Aristotle on the Purpose of Life

[Eudaimonist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQk6t-9mQjE

"In this video, Monte Johnson (University of California, San Diego) explores an approach to the question “What is the purpose of life?” developed by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Aristotle reasoned that just as artificial things (such as tools and workers) have characteristic capabilities with respect to which they are judged to be good or do well, so each kind of natural thing (including plants and humans) has characteristic capabilities with respect to which can be judged, objectively, to be good or do well. For plants and animals these mostly have to do with nutrition and reproduction, and in the case of animals, pleasure and pain. For humans, these vegetative and animal capabilities are necessary but not sufficient for our flourishing. Since reason and the use of language are the unique and highest capabilities of humans, the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy, was argued by Aristotle to be the ultimate purpose of human life."

What do you think about Aristotle's arguments? This is a highly condensed version, but it at least gets the basic idea across.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

I would say "the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy," are the necessary pathways to reaching our ultimate purpose.

Just like water and sun and soil are necessary elements and conditions for the sprouting of a seed.

Truth is like water, intelligent and compassionate company is like fire, the learning hall and debates are the soils we wrestle in and sprout out of.

IMHO: The ultimate purpose of the human life is to develop self responsible awareness that is in harmony with the forces of the universe and can survive intact separation of the physical body.


The physical body is the template for a holographic image our soul learns to keep informed.

 

[Ana the Ist]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sQk6t-9mQjE

"In this video, Monte Johnson (University of California, San Diego) explores an approach to the question “What is the purpose of life?” developed by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Aristotle reasoned that just as artificial things (such as tools and workers) have characteristic capabilities with respect to which they are judged to be good or do well, so each kind of natural thing (including plants and humans) has characteristic capabilities with respect to which can be judged, objectively, to be good or do well. For plants and animals these mostly have to do with nutrition and reproduction, and in the case of animals, pleasure and pain. For humans, these vegetative and animal capabilities are necessary but not sufficient for our flourishing. Since reason and the use of language are the unique and highest capabilities of humans, the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy, was argued by Aristotle to be the ultimate purpose of human life."

What do you think about Aristotle's arguments? This is a highly condensed version, but it at least gets the basic idea across.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I can see why it would appeal to him.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

I think that the purpose of life is more and contextural holistic than intellectualism. Just because man is distinguished - as a species - from his "animal side" doesnt mean he cant still enjoy it meaningfully. Those who only want to read in bed for instance...are surely missing out. Theres sleep too you know!!!!

 

[juvenissun]

"In this video, Monte Johnson (University of California, San Diego) explores an approach to the question “What is the purpose of life?” developed by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Aristotle reasoned that just as artificial things (such as tools and workers) have characteristic capabilities with respect to which they are judged to be good or do well, so each kind of natural thing (including plants and humans) has characteristic capabilities with respect to which can be judged, objectively, to be good or do well. For plants and animals these mostly have to do with nutrition and reproduction, and in the case of animals, pleasure and pain. For humans, these vegetative and animal capabilities are necessary but not sufficient for our flourishing. Since reason and the use of language are the unique and highest capabilities of humans, the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy, was argued by Aristotle to be the ultimate purpose of human life."

What do you think about Aristotle's arguments? This is a highly condensed version, but it at least gets the basic idea across.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Things we already have, or can do, are not the purpose of our life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Bolded: the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy

Things we already have, or can do, are not the purpose of our life.

Why not? There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of purpose in life that would make that a requirement. A purpose does not have to be something hidden or denied to people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[juvenissun]

Bolded: the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy



Why not? There is nothing intrinsic to the concept of purpose in life that would make that a requirement. A purpose does not have to be something hidden or denied to people.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If so, the question in the OP is not needed. Whatever you say it is, it does not have to be so.

 

[Eudaimonist]

If so, the question in the OP is not needed. Whatever you say it is, it does not have to be so.

