Pleasure through pain

What if some pleasures that are not bodily (memories, hopes, etc) that are listed in Book X still arise as pleasure only in their comparison to pain? The types I am discussing likely are not the types of pleasures that Aristotle would say would lead to Happiness and Contemplation but they still seems relevant to everyday life. The best way I could describe my thought is that pleasant memories only seem so pleasant because we are consciously or sub-consciously aware aware of all of our bad memories and that is why we cherish the memories(could be a way of deriving pleasure) that seem pleasurable not their self but because its not bad or painful. I believe we discussed this in class while reading The Republic but from a slightly different viewpoint and Book X of the Nic Ethics has reopened the question for me and I think it deserves some serious thought.

Can friendship come about in people who are vicious?

Aristotle suggests to go about this and distinguish what is loveable. What is loveable would be something like good or pleasure or useful. Useful is something that comes from being good or pleasant, so being good or pleasant is loveable. When speaking in terms of friendship it is necessary to love something which can reciprocate that same feeling, because it would be impossible for an object to love you in return. Then Aristotle goes on to say that there are three different kinds of love and since there are three kinds of love there is also three kinds of friendships.

"So there are three species of friendship, equal in number to the kinds of things that are loved; for in accordance with each, there is a reciprocal loving which one is not unaware of, and those who love one another wish for good things for one another in the same sense in which they love." (i.e. 1156a 10) The person who loves with pleasure is not actually loving the other person for who they are but loving on a basis of simply pleasure. The friendship dissolves quickly because they are friends on the basis of usefulness or pleasure. As people change through out time there is no longer feelings of pleasantness or usefulness and so the friendship does not last. To really look into this impasse Aristotle defines what a true friendship is.

Aristotle says the complete friendship are between two "people who are good and alike in virtue" (i.e. 1156b). Those people who are both good and have the same virtues are able to grow with one another bettering each other. What is good must be pleasant which in terms is loveable so this kind of friendship is the most intense and best friendship. Someone who is vicious is not a person of these attributes can truly have the best friendship with another person. Aristotle says "no one is able to spend much time with what is painful or not pleasing" (i.e 1157b) so the relationship between a vicious person would not be of the most intense friendship.

The completeness of the form of a pleasure.

Aristotle says some interesting stuff about the "completeness" of the forms of various pleasures. I didn't know quite what to make of what he was saying until I thought a bit more about it and, as usual, got a little help from Mr. Sachs. However, I may still be mistaken about the way I am reading both Sachs and Aristotle.

The first sentence of Chapter 3:

"Nor is it the case that, if pleasure is not classed among qualities, it is for that reason not among good things either; for the ways of being-at-work that belong to virtue are not qualities, and neither is happiness."

Here Aristotle seems to be saying that pleasure need not be considered among qualities. But he also doesn't seem to be ruling out the possibility that it may be a quality.

In chapter 4, he says:

"Life is a certain kind of being-at-work, and each person is at-work in connection with those things and by means of those capacities that satisfy him most...The pleasure brings the activities to completion and hence brings living to completion, which is what they all strive for." (1175a 13-19)

Now it appears that pleasure aids one's being-at-work, and vice-versa, whatever kinds they may be.

The completeness of pleasure, then, is in virtue of its being "complete in any time whatever." (1174b 5-6) As Sachs puts it in footnote 285, "The distinction is like that between extensive and intensive magnitudes; cutting a red cube in half bisects its volume and its weight, but not its redness." Thus, as it seems to me, pleasure is complete in that its quality (given in a particular being-at-work) cannot be divided. It seems that it may be diminished, as in the case of one's seeing the sun set all too often and thereby not taking as much pleasure in the sight as one once did, but the pleasure remains whole and complete in itself.

What am I even talking about? I think I know, but I'm not sure.

Self Love and True Friendship

One little thought I have about self love is this: it is so important to learn to love oneself before loving others. In my opinion, you can not learn to love anyone until you love God first. I think that by loving God, you are able to love yourself because you are a creation of Him and you are made in his image, and through that love and wisdom you are able to love others.

