Aristotle's Philosophy on Purpose Essay
884 Words4 Pages
Aristotle, the last of the great Greek philosophers. He roamed Ancient Greece from 384 BC until his death in 323 BC. In this time, he wrote an enormous amount of works, a variety of books from metaphysics to politics and to poetry. His variety is exceptionally impressive. His greatest known works are the Athenian Constitution and Nicomachean Ethics. Aristotle’s works of Ethics explore a vast area of topics. He states, “The goal of the Ethics is to determine how best to achieve happiness.” In order to achieve happiness, one must live a virtuous life, in the mind of Aristotle.
Interest is sparked in this area that Aristotle writes of because there is a natural need for Ethics in human life. John K. Roth states, “Aristotle assumes that…show more content…
The intellectual virtue provides one with the skill to calculate outcomes and make rational decisions. This character trait contributes to the unity of virtues because; if one lacks this component, the ‘practical’ part of wisdom is eliminated. As Aristotle says, “Wisdom must be intuitive reason combined with scientific knowledge.” By analyzing this quotation, it is understood that ‘intuitive reason’ is referencing moral virtue and ‘scientific knowledge’ is referencing intellectual virtue. He is saying that moral and intellectual virtue must co-exist to create wisdom. To support moral virtue Aristotle states, “We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit.” The reason one needs the intellectual virtue is because there is always a variable in life. Every situation is always different, slightly or drastically, but different none-the-less. This commands a skill to decipher these situations, which Aristotle calls the virtue of intellect. However, this virtue cannot do it’s job of deciphering situations properly on it’s own, resulting in the need for the virtue of morality.
It is equally important to have the virtue of morality because, one can decipher a situation with pure intellect, but it will result with a solution morally incorrect. It would be beneficial, but it will lack any standard of justice or honour. With the lack of moral correctness, Eudaimonia is not
Despite the broad diversity in our century of views about tragedy, most critics show remarkable agreement about one point: that ‘conflict’ is a central defining characteristic of the form. Tragedy has repeatedly been discussed in terms of a struggle, which involves competing demands or forces that press in on man and shape his conduct. Although the structure of such a conflict has been variously formulated, in general it has been conceived in one of three ways: 1) as a psychological dilemma of inner decision-making, in which the hero must choose between opposing claims that he cannot mediate; 2) as a social collision between agents who hold to different but often equally valid ethical claims; 3) as a religious struggle implicating man in resistance against a force of divine necessity, such as fate, oracles, or the gods.
A wide host of influences could be marshalled to explain the development of popularity of these modern conceptions. Existentialism has had a hand in forming theories of tragedy that concentrate on crises of decision-making. Hegel's critical views of drama in the Vorlesungen ueber die Aesthetik have had an impact on the idea that tragic struggle emerges within the state and the potential competition between civic and familial obligations. And German Romantic critics, for example, Schiller and Schlegel, have made their mark on the notion that the tragic hero asserts his dignity against an external force of necessity threatening personal autonomy. But it has often been argued that these relatively modern influences are themselves derivative. According to many critics, theories of tragic conflict are ultimately indebted to Aristotle's Poetics. The Greek treatise is seen as the primary source for an idea that has by now become commonplace.