A couple of weeks ago I posted about Hillsdale College's free online course on Aristotle's Ethics, taught by Larry P. Arnn. Since our host seems to know a bit about Aristotle (ahem), I thought I would bring discussion questions here. The focus of the course is appropriately the Nicomachean Ethics, but there are readings in other works as well.
I don't plan to just rehash the lessons. Instead, I will take thoughts and questions the lesson sparked in me, develop them a bit, and bring them here for discussion. I am going through one lesson each week. If time allows, I will then post one discussion topic here each week. I will also include a link to the lesson at Hillsdale’s website.
There is a key point in the first lesson that I think will bear on all of the lessons. In the third chapter of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle plainly states that we can't be equally precise in all things (e.g., physics vs. history vs. justice). He acknowledges that topics such as the beautiful, justice, and goodness involve great disagreement and depend on convention, and in fact can include inconsistencies, as some things considered good can result in harm. Therefore, "one ought to be content ... to point out the truth roughly and in outline," and in general when speaking and reasoning about things that are true for the most part, to reach conclusions that are also true for the most part. This seems quite reasonable to me.
One last point before we get started is that my goal in these 10 lessons is to understand Aristotle’s ideas. As such, I don’t plan to spend much time trying to pick them apart. I learn by trying to apply, so my discussion topics will focus more on trying to apply or extend Aristotle's ideas than on whether or not I agree with Aristotle. Once I feel like I have a reasonable understanding, I might then try to pick some of his ideas apart, but I want to understand first. You, on the other hand, should feel free to attack his ideas right away. That's your business.
I'll get to the first lesson, "The Good," under the fold.
Lesson 1: The Good
The reading is Nicomachean Ethics, chapters 1 & 2. (Total, less than 2 pages.)
Although I just said I wasn’t going to rehash the lesson, this lesson provides some fundamental vocabulary that need to be explained so we can have decent discussions going forward.
The first sentence of the Nicomachean Ethics is:
"Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good, and hence it has been beautifully said that the good is that at which all things aim."
Arnn points out that ‘art’ here means the use of a skill, inquiry refers more to a method rather than just asking a question, and that ‘choice’ implies free will.
Aristotle moves from this beginning to establishing a hierarchy of goods, based on their purposes. If an art or a thing exists for the sake of something else, that something else is a higher good. Medical knowledge is good, but it exists for the sake of health, so health is a higher good. Bridles are good, but they exist for horsemanship, so it is better, and horsemanship (in the Athenian state) existed for military victory, so it was better still. Finally, the art of strategy exists to maintain the existence of the city-state, so that existence is even higher than military strategy.
The highest goods, then, exist for their own sake, and not for the sake of something else.
At least, that is my summary of it all. If I’ve erred, I hope Grim will correct me.
So, what does this mean for us?
In some sense, I feel we’ve just covered some “obvious” ground: We’d rather have a car than an alternator. But I think he’s talking about pursuits more than objects: the bridle maker has an important job, but the cavalryman is more important, the general more important still, and today I almost fall into the trap of saying the politician is the most important. However, Athens was a true democracy in that all eligible citizens could vote on all proposed legislation, serve in the courts, etc. There were no politicians. In a sense, then, political participation by the citizen was the highest pursuit.
Would the natural conclusion be for an individual be to pursue the career that is as high as he or she can reach? If all I can do is make bridles, then I know that’s a good job and I can be satisfied in that, but if I can be a cavalryman, should I do that instead? (Aristotle may directly answer this question later, but if so, I haven’t read that far.)
In the end, though, regardless of career, even the lowliest artisans could still pursue the highest good by being politically active citizens. I do like that idea, very much I think.
I also wonder what Aristotle said (or would say) about the interdependence of the pursuits. So, the cavalryman is more important than the bridle maker, but if the bridle makers don’t do their job, the cavalrymen have a problem, which means the generals have a problem, which means the city-state has a problem.
Thoughts or comments?
21 comments:
Just a brief reflection on the idea of 'higher good'
It seems to me that you hit an important point about the relationship between the bridle-maker and the cavalryman. The bridle-maker serves the 'higher good' by performing his job to the best of his abilities, and so on up the chain. While one job maybe 'higher' than another, depending on how many steps it takes to reach the end point, it's important to distinguish that from saying one occupation is more worthy of honor than another. Honor comes as much or more from the relative performance of the artisan than the relative position of the job.