Another thing I have been pondering is how often one’s friendships dissolve. I didn’t really want to admit to having dissolved friendships before, however it is very true. When one changes it is most likely that the nature of the friendship will change. It might change into more of an acquaintance relationship but unless the friend makes a big change and you are making a change with the friend, you won’t be like-minded and the friendship will have a hard time surviving. I think that there are only a few friendships that will last a lifetime and that those are the “strong” friendships that Aristotle talks about. One may have many other friendships but they usually only last for a time. Friendship is used so freely in today’s age and I don’t think that people actually take the time to ponder what it means. When you go off to college you really discover who your true friends are and the others even though you may call them your friends are more like associates/acquaintances. You don’t have time to keep up with all of your friends in high school and you don’t have the energy to keep them alive, for the most part. Even though you may reunite with them over breaks and over the summer, you are just enjoying the pleasure of their presence more than the effort of your friendship. I was kind of defensive of this concept at first but as I have been in College this is one thing that I really have come to grasp.

Friendship

Friendship

These past two readings have taught me a lot about the friendships that I have and it has made me classify them into different groups. I have started to realize which of my “friends” are more of “associates or acquaintances” and which of the few friendships I have that I’ve put more effort in to without even realizing it. It has helped me to not use the word “friend” so freely because what comes in a friendship is often taken for granted or used in the wrong sense. It is important to have friends that really put effort into you and that you put effort into because the outcome is where virtue comes into play and then you carry over that virtue or beauty on others which inspires them and so forth. I have never really thought about there being “3 types of friendship before” but it really reigns true. It is interesting how one would never notice but a friendship is in existence because it is for pleasure, or for being useful, and the last is when two people wish the good for each other without any lesser motive. There is only one type of friendship (which is the 3^rd type of friendship) that isn’t fleeting or that isn’t dissolved easily and those end up being the friendships that are the most impactful and lasting on one’s life. It is interesting to ponder how a person’s friends impact the way one acts upon virtue and how they seek truth and beauty. In my case, as a devout Christian, it is important to surround myself with devout Christians who inspire my walk with God. The truth that I seek is with God and so it is important to me to have close friends that seek spiritual virtue and keep me accountable to do the same.

Goodwill

“Goodwill seems like something that has to do with friendship, though is surely not friendship, since goodwill arises toward people one does not know, and without their being aware of it, but friendship does not”(1166b 30).

In this statement, Aristotle differentiates friendship from goodwill. Although goodwill is not a bad thing, it is not equal to a friendship because it is almost like a random act of kindness. Goodwill is done for the sake of the act and the giver more so than the recipient. A friendship is created to benefit both parties involved equally.

Moreover, the way that Aristotle describes goodwill leads me to believe that, in a way, it could be abused (then, of course, it is questionable as to whether or not it is actually goodwill anymore). Since it involves complete strangers, it seems that one could use goodwill as a means to boost their public reputation. This ulterior motive is additional to the original intentions of goodwill (which are kindness towards others and therefore a better feeling of oneself), and therefore tarnishes the act. This will not result in an honest act of goodwill or the beginning of a true friendship, which, according to Aristotle, begins with goodwill. If goodwill is done to improve ones reputation, then that sets forth a false front when seeking friendship.

Why so much about friends?

I was thinking today as i wrote my final, what the importance of friendship is? I mean obviously Aristotle thought they mattered quite a bit, since he wrote two books on them. But what does this mean for us today? It is my person belief that in our culture we don't put as much emphasis on friendship as we probably should. This could be why it seems odd to us his stipulations for a true friendship. But it does seem that everybody has at least has one true friend as aristotle says it. So maybe in our american culture we try to have too many friends? We are somewhat of people pleasers at the heart of it, and so we want more than one or two "true friends" but as Aristotle puts it that is basically impossible. It seems if we came to grips with that then we would be able to much better understand, and accept, what it is that Aristotle says about true friendship.

Are Friends Needed When Happy?

In Chapter 9 of Book 9, Aristotle brings up the issue of happiness and friendship, "It is also a matter of dispute whether someone who is happy needs friends or not." He frames his question right before 1169b 10, "Therefore, 'when destiny provides well, why does one need friends?'"

