Our discussion of Aristotle focused upon the two main concepts found in this chapter of A Little History of Philosophy: Aristotle's doctrine of the Golden Mean and his own conception of happiness-eudaimonia.
Eudaimonia, as Michele pointed out, is more an idea of fulfillment (the book describes it as flourishing or success). This is different from our modern idea of happiness, which is based more in emotion. We struggled over the idea that this definition means that your fulfillment is something that is sometimes beyond your control (the book gives a description of how if your child falls ill, even after you own death, it can affect your own eudaimonia). This led to an interesting discussion about how much of your life is built upon the legacy that you leave behind. Matthew also made an interesting comment that, unlike the typical way Aristotle thought, this idea deeply resembled his mentor, Plato, and his theory of the forms.
Aristotle's doctrine of the Golden Mean, as Dr. Oliver described it, is essentially to always avoid extremes, similar to the Confucian doctrine of the Middle Way. Matthew raised the question whether humanity thrives better through extremism or through moderation. At this, Dr. Oliver made a joke referring to Barry Goldwater, a former presidential candidate, who said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” I offered the the example of Abraham Lincoln (having recently seen the new blockbuster). He was a moderate upon many issues, but not about slavery. Our group discussed the idea of extremism being necessary in our political leaders, and as Jacob brought up, whether it played the same role at a personal level. Michele proposed that that perhaps we had missed the main point, that the Golden Mean pertains specifically to personality traits (the book discusses the differences between a foolish, a cowardly, and a courageous soldier).
Two floaters, Logan and Evan, offered two valuable insights into our discussion of the Golden Mean. Logan offered the idea that Aristotle's doctrine of the Golden Mean was perhaps the reason that his legacy stifled philosophical development for centuries following his death. In the spirit of moderation, philosophers were hesitant to challenge his premises. Evan offered the idea that Aristotle's doctrine had a logical dillemma, for how did it propose to define the middle way? Does Aristotle define it? If not him, who does?
FQ: What philosophical argument does the 'Peritrope' of Plato from Thaetus refer too?
DQ: How can a relativistic society build public consensus (or as the book describes, deal with conflict) without challenging another person's philosophical beliefs?
Link: Though I did not bring this up in today discussion, as a Christian, there is a verse from the scripture that relates to this idea of moderation, one that I have mulled over for a long time. "'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be enslaved by anything." 1 Corinthians 6:12.
Eudaimonia, as Michele pointed out, is more an idea of fulfillment (the book describes it as flourishing or success). This is different from our modern idea of happiness, which is based more in emotion. We struggled over the idea that this definition means that your fulfillment is something that is sometimes beyond your control (the book gives a description of how if your child falls ill, even after you own death, it can affect your own eudaimonia). This led to an interesting discussion about how much of your life is built upon the legacy that you leave behind. Matthew also made an interesting comment that, unlike the typical way Aristotle thought, this idea deeply resembled his mentor, Plato, and his theory of the forms.
Aristotle's doctrine of the Golden Mean, as Dr. Oliver described it, is essentially to always avoid extremes, similar to the Confucian doctrine of the Middle Way. Matthew raised the question whether humanity thrives better through extremism or through moderation. At this, Dr. Oliver made a joke referring to Barry Goldwater, a former presidential candidate, who said, “I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!” I offered the the example of Abraham Lincoln (having recently seen the new blockbuster). He was a moderate upon many issues, but not about slavery. Our group discussed the idea of extremism being necessary in our political leaders, and as Jacob brought up, whether it played the same role at a personal level. Michele proposed that that perhaps we had missed the main point, that the Golden Mean pertains specifically to personality traits (the book discusses the differences between a foolish, a cowardly, and a courageous soldier).
Two floaters, Logan and Evan, offered two valuable insights into our discussion of the Golden Mean. Logan offered the idea that Aristotle's doctrine of the Golden Mean was perhaps the reason that his legacy stifled philosophical development for centuries following his death. In the spirit of moderation, philosophers were hesitant to challenge his premises. Evan offered the idea that Aristotle's doctrine had a logical dillemma, for how did it propose to define the middle way? Does Aristotle define it? If not him, who does?
FQ: What philosophical argument does the 'Peritrope' of Plato from Thaetus refer too?
DQ: How can a relativistic society build public consensus (or as the book describes, deal with conflict) without challenging another person's philosophical beliefs?
Link: Though I did not bring this up in today discussion, as a Christian, there is a verse from the scripture that relates to this idea of moderation, one that I have mulled over for a long time. "'All things are lawful for me,' but not all things are helpful. 'All things are lawful for me,' but I will not be enslaved by anything." 1 Corinthians 6:12.