I think it also makes you look at people who rationalize violating the fundamental tenants of their profession by claiming doing so 'serves a higher good' in a different light.
...to reach conclusions that are also true for the most part. This seems quite reasonable to me.
I've developed an argument elsewhere that this means that Aristotle is, without quite explicitly saying so, making a distinction between logical and analogical reasoning. I think he develops this further in the Rhetoric, which isn't as commonly read as the N. Ethics or the Politics. But he thinks of rhetoric as the method of politics, and devotes significant attention to reasoning as well as persuasion.
See here: https://grimbeorn.blogspot.com/2017/01/aristotle-generally-has-point.html
Having said that, the usual reading of Aristotle (from the physical works) is that 'always or for the most part' means that there's a form involved. Forms determine, and in places where nothing else affects a thing than its form, you'll get 'always.' (The motion of the stars is his example here, which as far as the Greeks could tell was eternal and unchanging). In the sublunar realm, there's always interference from externalities, so forms are only perfectly explain outcomes 'for the most part.' Thus, ethics really does have a right answer -- our form will tell us what it is -- but every now and then accidents happen, and courage ends up being what kills us instead of what helps us succeed in war.
The highest goods, then, exist for their own sake, and not for the sake of something else.
Yes, but it's more than that. The very highest good is the thing that all things desire. Later religious Aristotelian philosophers develop this point substantially, including especially Avicenna, Maimonides, and Aquinas. But it's there in Aristotle. What do all things capable of self-determination pursue through their actions? Existence. Squirrels chase after food, and they reproduce in order to extend their existence in another way. Thus, the highest good (good itself) is a kind of perfected, self-sustaining existence: it turns out even the stars are pursuing this, by moving in circles, which are the closest thing a physical object can get. The stars are moving because their souls can perceive the perfection of something else, something immaterial that they are trying to imitate. This thing is an unmoved mover, we learn in the Metaphysics; for Aristotle there are many of them, but for later thinkers it is God who serves this function. Even the stars strive to imitate Him.
Thus, in the EN (which is the short way of writing "Nicomachean Ethics"), you've got an abbreviated argument that is more fully developed elsewhere. Ultimately political systems are good insofar as they help perfect human existence; and human existence is good insofar as it perfects its quest for the ultimate human purpose. That purpose is reason, most perfectly exercised in philosophy; and the philosopher will use it to pursue the very highest thing, a kind of immaterial perfection perceivable to us only through this rational activity.
But while there is a final, true ultimate, there are also a lot of daily things we have to get through. Each of these has goods, and they're lesser goods because they're for something else. We can still order the activity according to those lesser goods, but we can't lose sight of the fact that the lesser goods are to be pursued just because they enable the pursuit of the higher good. The bridlemaker enables the cavalryman, but the cavalryman exists to preserve the good state; and the good state exists to enable the good life; and the good life exists to enable us to perfect our virtues so that we can pursue philosophical understanding. The lesser ends are ordered to the higher ones, and ultimately to the highest one.
While one job maybe 'higher' than another, ... it's important to distinguish that from saying one occupation is more worthy of honor than another
A very good point, Christopher. You make me think that I erred in saying the cavalryman is higher than the bridle maker. Really, this is about pursuits, so maybe I should say that the work of cavalryman is higher than the work of the bridle maker. The two individuals in question are equal citizens, but their work is of different value.
We'll get to the question of what is most worthy of honor when we talk about the virtue of Magnanimity. It's a crucial point for Aristotle.
It also comes up in the Rhetoric, by the way, as a kind of universal scale of value. When you're comparing things that are unlike (and thus quite difficult to compare), one of the ways you can in fact make judgments about which one is better/more important is in terms of what people honor. Even if they honor different things, honor itself is a like measure for those otherwise unlike things.
Grim, thank you for your expansion on all this. I'll have to take another look at the post you linked.
The very highest good is the thing that all things desire. ... What do all things capable of self-determination pursue through their actions? Existence. Squirrels chase after food, and they reproduce in order to extend their existence in another way. Thus, the highest good (good itself) is a kind of perfected, self-sustaining existence.
Yes, that makes a lot of sense here.
