1

SOURCE 1
INTRODUCTION: ARISTOTLES DEFINITION OF HAPPINESS
Happiness depends on ourselves. More than anybody else, Aristotle enshrines happiness as a central purpose of human life
and a goal in itself. As a result he devotes more space to the topic of happiness than any thinker prior to the modern era.
Living during the same period as Mencius, but on the other side of the world, he draws some similar conclusions. That is,
happiness depends on the cultivation of virtue, though his virtues are somewhat more individualistic than the essentially social
virtues of the Confucians. Yet as we shall see, Aristotle was convinced that a genuinely happy life required the fulfillment of a
broad range of conditions, including physical as well as mental well-being. In this way he introduced the idea of a science of
happiness in the classical sense, in terms of a new field of knowledge.
Essentially, Aristotle argues that virtue is achieved by maintaining the Mean, which is the balance between two excesses.
Aristotles doctrine of the Mean is reminiscent of Buddhas Middle Path, but there are intriguing differences. For Aristotle the
mean was a method of achieving virtue, but for Buddha the Middle Path referred to a peaceful way of life which negotiated
the extremes of harsh asceticism and sensual pleasure seeking. The Middle Path was a minimal requirement for the meditative
life, and not the source of virtue in itself.
ARISTOTLE: A LITTLE BACKGROUND
Aristotle (right) and Plato in Raphaels fresco, The School of Athens, in the Apostolic Palace in the Vatican.
Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the history of western science and philosophy, making contributions to logic,
metaphysics, mathematics, physics, biology, botany, ethics, politics, agriculture, medicine, dance and theatre. He was a
student of Plato who in turn studied under Socrates. Although we do not actually possess any of Aristotles own writings
intended for publication, we have volumes of the lecture notes he delivered for his students; through these Aristotle was to
exercise his profound influence through the ages. Indeed, the medieval outlook is sometimes considered to be the
Aristotelian worldview and St. Thomas Aquinas simply refers to Aristotle as The Philosopher as though there were no
other.
Aristotle was the first to classify areas of human knowledge into distinct disciplines such as mathematics, biology, and ethics.
Some of these classifications are still used today, such as the species-genus system taught in biology classes. He was the first
to devise a formal system for reasoning, whereby the validity of an argument is determined by its structure rather than its
content. Consider the following syllogism: All men are mortal; Socrates is a man; therefore, Socrates is mortal. Here we can
see that as long as the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true, no matter what we substitute for men or is
mortal. Aristotles brand of logic dominated this area of thought until the rise of modern symbolic logic in the late 19th
Century.
Aristotle was the founder of the Lyceum, the first scientific institute, based in Athens, Greece. Along with his teacher Plato, he
was one of the strongest advocates of a liberal arts education, which stresses the education of the whole person, including
ones moral character, rather than merely learning a set of skills. According to Aristotle, this view of education is necessary if
we are to produce a society of happy as well as productive individuals.
HAPPINESS AS THE ULTIMATE PURPOSE OF HUMAN EXISTENCE
One of Aristotles most influential works is the Nicomachean Ethics, where he presents a theory of happiness that is still
relevant today, over 2,300 years later. The key question Aristotle seeks to answer in these lectures is What is the ultimate
purpose of human existence? What is that end or goal for which we should direct all of our activities? Everywhere we see
people seeking pleasure, wealth, and a good reputation. But while each of these has some value, none of them can occupy the
place of the chief good for which humanity should aim. To be an ultimate end, an act must be self-sufficient and final, that
which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097a30-34), and it must be
attainable by man. Aristotle claims that nearly everyone would agree that happiness is the end which meets all these
requirements. It is easy enough to see that we desire money, pleasure, and honor only because we believe that these goods
will make us happy. It seems that all other goods are a means towards obtaining happiness, while happiness is always an end
in itself.
The Greek word that usually gets translated as happiness is eudaimonia, and like most translations from ancient languages,
this can be misleading. The main trouble is that happiness (especially in modern America) is often conceived of as a subjective
state of mind, as when one says one is happy when one is enjoying a cool beer on a hot day, or is out having fun with ones
friends. For Aristotle, however, happiness is a final end or goal that encompasses the totality of ones life. It is not something
that can be gained or lost in a few hours, like pleasurable sensations. It is more like the ultimate value of your life as lived up to
this moment, measuring how well you have lived up to your full potential as a human being. For this reason, one cannot really
make any pronouncements about whether one has lived a happy life until it is over, just as we would not say of a football
game that it was a great game at halftime (indeed we know of many such games that turn out to be blowouts or duds). For
the same reason we cannot say that children are happy, any more than we can say that an acorn is a tree, for the potential for
a flourishing human life has not yet been realized. As Aristotle says, for as it is not one swallow or one fine day that makes a
spring, so it is not one day or a short time that makes a man blessed and happy. (Nicomachean Ethics, 1098a18)
THE HIERARCHICAL VIEW OF NATURE
In order to explain human happiness, Aristotle draws on a view of nature he derived from his biological investigations. If we
look at nature, we notice that there are four different kinds of things that exist in the world, each one defined by a different
purpose:
Mineral: rocks, metals and other lifeless things. The only goal which these things seek is to come to a rest. They are beyond
stupid since they are inanimate objects with no soul
Vegetative: plants and other wildlife. Here we see a new kind of thing emerge,something which is alive. Because plants seek
nourishment and growth, they have souls and can be even said to be satisfied when they attain these goals
2