If one has been blessed with good things, then friends of use and pleasure will be of no need to the blessed person. For they will already have useful and pleasure things, and only have a need for friends of good. That is if they have not been corrupted. If one has been blessed with good things, yet is corrupted, then there is the possibility of them becoming filled with greed and want more and more things of use and of pleasure. This would lead to them acquiring more and more friends of use and of pleasure that do no good for the blessed person.

Aristotle states right before 1169b 20, "And perhaps it is absurd to make the blessed person solitary, since no one would choose to have all good things by himself, for a human being is meant for a city and is of such a nature as to live with others." Before I read this I had thought that it was the unhappy person that needs friends and the happy person does not. But after reading this it just makes sense that a happy person needs friends just as much as an unhappy person needs friends. For if a virtuous person has been blessed, then they will need friends in order for them to share their blessings with, friends to give and do favorable acts to. As Aristotle says at 1169b 10, "And if it belongs to a friend to do good more than to receive it, and doing good for others belongs to a good person and to VIRTUE." The more someone is blessed does not equal the more virtuous they are. It is what they do with their blessings that determine how virtuous they are. A blessed person has to have friends if they are striving for a beautiful end; for they must have friends that they can do favoring, good, and virtuous acts towards. As Aristotle said in Book 8, "For no one would choose to live without friends, despite having all the rest of the the good things."

Making at-work

In Book XI, Aristotle discusses friendship. I see a strong connection between friendship and happiness (eudaimonia), the latter of which he says is the best way of being-at-work, with the apparent additional need of external goods (1099a 30-34). He compares friendship to artisanship in that a true friend does good things for the other, in which case the other is the friend's work, as an artisan does good things for his art, in which case the art is the artisan's work (1168a 3-5). The connection that I see between friendship and happiness (eudaimonia) consists in the notions of being and making. Friendship seems to be a requisite for happiness because it reflects one's being-at-work in accordance with virtue, or in some way acts as the medium for being-at-work.

My idea that friendship is a requisite for happiness for Aristotle is derived from his explanation of friendship as it relates to being-at-work: "...we are by being-at-work (since it is by living and acting), and the work is, in a certain way, its maker at-work; so he loves the work because he also loves to be." What I find interesting about this expression is that he seems to suggest that one who is being-at-work in accordance with virtue has the power to make at-work in accordance with virtue. If I am reading Aristotle correctly, such an idea would be greatly important for understanding this notion of making as it relates to metaphysics.

The difference between venting and searching for advice.

In our last class, the topic of venting was some what of a major focus. Many people in the class , myself included, initially held reservations about whether or not venting has negative affects on relationships or is simply a way for people to discuss and relate their days. After our discussion, I can admit that I often over-vent, and believe that while venting allows people to get things off their chest, it has the potential to deteriorate relationships overtime. This is something that I feel Aristotle would agree with for he states "Friendship arises less among people of sour disposition and among those who are older, to the extent that they are harder to get along with and take less pleasure in company"(1158a 30). As in if you are constantly complaining about your day, it is less likely that people will want to become friends with you.

However, What about asking for advice? It seems that is not detrimental to establishing relationships for asking for advice is an expression of trust, trust in one's ability to council someone properly. The difference between venting and searching for advice is that in that in the act of venting, one doesn't care what the other person thinks. The "friend" is merely being used.

Too Many Friends

In book nine and part of book eight, Aristotle declares, “To be a friend to many people in the complete kind of friendship is not possible” (1158a 10).

I guess we must first look at what Aristotle means by complete friendship. Well we know that friendship is an active condition of the soul and Joe Sachs describes it in footnote 260 that the life of friendship seems to be “an expansion of the soul instead of a contraction of communal life.” Aristotle calls truly loving too many people an “extreme condition” (1158a 10). So if a true friendship is an expansion of our soul and when we gain too many friends, we move from an active condition to an extreme condition, then Aristotle must be correct in saying that one can have too many friends.