I'm very interested in how Aristotle viewed the relationships between the good, existence, beauty, and truth. Quite related, I'm also interested in his views on politics. These are things you're pointing to here, but I still don't grasp it all.
Lesson 2 diverts into the Politics, and it's very interesting because it talks about a hierarchy of communities that draws on his hierarchy of goods, which I'm sure you know. But I'll keep that for my next post.
Regarding the honor due a bridle-maker versus a cavalry officer, we must remember the wise old joke: a culture that honors mediocre philosophers above good plumbers because philosophy is more honorable than plumbing will find that neither their pipes nor their philosophy will hold water.
So too a brave, diligent, skilled, thrifty, creative, beauty-making (etc ) "good" bridle-maker can be esteemed and held up to exemplify "goodness". Later theorists would argue that being the best (loyal, obedient, hard-working...) slave any slave could be is similarly an estimable calling. We might consider the honor due a hard-working, fair-value-giving, whore. What about a quack peddler of nostrums who makes the sick emotionally feel "better", who has a sympathetic ear and comforting bedside manner, but who affects their diseases not at all. Is the best and most persuasive quack a quack could be, an estimable quack?
There are people being the best they can be, and honored in the culture and marketplace, but are nevertheless not contributing to the culture's defined greater good. Seems to me we need to come to such valuations from at least two directions.
People still don't realize that they live in a simulated matrix program, where anything they see is not real. Heh, when will people wake up.
This avatar is not real. This account is not real. This computer is not real. This blog is not real. These words in the English language are not real. Plato's image of ideals and the shadows were not real.
There is no good and there is no evil. As 1 became 2 and 2 became 3, people seem to think this reality of theirs is the Source when it is far from the source.
The world is a stage because it is a simulated game, intended for the players. It's not real. People treat it as real because they have forgotten. They are walking amnesiacs, and think their eyes see the truth.
"Seems to me we need to come to such valuations from at least two directions."
Yes, that to me seems a more than fair point.
Nothing more to add at this time, but to thank Thomas for doing this. Looking forward to Lesson 2.
J brings up some interesting topics.
Aristotle states right off that every art, inquiry, action, and choice aims at some good. What goods are the prostitute and snake-oil peddler aiming at?
Arnn points out that murderers will try to justify their actions in some way; they were aiming at some good when they committed their crimes, even though we would say their actions were not justified.
Another interesting question is about laws in the community. Let's take the snake oil salesman and say he is an outright fraud. We want to prevent fraud. Is it enough to arrest and punish him? He is aiming at some good. Would it be better to consider what good he aims at and help him find a different, more constructive way to achieve that?
Elsewhere Aristotle will state that wealth is not an end or goal in itself, but is desired for the sake of something else.
So, let's say the first answer for our snake oil salesman is he is aiming at wealth, which is fine, but for the sake of what? Maybe he needs to feed his family; I think we would all recognize that as a good thing. He's good at sales, but he lacks the knowledge of other merchandise to be an effective salesman of anything but snake oil.
If we are really aiming at a good society, should we just punish him in hopes that it will deter him and other fraudsters? Would it be better for us in some way help him accomplish the goal of gaining the money to feed his family in a way that is constructive for society? Maybe we should "incarcerate" him for 2 years working the bottom rung in horse sales. That way he can still feed his family (getting paid for work in horse sales) and learn that market.
On the other hand, maybe he's an inveterate liar and fraudster and no matter what we do he wouldn't change. Then we might turn to both forced apprenticeship and practical instruction in virtue.
This brings up a major problem for the US today. We have no agreed upon standard of virtue, so we really can't do that effectively. Oh, we can go through the motions. We can have him write "Fraud is wrong" a million times on a chalkboard, but without a deeply grounded common virtue, a community can't really effectively teach its citizens virtue. Aristotle talks a little about that in the Politics.
Well, those are my unedited thoughts on J's comment.
You're very welcome, douglas. Have you had a chance to check out the Hillsdale course?
Lessons 1 & 2 don't take much time, maybe 30 minutes or so for the readings and then 30 minutes for the videos.
Lesson 3 though is a bit different. It's still not a lot of reading, only about 8 pages, but it's dense and taking me a lot more than 30 minutes to understand. I grapple with Aristotle; every argument seems like a fight to understand.
