Old School Eudaimonia for All

[Aristocles]

With the fundamental belief philosophy is the discipline to best approach a happy life, there are a few areas I have found helpful as a starting point. (All criticism is encouraged; the more damaging the more it is encouraged).

The ramifications of the ancient philosophers are believed to be underappreciated and underdeveloped, now thousands of years later. In an effort to demonstrate, a simplified recapitulation appears helpful. This post aspires to appreciate eloquent philosophical simplicity, based upon the teachings of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle:

There is no weakness of one's will, least all human action aims at the good, with good being singular and opposite to bad.

If these assumptions are true, each forum topic could appear to be revolutionized (from same sex marriage, nihilism, to if we can know anything, objectivity of morality, existence of god.. etc) via further application. Every institution today would be fundamentally flawed to the point of being considered excessively wasteful, even modern social epidemics could be better understood, least with more consistent simplicity. Maybe the ancients were ignorant and modern "laziness" exists, education should continue to be undervalued, common prison can make sense, some people are more valuable than others, etc.

Disclaimer: this topic can undercut everything one holds sacred. This topic itself is indeed sacred to me, so I will do my best to stay on the topic. Albeit, I do believe the concept is pervasive and easily applied to every aspect of one's life.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

There is no weakness of one's will, least all human action aims at the good, with good being singular and opposite to bad.

If these assumptions are true, each forum topic could appear to be revolutionized (from same sex marriage, nihilism, to if we can know anything, objectivity of morality, existence of god.. etc) via further application. Every institution today would be fundamentally flawed to the point of being considered excessively wasteful, even modern social epidemics could be better understood, least with more consistent simplicity.

That seems like a non sequitur. How does the conclusion follow from the premise?

[Aristocles]

Those conclusions take some work. I think it is first helpful to discuss disagreements with the ancients, or even with my impression of their thesis. If we jump right into modern content, I am concerned we will do the same as our ancestors, & miss the utility of the ancients' work.

[Sy Borg]

There is no weakness of one's will, least all human action aims at the good, with good being singular and opposite to bad.

Aristo, could you explain what this means, please?

[Aristocles]

I tried to capture what I am seeing as the most important contribution of Socrates with "there is no such thing as weakness of will." In other words, I read Plato's expression of Socrates to be: humans only do bad things when they do not know any better. Yes, sometimes too , human behavior is deceiving as humans appear to do bad things when in fact it can also be because they are trying to accomplish something they believe to be even better in the long run. This will is that what propels us to move, and even appears to be that which the ancients may call one's soul.

Related is the Aristotelean summary that all human action aims at the good. This seemingly non-falsifiable claim offers a universal claim to all human behavior. That is powerful, albeit seemingly highly controversial. However, It appears to provide remarkable consistency for which to view human behavior.

And finally, Plato's idea that good and bad are distinct, least a concept of good is outside of what we label as subjective, is the equivalent of lightning striking three times in Athens. Much of Plato's brilliance is in the presentation. He was not foolish enough to just proclaim such abstractions, as I have done today. He did it slowly through dialogue.

I see these thoughts dismissed as untrue or impossible, lacking good reason for such dismissal.. I want to formally open them up for discussion/debate. (I will start with Scott's initial critique, using a particular topic of the forum's choosing to elaborate with more content, but I want more to be said of the ancient views, or maybe my errors regarding their thoughts, etc. beforehand)

[Fooloso4]

Aristocles:

There is no weakness of one's will, least all human action aims at the good, with good being singular and opposite to bad.

I do not think this is the position of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle. Aristotle, for example, identifies the philosophical life as the best life, but says that this life is not suited to everyone. In the Republic Socrates makes compromises to the best city in order to accommodate human desires. The good life is not an ideal that we must strive to realize.

… if we can know anything, objectivity of morality …

But we don’t. This is not to claim that we cannot, but simply that we do not. Socrates claimed that he did not know the most important things and could not find anyone who did. As I read Plato, he makes us aware of the distance between our opinions and knowledge of the Good. Such knowledge lies beyond our grasp. Aristotle does not establish an objective morality but an ethics of virtue and prudence.