Floater:
ReplyDeleteAs a floater to this group, I believe that this group had a great discussion on Aristotle. I also made a point earlier in this group about why Aristotle was taking the middle ground. Was Aristotle taking the middle ground because of personal reasons or for diverting himself from confrontations with other people? I believe that taking the middle ground is okay for some situations. However, I believe that sometimes a person has to step up to the plate and be able to tell the extremes exactly how they are to people.
Link: http://users.ipfw.edu/caseldij/ethics/golden%20mean.pdf
I found these examples of what it is meant by the Golden Mean Aristotle used. This shows the compromise that Aristole would make and then the extremes.
Awesome summary Nate, it really encapsulates the core of our discussion on Thursday. One thing that was brought to my mind ,being mathematically minded, is the bell curve. Perhaps there are two levels to the Golden Mean. Personal balance and the balance of humans as a whole.
ReplyDeleteSo, back to the bell curve. In each person , Aristotle might be suggesting that though we may have some extreme qualities, both max and min, they balance each other out. Put that along side our mediated, 'average' qualities, which outnumber the extremes (that is the bell curve part, you have a pretty balanced human that is accurate which nature.
As for humanity as a whole, people in general tend to balance each other out. The general population tends to be average , aka the essence of average. However with an 'extremer', there exist another 'extremer" on the other end of the spectrum that balances the two out. Think politics , extreme left and right winged, there comes a balance that gives majority rule and minority rights.
So, what I garner from Aristotle, is to have a variance of people that surround me. I need liberals, extroverts,and all sorts of lovely people to "balance" me.
As always, excellent summary, Nate!
ReplyDeleteI'm glad that you brought up that bible verse, because it shows that philosophy is a part of a thoughtful religion, as Dr. Oliver said.
This particular idea most definitely transcends religions--I'm fairly confident that most religions agree on this, actually! One of my all-time favorite "spiritual books" was Hesse's Siddhartha, which really stresses the idea of the middle path, or the Golden Mean. Rather than just post a quote from a book summarizing/illustrating Buddhism, however, I thought I'd link to a page that shows shows many quotes relating to this idea of a middle path from many, many different backgrounds:
http://www.virtuescience.com/middle-path.html
The quote that I was searching for when I found this sight was:
"Finally, not long before attaining Enlightenment, he realized the fruitlessness of these two extreme ways of life. He realized that the way to happiness and Enlightenment was to lead a life that avoids these extremes. He described this life as the Middle Path."
I find it interesting that most religions do stress a path of moderation, and yet religion has also produced some of the most radical extremists. A lot of the most controversial social issues in our own country, things that have generated a lot of hatred and even violence like abortion, are based on religious doctrine. So I think the question is: Is the extremism truly a result of the religious beliefs or simply xenophobia?
DeleteAlso, a good FQ from our discussion could be "what is Eudaimonia, and what philosopher is credited with it's creation?" ...remember, these FQ are all fair game for our test, so we want to keep it relevant!
ReplyDeleteActually, a good DQ might just be to compare and contrast how this idea presents itself across religions.
Or perhaps even a midterm essay/presentation. :P
How are happiness and eudaimonia not the same thing? I feel like they sort of coincide with each other somehow. If Aristotle thought that we should seek happiness, is eudaimonia more of a compilation of happiness and fulfillment, rather than just success? Aristotle said that happiness is not based on emotion; however, people who are accomplished in life are not necessarily happy. People who may not be as successful are very happy. How does that work?
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, when you pass a test because you studied really hard, you feel happy because you feel accomplished. This is more like being happy because of an act, but I still feel that it stands to reason if you think of happiness as a state of being that it is very similar to, if not the same thing as, eudaimonia.
In regards to the golden mean, certain character traits help you increase your chances for eudaimonia. DQ: Why even bother trying to be such a good person if a stroke of bad luck can completely wipe out your entire eudiamonia? How does your fulfillment rely on something that you have no control over?
A good FQ from this section is "What is the golden mean? and give examples that Aristotle attributed to it.
ReplyDeleteA DQ for this upcoming section is "What do you think Sandel would think of Lance Armstrong? How do we deal with these "false wins"?
Yes I wish I would've done some reading before the discussion I spoke of Eudaminoa and Arisotle belief in it before I knew anything of it. This is because he acted as if he lived by it. My main point was that he believed a determining a persons happiness based on the entire life rather than simple moments in a persons life. He said a child could not be happy , which we all know children can be happy however he meant truly happy. True happiness isn't so simple I believe it's the fulfillment of a life a person legacy, what the left behind for the next generation to learn from and build on. Our group talked about many of these things in great discussion.
ReplyDeleteBeing new to the class I enjoyed the discussion. I've one question to add to Matthew's question about "whether humanity thrives better through extremism or through moderation".
ReplyDeleteIs it possible for a society to be moderate about issues of justice and equality? if that is not possible how far can it go before crossing the line of being extreme.