|
A Brief Look at the Nichomachean Ethics and Aristotle's Metaphysics:
We should agree with Aristotle that our use of reason is good for us because happiness is the ultimate end, and reason is the only way of attaining this happiness. When Aristotle referred to happiness, or eudaemonia, he did not mean today's definition of a feeling of well being but rather "living well and doing well." (1095a 19) Happiness is an important aspect of Aristotle's philosophy because for him it was an activity of the soul which attained a high level of excellence cultivated over the span of a complete life that accords with virtue. (1098a 16) The notion of virtue for Aristotle was whatever it is that makes something good. (1098a 12) The good "is that for the sake of which other things are done," (1097a 19) or in other words, the good is the result of what someone or something rationally aims at.
If something or someone performs the job or task that it is meant to do (telos) and does it well than it has good virtue. If I have a hammer that accomplishes its function (telos) of pounding nails well, then the hammer has good virtue. Aristotle saw that humans who stand out in some distinctive social role excel in specific dealings characteristic to it. He then looked for "some function apart from all these" (1097b 35) to attribute to humans and found reason. It is precisely the ability to use reason that sets humans apart from the other animals.
The soul, Aristotle would have argued, is composed of three main desires which are the appetitive, spirited, and rational. The appetitive desires, which animals also have, would be the desire for eating, drinking, and sexual pleasure. (1095b 19) These actions in themselves could not lead to human excellence as they are only temporary, and rationality is required to keep them from their extremes. Subsequently, the spirited desires are compiled of wealth, honor, and power which are good but, they do not lead to happiness because they are superficial Also, one would simply have to depend upon too many people. It is contemplation, or the intellectual faculty, that allows humans to gain control of the passions. Avoiding extremes and deficiency by directing the passions is how excellency is to be attained, and the only way to accomplish this is by exercising the distinguishing function of humans which is rationality.
Aristotle said that happiness must pass the test of completeness which would determine if it has matured over one's life, and the test of self-sufficiency which is an end pursued for its own sake. (1097b 8-9) This is because "the best good is apparently something complete." (1097a 28) So by what means could one attain this completeness and self-sufficiency? Aristotle would have argued one could achieve these goals by cultivating his power of reasoning and contemplation. Nature gives humans the potential to gain control of the passions by using contemplation. Instinct alone would not be enough to be happy, nor would it be enough to choose one's own way. The only way a person could make a deliberate decision when there is conflict is by using reason.
Aristotle would have argued that choices based on deliberation are the best means to promote given ends. (1112b 13) A person would probably not be able to keep many friends if only acted only on instinct, because his passions would run wild without reason keeping them balanced. Instead of deliberately seeking a long term and long lasting happiness, instinct would rather have him indulging in instant gratification and short term goals. It should be noted that Aristotle did not advocate the idea that the passions should be repressed, but instead they should be kept at a medium by prudence. Actually, a decision would be the result of a wish for some good as an end in itself. The wish constituting a rational desire. (1111b 28)
Aristotle's teachings have pointed out that happiness as an end in itself is the ultimate end and function of human beings. The only method of attainting this happiness is through reason. A life that does not exercise the capacity to reason will end up in some way being incomplete and never reach perfection. Therefore, reason is not only good for us but necessary to reach a compete life. One of the most distinctive of Aristotle's philosophic contributions was a "notion of casualty." Each thing or event, he thought, has more than one "reason" to explain what, why, and where it is. Earlier Greek thinkers assumed that only one sort of cause could be explanatory, while Aristotle proposed four, the material, the efficient, the formal, and the final causes.
The material cause answered the question "What is it made of? Or What is its essence?" by defining the material. An example of an inanimate object could be a chair. Its material cause could be wood, glue, and nails. An animate object such as a fox would have fur, skin, organs and bones etc., as its material causes.
The efficient cause defines the person or action that formed it. In the case of a chair, its efficient cause could be a carpenter who assembles chairs. Animate objects tend to be harder to define. You could explain a fox's efficient cause as its parents, or the act of sexual reproduction. The efficient cause of an action is who enforces the action. So the efficient cause of a handshake would be the two people participating in it.
The formal cause explains the characteristics that define this object as itself as opposed to any other object. For a chair this would be its seat, back, four legs etc. A fox's formal cause would be a pointed snout, red and white fur, four legs, a bushy tail, etc. The characteristics of a handshake could be two clasped hands and a gentle up and down movement.
The final cause establishes what the object or action is for. It describes its purpose. The purpose of a chair is to be sat on and provide a place to rest upon. Defining the final cause of an animate object can be very difficult as there is no one and nothing to tell us the real purpose of that object. The purpose of a fox might be to live, reproduce; keep the numbers of rabbits down or something else. The purposes of actions are easy to define as we initiate them and can say why we did that thing. The final cause of a handshake might be to signal a deal, or to show affection or it might be a greeting.
Aristotle believed that the final cause was the most important of all four causes. This was because he believed that when an object or action fulfils its final purpose it has reached a sense of moral goodness. He believed that this is the fundamental difference between the final cause and the other three causes that he outlined. The first three causes can be perceived by the senses. They are to do with the form of the object, its structure and characteristics. You can look at an object and see what it has been made from, or else you can touch or taste it to find out its material cause. You can establish an objects efficient cause by asking someone, or purely by looking at it. By looking at the object and seeing what each component is like, you can deduce the formal cause of an object. It may not be enough just to look at a particular object you might need to taste or touch it.
The final cause, on the other hand, is very different. You cannot discover the final cause by using your senses. For example if you had never seen a chair before, it may not be obvious that it has been designed to be sat on. It might be observed to be a stand for another object or a piece of sculpture. You would have to look at the object but also think about how the characteristics can be used to your advantage. You would have to study a chair and think about its shape before discovering that its purpose is to be sat upon. Or you would decide what you want an object to do and design it for that purpose. This is why it is so hard to establish a final cause for animate objects. You can ask the creator of manmade inanimate objects to explain the purpose of the object but this is impossible for animate objects. It takes logical deduction to establish the final cause of an object or action whereas the other causes are based upon actual and factual detail.
An example of the causes at works is as follows: let’s say that someone sets a statue before you; what are its causes? The material cause would be the marble from which it had been carved. The efficient cause is the sculptor. The formal cause is the shape the sculptor realized. And, the final cause is its function, which is to be a fine work of art. In each context of his thinking, Aristotle thought that things could be stated in specific terms rather than on general terms. So, it is more informative to know that a sculptor made the statue rather than an artist made it. And, even more informative to know that a certain person sculpted it rather than a sculptor did so.
All of this is made possible by the Unmoved Mover, who is perfect because it is in a constant state of a very deep type of self-reflection and self-actualization that is impossible for human beings to perform. For Aristotle the Unmoved Mover is the ‘substance,” that is, something that exists without anything else helping it to sustain its state of being. The Unmoved Mover is not aware of the universe beyond itself. The Unmoved Mover does not need the universe nor does it take care of it, however the universe needs it for it’s constant state of inward thinking enables the heavens the ability to move, which in turn enables the planets to move, and for the creatures that walk their faces to move as well.
|
