I can't comment on anyone's post, so here are my comments.

Shannon Little Response

Before this discussion, I hadn't realized that the Golden Rule was based off of self-interest. I understood the concept of treating people the way you wanted to be treated, but never actually took out the time to figure out what it meant. I understand why Kant says that morally good deeds should not be based on self-interest. Self-interest kind of implies that people are looking for rewards and have ulterior motives for performing good deeds. The morality of the deed becomes skewed and less about the actions, and more about the person doing the action.

Jessica Voyles Response

I think that having a hidden agenda for doing a good deed is no longer a good deed. The person who does something for a reward is not thinking about the act itself but for personal gain. However, nowadays doing good deeds can be morally good and filled with self-interest that is pure. For example, S.O.S. is done to help others, but when you ask people why they serve they respond "Because I love to help others", or "Because I feel great when I help people". Occasionally you get answers like "Because it's the right thing to do", but most of the time we serve or do good deeds to gain happiness. It's hard to remove emotions when you are helping someone else. I don't believe that it is morally wrong to do good deeds because you are overcome with emotions. It is morally wrong when one looks for a reward.

Immanuel Kant

In our class, we have begun to discuss the views of Immanuel Kant, an Enlightenment thinker.  During this era, there was a cultural movement towards the pursuit of knowledge. This era wanted to bring out individualism rather than go by what the Church says. In this era, Kant talks about three branches of philosophy: logic, physics, and ethics. All three of these are formal areas of inquiry in which Kant goes into detail.

Kant’s first branch, logic, is a non-empirical type of philosophy. You gain this area of philosophy by studying rather than practice. His second branch, physics, is an empirical type of philosophy. This area of philosophy is gained through practice and observation. The third branch, ethics, is a mix of both empirical and non-empirical. You learn ethics from others and also through observing. Kant believed in a need for a “pure” ethics in which the good will reign. Kant believed that good will existed, which opposed Aristotle, to help bring logic into our lives. He believes in telos, purpose of something, to help achieve the good will.

As I said earlier, Kant differs from Aristotle in beliefs. Aristotle’s belief that virtue is for eudemonia differs from Kant. As time progressed, society reformed and it was not as civilized as the time Kant lived in. Therefore, their difference of views are evident cause of the time change. In my opinion, if Kant had lived in the same time as Aristotle, they would have agreed with each other on views more.

Kant

In our class discussions, we have begun talking about Kant’s views on morals and what he calls “the good will.” He opposes Aristotle’s view that humans live their lives in search of happiness. Kant believes that if we were to only seek happiness, there would be no point in having reason or logic; instinct would suffice if our only goal was to attain what made us happy. He believes that reason’s purpose, or telos, is to produce a will that is good in itself (“the good will”). And to achieve this good will, you perform morally good actions. 

In Kant’s view, the only way to be a morally good person is to perform morally good actions, that is to say actions that are done for the sake of our duty. For an action to be morally good, it should not be done because of immediate inclinations or self-interest. An action obtains its moral worth from its maxim, or the principle upon which you act. Thus, the goodness of your will is not derived from the results of your actions, but from the purpose behind your actions.

After talking about the three propositions of duty, we discussed Kant’s Categorical Imperative. It says that you should act only in a way that you can will the maxim of your actions as a universal law. In class, someone said that this sounded similar to the “Golden Rule.” But, there’s a big difference between the two. As Dr. Johnson pointed out in class, the Golden Rule is subjective; it deals your own personal views. The Categorical Imperative is objective; it deals with a way in which everyone “ought” to act.

Another difference could be made from Kant’s view. In his first proposition of duty, he say that a human action is not morally good if done in self-interest. The Golden Rule tells you to treat others the way you want to be treated. Kant could argue that this rule is an act of self-interest, and thus could not be considered a morally good action.

