Up@dawn 2.0

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Section 14 Group 3 Summary

Today we discussed Aristotle. We found it difficult to have an incredibly lengthy conversation about him, but we did get to touch on some interesting points. Aristotle's idea of eudaimonia held a large part of the discussion. He believed that happiness wasn't a feeling or a moment of bliss, but how we lived our life. Happiness isn't about how we feel right now or the things we find pleasurable, but about the bigger picture that forms at the end of our lives. Aristotle also suggested that children could not be happy, and our own children's lives and actions could affect our eudaimonia after our death.

We played with the idea that maybe what Aristotle was trying to describe to us wasn't the definition of happiness at all, but of success. Dr. Oliver also suggested that perhaps Aristotle was saying that what we think of as happiness isn't overall happiness, but fleeting pleasures and satisfaction.

Another discussion topic was that people viewed Aristotle as an authority figure and automatically assumed everything he said was true. We thought that was a contradiction to everything he stood for. Aristotle wanted people to go and explore and question the world around them. People were doing the opposite by automatically taking his words as truth without testing things out for themselves.

1 comment:

  1. Kendall Martin 149:16 PM CDT

    I think we've covered Aristotle's views of happiness pretty thoroughly, so in response to the other part...
    I found a quote from Aristotle that said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." I think that this could be in reference to those who believed everything he said without question. But could they really be blamed for believing whatever he said? Today, do we not give more credibility to the words of those considered "intelligent?" Especially in a field like philosophy, where there really isn't a right or wrong answer. People who are not accustomed to thinking outside the box, so to speak, would be more inclined to believe the thoughts of the most intelligent person of the time.
    I don't agree with believing whatever someone says with no proof to back it up, but isn't that part of the idea behind philosophy? There is no proof, or at least not yet. Just because Aristotle was later proved to be wrong, doesn't mean that his followers were too naive to realize this, just that they really didn't have a way to know if he was right or wrong. People believed the Earth was flat until someone was able to conclusively prove otherwise. While people really should avoid believing everything they're told without question, if they are unaccustomed to thinking that way then they really can't be faulted for believing the words of an educated individual, especially if the questions they are asked to explore are abstract.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.