Good Artisan = Good Man?

In Chapter 4 of Book II in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says something interesting about the relationship between knowledge and action.

He claims that all that is necessary for the artisan is "the mere knowing." (1105b: 2) But the virtuous man, he must act "knowingly," and have chosen the action "for [its] own sake," and must be "in a stable condition and not able to be moved all the way out of it." (1105a: 32-35)

I am confused about why he thinks there is an actual distinction between what constitutes a good artisan and what constitutes a good man. Does it not make sense to say that an artisan must be just? For he must also be a man, and a businessman at that. Virtue seems requisite for any social behavior to be deemed "good" or "just". Am I missing something crucial about what Aristotle is really saying about this distinction?

The restrained vs. the unrestrained

In our last class, someone brought up the question of whether or not "the restrained" are truly better than the "unrestrained" on the basis that restrained may have not committed a crime but they still harbor the desire to while "the unrestrained" may have committed the offense but feel a deep sense of remorse. While each of us can probably find a situation where this seems true. It seems simple enough to argue that it is not because in the case of "the restrained", no one and nothing but the soul within in the "the restrained" is effected. Furthermore, the guilt that is placed on the soul of "the unrestrained" after a given crime would likely equal or surpass the conflict of "the restrained's" soul. In terms of the reading, it is important to mention that Aristotle would argue this for "the restrained" are an example of a the rational parts of the soul being in control which is key to becoming virtuous. Though this soul is not acting out of virtue, the action is a step towards virtue, likewise much of book two centers on this idea of moral virtue being established by continual practice, further proving the importance of "the restrained" to remain so.

Ill take Business Ethics for $600

Ethics is a very nice change from all of Socrates' forms. It starts with a very nice opener that says good is that at which all things aim. Already im thinking alright, sweet maybe ill figure out what this good is and if i can ever find some somewhere. Aristotle has a nice way of speaking that doesnt seem to dwell on anything for too long, or go off on random notes that usually dont lead anywhere. He says the good of a person is nice, but the good of a city is divine and by nature, political...sounds familiar. Many of the passages are conclusive, which i appreciated. He shows how skewed peoples' views on happiness can be by saying many people have different views on it, and often the same person can have different views on it, as if it is a flucuating thing. We do actually get a good version of happiness and the good. Happiness is virtue-ing. To be happy is to practice whatever virtue sums you as a person. It is an active thing that in essence is somebody performing to their best abilities. Why are their so many unhappy people in the world? Well, its because UPS delivery doesnt require bravery.

Book 10

Book ten begins with Socrates' thoughts on imitation. He uses forms, as usual, for his examples. Couches and chairs are created by couch and chair makers who know the essence of a couch or chair. Ill buy it. He wonders if painters paint what is or what looks. He concludes that a painter's craft is far from truth because he only imitates what something looks like. This brings us to the second conclusion that imitation is far from truth. We then go off on a tangent about Homer and whether he is as near what is, or the truth, as people say. Socrates points out that if Homer were really capable of knowing rather than imitating as the painter does he would have had much more success in his own time. In the middle of book ten he says, "one must accept the fall of the dice and settle one's affairs accordingly." This struck me when i first read it. It goes along fine from the viewpoint of a man trying to govern a city, but i read from the position of a citizen, who by nature must question what happens. Accepting how the dice falls is what the people of Germany did in WWII. I say the dice may fall one way, but you can always roll a second hand. Of course, Socratese was referring to a man who has had some certain misfortune, like the death of the son, in which case there is no second chance. He says that a strong man of virtue will grieve, but will also not hold on to the pain.

Pleasures vs. Happiness

“So the life these people lead has no additional need of pleasure as a sort of appendage, but has its pleasure in itself” (1099a 10).