-SL

The Good Will

In class we have started to discuss Kant and his belief that the only good thing without qualifications or restrictions is the "good will". Something that really stuck out to me today in class was one of the three propositions of duty that stated that an action is morally good not because it is done out of immediate inclination or self interest but because it is done for the sake of duty. The example given was that of helping an old lady across the street. It would not be seen as "morally good" if you help the lady across the street because you are suddenly overcome with sadness at how she is stuck on one side of the road and can not get to the other. It would also not be "morally good" if you helped the old lady across the street because you knew that she was rich and known for giving money out to random strangers. What would be "morally good" would be to help the old lady across the street because it's the right thing to do. In all of these examples, the old lady gets across the street so you would think that all of these are examples of a "moral good". No. In the first example, the person was overcome with emotions so it was an immediate inclination to help the old lady. The second example, even though the old lady was helped across the street, it was in hopes that she would give you money. The only example that was "morally good" was the final example where the person helped the old lady across the street because it was the right thing to do.

So I pose this question: Do you believe that in order for a deed to be morally good that the person has to have no immediate inclination (being overcome with emotions for example) and no self interest or do you believe that it doesn't matter as long as the end result is the same (the old lady gets across the street)?

Pros and Cons of Kant

From our discussions in class, I agree with Kant's philosophy that there are a universal set of laws that apply to everyone no matter the circumstances.  It was brought up that this could not be because certain circumstances permitted certain actions i.e. a soldier killing an enemy.  My rebuttal to this is based on somewhat on an infinite regress; if in fact there were a universal set of moral laws, in the case of the soldier killing the enemy, the enemy would probably not be an enemy if he or she had not already broken one of these moral laws.  Though this leads to a lot of finger pointing and leads back to an endless trail of moral law breaking, I believe that at the beginning of civilization there was a set of moral guidelines that were common among people, whether we were born with them or they were developed is for another debate.  The first time these moral laws were broken, a never ending chain of immorality was triggered which continues on today. So, the soldier would not have to kill the enemy if the enemy had not already been morally corrupted.

Kant also proposes a correlation between a good will and "duty"; to understand duty is essential to obtain a good will.  I understand one's "duty" is like his or her ergon.  Kant writes that these duties differ from individual to individual.  With that in mind, what keeps a person's duty from being a bad duty? With this bad duty, would that person's definition of a good will actually be a bad will?

The good will

After take notes in class about Kant, and after read his book: Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, I am able to talk a little bit about his ideas and beliefs. In my opinion, the most interesting subject that he touched was the good will. He believes and argues that the good will is the only thing in the universe that is always completely good. It is the only good thing without instructions and qualifications. Kant does not say that we cannot think about other things (pleasure, wealth, honor, virtue, etc) and understand them to be good. He is saying that if we completely think that is true from his perspective, the only thing that is truly good is the good will. To be clearer, if we think about some others good things such as intelligence and judgement, those are good things but if the will is not good, it can be use for evil as well for good. The will in itself is what decide how you are going to use your "talents". Some others examples: courage, resolution, purpose. Those are things that we can develop, but by themselves those things can be use for the bad. Someone who robs a bank use his courage to do it, and we consider that it is not good.

What makes the good will good? Well, according to Kant, we know if our good will is good because it is good itself and when we do not look at the consequences and effects to our actions, we must use only our willing. We should not have do anything for a reason, for a motive.

My point in this post is tho challenge you to think as Kant. Do you completely agree with his beliefs? Specially do you agree that the good will is the only good thing in the universe? Is it what determine our others actions and intentions? And finally, I would like to understand a little bit more about What duty is, since it is the answer in what makes the good will good.

Kant

Much like the Ancient Greeks, It seems as though Kant’s ideals of philosophy can be broken down into three different sects: Logic, Physics, and Ethics. At first these terms seem almost unfathomable because they seem so all encompassing within themselves. However, by breaking it apart it makes it easier to understand, as well as to study his view. Logic is defined as “the science that studies the formal processes used in thinking and reasoning” by Websters dictionary. In class we said Physics was the “study of the natural worlds.” Both of these two factions a priori or not empirical, which pretty much means it is based on theory and pure logic, as opposed to observations. The opposite of this being a posteriori  or empirical, or based off observation and experience instead of pure logic.

An example of a priori would be: Green is a color.

An example of a posteriori would be: Grass is green.