I don't know why I have this problem with him particularly. In general I'm a fairly good reader and pick things up quickly, but Aristotle is a Rubik's Cube to me.
Well, by "no matter what we do" I intended to mean no matter what we do in the way of teaching him a trade. I intended to leave the door open to practical training in virtue being effective.
If we are really aiming at a good society, should we just punish him in hopes that it will deter him and other fraudsters?
The discussion about justice in the Natural Law post below is relevant -- and we'll get back to it when we get to the section on justice in the EN. The idea is that the law should compel people to act in the ways that they would do if they were virtuous. So it's not enough to punish transgressions, although that is important; you must also compel virtuous behavior.
There's an allied discussion on punishment, of which Aristotle was aware and to which he responds at points, in Plato's Protagoras. There Socrates defends the proposition that punishments should only be for the purpose of preventing future harms, as mere retribution is unworthy of a moral person and therefore a moral state.
Hi Tom,
"take the snake oil salesman and say he is an outright fraud. We want to prevent fraud. Is it enough to arrest and punish him? He is aiming at some good. Would it be better to consider what good he aims at and help him find a different, more constructive way to achieve that?"
Aiming at, or deluding himself regarding, the good: a case-study elaborated upon in great depth in the Broadway musical play "The Music Man" -- though the salesman sells band instruments and uniforms rather than snake oil. Selling a dream. The art of salesmanship generally is so described. The market is not seeking mattresses but good sex, deep sleep, and sweet dreams. The market wants more sizzle than steak, the cute girl rather than the fast car, and sparkling dishes rather than the corrosive chemicals. Helping the population find (or find out) what they want at a price they're happy to pay. There are vastly more illustrators and musicians and videographers and poets creating posters and jingles and commercials and slogans than could ever make a living producing "art".
I suggest that we live in a richer, happier, and "better" culture because of these creative sales efforts. And due to other people encouraged to be their best in plumbing-like, bridle-maker-level, not-obviously-highly-virtuous activity. But I can't draw the theoretical connections. What am I missing?
I have two thoughts on that.
The first is that I think plumbing can be a highly virtuous activity. We can look at virtue as ethics or excellence, but either way it's possible to be as virtuous a plumber as philosopher. And, it's possible to be a terrible philosopher, both in the sense of doing it badly and of being a cretin.
Second, I think part of the disconnect comes in when Aristotle claims that things done for the sake of something else are less good than things done for their own sake. The idea that art and philosophy are done for their own sake while more menial tasks like plumbing are done for the sake of something else is strong in our culture, and many of us (clearly not all) think that art is therefore higher than graphic design and philosophy higher than plumbing.
How do we resolve this, then, if we agree that our society is better off with more tradesmen than philosophers and more sales-oriented workers than artists?
I don't know how Aristotle resolves (or would resolve) this, but maybe part of the resolution comes back to being the best we can, where "can" also includes social forces. He says the work of a general is higher than the work of a cavalryman, but surely he understood there were very few positions for general available compared with cavalryman.
Part of it may well be his view (at least as far as I understand it) that citizen participation is the highest good, so there the plumber and philosopher are equals.
Finally, he defines happiness (which we'll get to in a couple of weeks) as something almost anyone can attain, graphic designer and artist alike. So, more artists than artisans doesn't necessarily mean a happier society.
I'm only 3 lessons into the course, so those are the best answers I can produce right now.
Thank you so much for bringing this up and engaging! I'm enjoying it.
Thanks Tom, and thanks, Grim, for hosting.
"[ Ari's ] view (at least as far as I understand it) that citizen participation is the highest good, so there the plumber and philosopher are equals."
Okay, now we get to a whole 'nother direction / dimension in which modern cultures differ from Old Athens -- perhaps significantly.
It was once extraordinarily rare for the citizen to have the leisure to be anything other than bridle-maker, officer, plumber, or philosopher. Socrates the stone-cutting gadfly notwithstanding, and recognizing that most people (citizens or otherwise) were slaves, crafts-workers, hewers of wood and bearers of water -- there were few opportunities for a person doing good for itself to demonstrate equality with another person doing good in service of the chain-of-command. Athens was itself rare in setting up juries, committees, and councils where random collections of citizens COULD deliberate together -- in service of some high civic good.