Aristotle also says “the friend is another self” (1166a 30). This means that we find likeness in their thinking, virtue, etc. So how many selves can we actually have? Besides, Aristotle says that it’s “not easy even for there to be many good people to be pleased by.” In other words, true virtue is rare and there are probably not even enough good people to have an excess of friends or that will be like us. So when people claim to have many friends, these are just familiar acquaintances, lacking the depth and virtue of a true friendship.

Friendship in a Community

In Book 8, Aristotle made it very clear that the most complete type of friendship is one between people who are good and alike in virtue. "But the complete sort of friendship is that between people who are good and are alike in virtue, since they wish for good things for one another in the same way insofar as they are good, and they are good in themselves" Chapter 3, 1156b 10. Therefore, friendships based on pleasure or use are of lesser value. "So those who love one another for what is useful do not love one another for themselves, but insofar as something good comes to them from one another. And it is similar with those who love on account of pleasure, since they are fond of charming people not for being people of a certain sort, but because they are pleasing to themselves" Chapter 3, 10.

Now in regards to a community, like a large nation, friendship of the good is basically impossible on a large scale. This leaves the friendships of use and pleasure, the ones that you do not want to strive for, the only types to strive for. This is not as bad as one might think. For instance, if a large nation is under siege, not every soldier is going to have a friendship of the good with their comrades. They will, or should, have a friendship of use and pleasure with all of their comrades. Their friendships are ones of use and pleasure because all of the soldiers use each other in order to defend their nation, with the goal of having pleasure in victory. The downside is if the soldiers fail at defending their nation, their friendship of use and pleasure is shot to pieces, along with many other things. The upside is if they survive and successfully defend their nation, the soldiers' friendship can easily become a friendship of the good. What started out as a friendship based on use and pleasure for the sake of their nation between soldiers, can lead to a lifelong friendship of the good.

Friendship/ Marriage

The question that was asked in class was if friendship was based on similarity or differences. I feel that marriage is a different type of friendship, but some people say that marriages work oppositely, as in the opposites attract. I was wondering if anyone could explain this because in class I felt like we came to a conclusion that true friendship is based upon similarities. To go out to eat, you would need to like the same food, to go shopping together, you would need to have the same styles, and to have reasonable conversations and not come across arguments, you would need to have the same ideas and morals. So maybe the saying that opposites attract is just a silly saying that isn't true..?

We also talked about the disproportion of love may work for some people, but would this be a form of "true love"? What I have come to realize is that people always want what they cannot have. Not trying to bash boys, but in my personal experience, it has always been a boy! If this remains true in relationships, then the relationship will either stay unbalanced, which may lead to an unhealthy relationship, or the higher person in the relationship will finally give the lower person what he/she wants and then once the lower person has what they want, they will become uninterested. If that is the case then maybe it could be considered a friendship, but not in the truest form. In the conclusion, I am not sure if I agree that a disproportional relationship could work, or at least stay healthy. Maybe it's an exception not the rule, but it is definitely something I have wondered even before we talked about it in class.

On Social Contract

Aristotle in Book VIII discusses the importance of friendship within a society and asserts that those in a society must be friends for that society to succeed. He states that “when people are friends there is no need of justice, but when they are just there is still need of friendship” (VIII, 1155a, 26-27). Friendship acts as a replacement for justice in lasting societies, so that it becomes an alternative mechanism of equity. I have mixed feelings about his assertion.

First, I do believe that some sort of friendship must be necessary in these societies because justice alone will not motivate the people to act properly toward one another, except for fear of punishment. After all, as Barry Goldwater once said, “you can’t legislate morality.” A city of friends will be more peaceful, more equal, and more stable because the citizens respect the laws that are made by one another.

However, I do not think that it is necessary to have true friendship; but instead, a friendship of use will suffice for as long as the city exists. There are three reasons that people make a political union: fear of loss (having property/life unprotected), anticipation of gain (as in closer trade), or by the force of a higher power. The first two of these will form a social contract among the members for the good of all. This is made, in my opinion, out of selfish reasons and a friendship of use. Because the “use” of protection and wealth applies to all parties somewhat equally, the society will last peaceably. Everyone’s selfish interests for a blend of liberty and security work together to form one, common system of laws for the good of all. Although there is a benefit for all parties, that benefit to one’s countrymen is just a byproduct of personal benefits. This union is only a friendship of use that is relatively stable because the uses of safety, wealth, and defense in a society do not ever disappear. Thus, true friendship based on virtue is probably not necessary for this type of political union.

