Aristotle’s first argument concerning the nature of pleasure answers the question of whether of not pleasure is the Good. While he holds that pleasure is indeed, a good, it is just that, one of many. Pleasure is not however, the Chief Good. Aristotle backs up this first argument with some key notions about pleasure. Firstly, that pleasure can be enhanced or decreased through the addition, or taking away, of other factors. Wisdom, for example, can increase one’s experiencing of pleasure, while a negative attribute can diminish it.
Since the Chief Good cannot be made more or less desirable by other features, pleasure is not it. Second, Aristotle illustrates the idea that some pleasures are good, and some are negative, and some pleasures vary in degree. The Chief Good is not a variable. It is complete in itself. This again proves that pleasure is not the Good.
I cannot see many holes in this part of Aristotle’s argument concerning the make-up of pleasure. I am therefore inclined to agree with him. Take the example of gardening, an activity which many people enjoy. This pleasure can be increased or decreased by other factors, such as weather. If it is cold outside, gardening will be less pleasurable, while if it is very sunny, pleasure in gardening is increased. As the Chief Good does not vary in degrees, I concur with this aspect of Aristotle’s argument on pleasure.
Aristotle’s second assertion in his evaluation of the nature of pleasure is that pleasure is neither a movement, a process, nor, a transition. On the contrary, Aristotle believes it to be complete the whole time. He backs up this argument firstly, by stating that while becoming pleased (from displeased) might be a transition, pleasure itself, once reached, is not a process of this type. Second, he claims that while we can become pleased quickly of slowly, we can’t be pleased in the same way. For pleasure is not an activity or movement, but a state of being. He uses the example of walking, an action, and contrasts this with pleasure. Aristotle goes on to strengthen his argument by comparing the wholeness of pleasure to that of thought.
The Research paper on Ultimate End Happiness Aristotle Good
Aristotle – Happiness Happiness Aristotle – Happiness Essay, Research Paper Happiness is the Greatest Good In Aristotle s essay, he focuses particularly on how reason, our rational capacity, should help us recognize and pursue what will lead to happiness and the good life. (Cooley and Powell, 459) He refers to the soul as a part of the human body and what its role is in pursuing true ...
On this account of Aristotle’s nature of pleasure, I must disagree. There are several points throughout Aristotle¡¦s argument, which I don¡¦t hold to be true. I will illustrate my objections with some examples. [Take the example of sexual pleasure. During the act of sex, one may take pleasure not only in the final sense, but also throughout the process of reaching that ultimate state of pleasure. While it does take time to reach the highest state of pleasure, orgasm, the steps toward that pleasure are pleasurable in themselves.] (This same idea can be applied to) (Take the example of) the process of learning. While being learned and knowledgeable is a pleasure in itself, many people ¡V most students for example ¡V take pleasure in the steps toward knowledge; lectures, note taking, and studying. This shows that pleasure can, in fact, be part of a process. After all, learning is a process in which many people take pleasure. I am most inclined to disagree with Aristotle¡¦s argument on the basis that he compares the completeness of pleasure to that of thought. But thought is a process, hence the term ¡§the thought-process. For these reasons, I believe Aristotle’s second argument to be a weak one.
Aristotle’s third premise in regard to pleasure is that pleasures differ in kind, as do the activities that they complete. He bases this theory on some assertions about the different types of pleasures. He first states that we do things better when we take pleasure in them, and worse when we don¡¦t. Next, he states that we do things worse when alien pleasures (things we like better than the activity at hand) interfere. He uses the example of eating sweets at the theatre when the performance is bad to illustrate concept. For if there are some pleasures we enjoy more, and some less, pleasures must obviously differ in kind. Aristotle goes on to ask what the “true human pleasures” may be, and answers with the belief that these must be the pleasures in which the wise man delights.
The Essay on Aristotle Conflicting Lifestyles External Goods
Conflicting Lifestyles When comparing the contemplative lifestyle to the moral virtuous lifestyle, one finds the differences to rest on the three types of good: goods of the body, external goods, and goods of the soul. One conflict comes between leading a courageous, brave life and desiring happiness. To explain the aforementioned I feel it necessary to define true courage. It seems true courage ...
“true human pleasures perfect human activities”
While I agree with the notion that there are indeed many types of pleasure, the are some aspects of Aristotle’s argument which I found stronger, and some weaker. I do not agree with his belief that we do things better when we enjoy doing them. I as I’m sure do many others, delight in the act of playing backgammon. I am by no means however, good at it. In fact, I always seem to lose, either because my opponents are usually better than I am, or because I just can’t seem to get the right rolls. On the contrary, I am quite a good athlete, and as a child excelled in every sport I played. Yet I do not take any pleasure whatsoever in playing sports. In fact, while I am good at them, I quite dislike participating in, or even watching sports, as I find them boring and in many cases, just dumb. On Aristotle’s beliefs concerning the true human pleasures, again, I disagree. For who is equipped to say who the wise man is? Who is in actuality wise enough to be the judge of good and bad pleasures. In my opinion, until today, nobody. No one man in the world is smarter than every other, and capable to judge all of humanity. I actually find this aspect of Aristotle’s argument quite ridiculous.
