Aristotle on eudaimonia
...tue is constitutive. But how is it achieved? Aristotle begins by laying out the argument for a focus on telos in virtue ethics. This pure ideal of a purpose to all men’s actions is explained by Aristotle’s argument that ‘if there is some end (purpose) of things we do, and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else…clearly (telos) must be the good and the chief good. ’ His next step is to ‘denounce’ the intellectualism of his philosophical predecessor Socrates (agreeing with Plato.) It is commonly held that one can easily fall short of full virtue is through lacking phronesis -- moral or practical wisdom. However Socrates, in his denial of akrasia (weakness of the will) argues instead that mere knowledge of goodness and virtue is enough to make one virtuous. Aristotle disagrees with this contention and instead comments on the importance of being brought up as virtuous – ‘youth is not a suitable student of (ethics) for he lacks experience of the actions in life which (ethics) argues from and about. ’ A virtuous person has to be actively virtuous and be brought up to exercise his virtuous disposition in order to achieve arête – he must ‘desire and act in accordance with (the) rational principle(s)’ of knowledge’ . His will must be one that he is inclined to do good. Thus Aristotle draws a distinction between full and perfect virtue and ‘continence.’ However unlike Socrates, Plato and eventually the Stoics Aristotle does not instantly align arête with eudaimonia. These ethicists argue that arête is necessary and sufficient to achieve eudaimonia. This translates as the view that once man achieves virtue he can expect to achieve true contentment and happiness. This excludes the variable of luck. Socrates, Plato and the Stoics use the example (or parable) of Epictetus the slave who despite his poor position in life was happy due to his virtuous disposition – discounting luck as a factor in happiness. Aristotle, on the other hand considers virtue as a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition for eudaimonia. This is in agreement with pragmatists – as Anscombe comments – ‘it is a bit much to swallow that a man in pain and hunger and poor and friendless is flourishing. ’ Aristotle also criticizes the assumptions of Plato in the republic that whereby supreme virtue exists and that it is an orientation of the whole soul towards the Form of the Good. Forms are seen as eternally perfect, personifying an image of arête. Arguing against this idea of good, Aristotle says that it is unlikely that such an intrinsically pure vision of goodness is unattainable. He asks ‘what sort of goods would one call good in themselves. ’ There is no good that has a common element ‘answering to one idea. ’ He asks ‘is there nothing other than the idea of good good in itself? In that case the Form would be empty. ’ Earlier in the Nicomachean ethics he comments that ‘precision is not to be sought for in all discussions’ and it is this ‘criticism’ of a precise outlook which allows Aristotle to argue inst...