Book 5 Chapter 5 (Rewind)

Relating back to Chapter 5 in Book 5, I kind of wanted to touch on how interesting the topic of money is and how its brought into account within this text. It’s hard for me to bring up questions or to write a super interesting blog because I am just blogging about what sparked my interest. A lot of material in Aristotle is kind of hard to understand but the concept of exchange and fair exchange and how currency comes into play really makes sense. I never contemplated how currency came to be in this greek society but I love the process in which it is described. It is interesting that it all started with the exchanging for the equality of goods. Back then one would trade 6 pairs of shoes and get a house in return because the shoe maker needs a house and the house-builder needs shoes. This was a fair trade. Times have changed drastically, obviously, and now I don’t think that people are as concerned with the equality of the trade rather they are concerned with the money/profit that they are making and how competitive they can make their business. It all started out with equality and now equality doesn’t even seem to fit in the picture at all.

Can anyone live without friends and have a fulfilled life?

In book VII, Chapter 1, Aristotle says, "It would follow, after these things, to go through what concerns a friendship, since it is a certain kind of virtue, or goes with virtue, and is also most necessary for life. For no one would choose to live without friends, despite having all the rest of the good things...." Of course friends are good to have around for multiple reasons; they are to protect your prosperity and are there to help you in good times and rough times as well. They are also there to benefit from your prosperity, we give to friends in order to increase our noble actions. I found it interesting that Aristotle included many relationships including parent to child and business acquaintances, so it is not just the traditional friends that we all might think. There is always a big disagreement it seems when it comes to friendships. Some people think that friends are a requirement of a fulfilled life, but others may think that friendship is also a worthy pursuit in itself. People that have lots of friends and are good to them are said to be praised. Another big disagreement among people is that of who really makes a good friend, those who are similar or who are opposite from you? There are just so many questions when it comes to friends: (How many should you have, what kind) and who can be friends (good or bad, or one of each)? So my question is a simple question; Can anyone live without friends and have a fulfilled life? I am just not sure about this...I think that some people are introverted and don't have friends to a degree and live a happy life and are happy with what they do and who they are, and someone is going to tell me that even though they are happy their life is not fulfilled? I find this topic interesting yet sticky in a since that their will never be a mutual agreement among everyone about these kinds of questions.

Animal like vs. disease state

I have often lately pondered on the idea of what is the animal like state, and the disease state. It seems to me that when in the heat of there vices the two look very very similar. But what is the difference. To me it seems that the difference is at the root of what causes them. For the disease like state, the cause could be an illness or a brain problem. This in my opinion is not the fault of the person. However the question i suppose i pose in this blog post is, is the lack of upbringing that thus causes the animal like state the fault of the person, or people who raised the said person? It is my personal belief that it is not the fault of the infected person.

The Source

In Book Seven, Chapter Eight, while Aristotle is talking about temperance and dissipation, there was a passage he said that really stuck out to me and was really profound. A little after 1151a 10, Aristotle says, "For virtue keeps the source safe, while vice destroys it, and in actions the source is that for the sake of which one acts, just as in mathematics the sources are the hypotheses; so neither there nor here is reason able to teach anyone the sources, but here it is virtue, either natural or habituated, that directs one to right opinion about the source."

We have been discussing virtue ever since reading Meno, but this passage by Aristotle seems to really hammer the point home. The idea that it is virtue that keeps the source/the good/the truth/the beautiful safe and when we act, we act (if we are wanting to be virtuous) as a byproduct of the source/the good/the truth/the beautiful is a very powerful concept. And if one can take that to heart, and not let vice destroy the source; one would live a virtuous life that ends with a beautiful end. In regards to the last part; if virtue keeps the source safe and the source is why one acts, then it makes since then that virtue, by nature, leads people to the true source. However, the phrase, "so neither there nor here is reason able to teach anyone the sources" does not seem to work. This might just be nitpicking, but it seems as if reason could play a role in teaching about the sources. If virtue is something that can be "natural or habituated, that directs one to the right opinon about the source" then could reason be something that helps habituate one to become virtuous; and therefore play a role in teaching one about the right source? Either way, the crucial role that virtue has in dealing with the source is too important not to apply to one's journey towards a beautiful end.