Animal: all the creatures we study as belonging to the animal kingdom. Here we see a higher level of life emerge: animals seek
pleasure and reproduction, and we can talk about a happy or sad dog, for example, to the extent that they are healthy and
lead a pleasant life
Human: what is it that makes human beings different from the rest of the animal kingdom? Aristotle answers: Reason. Only
humans are capable of acting according to principles, and in so doing taking responsibility for their choices. We can blame
Johnny for stealing the candy since he knows it is wrong, but we wouldnt blame an animal since it doesnt know any better.
It seems that our unique function is to reason: by reasoning things out we attain our ends, solve our problems, and hence live
a life that is qualitatively different in kind from plants or animals. The good for a human is different from the good for an
animal because we have different capacities or potentialities. We have a rational capacity and the exercising of this capacity is
thus the perfecting of our natures as human beings. For this reason, pleasure alone cannot constitute human happiness, for
pleasure is what animals seek and human beings have higher capacities than animals. The goal is not to annihilate our physical
urges, however, but rather to channel them in ways that are appropriate to our natures as rational animals.
Thus Aristotle gives us his definition of happiness:
the function of man is to live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and the function of a good man
is the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate
excellence: if this is the case, then happiness turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. (Nicomachean
Ethics, 1098a13)
THE PURSUIT OF HAPPI NESS AS THE EXERCISE OF VIRTUE
In this last quote we can see another important feature of Aristotles theory: the link between the concepts of happiness and
virtue. Aristotle tells us that the most important factor in the effort to achieve happiness is to have a good moral character
what he calls complete virtue. But being virtuous is not a passive state: one must act in accordance with virtue. Nor is it
enough to have a few virtues; rather one must strive to possess all of them. As Aristotle writes,
He is happy who lives in accordance with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods, not for some chance
period but throughout a complete life. (Nicomachean Ethics, 1101a10)
According to Aristotle, happiness consists in achieving, through the course of a whole lifetime, all the goods health, wealth,
knowledge, friends, etc. that lead to the perfection of human nature and to the enrichment of human life. This requires us
to make choices, some of which may be very difficult. Often the lesser good promises immediate pleasure and is more
tempting, while the greater good is painful and requires some sort of sacrifice. For example, it may be easier and more
enjoyable to spend the night watching television, but you know that you will be better off if you spend it researching for your
term paper. Developing a good character requires a strong effort of will to do the right thing, even in difficult situations.
Another example is the taking of drugs, which is becoming more and more of a problem in our society today. For a fairly small
price, one can immediately take ones mind off of ones troubles and experience deep euphoria by popping an oxycontin pill or
snorting some cocaine. Yet, inevitably, this short-term pleasure will lead to longer term pain. A few hours later you may feel
miserable and so need to take the drug again, which leads to a never-ending spiral of need and relief. Addiction inevitably
drains your funds and provides a burden to your friends and family. All of those virtues generosity, temperance, friendship,
courage, etc. that make up the good life appear to be conspicuously absent in a life of drug use.
Aristotle would be strongly critical of the culture of instant gratification which seems to predominate in our society today. In
order to achieve the life of complete virtue, we need to make the right choices, and this involves keeping our eye on the
future, on the ultimate result we want for our lives as a whole. We will not achieve happiness simply by enjoying the pleasures
of the moment. Unfortunately, this is something most people are not able to overcome in themselves. As he laments, the
mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts
(Nicomachean Ethics, 1095b 20). Later in the Ethics Aristotle draws attention to the concept of akrasia, or weakness of the
will. In many cases the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure obscures ones perception of what is truly good.
Fortunately, this natural disposition is curable through training, which for Aristotle meant education and the constant aim to
perfect virtue. As he puts it, a clumsy archer may indeed get better with practice, so long as he keeps aiming for the target.
Note also that it is not enough to think about doing the right thing, or even intend to do the right thing: we have to
actually do it. Thus, it is one thing to think of writing the great American novel, another to actually write it. When we impose a
form and order upon all those letters to actually produce a compelling story or essay, we are manifesting our rational
potential, and the result of that is a sense of deep fulfillment. Or to take another example, when we exercise our citizenship by
voting, we are manifesting our rational potential in yet another way, by taking responsibility for our community. There are
myriad ways in which we can exercise our latent virtue in this way, and it would seem that the fullest attainment of human
happiness would be one which brought all these ways together in a comprehensive rational life-plan.
There is yet another activity few people engage in which is required to live a truly happy life, according to Aristotle: intellectual
contemplation. Since our nature is to be rational, the ultimate perfection of our natures is rational reflection. This means
having an intellectual curiosity which perpetuates that natural wonder to know which begins in childhood but seems to be
stamped out soon thereafter. For Aristotle, education should be about the cultivation of character, and this involves a practical
and a theoretical component. The practical component is the acquisition of a moral character, as discussed above. The
theoretical component is the making of a philosopher. Here there is no tangible reward, but the critical questioning of things
raises our minds above the realm of nature and closer to the abode of the gods.
FRIENDSHIP
For Aristotle, friendship is one of the most important virtues in achieving the goal of eudaimonia (happiness). While there are
different kinds of friendship, the highest is one that is based on virtue (arte). This type of friendship is based on a person
wishing the best for their friends regardless of utility or pleasure. Aristotle calls it a complete sort of friendship between
people who are good and alike in virtue (Nicomachean Ethics, 1156b07-08). This type of friendship is long lasting and tough
3