I find it easier to understand logic and physics and how it can be considered empirical, however, When it comes to ethics it is a little more confusing.  Not that I disagree with Kant, but more that I have never really thought of it like this. Ethics is something of a gray area, right and wrong depending on you ask. But, to have a solidify answer of right or wrong is something that I find to be really interesting.  I am excited to see how Kant’s ideals are similar to the philosophers we have already studied, but even more the differences between them. I find the most mind boggling thing is that Kant did not happen until the 18^th century. That is such a wide spread of time between Plato and Aristotle.  I know there are many philosophers between, but  I wondered how the passage of time transformed the philosophical views. 

Happiness

What is considered happiness? Most all people have a different way of becoming happy. For some it could be helping the needy and giving back to their communities, but for others it could be receiving material things. According to Lucretius happiness is obtained by ataraxia (freedom from fear) and aponial (the absence from pain.) But Epictetus would say that happiness is to be in accord with the laws of reason and in agreement with nature. I would have to agree mostly with Epictetus's view of happiness. It is human nature to stress, become sad, or to grieve but know the limit to those things and do such in accordance with nature. So for example; if a family member passes away it is most certainly okay to be upset and grieve, but don't grieve so much that you go into depression. Anyone else side with Epictetus's view of happiness over Lucretius?

Lucretius and Epictetus

True happiness is a vague and overused term that has been stretched and misunderstood through the ages. What can we truly say is true happiness? For many happiness can simply mean getting a paid vacation, to others it may mean waking up to see the people they love right before their eyes. Though with Lucretius and Epictetus they have different definitions of what happiness truly means. For Lucretius happiness lies in having no fear and living everyday pain free. Whilst, Epictetus believes that principles and opinions are the only things that make us truly unhappy. The thing is that no matter what people say about happiness they have their different opinions on what it truly is. In my opinion happiness lies in a smile and good joke. In your opinion what does true happiness means to you. How do you feel about Lucretius and Epictetus' views on happiness.

Lucretius: Stoicism

Lucretius created this strange theory referred to as Atomism. He tells us that everything, including ourselves, is made up of many atoms. He believes that since we are made up of this physical stuff that once we die our consciousness ceases to exits therefore we should not fear death. With this he along with other epicureans believe that to attain happiness one must train themselves to desire nothing but what is natural and necessary for human life. Plato would argue this concept as taking away from part of the soul, the spirited part. Platos philosophy says in doing this it would cause unhappiness and I agree. The pain one may feel is subjective according to the type of pain it is. The concept of accepting things as "how they are" is almost inconceivable. It would be possible maybe a thousand years from now that perhaps if stoicism were adopted and a loved one passed away there would be no tears or sadness because they've come to terms and realize that this is normal and just life therefore no reason to be sad. But I am curious about the thousand years leading up to that point. This concept is unimaginable due to the amount of emotions that have been instilled in us since the creation of man. The idea of training yourself to prevent pain and to desire nothing but what is natural and necessary seems almost as a utopia, where everyone is happy because there is no "pain" in their lives. I find this concept interesting on the fact of how strange it really is.

Lucretius and Epictetus

Epictetus and Lucretius, differed from Plato and Aristotle are very different in many different ways.  Epictetus believes that the world is governed by reason and in agreement with nature.  We are who we are and we just have to accept that.  You cannot stop the inevitable.  Basically letting nature take its course and go with the flow rather than searching for the intrinsic good and imitating other people.  The goal of the stoics is to maximize positivity and minimize negativity which basically means being satisified with what is going on in your life. I agree with that point but i believe that if you are not satisfied then you should do something about it.  If you're unhappy, it's your fault but I also can see where they are coming from because if you abide by the laws of nature it would be your fault if you're unhappy because you must live with the philosophy of life. Lucretius believes that we should achieve a clear view of the way things are and i agree because you shouldn't become blind to what is happening or going on around you.  You should avoid pain and you should not fear death. I think these to come together because if you fear death it can bring pain. All in all Lucretius and Epictetus share many different ways of life, beliefs, and traits from Aristotle and Plato.

