Schopenhauer (Week 6): The Will to Live

Here is the first reading for Unit 2, excerpts from Schopenhauer's The World As Will and Representation (also given other titles in translation).  This focuses on the idea of the will to live, in answer to the question posed by Unit 2: What is the main driving force in humans?

Due to technical limitations, I'm linking you to two files.  The contents are identical, but one is portrait (better for reading on a screen) and the other is landscape (better for printing).

This file is better for reading on screens.

This file is better for printing.

My web to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics sorry for the blur:)

 

Excerpts from Marcus Aurelius' Meditations for week 5.

What is happiness to you?

     

 

What is happiness to you?

 

  My paper is on Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which is about happiness and what that happiness means to each individual because though some may agree happiness is the result of being well with living well, everyone has their own definition of what happiness really is. Some find happiness is with virtue, others wealth, and or pleasure.  Just as the definition differs so does the end to happiness because every action or activity must have an end. We all aim to complete something whether it is a house, a goal, an action and or activity.

  When reading I was intrigued how Aristotle compared so many things, that when together made sense such as, integrity and how that is something found within a person’s moral virtue, which is found in the soul not the body. He is an interesting philosopher and when comparing to Plato and Thoreau everything all made sense.  How in Henry David Thoreau’s Walden he was at his happiest when in complete solitude, and as for Plato’s Apology his character Socrates was truthful within his moral integrity until the very end.  My favorite line in Aristotle’s reading is as followed:

“when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good among others” (pg.567). To have nothing is the greatest happiness of all as a person doesn’t have distraction, or things, but the things within oneself. That is the greatest of all goods.

paper:
                                                What is happiness to you?

        Aristotlelian Ethics: Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) was written by a student of Plato’s who is said to take his own thoughts and ideas and become one of the greatest philosophers of all time. His works include Metaphysics, Categories, Physics, and many others in addition to the Nicomachean Ethics.

        Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is about the pursuit of aiming towards something in order to come to an end. Some aim for happiness, where most can agree happiness is associated with being well and doing well. Though they can agree the pursuit is happiness what defines happiness differs from person to person. Some believe happiness is the pursuit of wealth, pleasure, or honour, but people differ when it comes to these things such as, with health when he is ill, and with wealth when he is poor. But with every good there is an end, and these ends differ depending on the person and their opinion. Some look at good as happiness ending in an activity or action, while others look at good/happiness ending in the products apart from the activity or action such as the feeling a person receives from achieving that something.

        Where there is an action or activity there is goodness, there are three kinds of goods which are divided into three classes “some described as external, others relating to soul or to body; we call those that relate to soul most properly and truly goods, and psychical actions and activities we call as relating to the soul” (pg.568). Human virtue is of the soul not of the body; and happiness is the activity of the soul.  Some identify being happy with virtue, where being happy is an activity of the soul in harmony to virtue. There are different kinds of virtues for some virtues are intellectual and others moral, philosophical wisdom and understanding and practical wisdom being intellectual, open-mindedness and self-restraint as being moral.

        In comparison to Aristotle’s human virtue of the soul, his teacher Plato’s character Socrates in the Apology, expressed bravery, integrity of moral virtue of the soul within his own truth. Socrates who was sentenced to death by the council, who believed he was offending them by teaching the young about asking questions, and allowing them to be open-minded. Socrates despite knowing his fate would potentially lead him to death did not fear it, nor did he tell the council what they wanted to hear in order to be found not guilty. He believed his moral truth, his integrity was more important and worth- while than living knowing he betrayed himself. He wanted to die knowing he was a good man with good values, who did good things for others and lived a happy life.          

        In addition to Plato’s comparison, Henry David Thoreau’s Walden Where I lived, and what I lived for, was about Thoreau himself searching for happiness in a house. He found the house that brought him true happiness in Walden Pond, after having lived at different places for a short period of time. It was isolated and secluded where he was in the midst of nature, and was alone with his thoughts and ideas. This relates to Aristotle’s self-sufficient definition of happiness “when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most desirable of all things, without being counted as one good among others” (pg.567). Being self-sufficient is the end to an action and happiness is something final.

        Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics on knowledge demonstrates that a man who has received an all- around education is a good and knowledgeable man, but a young man who has not finished his education is inexperienced and uninformed in the actions of life. The end result to the man with an education is knowledge which is profitable, but the young man who would rather follow his passions, his study will be in vain and unprofitable because the end result will not be knowledge. Every action or activity as previously mentioned aims at some good so though the young man’s end result will not be knowledge, he will still gain principle knowledge for his actions which will be beneficial.

       Plato’s Apology shows Socrates being condemned for teaching knowledge to others in a different way that appears bothersome to the council before him. He is teaching his young students to be open-minded and to ask questions to subjects that may need answers in order to broaden their education and mind. To ask questions, a person is widening their horizons, which should be a good thing, but he is found guilty and sentenced to death for it.  His young students according to Aristotle will not be knowledgeable in terms of profit and experience, but they will be knowledgeable in terms of principle in the sense they will have gained insight into other worldly actions, such as the world around them and to not be afraid to ask questions. As Aristotle has explained for every action there is goodness and where there is goodness there is happiness.   