[Aristocles]

It is agreed my hybrid simplification of the 3 philosophers may merely be my attempt at a techne rendition of the thinkers. I would agree there appears do be a disconnect between modern views of morality and Aristotle's ethics. That I would like to elaborate upon. The first line of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics states all action aims at the good, so that is a near quote, and open for a reason to disagree. Again, the gap of that view and modern morality and what one ought to do is in need of more explanation. Likewise, those suited and unsuited for philosophy requires some clarification.

I disagree the Republic was Socrates views more than Plato's, but I mostly disagree the good life is that which anybody does not strive to realize. This disagreement of one's will is more to the point of this post.

[Harbal]

Aristocles
I don't think your command of language is quite up to the job of expressing whatever it is you are trying to express. For a start, it would be helpful if you didn't begin your clauses with the word "least", I can't see any good reason for it being there. Luckily, it doesn't seem as though you are trying to say anything very important so I don't suppose there's any harm done but, all the same, it can be frustrating when one makes the effort to read something only to find that it doesn't really say anything.
I hope you find this constructive criticism useful.

[Fooloso4]

Aristocles:

The first line of Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics states all action aims at the good, so that is a near quote, and open for a reason to disagree.

The good at which human beings aims is eudaimonia, happiness of flourishing. This raises two questions with which the Ethics deals: what is eudaimonia and how is it attained? Aristotle is within the Socratic tradition in so far as these questions are fundamental to the examined life. The examination takes priority over all answers that we may give.

Aristotle points to both what we have in common as human beings and what differentiates one from another. Both are considerations that must be kept in mind in an investigation of the good life. There is no single answer to this question that applies to everyone. He is addressing those who seek the good life but also those who seek to establish conditions under which others, even those who have no interest in the question of the good life, can live well.

Contrary to what you have asserted there is quite a bit of interest today in Aristotelian ethics, both theoretical and practical. This is, in my opinion a more promising approach than the more common approach based on moral principles, but one thing it does not promise is to revolutionize forum topics or real world ethical problems.

Likewise, those suited and unsuited for philosophy requires some clarification

.

Those with no interest are unsuited for philosophy. Those without the intelligence and temperament to think clearly, carefully, and patiently about philosophical issues and cannot abide with the consideration of questions that do not lead to clear, unambiguous answers are not suited for philosophy. Those who lack the ability to make and follow logical arguments are not suited for philosophy. Some of those who are not suited for philosophy may become suited but many find it difficult and a waste of time.

I disagree the Republic was Socrates views more than Plato's …

I too disagree with that. Plato’s Socrates is, as he says in the Second Letter, Socrates “made young and beautiful”. Plato’s Socrates is not the historical Socrates.

… I mostly disagree the good life is that which anybody does not strive to realize.

With whom are you disagreeing? I am not denying that we all desire the good life, what I am saying, following Aristotle, is that many of us never think carefully about the question of what the good life is and so end up pursuing things that will be detrimental to what we seek.

This disagreement of one's will is more to the point of this post.

I do not see how one can make sense of what Plato and Aristotle say about courage, virtue, and character if they deny weakness of will.

[Harbal]

Aristotle is within the Socratic tradition in so far as these questions are fundamental to the examined life.

I don't recommend it. The last time I tried to examine my life I could only bear it for five minutes and then spent the rest of the day in a depression. Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

[Fooloso4]

Harbal:

I don't recommend it. The last time I tried to examine my life I could only bear it for five minutes and then spent the rest of the day in a depression. Sometimes it's better to let sleeping dogs lie.

What, you worry?

[Aristocles]

Fooloso4:

As I hoped, you provide some helpful insight. There is one more blatant thing I must clarify: I do agree Aristotle's ethics are of significance. In fact, I will try to argue its actual application assists greatly in the very concept of morality we seek. Perhaps more discussion of what indeed the good life is & how it may be obtainable is in order...

I disagree people are not interested in philosophy just because they may not appear that way. In fact, I am arguing they appear in a dogmatic slumber. Even Harbal was awakened here, albeit breifly, but somewhat seriously nevertheless!? I refer to philosophy much the same Socrates describes the will (against akrasia) and Aristotle speaks of the ability to understand what is good, as I originally prefaced with such understanding to be the point of philosophy. (The "man being the measure of all things" post includes a feral child video for which I argue even that child's will is not weak and his actions aim at the good).

Harbal:

To assist in the language discrepancy, "least" was used to express areas less seemingly quantifiable regarding action of the will. The more highly scientific method of describing good action appears easier to examine, an area where Aristotle polishes Socrates' reflections. Clearly, there is something rather challenging in the application, so use of forum topics including modern application will aspire to provide some clarity. Is clarity on "least" beginning a clause the biggest hang-up thus far?

[Fooloso4]

Aristocles:

I disagree people are not interested in philosophy just because they may not appear that way.

Then your disagreement is not with me. A student who appears to be sleeping or may even be sleeping in class might still be interested in philosophy, but a student who says I am not interested in philosophy, does not read the books or pay attention to the discussion is not interested in philosophy. Sometimes something may spark a student’s interest, but some are simply not interested.

I refer to philosophy much the same Socrates describes the will (against akrasia) and Aristotle speaks of the ability to understand what is good, as I originally prefaced with such understanding to be the point of philosophy

.

The Republic is about the well-ordered soul. When reason rules and the appetitive and spirited parts of the soul are not kept in line then there is no harmony or justice in the soul and so it may very well seek the bad, even though the person may not think of it as bad or might even acknowledge it as bad but still pursue it because it is pleasurable or will bring them honor or recognition.

I would strongly advise against taking any statement in the works of Plato as a conclusion. We must read things in context, and this includes the knowing something about the people involved, what was said prior to this and what happens in the rest of the dialogue. Socrates called himself a physician of the soul and said he spoke differently to different people depending on what would most benefit them. The medicine needed varies with the illness.

Aristotle speaks of the ability to understand what is good

Right but this is part of an evaluative process that does not end with an understanding of what is good. First, the ability to understand is not the same thing as understanding; some people see things more clearly than others. Second, understanding what is good and doing what is good are not the same. Good character plays an essential role not only with regard to doing what is good but with the ability to choose well when all available outcomes are to a greater of lesser degree bad. Third, according to Aristotle, the good life is not something that is in our control to obtain. No matter how good the choices I make are and how well I act there are things outside my control such as sickness, natural disasters, and the actions of others that may prevent my life from being good.

It is prudential reasoning rather than an understanding of what is good that guides Aristotle’s ethics. This means, in addition to other things, weighing the good against the bad and sometimes doing something bad to attain a greater good. If we apply this to say, medical ethics, the weighing of the good and bad can vary from one person to the next. I may decide that quality of my life weighs more heavily than prolonging my life, but someone else may want to live at all costs. What is good in this situation? Who is right?

[Aristocles]

I consider the feral child much like those claiming no interest in philosophy, or those saying they desire bad things. The feral child did not appear to want to communicate until he was able to see the utility of such communication, be it for food/fun, etc. The seeming disinterested philosophy student appears to likewise simply not yet appreciate the utility of the endeavor. Those stating they desire bad things appear simply confused or are being deliberate in the confusion, thinking the intentional confusion will bring about some greater good. All attempts at a greater good are included as actions aimed at the good. It is very possible one's calculation is incorrect, but my point is one acts thinking the action best from available alternatives, not deliberately doing something one believes to actually be bad. Medical ethics only changes the details, the reasoning and deliberation process are the same.

[Harbal]

Harbal:

To assist in the language discrepancy, "least" was used to express areas less seemingly quantifiable regarding action of the will. The more highly scientific method of describing good action appears easier to examine, an area where Aristotle polishes Socrates' reflections. Clearly, there is something rather challenging in the application, so use of forum topics including modern application will aspire to provide some clarity. Is clarity on "least" beginning a clause the biggest hang-up thus far?

Just ignore me, I don't know what I'm talking about.