I've never really blogged for class....and I've never had to read
Aristotle for a class--so bear with me here, post 1 will be a little
rough.
Aristotle started this piece out with the lofty
idea that "the Good is That at which all things aim". Having found this
to be very idealistic, myself, I thought I'd give him some leeway to
try and back this claim up. Instead, I found him trying to say that
Political Science is connected to this "Supreme Good". Now, initially, I
circled this passage and drew big question marks. How could something
infiltrated with so much corruption be directly related to his Supreme
Goodness? Continuing on my reading, I read him saying that securing the
good of the state is better than securing the good of the individual.
Slowly, I started to agree with him.
If we are to take what he says as true, and assume that Political
Science is "not an exact Science", then we enable ourselves to
appreciate the fact that the "good" all things are said to aim for are
situationally good. This soft science does not rely on the rigid
equations and theories of hard sciences, and as such is entitled to
difference of opinions by the "master" of this science. So yes,
something that is good for one person, may in fact have debilitating
consequences and in fact ruin one class while raising another.
So taking my own spin on these few ideas, I think politics were
created so that people can strive to better their nation; however, in
the process of "bettering" oneself, there has to be a bar set. This bar
oftentimes seems to be another nation. Securing the good of a nation
is noble, but comes at the expense of another nation; many times we find
in politics that the (now) inferior nation is exploitated. "The
subjects studied by political science are Moral Nobility and Justice".
Okay, Aristotle, I agree, but I agree with your next point, more.
"...but these conceptions involve much difference of opinion and
uncertainty, so that they are sometimes believed to be mere conventions
and to have no real existence in the nature of things". It seems that
these grandiose ideas are often thought to be understood by readers but
lost when applicable to life. Too many times we forget, or chose to
ignore, what "supreme goodness" would be and how to achieve it, and
instead put our own needs first (either as a nation or individuals), and
molest the concepts of Justice and Moral Nobility to try and justify
our actions.
I have come to think that the problem with understanding
Aristotle's ideas is learning to differentiate between "happiness" and
the "supreme goodness". Happiness is a vice, and will ruin one's
attempt at finding the "supreme goodness". What makes one happy may not
necessarily be what is supremely good; happiness is too flippant and
variable to be considered connected with something supremely
good. Happiness, instead, should be acceptance at accepting what the
"supreme goodness" should be and learning to truly live a life rooted in
Political Science. When the biases and corruption are finally removed,
then, I think, one will find happiness. Aristotle may argue that the
young are not capable of studying political science, but I do not agree
that the old are any more fit to study it. While the young are immature
of character, the old are set in their ways and often unable to accept
any opinion but their own. The old, especially, place the "happiness"
of those they are serving over their "supreme goodness", which is why I
agree with have political factions so unwilling to listen to one
another. Happiness, and pleasing their voters, is what seems to be
important, so all those in Political Science will preach about the Moral
Nobility of their decisions, but such concepts do seem to have "no real
existence in the nature of things".
I think I've confused myself more than I already was...so hopefully you all followed this.
1 comment:
Great insights, Marianna. I especially appreciate the final paragraph in which you say that one must learn how to differentiate between Aristotle's ideas about happiness and supreme goodness. As I read Nicomachean Ethics, I was thinking that the two were closely intertwined, but you were able to draw them apart. I agree that happiness seems to be more individualistic, while supreme good is aimed at what is best overall, without any biases. I had not really thought of happiness in this way, as a potentially corrupting force, but as we look at the world, unfortunately that can be true. People selfishly strive for what they believe will make them happy, and in the meantime, they might work against what will make another happy. They might trod on another person's liberties and rights. They might walk on other peoples' backs to get to the top.
For these reasons, many of us disagree with Aristotle when he says that youth are not fit to study politics. We believe that they are more fit because they have not had the life experiences to learn and engage in corruption. We theorize that they will automatically act upon the supreme good. I thought the same thing, but now I am thinking that this suggests that pure morality is innate, and this is a whole other argument to explore. I must say, however, that I really appreciate your ability to differentiate between Aristotle's ideas of happiness and good because I had trouble with that when I read it.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.