to obtain because these types of people are hard to come by and it takes a lot of work to have a complete, virtuous friendship.
Aristotle notes that one cannot have a large number of friends because of the amount of time and care that a virtuous
friendship requires. Aristotle values friendship so highly that he argues friendship supersedes justice and honor. First of all,
friendship seems to be so valued by people that no one would choose to live without friends. People who value honor will
likely seek out either flattery or those who have more power than they do, in order that they may obtain personal gain
through these relationships. Aristotle believes that the love of friendship is greater than this because it can be enjoyed as it is.
Being loved, however, people enjoy for its own sake, and for this reason it would seem it is something better than being
honoured and that friendship is chosen for its own sake (Nicomachean Ethics, 1159a25-28). The emphasis on enjoyment here
is noteworthy: a virtuous friendship is one that is most enjoyable since it combines pleasure and virtue together, thus fulfilling
our emotional and intellectual natures.
THE GOLDEN MEAN
Aristotles ethics is sometimes referred to as virtue ethics since its focus is not on the moral weight of duties or obligations,
but on the development of character and the acquiring of virtues such as courage, justice, temperance, benevolence, and
prudence. And anyone who knows anything about Aristotle has heard his doctrine of virtue as being a golden mean between
the extremes of excess and deficiency. Courage, for example, is a mean regarding the feeling of fear, between the deficiency
of rashness (too little fear) and the excess of cowardice (too much fear). Justice is a mean between getting or giving too much
and getting or giving too little. Benevolence is a mean between giving to people who dont deserve it and not giving to anyone
at all. Aristotle is not recommending that one should be moderate in all things, since one should at all times exercise the
virtues. One cant reason I should be cruel to my neighbor now since I was too nice to him before. The mean is a mean
between two vices, and not simply a mean between too much and too little.
Furthermore, the mean is relative to ourselves, indicating that one persons mean may be another persons extreme. Milo
the wrestler, as Aristotle puts it, needs more gruel than a normal person, and his mean diet will vary accordingly. Similarly for
the moral virtues. Aristotle suggests that some people are born with weaker wills than others; for these people, it may actually
be a mean to flee in battle (the extremes being to get slaughtered or commit suicide). Here we see the flexibility in Aristotles
account: as soon as he begins to lay down some moral rules, he relaxes them in order to take into consideration the variety
and contingency of particular temperaments.
Aristotles doctrine of the mean is well in keeping with ancient ways of thinking which conceived of justice as a state of
equilibrium between opposing forces. In the early cosmologies, the Universe is stabilized as a result of the reconciliation
between the opposing forces of Chaos and Order. The Greek philosopher Heraclitus conceived of right living as acting in
accordance with the Logos, the principle of the harmony of opposites; and Plato defined justice in the soul as the proper
balance among its parts. Like Plato, Aristotle thought of the virtuous character along the lines of a healthy body. According to
the prevailing medical theory of his day, health in the body consists of an appropriate balance between the opposing qualities
of hot, cold, the dry, and the moist. The goal of the physician is to produce a proper balance among these elements, by
specifying the appropriate training and diet regimen, which will of course be different for every person.
Similarly with health in the soul: exhibiting too much passion may lead to reckless acts of anger or violence which will be
injurious to ones mental well-being as well as to others; but not showing any passion is a denial of ones human nature and
results in the sickly qualities of morbidity, dullness, and antisocial behavior. The healthy path is the middle path, though
remember it is not exactly the middle, given that people who are born with extremely passionate natures will have a different
mean than those with sullen, dispassionate natures. Aristotle concludes that goodness of character is a settled condition of
the soul which wills or chooses the mean relatively to ourselves, this mean being determined by a rule or whatever we like to
call that by which the wise man determines it. (Nicomachean Ethics, 1006b36)
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, according to Aristotle, what is happiness?
Happiness is the ultimate end and purpose of human existence
Happiness is not pleasure, nor is it virtue. It is the exercise of virtue.
Happiness cannot be achieved until the end of ones life. Hence it is a goal and not a temporary state.
Happiness is the perfection of human nature. Since man is a rational animal, human happiness depends on the
exercise of his reason.
Happiness depends on acquiring a moral character, where one displays the virtues of courage, generosity, justice,
friendship, and citizenship in ones life. These virtues involve striking a balance or mean between an excess and a deficiency.
Happiness requires intellectual contemplation, for this is the ultimate realization of our rational capacities.
http://www.pursuit-of-happiness.org/history-of-happiness/aristotle/