Happines as pleasure

One of the philosophers that we discussed this week was Epictetus ,he basically believed that the world is governed by reason, and the only way to be happy is to be in accord with the laws of reason and in agreement with nature. To an extend I do believe this theory as it makes sense, yet it does in a way questions its own meaning. If we let nature and logic rule our life's, and don't let emotion in, do we have a purpose in life then? Having emotions is what makes us..us without them it'll be like if where mindless creatures. It has been said that it is in human nature to cause war and suffering, which in a way contradicts the theory of letting nature run its course. As a member of the Plato group today I had the question of would it be just to let a civilization or group of people to self lead themselves into destruction and suffering. If Lucretius and Epicurus philosophy is to maximize pleasure while still follow nature without any kind of interventions, then wouldn't it be wrong not to help them?


In the way that we are not forcing them to stay in a social structure, but that they actually accept a role that is more achievable. If truly we let nature take its course than would we technically have freedom from nature itself, or  could we achieve ataraxia and aponia ?

Lucretius vs. Epictetus

According to Lucretius, the purpose of Philosophy is to gain two things. The first concept is ataraxia, which is the freedom of fear. The second concept is aponia, the absence of pain. This two combined lead to a happy and tranquil life. He also believes that pleasure and pain are the measures of good and bad. The only way to achieve happiness is through the seeking of pleasures, which is a good. The only way to get rid of the bad is to get rid of pain. The only way to get rid of both is basically to die. Death is the end to both pain and pleasure. However, that makes it seem like death is the only option. Yes, we all will die, but it seems as though Lucretius is saying that death is the only way out. To seek pleasure all the time, according to Lucretius, brings happiness, which is an intrinsic good. However, constantly trying to feed desires, appetites and pleasures, according to Plato, leaves the soul disorderly and eventually leads to unhappiness. Nonetheless, happiness is the main goal of a pleasure. According to Epictetus, it is better to remove all emotions and allow reasoning to prevail. The problem that I have with that is when emotions are bottled up for so long, the person can explode. Not allowing emotions come out will eventually lead to a disorderly soul. This is where Lucretius and Epictetus relate. According to Lucretius, it is better to have friendships instead of relationships or love because although loves brings happiness, it can also cause pain. Friendships do not cause as much pain and fear as love does. Love exerts a hidden fear of being lost.  Epictetus believes that having the emotion of love take over is not a rational thing to do. By having no emotions at all, there won’t be a problem of having the fear of losing a loved one or death.  My question is are Lucretius and Epictetus conveying the same concepts, or is there a difference?

Easier said than done

        EPICTETUS -STOICISM
One of the philosophers that we discussed this week was Epictetus, a philosopher with deep roots in Stoicism. I had never heard of this philosophical movement before, but this group basically believes that the world is governed by reason (logos) and the only way to be happy is to be in accord with the laws of reason and in agreement with nature. I absolutely love this concept, THEORETICALLY.

Yes, I would love to not wail over a heartbreak, because there are more fish in the sea. Perhaps, I shouldn't be sad if a loved one dies, since I am simply, "giving him or her back to the giver," but the truth of the matter is, I don't think humans are naturally designed to think like that.

We are all filled with passion (pathos) and I feel that unless you have a mental wall up, those passions encourage us to be emotional, ambitious, dream-chasers, and go-getters. Although there is a certain amount of professionalism that we all maintain in the school/workplace, we still are encouraged by media to get the girl/boy, acquire success. and reproduce. We desire more and expect more. As Americans, we do not accept that we are who we are and that we have to stay stuck in any situation.

However, I do believe that our lives would be a lot easier, if we didn't live our lives so separately. Stoics believed in friendship and everyone working together as a whole for the greater good. There is a certain attachment to everything, but a detachment from emotions.

*I did not make the image above. I found it on this listed link and thought that it may be helpful.
http://www.pinterest.com/pin/535506211912011291/

The Inevitable

In class we discussed Lucretius and Epictetus.

Lucretius’ philosophy is to strive to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. These two ideas would then help us measure what is good and what is bad (which makes a lot of sense).

Epictetus was a representative of the stoicism school. Stoics were primarily concerned with relationships of determinism and human freedom.

To be honest, I do not understand these two philosophers as much as I would want to, but at least I can say that I do agree with one thing that they said. I agree with their idea that we should not fear death. I agree with this because we are humans, and if there is one thing guaranteed in this life for us is our death. Yes, it is normal to grieve for losing our loved ones, but we shouldn't lose control of ourselves because of it. We simply cannot stop the inevitable since we are destined to have the same ending. Dying is one of  the rules of nature, and we must accept and understand that.  

What I do not agree with is with their idea of our soul dying at the same time our body does. I believe that there is, in fact, an afterlife. Of course this cannot be proven so more than anything this is a matter of personal believes.

Overall, their philosophies are a little confusing to me, but the thing that stood out in my mind about them the most was their perception of death. 

The Teacher vs. The Student

During our discussions this week, we highlighted the differences between Plato and Aristotle’s ways of thinking and how they defined justice, or virtuousness. It was interesting to see how much the views of Aristotle differed from his former teacher, and how in some aspects were almost completely opposite.

I believe that the best way explain the difference between the two is to look at two quotes that are usually mis-attributed to them. “To be good is to do good,” is the saying most commonly assigned to Plato. He believed that you needed to study about what virtues are before you can do virtuous things. And doing this will help balance out the soul.

Aristotle, on the other hand, is aligned with “To do good is to be good.” He believed in phronesis, or “practical wisdom”.  In his view, it is your actions that help shape your views on virtues. He believes that you could not truly be virtuous without doing virtuous things. And I think my personal views align more with his than with Plato’s.

Take the swimming analogy. I believe that we all agreed that a man who knew everything about swimming but had never been in the water before could not be called a swimmer. You have to swim before you can earn the title of swimmer. Just like you must perform virtuous actions before you can be a virtuous person.

-SL

Thoughts on Aristotle

In class, the past few sessions we talked about Aristotle and the Nicomachean Ethics.I want to stat with the idea of eudaimonia. In class we talked about it standing for happiness, and doing well and living well. When I looked it up, I got the definition of human flourishing. I like that Aristotle believed in this idea. His belief that the highest good is happiness was core to our discussion about eudaimonia in class. Aristotle also believed in a purpose for everything. He said that the proper function of humans was to act in a manner guided  by reason. This follows his hierarchy of goods theory that virtue is the second highest. I also believe to be true that Aristotle was right in developing the Doctrine of the Golden Mean. His view are what most of our class agreed with, and I believe he wrote the Nicomachean Ethics without thinking how many generations will study and follow his teachings.       

They Are Not That Different After All

During lecture it was made quite obvious that the theories of Plato and Aristotle on how one becomes good are different. While Plato focuses on the theory and knowledge of being good, Aristotle states the relevancy of doing good, physical deeds. Also, the Platonic view is more focused on one's own soul rather than the effects we have on others as Aristotle emphasizes. One theory is mental while the other is physical, but the outline of each theory have similarities.  Aristotle's "Doctrine of the Golden Mean" is a balance between excess vice and deficient vice similarly, Plato's division and balance of the soul  between Rationality, Spirit, and Appetite influence our own happiness and goodness. My interest is on how the two balancing acts are realated.  If a person has a rational soul outweighing the appetite and spirit, are they not at a  "the golden mean"? Both balanced states of being, described by the two philosophers, represent a good and happy person. So, if these two theories do not have a direct correlation, what is their correlation to each other? Are Plato and Aristotle expressing the same need for balance just using different symbolism?

Plato vs. Aristotle

This is my first blog, so please go easy on me!