Aristotle is very specific when he talks about pleasures. I feel like we used the term too loosely in class, calling pleasures sleeping in or eating more than necessary when in fact pleasures are encompassed in our natural necessities and consequently, virtue. Pleasures are in accordance with “the good.” Now even though this good cannot be clearly defined, we know from other philosophical works that it includes moderation and rational thought. These excessive things that we think are pleasures and balance our soul by feeding desires are actually, “in conflict with one another” (1099a 10). This all relates back to harmony within the soul. In addition, when we think of pleasures as fleeting moments of enjoyment that make us happy, we are making happiness a temporary feeling rather than what Aristotle is referring to as a state of mind or overall achievement for a human life or soul. However, I don’t think we can clearly define these pleasures at this point in the book. We must first understand what happiness is before we define these components.

Aristotle on Politics

“And it would seem to belong to the one that is most governing and most a master are, and politics appears to be of this sort, since it prescribes which kinds of knowledge ought to be in the cities, and what sorts each person ought to learn and to what extent; also, we see that the most honored capacities, such as generalship, household economics, and rhetorical skill, are under this one” (1094a 28-1094b 4) Aristotle’s words may surprise or disgust some readers. However, the proposition is appealing when one examines the “political life.”

We must first remember that Aristotle lived and wrote in the Athenian democracy, where civic duty was highly valued. Men like himself, virtual Renaissance men of their day (had the Renaissance occurred by that point, of course), met at the gates of the city to discuss and debate, eventually transferring these plans to the governmental circle and using them to better the lives of the population. Even Socrates, who refused to enter formal politics, valued civic discussion. In fact, as we all know, Plato (via Socrates) attempted to form the government that would create the most just population.

Socrates’ points about the soul and its effect on the city are also valid in describing Aristotle’s opinion. Just as a certain type of man would be reflected in a certain government (aristocratic man to aristocracy, timocratic to timocracy, etc), the just man would reflect justice in his political action. After all, Aristotle, in The Politics, states that justice is man’s salvation, and that it “belongs to the polis; for justice...is an ordering of the political association” (1253 a 20-22). Since people naturally must live in a society and societies must have some rule of law, than the political life is one that completes the life of others. It is human management, and it both reflects the manager and the populous whose life is bettered by his actions.

Finally, the political life allows man to receive the greatest of human accomplishments, honor, while also exercising the greatest of human abilities, reason. Therefore, it will yield some level of happiness in the soul. At the same time, it is used to affect and improve the lives of one’s countrymen through the determination and administration of justice, thus yielding happiness in the whole of society.

Happiness from Descendants

In chapter 11 of book 1 in Nic. Ethics, Aristotle addresses the notion of descendents affecting one’s happiness. I agree with Aristotle’s argument that “when friends of the departed fare well, and likewise when they fare badly, this has an influence on those who are departed, but of such a kind and amount as neither to make the happy not be happy nor anything else of the sort.” (1101 b).

The happiness of a person is dependent upon said person, not the actions of others around them, or those who descend from them. Happiness as it is used in this context is a state of life that can only be judged upon one’s death. But, once the happiness of a person’s life has been assessed, it cannot be changed by honor or disgrace from others.

The public reputation of a family may be helped or harmed, but as stated in book 9 of the Republic, this would only satisfy the honor-loving person, not the truth-seeking one who is ultimately the just one. Therefore, it is not necessary for a son to seek out virtuosity in order to maintain the honor of a departed predecessor. This neither affects the departed’s happiness nor assures happiness for the son who is seeking honor for the sake of others.

No such thing as selflessness

In Chapter Two Book I of Aristotle's Ethics there is a line that basically says that achieving "the good" for a people people (or city) is greater or more divine than it is for an individual. First, I don't see how if the individual and the cities goods are the same that the cities could be greater. The city is just a collection of indivuals trying to pursue their goals that will allow them happiness. The only logical way I can see the happiness of a city as greater is that if the result of the individual's work that is happiness did not depend on doing the work. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the reason people derive happiness from work is from the satisfaction they get from doing it. I would argue that all of the work and happiness is based on selfish sastisfaction. Even self-sacrifice is a form of selfishness in that it is done in the name of the things that the sacrificer holds important. These efforts may be beneficial to the community but on a deeper level all actions are selfish because individuals derive happiness from them. Therefore, the communities happiness may seem more divine or greater only because the structure of a community allows for individuals to accomplish their selfish little goals. I see how the idea of greater community seems appealing however it is an illusion and should be viewed for what it really is, a collection of selfish people at opposition with one another.