        I am in agreement with Aristotle that happiness is different to everyone. A person can be fulfilled doing both an action and an activity. Happiness is virtuous as it is pleasurable and self-sufficient. Happiness is the end result to something, as I yearn to achieve something good from an activity. When helping others by bringing joy and goodness, that to me is happiness in the sense I have achieved something good. Moral virtue is something I can relate to as I always try to have an open-mind and enhance my education. Happiness is whatever a person makes of it and the end result they gain from whatever activity or action they are doing.

 

Epictetus

For Week 4, read Epictetus' Enchiridion here.

If you want to know more about Epictetus' context, chapter 1 of A.A. Long, Epictetus, is an excellent guide.

..."By Asking Questions"

           Upon reading "Apology" or "Apologia" by Plato, I automatically took the definition as the "lens" I would read the essay with. The essay is a defense speech, a defense speech that exposed to me a lot more questions on questioning and who could question. Does how we respond to our circumstances of existence by asking questions depend on our economic class? Does reputation and social status determine if you will be asked questions that acknowledge your circumstance and your existence? Does how we respond to our circumstances depend on the questions asked and answered by other people? I explore how Socrates's defense speech answers yes to all of the above answers with the evidence he shares in court. Evidence that remains true in modern day society.

How Should We Respond to Our Circumstances of Existence by Asking Questions?

Plato’s essay “Apology” is everything but an apology. The essay is an account of the Ancient Greek judicial proceeding of Socrates, in which Socrates defends himself against the charges made by Meletus. Socrates defended himself against his incriminating reputation by explaining that he was seeking to understand things by questioning all whom he could question. Although he was trying to defend himself from years of rumors in the span of a day’s court proceedings- Socrates opens up an endless platform of revelations just by simple questions and answers.

“Furthermore, the young men who follow me around of their own free will, those who have most leisure, the sons of the very rich, take pleasure in hearing people questioned; they themselves often imitate me and try to question others. I think they find an abundance of men who believe they have some knowledge but know little of nothing” (p. 22-23).

            One of the biggest rumors to haunt Socrates is that he was one to have corrupted the youth by spreading his beliefs amongst the youth. Although he addresses the rumor, he also introduces a very huge question: does how we respond to our circumstances of existence, by asking questions, depend on our economic class? This question resonates heavily from the above excerpt since he distinctly labels the type of person who could take part in his discussions of understanding: “the sons of the very rich”.  He even mentions that “…they themselves imitate [him] and try to question others” (p. 23), does this mean only those who have the leisure time to be engrossed in discovery are the ones asking all the questions?

            I’d argue that Socrates defended his arguments with the heavy burden of his economic status always in mind. That he was “poor” was a reoccurring notion, and that the youth that followed him are rich was clearly understood. How we respond to our circumstances with questions definitely is determined by money. The sons of the rich have more leisure time and liberty now as they did then. The circumstances and the types of questions one would ask are even reflective of ones economic status. Socrates exposes how the “…success of [their] craft, thought [themselves] very wise in other most important pursuits” (p. 22). Socrates’s pursuit of understanding provided a visualization of who thought they already knew everything, and that being those who validated understanding with success and monetary power.

            Those with the highest success also had a strong reputation following them, and solidifying them. Could economic status be the only factor in how we respond to our circumstances with questions? No. Plato argues in court:

“I found that those who had the highest reputation were nearly the most deficient, while those who were thought to be inferior were more knowledgeable” (p. 21-22).”

Now the question stands: does reputation and social status determine if you will be asked questions that acknowledge your circumstance? If you are thought to be “inferior” does that mean you cannot ask or be asked questions that acknowledge your existence? I would argue yes. The reputation Socrates had accumulated came from a long span of questioning and exposing the elite who had success. For those who had not achieved such success, and were not afraid of not knowing everything, Socrates did not offend them. He did, however, offend the social elite who had attained much success as they felt their wealth made them wiser than those whom hadn’t been as successful.

            Those who are successful attain a certain aura at times, that make people more trusting in their wisdom, because they have achieved a success others aspire for. The truth is the level of success is still measured today as it was during the times of Socrates. The kinds of questions asked about your circumstance are reflective of the social elite- being their standards, their expectations, and their wisdom. It could totally be that a whole entire section of society is ignored and not questioned because they have not achieved a level of success that compares to the social elite. I could be that a whole section of society doesn’t ask questions because they aren’t part of the social elite.

            Just like a whole section of society is left out because of their social class, couldn’t it then also be that the way a person responds to individual circumstances is dependent on the questions and answers of the social elite? Definitely. Socrates begins to delve into his sentencing of death and says:

“To fear death, gentlemen, is no other than to think oneself wise when one is not, to think one knows what one does not know” (p. 27).

He provides the argument that he doesn’t fear death, because he doesn’t know what life after death is like, that fear however was taught. It was taught and instilled into Greek society by the teachings of those in power, of the elite. Essentially a whole multitude of questions are automatically answered before even asked, and those whom do not have the power entrust in these answers. Some questions are not asked; because the answers that have been provided are the answers you have to believe. Some questions, some people do not have the luxury to be able to ask.

Welcome!  This is the blog associated with How Should We Live: a philosophical study, a sophomore seminar in philosophy at Bunker Hill Community College.

Here is the course outline (subject to change).

Here is the reading from Plato, the Apology for Socrates (for Tuesday).

Here is the reading for Week 3, selections from Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics.