Right. But I coulda sworn he held that the philosopher's life (of contemplation) is highest.
Yes, highest in some sense. But still only one form of flourishing.
I don't think that Aristotle intended his students to view the life of honor as inferior or defective compared to the life of contemplation, as if one was unambitious and took the "wrong" path in life. He wasn't saying that absolutely everyone should be some sort of scholar. Not everyone is cut out for that life. Other forms of flourishing are fully appropriate for most people.
There was some debate in those days about the nature of
eudaimonia. For instance, is it complete, or might it have loose ends? If one dies before having achieved certain goals, is one's life therefore incomplete because of those loose ends? Aristotle noted that the life of contemplation is likely to have fewer (if any) loose ends, and so it may be somewhat better in that respect.
Later on, the Stoics would abandon that completeness criterion for
eudaimonia. I think one of them described life as layered (like an onion), where each layer is a portion of one's life that may be complete in itself, without only the outermost layer potentially being unfinished (but that's okay, just be stoic about that).
And maybe he would say that we act first and think later to a point to where our habits allow us to think all the time.
No, I don't think that is his point. Virtues are a time-saver in that one doesn't need to take the time to think out every little action-decision beforehand, which would be impossible in most circumstances due to time pressure. But whether thought is needed before an action, or useful as a double-check after the action, it is always needed.
One might speculate that perhaps he wanted people to spend as little time as possible engaging in practical thought in favor of theoretical thought of the sort found in the life of contemplation, but I doubt that was ever his goal. We need moral virtues simply because we are human beings.
eudaimonia,
Mark
).