I'm not sure I understand your point.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Deidre32]

When I read that Aristotle condoned slavery and was also a sexist, I lost respect for him. Goes to show one can be extraordinarily intelligent but quite ignorant, all at the same time. And I don't buy "he was a product of his time." It's sadly surprising to me when I see people like him follow the herd when it's convenient.

 

[Colter]

To me it's not a plan of life sufficient to achieve and insure life beyond death of the material body. It's ultimately meaningless, humanistic.

 

[Usus Vox Tractus]

To me it's not a plan of life sufficient to achieve and insure life beyond death of the material body. It's ultimately meaningless, humanistic.

Why do you think self awareness or "the soul" is limited to the human vehicle?

Life as we find it around us is a nested stack of living holoarchies. The more in harmonious interaction the better. We call it the ecosystem.

Life as we find within us (the 90% of cells in our body) in our gut flora and fauna is ideally a highly diverse biome of 100 trillion living critters working in concert to allow the function of your body.


The "human" is not the only sentient species these gatherings of the universe can support.



The purpose of life is to move/grow and reproduce. That's what life, as we currently define it, does to continue living. It has evolved physically to gain greater mastery over it's environment. We have also evolved mentally to master our environment as cultures.

If the soul (energetic locus of holoarchical information) does not do so or is not capable of doing so, it would be anomalous among the phenomenon surrounding it.


The entire natural thrust of evolution demands the energetic soul master it's surroundings and entire a higher environmental playing field. This is our purpose and destiny. To seek God, find and become consciously immortal souls rather than eternally dreaming souls.

The "Holy Books" are mostly records of those who have found and devoted the rest of their life even to the point of death to show the rest of their brothers and sisters how to free themselves from energetic (spiritual) bondage.

 

[Chany]

When I read that Aristotle condoned slavery and was also a sexist, I lost respect for him. Goes to show one can be extraordinarily intelligent but quite ignorant, all at the same time. And I don't buy "he was a product of his time." It's sadly surprising to me when I see people like him follow the herd when it's convenient.

I take it you don't like any philosophers until the 20th century, right?

You say he is ignorant, but then go onto say you don't buy the "product of his time" notion? Which is it?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

What do you think about Aristotle's arguments?

They're bad...

All discussions regarding objective purposes of anything are doomed to fail, because purpose is an individual concept. Throw in vague and arbitrary words like "flourishing", and you have something that's might sound nice to you, but does not explain anything to me. For example, if I say the purpose of my life is to do as much damage as I can before I die, what's a counter argument that's makes any sense at all?

 

[Eudaimonist]

When I read that Aristotle condoned slavery and was also a sexist, I lost respect for him. Goes to show one can be extraordinarily intelligent but quite ignorant, all at the same time. And I don't buy "he was a product of his time." It's sadly surprising to me when I see people like him follow the herd when it's convenient.

I don't think that you realize just how much thought from hundreds of people it took to create the progressive culture of the 21st Century. What seems obvious to us today wasn't so obvious back then. What you are describing is very radical for the day. It took a while for philosophers to develop more progressive ideas.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

They're bad...

All discussions regarding objective purposes of anything are doomed to fail, because purpose is an individual concept. Throw in vague and arbitrary words like "flourishing", and you have something that's might sound nice to you, but does not explain anything to me.

Thank you for your reply.

You might want to keep in mind that while the scientific method didn't exist back in his day, Aristotle was thinking very much like a biologist.

Aristotle studied human beings in the same way that he studied non-human animals. Just as he (or any biologist) might have well-considered (non-arbitrary) views on what sort of vital activities most fully characterize a petunia, or a rabbit, or a tiger, this sort of thinking can be applied to human beings as well.

The term eudaimonia is only a thin and general specification of the human good, but that is not a flaw in the concept. Spock's wish that you "live long and prosper" does not itself specify what you as a particular individual should do to prosper, but that doesn't mean that nothing can be said about prosperity in the abstract, or in specific cases. Spock's form of prosperity was most likely being a science officer, or at least a scientist or some other profession that would make the most of his mental talents. In order to understand how you should prosper, you should consider your talents and the constructive role they have in your life as a whole.