It's been a feature of the U.S. at least since the Founder's era that tradesmen and more-or-less ordinary farmer/freeholders were ALSO deacons in their church, officers in the Masonic lodge, volunteers in the fire department, minute-men in the militia... We had and have citizens who put in enough time to keep food on the table and a roof over the kids' head AND meet, as equals, other citizens in small, voluntary, societies that comprise a mosaic within the larger society. All that, and the women (once, non-citizens) also organized and contributed. Abigail Adams making gunpowder and Harriet Tubman running a "railroad" and Carrie Nation ministering (with an ax) to alcoholics. Free to be themselves and contribute to the higher purposes that motivated them, striving to be the best possible "them" they could be. And NOT always in service to high society as it stood in their time. At least as often as not, in direct opposition to contemporary ideas of civic virtue. Were the American revolutionaries "good" people?
All to emphasize that as much as I admire the start Ari made on the question, his ideas founded on his experiences do not address all MY experience-informed questions. Not even roughly and in outline.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0NsxGlTBBc
J, all good points. We don't live in the ancient Athenian democracy, so keeping those differences in mind is important. I think that makes for great discussion.
That said, we are only on chapter 2, and all he's done so far is establish that there is a hierarchy of goods (things, choices, actions, inquiries) and set up a method for deciding which goods are higher than others.
I think it's clear that there is a hierarchy of goods, but all that means is that some things, some pursuits, some choices, are better than others.
His method is setting up a chain of ends: If something exists for the sake of something else, that something else is a higher good. The goods that exist for their own sake are the highest goods. We pursue them for their own sake, like happiness.
Note that he has not laid out a table of organization for society. The point wasn't to list all of the jobs out there, put them all in their place, and then force people into those boxes. Also, the hierarchy of goods is not established by some cabal of social elites, but by principles any thinking person can use to decide on his or her own hierarchy of goods.
Of course, in a democracy, the majority will impose some of its values on everyone, and that's also true in our republic. I think our republic is pretty amazing for allowing each of us to decide our own hierarchy of goods and for having a written constitution and protections for individual rights against the will of the majority. I wish they were stronger protections.
Still, broadly speaking, I think he's right so far. His method seems pretty useful for developing my own hierarchy of goods, and then I can pursue what I think is highest.
Of course, it's early in the course. I try to understand first and only then decide what I think about something, which predisposes me to agree until something obviously wrong pops up or until I know enough to disagree. We'll see where it goes.
The idea is that the law should compel people to act in the ways that they would do if they were virtuous.
That'll be an interesting discussion. I look forward to reading what he says about it.
Of course, we all agree with that to some degree. We ban murder and theft. We mandate school for children. We mandate that parents feed and clothe their children.
As I understand it, and I'm not an expert on the history of ancient Greece, there were few real individual protections in the Athenian democracy, so they could get pretty intrusive.
Tom, I have and gotten through 1&2 (I've even made the kids watch the videos- not the readings, though- I can only ask for so much).
"I grapple with Aristotle; every argument seems like a fight to understand."
Well, the most basic things are the hardest to truly understand, right? We usually just form a working model that's like an old car, and kick it, and fix it, as we go.
I feel like at this introductory stage, I'm hesitant to ask too many questions until I feel like I've a hold of enough to make a complete thought about something.
One thing I'm enjoying is watching how Arnn teaches, and how the students interact. I'm glad they did it this way, with an actual class.
I did thing the brief comment in lesson two about Aristotle saying 'if the shuttle could weave itself, and the plectrum pluck by itself, perhaps we'd have no need of slaves' was interesting. The idea that slavery was wrong had been around with the Jews and Aristotle for thousands of years, but we really didn't have a movement to banish it until the beginnings of the mechanized age and the use of distilled petroleum fuels.
That's great!
I think some of the problem is translation. I actually think it'd be easier going if I just studied ancient Greek before I read Aristotle. But, then I'd never get started.
I'm glad they did it as an actual class as well. It's a good format.
I also thought the comments about slavery and technological advance were very interesting. I'm not sure petrol was necessary; the industrial revolution happened without it, though they were using coal and natural gas.
Agree on the Greek- at least they go over the words and translations. The bit about the Greek word "logos" meaning both to think and to speak was interesting.
Post a Comment