Clarification between animal and man

One of the constant questions that I have had since this class began is how animals fit into this picture of reasoning and how they differ from humans; even though we are animals too. Originally I would have said that animals do have practical judgement and that a humans viewpoint of what reasoning is goes against nature. But after further review it seems that human reasoning is just more in-depeth and therefore not against nature but different because of our use of actions instead of just sense stimuli.
With that being said I still can't shake the suspicion that some animals may reason much more than we expect. Because in the end reasoning can not be observed and it is only by observation and communication that we try to differentiate between what is simply reaction to sensation and what is reasoning.

Book V

In class, we discussed the possibility of being unjust to one’s self. Some people thought that it was possible, while others did not. A reason that someone could be unjust to one’s self is by taking smaller than one’s share to the point of harm, therefore being unjust to one’s self. This person is not to be confused with the person who is not only just, but also descent by taking less than his or her share. I, however, disagree and think that it is impossible to be unjust to one’s self. In chapter one, Aristotle says, “This sort of justice, then, is complete virtue, though not simply but in relation to someone else.” From my understanding of this quote, justice is unlike other virtues because instead of dealing with the individual, justice must deal with more than one person because it is in relation with someone else.

Forms of Non-Courage and Military Draft

While reading about the five types of non-courage, I thought about the implement of military draft and what category soldiers under this command would fall into. But, I began to think that drafted soldiers do not fall into any particular one of these necessarily (although in a way it could fall in with the condition that comes from citizenship).They could likely fit into the group of those who are at sea or have diseases (1115a 30) because they like the sailors or disease-ridden, they realize that the situation of war is out of their own control and therefore must make the most of it. Despite the war examples Aristotle uses to better articulate the non-courage forms, I think the issue of drafting is not addressed by experience, spiritedness, hope, or ignorance.

Hope and Ignorance

In class we discussed different ways people can seem courageous (but are, in fact, not truly courageous). While reading I stumbled while trying to differentiate the case of a person who is full of hope and the case of a person who is ignorant. I want to break down each case to examine their differences.

"Nor are those who are full of hope courageous, since it is on account of having been victorious often over many people that they are confident in dangerous situations; but they are much like courageous people, since both are confident, but while courageous people are confident on account of what was said above, these people are so from believing they will be the strongest and will suffer nothing." --1117a:10
Someone is full of hope is the same as a courageous person in two ways: they each have prior victories that add to their confidence (which makes sense), and that both have confidence enough to meet their opposition. The biggest difference is that people who are full of hope believe there will be no negative consequences. To quote Dr. Davis' example, a soldier who is full of hope will flee upon seeing one of their own perish on the battlefield, because the realization comes to them that there is a possibility of death.

"Those who are ignorant also appear to be courageous, and are not far from those who are full of hope, but they are worse to the extent that they have nothing they consider worth facing." --1117a20
Aristotle goes on to talk about "those who are deceived," which one can only assume is referring to people that are ignorant. The ignorant are oblivious to certain aspects of their opposition. For example, one who is ignorant of their opponents strength will believe they have the upper hand, until they discover that they are, in fact, on par with or weaker than the opposition, and will promptly flee when this is discovered.

So, it can be said that one identifiable difference between those who are ignorant and those who are full of hope is the difference in what they are unaware of; an ignorant person is unaware of what he faces or what the strength of his opposition is, and a hopeful person is unaware of these things in relation to themselves, like being unaware of their own strength.

Beautiful End

“Courage is a beautiful thing, and so its end is something beautiful as well, since each thing is determined by its end” (1115b 20).