Nic Ethics Book 1

This Chapter brings up several features of Aristotle's thought in general. First of all, he insists in seeking out precision in an inquiry only within the limits set by the nature of the inquiry itself. Therefore while one should expect perfect precision in a subject like mathematics, one should not expect ethics to be so exact, or doubt the validity of conclusions about ethics because their precision is not at the level of mathematical precision. Second, the idea that a person needs to be virtuous in order to understand ethics is an important feature in Aristotle's argument. Studying ethics requires the use of practical reason and ought to result in actions that accord with ethical principles. If a person does not live virtuously, his reason is not disposed to accept the logic of ethical arguments and is even less disposed to put ethical principles into action, which is an imperative of practical reason. Finally Plato considers the only true Good to be the universal form which exists only in the realm of ideas, Aristotle rejects Plato's characterization. Aristotle thinks that good is the end of human action in general and should therefore have practical ramifications for the way a person should act.

In Response to Mr. Davidson's "America"

Socrates would be one among many who would not have "enough faith in people to act virtuously by themselves." This belief might actually point to why humans first formed societies out of a state of nature. For it's possible that Thomas Hobbes was right when he said something like this: the state of nature is a state of war with all against all. Thus it is a disputable claim to say that savages (that is, uncivilized people) could produce more justice in their own "Savage [according to Hobbes, inevitably war-torn] Society" than we 21st century folk have produced in our nearly global society.

With regards to whether Socrates believes "this system [do you mean the American political system or the Athenian?] causes people to focus their souls on lesser things than virtue,": Socrates maintains that Athenian democracy (if not American democracy) produces wealth and decadent lifestyles and thus people who are pleasure-seekers over virtue-seekers. The Sophists (educated men; rhetoricians, orators) appealed greatly to the pleasure-seekers and claimed to be ones themselves because they believed that it produces happiness or, as Plato really means it, eudaimonia, which essentially means a "good life". Socrates did not think much of Pericles, who he believed to have procured the Athenians wealth and luxury. Yet it seems to me that if he thinks these things about his own society and ours is also a form of democracy, then he might think the same things about ours. If, of course, as Mr. Davidson said, "he were able to," and he simply researched global consumption and credit card debt statistics, it is possible that he might make that conclusion without even needing to know that we are in fact a democratic society.

The Henry Ward Beecher quote is certainly poetic, but what does he mean by "long breath" in relation to every aspect that is important to the modern world when determining the policies and structure of a state? Knowing what would be necessary in order to know what he thinks the bounds of one's liberty ought to be in the modern world. For I assume that Mr. Davidson takes the quote to be relevant to the modern world, which is why he thinks that it "sums it up nicely."

Myth of Er

To me, I think Socrates closed the discussion in the Republic with the Myth of Er to provoke one to think about the afterlife. With the whole book being about justice and relating that with a city and the soul, I think it was a brilliant way to close the discussion. The Myth of Er allows one to think about how they are living their life, and if they are living a just life. It enables us to ponder our life and evaluate how we are living day to day. If our actions decide what happens in the afterlife, the Myth of Er encourages all of us to be as just as we can in this lifetime and do everything we can to achieve harmony in our soul.

Feeding the soul.

In The Republic, Socrates talks a lot about the elimination and filtering of poetry and music. Personally i believe this would go against what he has written earlier about harmony in the soul. It seem like it would not feel the portion that needs art and expression. This would cause suppression in the soul and cause harmony not to be in the soul, and therefor not in the society. But is this part of art and expression really needed in the soul.