Did you watch the video? It would be interesting to see you respond to the points made there. I was really looking for a reaction to the video.

For example, if I say the purpose of my life is to do as much damage as I can before I die, what's a counter argument that's makes any sense at all?

It's not really that difficult.

My understanding of human capacities does not in any way support the idea that our natural purpose is simply to harm others, aside of course from the living things that we eat to sustain our lives. You offer no defense of this view, so it is difficult to refute other than to suggest that it doesn't flow from any facts we have of human nature. For instance, it becomes extremely difficult to understand our social capacities if we are only agents of destruction.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

To me it's not a plan of life sufficient to achieve and insure life beyond death of the material body. It's ultimately meaningless, humanistic.

Thanks for your reply.

It only seems meaningless to people who treat "this life" as merely a means to "life after death".

When life is seen as an end-in-itself, at least some of what one does in this life has meaning for its own sake. It actually does matter what sort of life one leads while one is still alive, and the fact that one dies doesn't really matter, since life isn't merely for the sake of some afterlife.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

Thanks for your reply.

It only seems meaningless to people who treat "this life" as merely a means to "life after death".

When life is seen as an end-in-itself, at least some of what one does in this life has meaning for its own sake. It actually does matter what sort of life one leads while one is still alive, and the fact that one dies doesn't really matter, since life isn't merely for the sake of some afterlife.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Evolution itself would have come to an inglorious end if it could have turned away from its positive, forward looking, underlying motive (in reality the purpose of the over controller of evolution). The philosophy that ones life is an end in itself cheapens life and disrespects the self.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Evolution itself would have come to an inglorious end if it could have turned away from its positive, forward looking, underlying motive (in reality the purpose of the over controller of evolution).

There is no teleology to Evolution. It is a process of natural selection. It does not "see" anything ahead of itself or have any motives. This doesn't present Evolution with any serious problems.

The philosophy that ones life is an end in itself cheapens life and disrespects the self.

That's the exact opposite of the truth and all good sense. When life is an end in itself, that means that it is worthwhile in itself. The value of life is affirmed, not diminished.

It is only when this life is seen merely as a preliminary to some afterlife, like an examination that one must endure, that this life is cheapened. Afterlives tend to cheapen this life.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Colter]

There is no teleology to Evolution. It is a process of natural selection. It does not "see" anything ahead of itself or have any motives. This doesn't present Evolution with any serious problems.



That's the exact opposite of the truth and all good sense. When life is an end in itself, that means that it is worthwhile in itself. The value of life is affirmed, not diminished.

It is only when this life is seen merely as a preliminary to some afterlife, like an examination that one must endure, that this life is cheapened. Afterlives tend to cheapen this life.


"eudaimonia,

Mark

Not true. While one is a freshman in college he or she looks forward to the next year and the next and graduation etc. This doesn't mean the current year is cheapened, or that we don't live in the moment and seek to add to the richness of the experience or that its merely something to be endured. "Hence materialism, atheism, is the maximation of ugliness, the climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful."

The spark of life in evolution is indeed purposive. Evolution doesn't "consciously select", it follows the plan of its inheritance, of the programmer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

While one is a freshman in college he or she looks forward to the next year and the next and graduation etc. This doesn't mean the current year is cheapened, or that we don't live in the moment and seek to add to the richness of the experience or that its merely something to be endured.

If the freshman year is just a means to one's sophomore year, then that time is cheapened, because there is nothing worthwhile about one's freshman year except insofaras it gets one to one's sophomore year and beyond.

If you can "live for the moment" during your freshman year, then you are treating that time as an end-in-itself. That's no different from me saying that "this life" is an end-in-itself.

"Hence materialism, atheism, is the maximation of ugliness, the climax of the finite antithesis of the beautiful."

That conclusion does not follow from what you just said.


eudaimonia,

Mark