September 4, 2012
Aristotle and "Good"
Aristotle seems to jump around with his definition of "Good" or a "Supreme Good" in Nichomachean Ethics. He claims that it cannot be a universal term as there is "Good" in everything and can be found in any action or example. He uses the term "Good" with Politics, Enjoyment, and Contemplation in support of his definition that "Good" is not necessarily universal and is different in each circumstance, yet the definition seems quite all encompassing of each example given. I agree that "Good" can be different for each circumstance, but I think that we all have a similar view of what is "Good" and what is not. Sure, the outcomes or the means may differ but the human still feels what it is "Good" and what is not good. Through our own experiences and expectations we have a standard we feel needs to be reached in order for us to find that "Good" we are looking for or happen to end up with.
4 comments:
Aristotle has a conflicting ideology of universal truth as a result of studying under Plato who believed there was a "noumenal" world of perfect forms through which we form our conception of all things good in this world. He also drew from Sophist ideas of probable truths, and the idea that we cannot know anything for certain. I feel these conflicting ideas contribute to his unclear definition of "Good" or "Supreme Good". Where does our notion of what is good come from? are we born with an innate sense of what is good? I believe this to be majorly a survival instinct, the ability to determine what is good or beneficial and what is bad or evil. However, the choice to be made in individual circumstances is subject to several variables, blurring the lines between strictly good and strictly evil.
I definitely agree with Michelle. Aristotle's unclear definition of "Good" can be attributed to Sophist ideas and his study of Plato's "noumenal" world. While reading the piece, I understood Aristotle in his efforts to showcase the blurring line between "Good" in one particular sense, and "Good" in any other. I do not think it as simple as saying "Good" will be determined by humans innate feelings towards circumstance, action, and outcome. There are world laws, national laws, cultural laws that guide each individuals perceptions of what is "Good" and what does not constitute as it. There are several means of attaining "Good," but that to me does not mean that those means are "Good" in themselves or that their outcomes are "Good." It is much too easy to say that because there are so many definitions of "Good" that we can say that all things are "good" to someone. If anything, I think it better to question whether anything is truly "good" at all. Aristotle raises the question about where does "Good" come from. I believe that is an even greater question and will help in defining what is "Good" and what is not.
I think what Aristotle may have been insinuating is that there are many different definitions of what is Good, and many different “Supreme Goods” in the world, but not a “Universal Good”, true for all human beings to exist, ever. As time goes on and we learn more about our world and how it works, most of our ideas of “Goodness” have grown and evolved with us. They change as we gather more information about how things come to be. Very few ethics (like “Good”), if any at all, have been true throughout all the ages of man. And there is no guarantee that they will always be thought to be true. There cannot be a “Universal Good” for all time and for all People if both are continually growing and changing.
There may even be a cultural divide on the concepts of “Goodness”. Many people in the same society will subscribe to the same belief of what is “Good” and what is not good, and can therefore be regarded as a “Supreme Good” in that society; something that is to their minds a universal trait in the functioning of all other societies. But other societies and people may have a very different definition of “Goodness”, that may be in direct violation of the first society’s “Supreme Good”. Is one society necessarily wrong? Could both be right, even if both of their individual concepts of “Goodness” are in opposition? Does the one invalidate the other, or can they exist side by side, both “correct”?
I tried my best to sort of understand what Aristotle meant by good. In the beginning yes he does seem to not make himself clear when it came to his definition of good. I don't believe he was trying to say they're are many different goods. Every action has an aim and that the end of that aim is good. All good must correlate since they hold the term good. Therefore they are all connected by happiness. Happiness is the universal or supreme good in my opinion. Good exist in every realm. It can separated as an eternal good or a reference based on actions. Theres a good in war (victory) and there is a good in food (taste). However the connection is they all make one happy.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.