Philosophy experiment

I thought it would be interesting to make a post today before class concerning thoughts of what philosophy is, and then make a post after our discussion over the same subject in order to compare the thought processes before and after. And so I will.

At the beginning of the year, we had a similar discussion. As I recall, we began by dissecting the word philosophy into two parts: love and wisdom (more specifically, a love OF wisdom). I then suggested that we take a closer look at the word “wisdom,” since we all have a fairly clear definition of what we meant as “love.” In our first class, I believe we came to a definition of wisdom roughly resembling “knowledge gained by active experience” (“active” experience meaning that one must actually perform an action or go through a process of experience rather than simply reading a text or being taught by rote). So by that way of thinking we can say that philosophy is a love of gaining knowledge by experiencing things firsthand, and a philosopher is one who loves such a thing. Now, this does not mean that a philosopher loves experiencing things firsthand. This would pertain to a love of something else other than wisdom. Rather, they love gaining knowledge, and the way they must gain knowledge in order for it to be called wisdom is to gain it by firsthand experience. In the same train of thought, a philosopher does not love knowledge, but loves learning. By learning, they do in fact gain knowledge, but that is not what they love.

I will write a new post in response to this one after our discussion today.

Contemplation - is there an end?

In our reading and discussion concerning the contemplative life, I became curious as to just how the ultimate happiness can be a constant contemplation. I thought, if the contemplative life is the happiest, should there not be an end? But there must be an end in order for something to be virtuous. But what of something that never sees its end, or takes an indefinitely long amount of time, so that the end can never be achieved (such as in the case of the contemplative life)? Aristotle poses a similar question, but one that has a different aim;

“…Ought one to assume that our chosen task has its end? Or, as has been said, is the end in matters of action not contemplating and knowing each of them but rather doing them?” (1179a 36 – 1179b 2)

I interpret this question to be more about what the contemplation would be used for, or what one should do instead of contemplation. I am instead asking if and/or how contemplation comes/can come to an end, or if there is an end. Aristotle goes on to say that actions get in the way of contemplation, but humans must take part in actions because they are mortal and need to work and eat. I have come to the conclusion that while actions have conceivable and attainable ends, they therefore come to an end and are not as fulfilling toward a state of being-at-work as contemplation is.

Happiness 2

More thoughts on happiness kind of related to my first blog..and still based off the question from the exam.

There are a few forms of happiness when one breaks it down, but Contemplation is the highest form. Only Gods could contemplate for the rest of their lives, continuously but when people are contemplating they are seeking happiness. Happiness extends as far as contemplation does, and it is a type of contemplation.

When you live a happy life, you have enough wisdom to benefit and work well with others, however you don’t need to work with others to benefit your “happiness, or intellect” since you attain happiness in itself, you are sufficient enough. In order to gain happiness you have to seek what is the most powerful thing in oneself, you have to seek what is presently divine in the soul and go after it, since what is presently divine in the soul surpasses the fused being. While seeking the most powerful being in oneself, you have to live in accordance with it.

Happiness 1

Happiness

Some of these are kind of just random and pondering thoughts that aren't complete. I kind of based them off the question for the exam.

Aristotle says, “ For these feelings extend through the whole of life, having in them a weight and a power that tend toward virtue and toward a happy life, since people choose things that are pleasant and avoid things that are painful” (1171 B. L20-30). Aristotle seems to be implying that people’s natural tendency, by nature, is to seek and capture happiness or what they think is happiness because they know the distinction of pain and pleasure and happiness is some sort of a pleasant experience, which he says shouldn’t be confused with mere pleasure.

“Happiness is the end at which humans aim.” Because of the way it appears to others, it has become extremely desirable. Since it is desirable in itself, it is aligned with the highest virtue, which is intellect. Happiness is sought through the mere practice of doing work because people enjoy the result that they get out of doing that type of work, which points us to how happiness is in accordance with virtue because since people are seeking the beautiful and they are choosing to perform beautiful and serious acts, they are changed at heart and further inspire others to do the same.

Attainable Life

In class, we discussed contemplation as the ultimate end to life. But, it seems that the completely contemplative life is not attainable. If this lifestyle is not attainable, is the pursuit of such satisfying enough in itself?

It seems that through all of our readings the reason for all the good actions is a goal, which seems unachievable. I agreed with the idea that it is beyond human capability to have a completely contemplative lifestyle. However, through performing these good actions, one would presumably feel somewhat better than if they had performed an evil action. So, the culmination of the happiness experienced through these actions is enough to mediate a “happy” life. It seems that the achievement of good along with contemplation (which cannot occur at all times in human life) is the only actual way that Aristotle’s theory of a contemplative, and ultimately happy, life could exist.

The only way for contemplation to work

Aristotle comes to the conclusion in Book X the contemplation is the highest form of happiness. Contemplation is an entirely complete way of thinking while also being fully active in that thought. Contemplation is fixed on a single thought that is continuously the same. Aristotle even says that all pleasures are directed toward this act of contemplation and that people will “live with a view toward living in accord with the most powerful thing in oneself” (1178a). Considering all of this and really thinking about all that goes into contemplation (denying yourself of pleasures, temptations from desires, etc.) and the fact that “nature is not self-sufficient for contemplation” (1178b 30), I wondered, how is this possible to master?

Aristotle addresses this concern when he states, “it is necessary for the soul of the listener to have been worked on beforehand by means of habits” (1179b 20), and “to arrange for rearing and exercises by laws” (1180a). This does not just mean rearing in childhood, but even throughout adulthood (hence laws in the city). The reason why this may be controversial is because, for a corrupt person, these laws and rearing exercises will appear painful. However, “for a decent person who lives with a view to what is beautiful is obedient to argument,” and the laws will seem normal (1180a 10). Therefore the laws will not appear harmful to them but only helpful on their way to true happiness and contemplation. This may seem harsh but history has shown that method works. Aristotle even mentions the Spartans as adhering to the practice of strict rearing and they were one of the most, if not the most, powerful city-states in Ancient Greece. I think that, if contemplation truly is the highest form of happiness, Aristotle is correct in saying these measures must be taken.