The virtuous person always exhibits an affectation in the appropriate amount. -for ex. Truthfulness: virtue regarding telling the truth about oneself? Defect: self-depreciating Excess: phony omnipotence- all power and unlimited power •Distinguish goods that are, according to Aristotle, valued for the sake of other things, valued for their own sake, and valued for their own sake and for the sake of other things you want some things that gets you other stuff. or example money so its a sake for other things. valued for own sake-having a yacht gives you pleasure but then enjoying it with more friends and travel the world and give you more pleasure. the one good. happiness is the one thing that every one wants and is valued for its own sake.
That which is valued only for its own sake and for whose sake everything else is desired •That which is valued for its own sake and for the sake of other things •That which is valued only for the sake of other things Discuss why Aristotle rejects conventional views that identify happiness with pleasure, honor, and virtue, and what he thinks this tells us about the nature of happiness Aristotle rejects three common conceptions of happiness—pleasure, honor, and wealth. Happiness, he says, cannot be identified with any of these things (even though all three may be part of an overall happy life). Pleasure, he says, is found in satisfying desires—but whether or not we can satisfy our desires is as much up to chance as it is up to us. •The life of pleasure.
Aristotle Essay Example
Problem: the life fit for a pig •The life of honor. Problem: not under our control •The life of virtue. Problem: compatible with inaction •Distinguish between psychological, somatic, and external goods, explaining how they contribute to Aristotle’s conception of happiness External goods- attractiveness, wealth.. Psychological Goods- mental health.. Somatic goods- “Nonetheless, happiness evidently needs external goods to be added, as we said, since we cannot, or cannot easily, do fine actions if we lack the resources.
For, first of all, in many actions we use friends, wealth, and political power just as we use instruments. Further, deprivation of certain things —for instance, good birth, good children, beauty— mars our blessedness. For we do not altogether have the character of happiness if we look utterly repulsive or are ill-born, solitary, or childless; and we have it even less, presumably, if our children or friends are totally bad, or were good but have died •Discuss the roles of habituation and right reason in Aristotle’s analysis of virtuous action function of human beings is knowledge and it what eparates from animals. virtuous action is what a rational person who acts for the right reason. but you also have to feel the correct emotions and feelings to do virtuous actions and be properly affected which means that you find the right things pleasant. and wants to do the right thing. so if you don’t feel like you want to give money to homeless and still give it it does not count as a virtous thing. the teachers ice cream technique- don’t want to do it but do it for ice cream but over time the kids want to do it because it is the virtuous thing to do. Identify and describe Aristotle’s three requirements for friendship and his three different kinds of friendship Pleasure-friendships- Most common among theyoung, fades easily utility-friendships,- most common among the old and also fades easily. character-friendships-
You love a person because of the good qualities she or he possesses. genuine friendship. •Explain what Aristotle means when he claims that friends are “second selves” “A friend is a second self, so that our consciousness of a friend’s existence… makes us more fully conscious of our own existence. and Friendly relations with one’s neighbors, and the marks by which friendships are defined, seem to have proceeded from a man’s relation with himself. For men think a friend is one who wishes well and does what is good, or seems so, for the sake of his friend, or one who wishes his friend to exist and live, for his sake” •Explain why Aquinas thinks God’s existence is self-evident, why it nonetheless may not be evident to us, and how Aquinas thinks God’s existence can be made evident Not every human realizes the existence of god. •Examples of self-evident propositions:
A pig is an animal; a bachelor is an unmarried male •Being self-evident in itself versus self-evident to us •Aquinas: “I maintain that God exists is self-evident in itself since its subject and predicate are identical…[but] the proposition is not self-evident to us” (197). •Question 02: can God’s existence be made evident? •Perhaps God’s existence is an article of faith, not of reason •“There are two types of demonstration: those that argue from cause to effect…and those that argue from effect to cause” (198). •Hitting a pool ball, pressing the ‘on’ button, hand on the stove So, from what effects do we infer God’s existence? •God’s effects in the world, Mozart and his music •Understand Aquinas’ ‘unmoved mover’ and ‘teleological’ arguments for the existence of God and articulate at least one objection to each Argument one of five: the unmoved mover (200). Everything has a cause, but causes can’t go on infinitely. The first uncaused cause is God. Objections: why must it be God? Maybe time is infinite? Telos: the end toward which a thing strives. Everything in nature has a telos. If a thing is non-intelligent, some intelligence must give it its telos.
Objection: nature is not telonic in this way •Discuss why the question ‘can God create a stone that God cannot lift? ’ is said to be paradoxical and how Aquinas tries to resolve the paradox •The paradox of omnipotence: can God create a stone he cannot lift? •If God can, there is something God cannot do, i. e. , lift the stone •If God cannot, there is something God cannot do, i. e. , create the stone •If there is something God cannot do, God is not omnipotent •Therefore, God is not omnipotent •“So we conclude that God’s power extends to anything possible in itself and not implying contradiction.
Clearly then God is called omnipotent because he can do everything possible in itself. ” (p. 249). because if god cannot lift the the stone he created, he is not omintipitent and also if he cannot create that he cannot lift therefore he is not omnipotent so either way god is not omnipotent so aquinas says that god creates certain laws in the universe that he himself cannot break which is considered absolute possibility and relativee possibility is what he can change. •Explain what Aquinas means when he claims evil does not exist because evil does not exit because evil is absence of happiness Understand the weak and strong versions of the problem of evil and discuss Aquinas’ solution to the problem Strong version of the problem •If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist •Evil exists •
Therefore, an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God does not exist Weak version of the problem •Evil exists •The non-existence of God is a more plausible explanation of evil than is the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God •Therefore, it’s more plausible that God does not exist If an omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good God exists, then evil does not exist Aquinas’ answer to the problem of evil •Why is there evil and sin in thet world? •Evil is the necessary result of freedom of the will •Thus, God does not command sin, God permits sin •Does God cause evil and sin? •“God is responsible for sinful actions but not for sins” 296 •Distinguish Aquinas’ conceptions of eternal, natural, and human law •Human law •
Quoting Cicero: “laws start with what nature produces, then by use of reason certain things become customs, and finally things produced by nature and tested by custom are sanctified with…the weight of laws” (420). Eternal law •God as divine legislator: “Clearly…the entire community of the universe is governed by God’s reason” (417). •Divine providence: ordering of the universe toward good •Natural law •Non-moral sense: laws of nature. •Moral sense: guides the actions of animals •“Since everything subjected to God’s providence is measured by the standards of his eternal law, as we have said, everything shares in some way in the eternal law, bearing its imprint in the form of a natural tendency to pursue the behavior and goals appropriate to it.
Reasoning creatures are subject to God’s providence is a special, more profound way than others by themselves sharing in the planning” (418). Eternal law is identical to the mind of God as seen by God himself. It can be called law because God stands to the universe which he creates as a ruler does to a community which he rules. When God’s reason is considered as it is understood by God.