SOURCE 2:
Aristotle: Ethics and the Virtues
The Goal of Ethics
Aristotle applied the same patient, careful, descriptive approach to his examination of moral philosophy in the
(Nicomachean Ethics). Here he discussed the conditions under which moral responsibility may be ascribed to
individual agents, the nature of the virtues and vices involved in moral evaluation, and the methods of achieving happiness in
4

human life. The central issue for Aristotle is the question of character or personality what does it take for an individual
human being to be a good person?
Every activity has a final cause, the good at which it aims, and Aristotle argued that since there cannot be an infinite regress of
merely extrinsic goods, there must be a highest good at which all human activity ultimately aims. (Nic. Ethics I 2) This end of
human life could be called happiness (or living well), of course, but what is it really? Neither the ordinary notions of pleasure,
wealth, and honor nor the philosophical theory of forms provide an adequate account of this ultimate goal, since even
individuals who acquire the material goods or achieve intellectual knowledge may not be happy.
According to Aristotle, things of any variety have a characteristic function that they are properly used to perform. The good for
human beings, then, must essentially involve the entire proper function of human life as a whole, and this must be an activity
of the soul that expresses genuine virtue or excellence. (Nic. EthicsI 7) Thus, human beings should aim at a life in full
conformity with their rational natures; for this, the satisfaction of desires and the acquisition of material goods are less
important than the achievement ofvirtue. A happy person will exhibit a personality appropriately balanced between reasons
and desires, withmoderation characterizing all. In this sense, at least, "virtue is its own reward." True happiness can therefore
be attained only through the cultivation of the virtues that make a human life complete.
The Nature of Virtue
Ethics is not merely a theoretical study for Aristotle. Unlike any intellectual capacity, virtues of character are dispositions to act
in certain ways in response to similar situations, the habits of behaving in a certain way. Thus, good conduct arises from habits
that in turn can only be acquired by repeated action and correction, making ethics an intensely practical discipline.
Each of the virtues is a state of being that naturally seeks its mean {Gk. *mesos]} relative to us. According to Aristotle,
the virtuous habit of action is always an intermediate state between the opposed vices of excess and deficiency: too much and
too little are always wrong; the right kind of action always lies in the mean. (Nic. Ethics II 6) Thus, for example:
with respect to acting in the face of danger,
courage {Gk. *andreia+} is a mean between
the excess of rashness and the deficiency of cowardice;

with respect to the enjoyment of pleasures,
temperance {Gk. *sophrosn+} is a mean between
the excess of intemperance and the deficiency of insensibility;

with respect to spending money,
generosity is a mean between
the excess of wastefulness and the deficiency of stinginess;

with respect to relations with strangers,
being friendly is a mean between
the excess of being ingratiating and the deficiency of being surly; and

with respect to self-esteem,
magnanimity {Gk. &alpha *megalopsychia]} is a mean between
the excess of vanity and the deficiency of pusillanimity.
Notice that the application of this theory of virtue requires a great deal of flexibility: friendliness is closer to its excess than to
its deficiency, while few human beings are naturally inclined to undervalue pleasure, so it is not unusual to overlook or ignore
one of the extremes in each of these instances and simply to regard the virtue as the opposite of the other vice.
Although the analysis may be complicated or awkward in some instances, the general plan of Aristotle's ethical doctrine is
clear: avoid extremes of all sorts and seek moderation in all things. Not bad advice, surely. Some version of this general
approach dominated Western culture for many centuries.
Voluntary Action
Because ethics is a practical rather than a theoretical science, Aristotle also gave careful consideration to the aspects of human
nature involved in acting and accepting moral responsibility. Moral evaluation of an action presupposes the attribution of
responsibility to a human agent. But in certain circumstances, this attribution would not be appropriate. Responsible action
must be undertaken voluntarily, on Aristotle's view, and human actions are involuntary under two distinct conditions: (Nic.
Ethics III 1)
First, actions that are produced by some external force (or, perhaps, under an extreme duress from outside the agent) are
taken involuntarily, and the agent is not responsible for them. Thus, if someone grabs my arm and uses it to strike a third
person, I cannot reasonably be blamed (or praised) morally for what my arm has done.
Second, actions performed out of ignorance are also involuntary. Thus, if I swing my arm for exercise and strike the third party
who (unbeknownst to me) is standing nearby, then again I cannot be held responsible for having struck that person. Notice
5

