Aristotle's Argument Of Function

1461 Words6 Pages
Aristotle on Happiness For two millennia man has sought the highest good for himself— happiness. The notion of happiness remains vague and manifold, yet all men want it. It is spoken of indiscriminately as a state of mind, a level of prosperity, the reward of good behavior, and an outcome of familial harmony. Even when the great categorist, Aristotle himself, analyzed happiness he was unable to delineate it in any rational manner. Aristotle’s analysis of happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Rhetoric differ and illustrate the indeterminability of happiness. In modernity happiness is a difficult term to define, yet it is most often equated with a pleasurable state of mind. One is happy that they receive something, or do something, or because they are in a certain place; in short, happiness is as variable as the winds. In this context happiness correlates to pleasure in a much stricter way than it did in the world of Aristotle. The Greeks had a peculiar concept of goodness and virtue. Their concept of virtue—arête— was a functional one. If a horse ran well it was virtuous. If a man functioned well as a man he was virtuous. In this sense, the virtue of the ancients was amoral. Consequently, their conception of happiness was functional as well: But presumably to say that happiness is the supreme good seems a platitude, and some more distinctive account of it is still required. This might perhaps be achieved by grasping what is the function of man. If we take a flautist or a sculptor or any artist his goodness and proficiency is considered to lie in the performance of that function; and the same will be true of man, assuming that man has a function. (Nicomachean Ethics, 1097b) Aristotle inherited this functional sense of happiness, or eudaimonia. 1 Eudaimonia is most often translated as happiness. However, implicit in the Greek conception of eudaimonia
Open Document