Spending the last few weeks on Plato and now Aristotle has really opened my eyes and makes me realize that everyone has a right to their own opinion. We've discussed many examples on how one is just and unjust, the characteristics of unjust and just people, and situations of just and unjust, if we were put in certain scenarios . We've also discussed that Plato believes that there's a balance of the soul, so that every part is doing what it is supposed to do. He also believes that being unjust is basically having a disordered soul, which leads to an unhappy lifestyle, or one being unhappy. On the other hand, Aristotle says we do everything in order to be happy. From class, we also learned that Aristotle believes that habits form character. In my opinion I believe that to be true. If you think about it, everyone is born with a vision and created for some purpose on earth. As we continue to grow, we learn and adapt to things that make us who we are. We aren’t born with all the knowledge and the characteristics that we need in order to fulfill our purpose in life. It takes time, trial, and error. We do things every day that molds us into what we were created to be. Over time we tend to do those things and becomes part of our character. In the present day, we're living in a cruel world were killing and not being our brother's (sister's) keeper is the norm. With that being said, my question to the class is, is it possible for one to be just and live an unhappy lifestyle or can one be unjust and live a happy lifestyle? Also can one’s habits be opposite from one’s character? Let me know if you have any questions about my questions.

 

-JN

 

PAYTON POWERS - Thoughts about Aristotle

(Payton Powers is having computer trouble, so here is his Author-post for this week.)

Thoughts about Aristotle

As our class initiates our discussion on Aristotle, the concept of “Phronesis,” or “practical wisdom” has really stood out among others. I find it interesting how different Aristotle views and Morals differ from those of his teacher, Plato. To explain the differences between the two, it is best to look at quotes that are usually (mis)attributed to them. Plato is known for the principles “To be good is to do good,” while Aristotle’s ideals more align with “To do good is to be good.” In other words, according to Aristotle, it is your actions that help a person to shape your idea of virtue and lead to the highest good, Eudomonia ("Happiness" or Living well/Doing well). While Plato believes you cannot do virtuous actions with without understanding what virtue is first which helps leads to the balance of the soul. Personally, my views of virtue more align with those of Aristotle.  I especially appreciate Aristotle’s three criteria for virtue:

1)Must know s/he is acting virtuously

2)Agent must decide to act virtuously because the action is virtuous

3)The agent must be acting from a firm and unchanging state.

               Growing up in the Catholic Church, when I heard the criteria it automatically reminded me the three criteria for a person to commit a mortal sin found in the Catechism:

“ For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."

In other words, the person committing the sin must first know it is a sin (or morally wrong), act upon that sin, and is fully consenting to the act in which they are doing. According to Google, Aristotle was born 384 BCE, therefore it is entirely possible his ideals and teachings had a tremendous influence on the writers of the bible and the Catholic Church. It makes me question how much influence does Aristotelian ideals when it comes to religious/spiritual beliefs?  Or really just in peoples everyday lives?

(Also, I found this and thought that it was relevant for the week and pretty funny. Enjoy!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GR7vJPDClZ8

Aristotle

Practicing how to be a good person, or learning from others how to be a good person is more important? Learning from others how to be a good person is the most important to me. I learned how to be a good person from my family, especially from my parents. Your parents (or guardians) are the people who teach you almost everything while growing up. If you do not have family that have good morals, then you learn from that; therefore, you act as they act. Aristotle says that habits form character and I agree with that 100%. If you grow up making great decisions, then you will be considered a "good person". If you grow up making poor decisions, then you might her perceived as a "bad person" according to society. This is my view on whether practicing to be a good person or learning from others is more important.

The Golden Mean

Today in class, we talked about Aristotle's views and the Golden Mean. With the Golden Mean, we see that we should find a balance between the two extremes of a certain virtue. For example, the Golden Mean of Courage is the balance between recklessness and cowardice, with courage or bravery being the desirable outcome. With these virtues, however, the Golden Mean is relative. I feel that Aristotle is saying that everyone has a different version of what would be the Golden Mean of their virtues. One person could be more or less courageous than the next, but that person would still be courageous. Everyone has a different opinion on what courage could be. With some, it is being brave to the point of recklessness and for others, they have not had the chance to develop their courage.      

Your virtues are not innate, they do not come biologically programmed into your mind. You must develop these virtues the same way you would develop any other skill: by practice. I agree with Aristotle when he says that if you have not had the experience of having to practice a virtue, then you can not really say that you possess that virtue. I feel that you can not be honest without having practiced being honest in various situations. In order to be ascribed a certain virtue (honestly, loyalty, bravery) you must act it out or participate in an experience in which you would be required to develop this trait. Like the swimming example given in class, are you really a swimmer if you have never actually gotten in the water to swim? Therefore, are you actually brave, honest, or loyal if you've never practiced these traits?

