristotle. Think of it instead as “thriving” or “reaching your potential in all aspects of your life.”
  - DubiousPusher 8y ago
    Uh, yes. Cause the premise of this article was why we as modern people we should appreciate Aristotle's reflections on happiness, not why I should appreciate the meticulous perfection of the internal logic of his world view. In my opinion, either Aristotle should've broadened his view of "virtue" or "happiness" to not worry so much about personal weakness or vice. Or his notion of these aren't really worth taking up as a modern measure against one's life.

fmoralesc 8y ago

> I've known cowards, adicts and individuals with terrible practical instincts who were all happy people. Aristotle's retort would be that what you are ascribing as 'happiness' is not what he is talking about. There's a reason he speaks of an 'ideally happy' person. I recommend you to read the section 'The Human Good and the Function Argument' of this: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooFunArg https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-ethics/#HumGooF...: > Aristotle's search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics: it is desirable for itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its sake. > Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (“happiness”) and “eu zên” (“living well”) designate such an end. [...] These terms play an evaluative role, and are not simply descriptions of someone's state of mind. > No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being eudaimon is the highest end, and all subordinate goals—health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought because they promote well-being, not because they are what well-being consists in. But unless we can determine which good or goods happiness consists in, it is of little use to acknowledge that it is the highest end. To resolve this issue, Aristotle asks what the ergon (“function,” “task,” “work”) of a human being is, and argues that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in accordance with virtue.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

flattone 8y ago

Warning: reddit-esque reply Yeah none of that's is true. Failing to know persons in suffsiciently deep level. Any addict, terrible friend etc who has core faculties in place to reflect on themselves knows what's missing. A person unaware of this can disagree. They could also disagree with climate change and gravity but I believe it's for what progress we have today as a whole... Generally accepted that unhealthy behaviors and "happiness" are at odds. (Please forgive any typos 5am reply here) Specifically @ the last point it's sad to read. I get and have gotten a sense of uptick that the nobody tries to live well for a root cause outside themselves.. and see politically etc how this is a popular behavior. But it.. in my gut-analytical self feels de-evolution-y of our, well of what we could be doing.

0x445442 8y ago

> There's a way of living that felt right to him and he reasoned himself into thinking it was "best" Yep, and this is at the core of C.S. Lewis' work. To me the notion of a base morality contrived by man seems wildly arbitrary. Taking the most obvious case of murder; without some entity or force outside/independent of man exercising judgment for the act I don't see why one would naturally be compelled to submit to this morality. Especially if said morality could be justified in one's mind as impeding on their own well being.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
There are many many murderers in the world, who are not naturally compelled to submit to this morality. If everyone naturally submitted, there would no need for Laws or Commandments.

lr4444lr 8y ago

In The Nichomachean Ethics Aristotle wrangles at long length hashing out the difference between pleasure and happiness ("the good"). It's an unfair assessment to lift a quote like that out of context.

dvtrn 8y ago
I was NOT prepared to see someone reference Ethics as a rebuttal because that's precisely what I was preparing to do. You have to wade through quite a bit of setup, especially as Aristotle ponders questions of the origins of virtue in book two in order to appreciate the quote from GP. Contextomy and Aristolean philosophy are like oil and water.