Aristotle defines courage by addressing what it is not. In each example, Aristotle seems to be stressing the importance of both, what a person is running to and how they are getting there, as a way to determine true courage or virtue. The final destination is obviously the beautiful end being sought after and the way of getting there is the motivation or means. While citizenship may appear courageous and the means virtuous, the end to which a person seeks is compliance with the law and avoidance of consequence. Therefore, citizenship’s end is not beautiful, so citizenship itself cannot be beautiful and consequently, it cannot be courage. The same goes for Aristotle’s other examples. Spiritedness is motivated by impulse, which is in discord with reason and therefore not something beautiful. Hope is motivated by false confidence. Ignorance is in obvious opposition to courage because those who are ignorant do not even have a beautiful end to seek. So before reading this passage, I believe most of us, including myself, would have defined courage as the absence of fear in the face of danger. However, after Aristotle looks at true courage, we see that courage is actually a proportionate response to fear by facing a dangerous situation for its beautiful end. Courage “chooses something and endures it because it is a beautiful thing” (1116a 10).

The Scents of Sauce and Prey

In Chapter 10 of Book III, Aristotle decides that temperance must have to do with bodily pleasures. But not those related to sight or hearing, because people do not speak of those who delight too much in the pleasures associated with sight or hearing as dissipated (1118a: 2-6). Yet with regards to smell, there are scents that he thinks remind one of "things they yearn for," such as sauces (reminds one of food) (1118a: 12-14). What follows from taking delight in such scents is a growth in the associated desire.

For instance, the scent of BBQ sauce makes me hungry. Sometimes when I smell BBQ sauce, I wish that I could be eating something with BBQ sauce on it instead of just smelling the BBQ sauce. Is it likely that if I indulged in satisfying my desire to eat something with BBQ sauce on it more frequently, then the delight that comes from smelling BBQ sauce will be greater and thus my desire for ingesting BBQ sauce?

Aristotle does not believe that animals take pleasure in sight, sound, or smell, "except incidentally." (1118a: 18-19) What is odd about his claims about animals is that he does not think that meat-eating animals take pleasure in the smell of their prey, nor in the sight of their prey, nor in the sound of their prey. I wonder if his claim still holds up in modern science. It seems strange to claim that meat-eating animals take pleasure in eating meat (like humans) but do not share the pleasure associated with the scent of food with humans. Based on my own experience, I think dogs react differently to the sight of something they might like to eat than they do to the scent of something they might like to eat, but maybe it is not a pleasurable experience although their behavior suggests otherwise.

Wishers Can't Be Choosers

While reading Book III, I found an interesting statement by Aristotle in regard to the nature of happiness. He states that “we wish to be happy and say so, while it would not fit the meaning to say we choose to be happy, since, universally, choice seems to be concerned with things that are up to us” (Ch. 2; 29-31). My first observation was that his point seems to clearly contradict some ideas regarding the state of one’s emotions, namely those who say that a person chooses to be happy or content in a situation. However, I followed along and agreed to his conclusion mainly on the grounds that I did not know it would become such an issue later. After all, here his definition of “wishing” would make the acquisition of happiness a wish since it is aimed at an end rather than a means to achieve that end.

However, as I continued, I found what appeared to be at least a slight contradiction in his reasoning. In Chapter 5, Aristotle states that “to say that no one is willingly wretched or unwillingly happy seems to be partly false and partly true, for no one is happy unwillingly, but baseness is something willing” (15-17). I have a feeling that I am only getting caught in a trap of semantics here and that there is really no problem of contradiction, despite my possible disagreement with his initial assertion. This last statement was made to support his belief that choices are either virtuous or vicious; the final product of happiness would not be a choice, but instead, an end reached through virtuous choices. Meanwhile, baseness would derive from vicious choices.

Then I understand what Aristotle means by his statement that “one cannot choose to be happy” since one chooses the things that will make him happy, but not the act of happiness itself. It does make sense technically then. One cannot choose to be in a certain state but only scenarios that would place them in that state. For instance, I would not choose to be wealthy, but instead choose to follow a career that would make me wealthy.