that the sort of ignorance Aristotle is willing to regard as exculpatory is always of lack of awareness of relevant particulars.
Striking other people while claiming to be ignorant of the moral rule under which it is wrong to do so would not provide any
excuse on his view.
As we'll soon see, decisions to act voluntarily rely upon deliberation about the choice among alternative actions that the
individual could perform. During the deliberative process, individual actions are evaluated in light of the good, and the best
among them is then chosen for implementation. Under these conditions, Aristotle supposed, moral actions are within our
power to perform or avoid; hence, we can reasonably be held responsible for them and their consequences. Just as with
health of the body, virtue of the soul is a habit that can be acquired (at least in part) as the result of our own choices.
Deliberate Choice
Although the virtues are habits of acting or dispositions to act in certain ways, Aristotle maintained that these habits are
acquired by engaging in proper conduct on specific occasions and that doing so requires thinking about what one does in a
specific way. Neither demonstrative knowledge of the sort employed in science nor aesthetic judgment of the sort applied in
crafts are relevant to morality. The understanding{Gk. *dinoia+} can only explore the nature of origins of things, on
Aristotle's view, and wisdom{Gk. *sopha+} can only trace the demonstratable connections among them.
But there is a distinctive mode of thinking that does provide adequately for morality, according to Aristotle: practical
intelligence or prudence {Gk. *phrnsis+}. This faculty alone comprehends the true character of individual and
community welfare and applies its results to the guidance of human action. Acting rightly, then, involves coordinating our
desires with correct thoughts about the correct goals or ends.
This is the function of deliberative reasoning: to consider each of the many actions that are within one's power to perform,
considering the extent to which each of them would contribute to the achievement of the appropriate goal or end, making a
deliberate choice to act in the way that best fits that end, and then voluntarily engaging in the action itself. (Nic. Ethics III 3)
Although virtue is different from intelligence, then, the acquisition of virtue relies heavily upon the exercise of that
intelligence.
Weakness of the Will
But doing the right thing is not always so simple, even though few people deliberately choose to develop vicious
habits. Aristotle sharply disagreed with Socrates's belief that knowing what is right always results in doing it. The great enemy
of moral conduct, on Aristotle's view, is precisely the failure to behave well even on those occasions when one's deliberation
has resulted in clear knowledge of what is right.
Incontinent agents suffer from a sort of weakness of the will {Gk. *akrsia+} that prevents them from carrying out
actions in conformity with what they have reasoned. (Nic. Ethics VII 1) This may appear to be a simple failure of intelligence,
Aristotle acknowledged, since the akratic individual seems not to draw the appropriate connection between the general moral
rule and the particular case to which it applies. Somehow, the overwhelming prospect of some great pleasure seems to
obscure one's perception of what is truly good. But this difficulty, Aristotle held, need not be fatal to the achievement of
virtue.
Although incontinence is not heroically moral, neither is it truly vicious. Consider the difference between an incontinent
person, who knows what is right and aims for it but is sometimes overcome by pleasure, and an intemperate person, who
purposefully seeks excessive pleasure. Aristotle argued that the vice of intemperance is incurable because it destroys the
principle of the related virtue, while incontinence is curable because respect for virtue remains. (Nic. Ethics VII 8) A clumsy
archer may get better with practice, while a skilled archer who chooses not to aim for the target will not.
Friendship
In a particularly influential section of the Ethics, Aristotle considered the role of human relationships in general and friendship
{Gk. *philia+} in particular as a vital element in the good life.
For without friends no one would choose to live, though he had all other goods.
Differentiating between the aims or goals of each, he distinguished three kinds of friendships that we commonly form. (Nic.
Ethics VIII 3)
A friendship for pleasure comes into being when two people discover that they have common interest in an activity which they
can pursue together. Their reciprocal participation in that activity results in greater pleasure for each than either could achieve
by acting alone. Thus, for example, two people who enjoy playing tennis might derive pleasure from playing each other. Such a
relationship lasts only so long as the pleasure continues.
A friendship grounded on utility, on the other hand, comes into being when two people can benefit in some way by engaging
in coordinated activity. In this case, the focus is on what use the two can derive from each other, rather than on any
enjoyment they might have. Thus, for example, one person might teach another to play tennis for a fee: the one benefits by
learning and the other benefits financially; their relationship is based solely on the mutual utility. A relationship of this sort
lasts only so long as its utility.
6

A friendship for the good, however, comes into being when two people engage in common activities solely for the sake of
developing the overall goodness of the other. Here, neither pleasure nor utility are relevant, but the good is. (Nic. Ethics VIII 4)
Thus, for example, two people with heart disease might play tennis with each other for the sake of the exercise that
contributes to the overall health of both. Since the good is never wholly realized, a friendship of this sort should, in principle,
last forever.
Rather conservatively representing his own culture, Aristotle expressed some rather peculiar notions about the likelihood of
forming friendships of these distinct varieties among people of different ages and genders. But the general description has
some value nevertheless, especially in its focus on reciprocity. Mixed friendshipsthose in which one party is seeking one
payoff while the other seeks a different oneare inherently unstable and prone to dissatisfaction.
Achieving Happiness
Aristotle rounded off his discussion of ethical living with a more detailed description of the achievement of true happiness.
Pleasure is not a good in itself, he argued, since it is by its nature incomplete. But worthwhile activities are often associated
with their own distinctive pleasures. Hence, we are rightly guided in life by our natural preference for engaging in pleasant
activities rather than in unpleasant ones.
Genuine happiness lies in action that leads to virtue, since this alone provides true value and not just amusement. Thus,
Aristotle held that contemplation is the highest form of moral activity because it is continuous, pleasant, self-sufficient, and
complete. (Nic. Ethics X 8) In intellectual activity, human beings most nearly approach divine blessedness, while realizing all of
the genuine human virtues as well.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2s.htm