All in all, if you are to be said to have virtue, you must practice those virtues. In order to practice said virtues you must be put in a position in which those virtues must be used. You can not be loyal or honest or brave without ever having had to be loyal or honest or brave. When you find those virtues, you must also find your Golden Mean. What is the ideal balance of your virtues? This is what Aristotle believes you must do in order to be virtuous.

Aristotle (to do good is to be good)

According to Aristotle, as much as you have the habit do to good things, your result would be to become a better person. He calls it phronesis - Practical Wisdom. He also mention that there are conditions to develop your virtue, but some people never had the opportunity to learn to develop those "skills". Based on that, he says that we learn learn from other people how to be a good person. From those two Aristotle's analysis (practicing to become a good person, and learn from others to become good) which one you think is the most important and most effective in our life? Aristotle put them together, which makes a lot of sense and help us to understand our ways to act in life. However, in my opinion, learn from others is the most important one for us. Imagine when you were a child and how many things you learned by just watching your parents action. If you can, please share your ideas as well.

Eudaimonia and Shalom

From our textbook, p. 22:

It is important to see that the Greek word translated as “happiness,” eudaimonia, does not quite coincide in meaning with our idea of happiness. … For them [the Greeks], eudaimonia refers primarily to what Aristotle calls “living well and doing well,” that is, living a life that is satisfying and worthwhile because it is full, abundant, and deserving of praise. This is why eudaimonia is often translated as “flourishing” or “thriving.” What is at issue in this conception of happiness is not how one happens to feel at any moment, but the quality of one’s life as a whole….

As soon as I read this introductory passage in our textbook, I recalled a moment that has stayed with me: learning the full meaning of the term shalom.

Word Origin and History for shalom

Jewish word of greeting, Hebrew, literally "peace," properly "completeness, soundness, welfare," from stem of shalam "was intact, was complete, was in good health." Related to Arabic salima "was safe," aslama "surrendered, submitted."

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2010 Douglas Harper

shalom. (n.d.). Online Etymology Dictionary. Retrieved September 11, 2014, from Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/shalom

What intrigues me here is the thought of two cultures that were so separated having such similar concepts independently (and, moreover, expressed in single words), which, in turn, hints at the potential similarities between the overarching ideologies of those two cultures—an emphasis on one’s overall wellbeing, more than transitory feelings of being pleased or glad due to outside influences, but a lasting contentment stemming from a deep-seated ideology.

http://elenchusacademy.wordpress.com/eudaimonia/

 

Finding out that the Greek and Hebrew cultures have words for strikingly similar concepts makes me wonder what other cultures might also have ways of expressing this wholeness, this completeness, that can be described in as little as one word—and how that presence or absence of such specified terminology is reflected by those cultures’ general beliefs (whether philosophical or religious)… And, correspondingly, I find it intriguing to speculate on what cultural mindsets would be most conducive to bringing such a concept, and consequently such terminology, into existence. Of course, with enough research (probably fairly extensive research, I would imagine), the answers might easily present themselves. In the meantime, however, I invite the reader to speculate as well, and to put forth any thoughts on the matter.

http://www.examiner.com/article/shalom-is-the-hebrew-word-for-peace

Following is a link to an article of particular interest which addresses the use of shalom and its Arabic counterpart salaam, as well as various Latin and English derivatives which likely owe their existence to the translation and dispersion of the Old and New Testaments of the Bible with the spread of Christianity and its eventually-established customs.

http://forward.com/articles/189528/how-shalom-aleykhem-originated-and-why-it-doesnt-a/?p=all

It is truly remarkable how, according to Aristotle, eudaimonia can be understood and achieved simply by, essentially, being moderate between all extremes; but it is also of course possible to bring Plato into this discussion, particularly thanks to this verse from the Old Testament:

He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.

– Proverbs 25:28

Ta-da! An analogy of the spirit in reference to a city!