Non-Willing

A large portion of class today was spent defining actions that Aristotle titles "non-willing". Now several assumptions of what this term may mean were discussed in class, but the only clear-cut difference between "non-willing" and "unwilling" that Aristotle provides is that those who are "non-willing" do not feel it necessary to repent for their actions unlike the "unwilling" . The most notable possibility that we came up with was the example of someone who was so intoxicated that they forgot all of their negative actions and therefore could not feel remorse or repent for them. While, I think this example has the potential to meet the terms of "non-willing". I do think that everyone if put in this situation would feel incapable of repentance. I think that some would do more than make to not become intoxicated again but also make up for whatever mistakes they unknowingly made while intoxicated. Also, it seems possible to be "non-willing" in other ways besides be intoxicated for Aristotle makes the comment that anger has the potential to produce "non-willing" actions. As I see it the only negative actions that constitute the term "non-willing" are those that are done in some state where one gives up control of the rational part of their soul and after later realizing their mistakes blame the state in which they were in and not themselves. An example being someone who in gives into impulse and attacks someone blames their temper and then later does nothing to repent. Perhaps, I am confused but the lack of clarity in this section is uncharacteristic of the rest of the Nicomachean ethics thus far.

Opinions and Choices

In class today we talked about how it’s not our opinions who make us who we are, but it’s our choices. This is something that I have had a problem with lately, and I think it is really neat that we ended up talking about it in our philosophy class. Who knew? It is human nature to be judgmental, no matter who you are you are going to judge a person whether you speak it out loud or not. Sometimes I have problems with judging people on their opinions about things; even when I know that I should be respectful about other people’s opinions, I try to go out of the way to end the conversation just so I don’t have to listen anymore because I get so frustrated inside with what they are saying.

When I was listening in class I found that if you truly want to get to know someone, do not base it off of their opinions, but base it off of their stories because it is our choices that matter. It is our choices that shape who we are and what we will become. Needless to say, today was a good day in philosophy class, especially if we get participation points for watching the wasps!

Virture of Character

In the beginning of Chapter 9 in Book Two, Aristotle states, "It has been said sufficiently, then, that virtue of character is a mean condition, and in what way, namely because it is a mean between two kinds of vice, the one resulting from excess and the other from deficiency, and that it is such a mean condition on account of being apt to hit the mean in feelings and actions." This seems to be a fair explanation of what virtue is. This also suggests that going too far towards deficiency or too far towards excess is not being the most virtuous. I would agree on the first part about going too far towards deficiency would result in a lack of virtue and would not be something worth striving for. However, I don't agree with the latter - that going too far towards excess would be an inordinate amount of virtue and would be something not worth striving for (given that virtue is a means between the two vices). While an over-excess in many things can become destructive (excess desires of food, etc.), I think virtue is something different. It seems reasonable that you would want to be virtuous in excess (all the way) then be in the middle of the two vices. The more virtue you have, even in excess, the better.

Is pleasure happyness?

It seems that earlier in the book it talks about whether or not pleasure as being happy. But this seems an odd question because we haven't even defined pleasure, or being happy. I would like to things that made you happy would also please you. If that makes any since tell me, if not i understand. It just seems to me that if you are doing things that are of the good then you would take pleasure in them and be happy.

Remarks to Book 3

"In general, choice seems to relate to the things that are in our power. By choosing what is good or bad we are men of a certain character, which we are not by holding certain opinions." Our character is determined by our choices, not by our opinions I feel. "The object of choice being one of the things in our own power which is desired after deliberation, choice will be deliberate desire of things in our own power; for when we have reached a judgement as a result of deliberation, we desire in accordance with our deliberation." We decide what to choose after deliberating and the choice then is our desire I feel. "To the unjust and the self-indulgent men it was open at the beginning not to become men of this kind, and so they are unjust and self-indulgent voluntarily; but now that they have become so it is not possible for them not to be so. But not only are the vices of the soul voluntary, but those of the body also for some men, whom we accordingly blame." The bad man becomes bad by choice and then finds it impossible to shed the bad habits. I also think that we are good or bad by choice and we are not born that way. We make the decisions which can alter our lives and can ultimately lead to good or bad things.