SOURCE 3
Aristotle

The notion of virtue as excellent suggested by Socrates and developed by Plato was refined and extended by Aristotle. Like
those two, he held that it is the soul of the person that is virtuous, and it is so by virtue of attaining "the good for man as
such." That is, the virtuous man achieves a good which is not subordinate to any other good; other goods are subordinate to it.
Health, for example is a good, but it is not the good of man as such. It only contributes to that good.
So what is the good of man as such? Aristotle notes that we all agree that it is "happiness." Note that the Greek term
eudaemonia, which is translated as "happiness," does not mean what we normally associate with the English word. In
Aristotle's terms, eudaemonia is "living well and faring well." This is quite different from the feeling of well-being that we think
of as constituting happiness. Recent scholarly translations use the phrase "human flourishing" instead. I will continue to use
'happiness' as does the text.
Agreeing on happiness as the good of man as such hardly solves the question, since it is really only an agreement to use the
same word. What is happiness? Some say pleasure, others honor, and still others wealth. Aristotle found each of these
inadequate to the notion of the good of man as such. Pleasure is the goal of the base, not the noble human being. Honor is
bestowed by others. The good should be something "of one's own." In general, the good should be conceived as something
which is desirable in itself alone. Wealth fails to meet this criterion. One who is wealthy but cannot use the money, or is beset
by others to give it away, is not happy. Aristotle believed that the good for man is something self-sufficient, not dependent on
anything else. So merely being wealthy is not something which by itself is desirable.
Happiness is what we seek when acting. When we act, we carry out a function of the soul. Happiness is the excellent exercise
of the functions of the soul. So the good is "the activity of the soul in conformity with excellence." There are some
qualifications on this. First, happiness needs a sort of prosperity, external things such as good looks and good children. Second,
it is a condition of a person over a lifetime, not at one specific time.
The good for the human being as such, according to Aristotle, is happiness or flourishing (eudaemonia). Happiness has two
components, which might be called external and internal. External goods such as an attractive appearance, wealth, etc. are
the less important aspects of happiness. Indeed, the highest form of happiness (found in contemplation, discussed in Book X)
is that which requires the minimum of external goods. The internal component is the excellence of the soul, and it is to this
that we now turn.
Aristotle considered the human being to have three faculties. The vegetative faculty is what we share with all living thing, and
it cannot be the seat of distinctively human excellence. Reason, which is characteristic of human beings, is not involved in
processes such as digestion. The appetitive faculty is shared by animals, who have various passions such as anger. The
rationality distinctive of humans is apparent here, in that the passions can be directed by reason. This use of reason is
practical, in the sense that its use has practical results. My reason may calm my anger, which in turn may serve other ends I
have.
The second kind of use of reason is theoretical. The possession of an intellectual faculty is what is most distinctively human in
us. In fact, in Book X Aristotle stated that it is the divine element of the human soul. Consideration of excellence in the use of
theoretical reason is given in Book X, which will await our discussion of practical reason in Books II and III.
7

There are several questions to be asked of excellence in the use of practical reason. The first is how it is attained. It is not by
nature that we gain control over our passions; nature only gives us the potential to gain control. Young children lack practical
reason, which must be distilled in them by habit.
The next question is how excellence can be attained in the direction of the passions. Here Aristotle raises the typical Greek
model of good health. We attain good health only by avoiding the extremes of excess and deficiency. Too much exercise can
be as harmful as too little; eating too much as bad as eating too little, and so forth. It is the mean between extremes which
best promotes the health of the body.
The passions come in degrees as well. Courage is the mean between fear or cowardliness and over-confidence or rashness.
Liberality (generosity) is the mean between prodigality (excessive lavishness) and meanness (lack of charity). Several other
examples are discussed in section 7 of Book II. It is the excellence of the use of practical reason, then, to attain the mean. An
excellence is what brings something into good condition, and in a human it is what makes a person good and acting well.
A complicating factor is the role of pleasure and pain. Suppose you go to an expensive restaurant and order the finest
champagne to impress your date, charging it to an American Express Card you have not the funds to pay off. Surely this
behavior will be highly pleasurable, but there is a painful price to pay later on. We will have more to say about pleasure and
pain later, but at least it can be said now that pleasure and pain are a kind of wild card, not correlating with excellences.
Reason often has a difficult time finding the mean, due to the often-misleading accompaniment of pleasure or pain.
The excellences are the seat of praise and blame. We do not praise or blame anyone for the passions they have. Anyone can
feel great anger at being wronged, for example. But we can blame a person for not keeping the anger under control. On the
other hand, we praise people for their self-control. The 'self' in 'self-control' implies a voluntariness in action. If a person
becomes less angry as a result of swallowing Prozac, the diminution of anger is not something voluntary.
In general, what is involuntary is what gets its impetus from without. The Prozac put in my drink diminishes my anger in a way
having nothing to do with my reason. Often we do things voluntarily, in this sense, when we have "no choice" to do otherwise,
say when one surrenders one's cash when held up at gun point. Here, Aristotle says that in a sense the action is involuntary, in
that we are motivated by consequences no one would choose to suffer. When such circumstances arise, we tend to forgive
people who would otherwise be blameworthy.
The final question arising about excellence in practical reasoning is the manner in which it takes place. We make choices based
on deliberation. Aristotle believed that deliberation concerns what contributes best to given ends. It is not the choosing of
"noble" ends themselves, but recognizing the means best to accomplish those ends, which constitutes excellence in the
exercise of self-control. Thus to save the country from invasion is an end Aristotle would consider as noble. One exerts
mastery of fear in order to act courageously in fighting to defend the motherland.
This way of understanding practical reason differs greatly from accounts which emphasize consequences. The excellent person
for Aristotle is one who cultivates a certain kind of character. Happiness for the most part consists in the achievement of
certain habits which generally promote noble ends. For example, a hedonist believes that one ought to pursue pleasure. On
Aristotle's view, this is simply self-indulgence which does not require mastery of the passions in order to achieve the
temperament that allows the accomplishment of noble deeds. The utilitarian believes that one should do what produces the
maximum of pleasure and minimizes pain overall. But aside from the essential emphasis on pleasure and pain, this view also
differs from Aristotle's in that it places all the emphasis on the actual outcome of given actions, not the building of a character
that will behave nobly.
Now I will turn to the question of what constitutes the highest excellence of human reason, which is purely intellectual.
Reason here is not practical but theoretical, and has nothing to do with the passions which constitute the animal side of our
composite nature. Instead, the exercise of theoretical reason is something divine, and its objects, which are eternal, are the
best of objects. Further, purely intellectual activity satisfies Aristotle's requirement that the good for man as such be self-
sufficient. It requires nothing else for its achievement and is not a means to any other end (thus distinguishing it from practical
reason). External things are of little import here: living the contemplative life requires few resources.
Few people attain this state of excellence, which is not natural for the human animal. Pleasures of the flesh deter us from
undertaking the rigors of intellectual training. The passions stand in the way, demanding our attention. The only way people
can attain to this highest form of life is through training beginning at an early age. If they acquire the habit of contemplation,
they will attain the highest form of pleasure.
The vision of the good we have developed from Socrates through Plato and Aristotle has certain apparent weaknesses when
viewed from a distance. Recall that the good life for Aristotle is acting excellently while in possession of the certain external
goods. Acting excellently means practicing the moral virtues, and the intellectual virtues. The medievals classified the moral
virtues as these: prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance. Each is a form of mastery of reason over the passions.
Intellectual virtue is to be found in pure theoretical contemplation, divorced from the practical matters of life.
One question that comes immediately to mind is what significance this vision has for those lacking in the external
accompaniments of the good life or for those not in a position to practice intellectual virtue. Is Aristotle's ethics for the elite
only? Does it have any meaning in a society that is not stable, well-fed, of high cultural attainment, and so forth?
Aristotle has also been criticized for promoting an essentially selfish practice, contemplation, as the highest activity. Scholars
argue about this point, but it seems that social activity takes a back seat to the solitary activity of contemplation.
http://hume.ucdavis.edu/mattey/phi001/arietlec.htm



8



BIBLIOGRAPHY
cient Greek philosopher Aristotle was born circa 384 B.C. in Stagira, Greece. When he turned 17, he enrolled in Platos
Academy. In 338, he began tutoring Alexander the Great. In 335, Aristotle founded his own school, the Lyceum, in Athens,
where he spent most of the rest of his life studying, teaching and writing. Aristotle died in 322 B.C., after he left Athens and
fled to Chalcis.
Early Life
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle was born circa 384 B.C. in Stagira, a small town on the northern coast of Greece that was
once a seaport. Aristotles father, Nicomachus, was court physician to the Macedonian king Amyntas II. Although Nicomachus
died when Aristotle was just a young boy, Aristotle remained closely affiliated with and influenced by the Macedonian court
for the rest of his life. Little is known about his mother, Phaestis; she is also believed to have died when Aristotle was young.
After Aristotles father died, Proxenus of Atarneus, who was married to Aristotles older sister, Arimneste, became Aristotles
guardian until he came of age. When Aristotle turned 17, Proxenus sent him to Athens to pursue a higher education. At the
time, Athens was considered the academic center of the universe. In Athens, Aristotle enrolled in Platos Academy, Greeks
premier learning institution, and proved an exemplary scholar. Aristotle maintained a relationship with Greek philosopher
Plato, himself a student of Socrates, and his academy for two decades. Plato died in 347 B.C. Because Aristotle had disagreed
with some of Platos philosophical treatises, Aristotle did not inherit the position of director of the academy, as many imagined
he would.

After Plato died, Aristotles friend Hermias, king of Atarneus and Assos in Mysia, invited Aristotle to court. During his three-
year stay in Mysia, Aristotle met and married his first wife, Pythias, Hermias niece. Together, the couple had a daughter,
Pythias, named after her mother.
Teaching
In 338 B.C., Aristotle went home to Macedonia to start tutoring King Phillip IIs son, the then 13-year-old Alexander the Great.
Phillip and Alexander both held Aristotle in high esteem and ensured that the Macedonia court generously compensated him
for his work.

In 335 B.C., after Alexander had succeeded his father as king and conquered Athens, Aristotle went back to the city. In
Athens,Platos Academy, now run by Xenocrates, was still the leading influence on Greek thought. With Alexanders
permission, Aristotle started his own school in Athens, called the Lyceum. On and off, Aristotle spent most of the remainder of
his life working as a teacher, researcher and writer at the Lyceum in Athens.

Because Aristotle was known to walk around the school grounds while teaching, his students, forced to follow him, were
nicknamed the Peripatetics, meaning people who travel about. Lyceum members researched subjects ranging from
science and math to philosophy and politics, and nearly everything in between.

Art was also a popular area of interest. Members of the Lyceum wrote up their findings in manuscripts. In so doing, they built
the schools massive collection of written materials, which by ancient accounts was credited as one of the first great libraries.