Book X

In book X, Socrates banishes poets from the city, but afterwards offers room for a reasonable argument to take place to allow poets back into the city. Although this is not a valid argument, I have been thinking about this in my head. Poetry is seen to weaken us because it is on the emotional side. And if the people who are driven by their emotions lack reason, then Socrates would be right in not letting them in his city. It has been a while, but if I remember correctly, then it is just the guards that Socrates wanted to protect from crying too much, laughing uncontrollably, or just being too emotional in general. If that is the case, I do not see why the common people wouldn’t be allowed to read or write poetry. Arts help express one’s self and define their personality, and I do not feel that it would be possible to keep that out of a city.

America

Book IX seems to be the most straightforward and perhaps one of the most thought-provoking books of the Republic. This book clearly discusses the various political systems and Socrates beliefs about what effect each has on the soul. Not to mention it provides a fantastic response on why it is better to be just and outwardly suffering than to be completely unjust but physically fine.

In this book Socrates also criticizes the democracy. As someone who has grown up on the principle of freedom, this is obviously something that I can't easily agree with. But the Democracy that Socrates describes is what we would consider anarchy or rule by the mob. While agree this style of government or lack of government can only lead to misery it something that is all together different than the American political system. So how exactly is the American political system different? Well, through class discussion it became apparent that the American political System combines aspects of all the political systems described by Socrates. We have system of checks and balances that curtail the power of anyone individual. Our politicians typically come from well-eduacted backgrounds and our schools and churches at least we hope provide people with a sense of right and wrong. Despite the fact this system seems to deter tyranny, I think if Socrates were able to he would think this system causes people to focus their souls on lesser things than virtue, but frankly I after fully reading this book I feel Socrates has not enough faith in people to act virtuously by themselves and the level of control he believes necessary to create a "Just" city comes at to high of a price. It is hard to articulate this in a short blog but I think Harry Ward Beecher sums it up pretty nicely "Liberty is the soul's right to breathe, and when it cannot take a long breath laws are girded too tight".

Freedom in the Soul

In America, we live in a society that prides itself on freedom. We value our ability to essentially do whatever we want within the law. We see this freedom as the best possible condition for the soul—letting it roam free to pursue any or all of its desires. However, when Socrates puts this scenario in the perspective of the city and its rulers, freedom appears in a different light. When ranking the superior kinds of rulers for the city, Socrates places the democracy near the bottom, claiming that freedom makes a man thirst for unnecessary desires that go beyond moderation. He says that men are “too soft to resist pleasures and pains, and too idle” (556b). Socrates claims that, “each man would organize his life in it privately just as it pleases him” (557b). On the outside, this city may look fair but Socrates reveals that this dissension within the soul—its pursuit of unnecessary desires in addition to the actual needs of the soul—is an unhealthy state. This illusion of freedom actually chains a soul to the need to fulfill these desires. Does this mean that we as a society are prisoners to our desires? Are our souls inharmonious because we bypass moderation and choose to live in excess? I’m not sure if we will see a degeneration of our society like Socrates suggests but I’m starting to see that our private “unleashing of unnecessary and useless pleasures” (561a) is harmful to our souls and we might have to start questioning whether we are abusing the power of freedom.

forms of Forms for reform

Since I feel that we covered the nature of governments rather thoroughly in class this past week, I would like to turn my attention back to the cave from Book VII. Within the cave, Socrates placed not only the chained population but also a group of people standing before the fire manipulating statues to form the shadows. These people, it appears, are the sophists. They have not left the cave completely but are probably just using statues that were passed down to them; they educate the people with ideas they barely understand themselves and only assume their conclusions are correct. This is a perfect example of the blind leading the blind.

