September 4, 2012
Aristotle and 'Good'
Aristotle says that "Good is the same for the individual and the state" but also says that "The Good of the state is manifestly a greater and more perfect good, both to attain and preserve." This seems contradictory to me, because it doesn't seem logical that two should are supposedly equal but one is more valuable or worthy than the other. Saying the good of the state is the greatest important, over the good of man, seems to excuse the state for any bad that happens its citizens. I think it's more reciprocal than the state simply being more important than anyone, maybe it's true on an individual level, but not for citizens as a whole. If most citizens have a good life, I think it contributes to goodness on both levels. Aristotle clearly assigns more value to certain kinds of good, rather than others, when he names them as Lives of Enjoyment, Politics, and Contemplation. I think he assigns these values to make it easier to find a Supreme Good. If good is relative to individuals, can Supreme Good be relative, too, so that it represents the best one can achieve?
1 comment:
I think you are something with the contradiction. Aristotle continually tells us statements that oppose each other. Are we supposed to follow the good of the law, of our nation? Or are we supposed to follow the good of what we want? Then there is the "Supreme Good". What is the Supreme Good, and who tells us what it is? And who has the right to tell us what the "Supreme Good" is?
Society has a complete different view of goodness than what we may view it as. So does Aristotle expect us to go with what we believe or what society believes, and therefore what he believes as well?
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.