In the same year that Aristotle opened the Lyceum, his wife Pythias died. Soon after, Aristotle embarked on a romance with a
woman named Herpyllis, who hailed from his hometown of Stagira. According to some historians, Herpyllis may have been
Aristotles slave, granted to him by the Macedonia court. They presume that he eventually freed and married her. Regardless,
it is known that Herpyllis bore Aristotle children, including one son named Nicomachus, after Aristotles father. Aristotle is
believed to have named his famed philosophical work Nicomachean Ethics in tribute to his son.

When Aristotles former student Alexander the Great died suddenly in 323 B.C., the pro-Macedonian government was
overthrown, and in light of anti-Macedonia sentiment, Aristotle was charge with impiety. To avoid being prosecuted, he left
Athens and fled to Chalcis on the island of Euboea, where he would remain until his death.
Science
Although Aristotle was not technically a scientist by todays definitions, science was among the subjects that he researched at
length during his time at the Lyceum. Aristotle believed that knowledge could be obtained through interacting with physical
objects. He concluded that objects were made up of a potential that circumstances then manipulated to determine the
objects outcome. He also recognized that human interpretation and personal associations played a role in our understanding
of those objects.

Aristotles research in the sciences included a study of geology. He attempted, with some error, to classify animals into genera
based on their similar characteristics. He further classified animals into species based on those that had red blood and those
that did not. The animals with red blood were mostly vertebrates, while the bloodless animals were labeled cephalopods.
Despite the relative inaccuracy of his hypothesis, Aristotles classification was regarded as the standard system for hundreds of
years.
9


Marine biology was also an area of fascination for Aristotle. Through dissection, he closely examined the anatomy of marine
creatures. In contrast to his geological classifications, his observations of marine life, as expressed in his books, are
considerably more accurate.

As evidenced in his treatise Meteorology, Aristotle also dabbled in the earth sciences. By meteorology, Aristotle didnt simply
mean the study of weather. His more expansive definition of meteorology included all the affectations we may call common
to air and water, and the kinds and parts of the earth and the affectations of its parts. In Meteorology, Aristotle identified the
water cycle and discussed topics ranging from natural disasters to astrological events. Although many of his views on the Earth
were controversial at the time, they were readopted and popularized during the late Middle Ages.
Philosophy
One of the main focuses of Aristotles philosophy was his systematic concept of logic. Aristotles objective was to come up
with a universal process of reasoning that would allow man to learn every conceivable thing about reality. The initial process
involved describing objects based on their characteristics, states of being and actions. In his philosophical treatises, Aristotle
also discussed how man might next obtain information about objects through deduction and inference. To Aristotle, a
deduction was a reasonable argument in which when certain things are laid down, something else follows out of necessity in
virtue of their being so. His theory of deduction is the basis of what philosophers now call a syllogism, a logical argument
where the conclusion is inferred from two or more other premises of a certain form.

In his book Prior Analytics, Aristotle explains the syllogism as a discourse in which, certain things having been supposed,
something different from the things supposed results of necessity because these things are so. Aristotle defined the main
components of reasoning in terms of inclusive and exclusive relationships. These sorts of relationships were visually grafted in
the future through the use of Venn diagrams.

Aristotles philosophy not only provided man with a system of reasoning, but also touched upon ethics. In Nichomachean
Ethics, he prescribed a moral code of conduct for what he called good living. He asserted that good living to some degree
defied the more restrictive laws of logic, since the real world poses circumstances that can present a conflict of personal
values. That said, it was up to the individual to reason cautiously while developing his or her own judgment.
Major Writings
Aristotle wrote an estimated 200 works, most in the form of notes and manuscript drafts. They consist of dialogues, records of
scientific observations and systematic works. His student Theophrastus reportedly looked after Aristotles writings and later
passed them to his own student Neleus, who stored them in a vault to protect them from moisture until they were taken to
Rome and used by scholars there. Of Aristotles estimated 200 works, only 31 are still in circulation. Most date to Aristotles
time at the Lyceum.

Aristotles major writings on logic include Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics and Posterior Analytics. In them, he
discusses his system for reasoning and for developing sound arguments.

Aristotles written work also discussed the topics of matter and form. In his book Metaphysics, he clarified the distinction
between the two. To Aristotle, matter was the physical substance of things, while form was the unique nature of a thing that
gave it its identity.

Nicomachean Ethics and Eudemian Ethics are Aristotles major treatises on the behavior and judgment that constitute good
living. In Politics, Aristotle examined human behavior in the context of society and government.
Aristotle also composed a number of works on the arts, includingRhetoric, and science, including On the Heavens, which was
followed by On the Soul, in which Aristotle moves from discussing astronomy to examining human psychology. Aristotles
writings about how people perceive the world continue to underlie many principles of modern psychology.
Death and Legacy
In 322 B.C., just a year after he fled to Chalcis to escape prosecution under charges of impiety, Aristotle contracted a disease of
the digestive organs and died. In the century following his passing, his works fell out of use, but were revived during the first
century. Over time, they came to lay the foundation of more than seven centuries of philosophy. Solely regarding his influence
on philosophy, Aristotles work influenced ideas from late antiquity all the way through the Renaissance. Aristotles influence
on Western thought in the humanities and social sciences is largely considered unparalleled, with the exception of his
teacher Platos contributions, and Platos teacher Socrates before him. The two-millennia-strong academic practice of
interpreting and debating Aristotles philosophical works continues to endure.
http://www.biography.com/people/aristotle-9188415?page=1