However, Socrates points out that to truly educate this population, the man who has escaped from the cave to observe the outside world and the Sun, the Form of Good, must return and teach them himself. But one may ask how he would teach these people who are not even capable of moving their heads to turn around. I believe that Socrates shows us that the philosopher-king, in the cave analogy, would compete with the sophists with statues and shadows of his own. He argues that by directly addressing the people, the enlightened person would become a victim of rebellion and would be attacked for telling such radical “lies.” He knows that those who do not naturally escape the cave would not be able to bear the pain that comes from learning new ideas too quickly and in a manner that is strange to them. However, by using his own statues, which would resemble true objects as much as possible, he would be able to educate the people gradually and in a more convincing manner. One practical example from The Republic that shows Socrates’ belief in this style of teaching occurs when he tells the Noble Lie in order to create unity and maintain order in the city. His lie to the people shows that he is willing to use whatever methods necessary to accomplish what is best for them. By using his own “statues,” Socrates can help soften the natures of the population so that they will be better able to reach the truth.

Tyrant Son

In book VIII, Socrates discusses the four types of unjust city leaders. This dialogue leads into book IX, where Socrates describes the tyrannical son. The tyrant is the worst of the four leaders, because he is the polar opposite of the philosopher-king. The tyrant descends from the democratic leader. He does not start out as a tyrant, but he is exposed to the superfluous desires that come from democracy and the drones that are now present in the city. He is unable to restrain from a lawless lifestyle, unlike his father who had a strict oligarchic father to restrain him. He has no sense of self-control and inevitably indulges in worldly things. The tyrant ultimately becomes selfish, insatiable, and fearful of his life for punishment for crimes he commits. This image that Socrates paints shows how democracy leads to tyranny. Democracy is the first step toward lawlessness, and therefore it is second worst type of leadership behind tyranny for a just city.

Book VIII and Oligarchy

Socrates suggests that the oligarchs would put laws into place that refuse political office to those who haven't sufficient wealth. In practices throughout history, governments have rarely found that necessary. There are a couple faults to the oligarchy I think we should consider. The first fault is that mere possession of wealth does not make one fit to rule the city. The second fault that I see is that there grows a breach between the citizenry and the oligarchs, until there are two cities that are effective. Along this divide between them there comes a war in which the next Constitution will come. The oligarchs will not be willing to divide labor so that farmers farm, and the merchants sell, and so on with the rest of the workers in the city. With these things being said I do not think that they will be able to fight very effectively because they will be afraid and will be loving money and wealth to much to use warriors. Their fear however of the mob or the group will leave them afraid to use them to fight their battles. Furthermore there will be poor people that are too poor to live anywhere in the city and to where will they be put or go? This is something that I think Socrates would never tolerate and have in a just city because the city would not be just if this were to happen. These poor people will have to become beggars in order to survive and with beggars comes thieves and other evil-doers in the oligarchy. I would like to think that people can obtain different wealth and still be equal but the more I read the more I think that it is impossible because people will be wanting more like their fellow man and will become greedy, which in return will make the city unjust.

One Last Post of Children in the Society

This is something that has been on my mind from a few books ago, and it still could apply because the children are the future leaders of the society so this could be a problem. I have a hard time picturing the children of this society. It would probably help if we could draw a picture of the city and label everything and where the common people, leaders, and children would be, but I will do my best to explain and question. Socrates stated about the guardians on 457 d , “And the children, in their turn, will be in common, and neither will a parent know his own offspring, nor a child his parent.” So in this, the child will have to respect every one of the elders in the community because he/she sees them all as his/her parents, and they as their children.

The confusion comes with the children of the common people. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure the children of the common people can distinguish who their parents are, and they shadow their parents in their work field. If this is true, I feel that the children of the guardians and the children of the common people are bound connect or run into each other somehow (if the guardians’ children are kept in a different part of the city) and then the children will notice that there is something missing in their life. If the guardian’s children find out that they do not have the same relations as the common people’s children have with their parents, they might feel a sort of separation anxiety or something missing in their life. I guess my question is ‘could this happen?’ or am I misreading something.