Book Five, Chapter 3

In class we discussed part of the second paragraph of Chapter 3 in Book 5. However, to be quite honest, the beginning of the chapter and from 1131a, line 30, to about the bottom of the page I just found myself becoming confused. I think it's mostly the language, not necessarily the context. I'm reading a great deal of repetition in the beginning. Then, from line 30 to the bottom of the page, throwing in the mathematical references just confuses me. So, in short, if someone could just clarify that section in a nutshell. I understood the chapter overall fairly well, I felt; but I just found myself scratching my head at that section. Thanks!

Generosity

In class we discussed 1120b line 2. There is a part in that section that says, "But it is most definitely a characteristic of a generous person to go to excess in giving, so that less is left for himself..." A couple pages later Aristotle says, "And this is why such a person does not seem to be base in character, for to go in excess in giving and not getting is a sign neither of a vicious person nor of bad breeding but of someone foolish." This is describing someone who is wasteful in the eyes of Aristotle.

So, if being wasteful is not the same as generosity, then generosity means that someone gives and expects to receive? I guess this part of the book confuses me because doesn't it seem if someone was giving with the intention of receiving something in return, then that isn't considered generosity?

Question I wanted to ask in class..

There is probably an easy answer for this, but I need help getting a big picture view of some things. What is the role/purpose of courage and temperance in light of virtue? How do courage and temperance relate to each other? In the reading for last class, Aristotle seemed to jump from one idea to the next (from courage to temperance.) Is temperance a fundamental characteristic of virtue, thus courage is a way to portray this?

Can the dead be happy/unhappy?

I find it a bit surprising that we didn't touch on this in class and that anyone has yet to mention it. In Book One (page 16), Chapter 10, line 13 it says, "...is anyone happy once he is dead?" and then it goes on to discuss this. Then around line 30, the text reads, "it would become abrusd if the one who is dead were to change along with them [descendants], and become at one time happy but then miserable again; but it would also be abrusd as well if the fortunes of the descendants did not pertain at all to their ancestors over some length of time."

The reason I keep thinking of this is for many reasons. It is understood that once a person his dead, his or her soul is still 'living' and thriving. So, when it speaks of happiness, it refers to ones soul being happy. But, if happiness is being at work in accordance with complete virtue then this means the soul would have to be at work. However, how could the soul be at work if the means in which the soul uses to do work (the body) is no longer living? If a soul is happy in a persons body, what would happen if it becomes unhappy after the person ceases to live? How would it know? I guess this raises a jumble of questions that are near impossible to answer, for a lot of it is dealt with mortality and what not. However, Aristotle raises a good point in which he argues that it would be absurd for the soul to change from happy to miserable, but it would be just as absurd if it did not change at all in relation to ancestors and descendants. Perhaps this is nothing more than a catch 22.

praise vs. honor

At the beginning of chapter 12 in book I, it states, "Now that these distinctions have been made, let us consider whether happiness belongs among things that are praised or rather among things that are honored, for it is clear that it does not belong among capacities." (it is clear that it has value)

I'm confused on what the difference between praise and honor is and what Aristotle meant by this. In class it was said that honor is something that someone brings upon another person and the one doing the honoring creates the virtue. Is praise not the same way? I don't feel like happiness has to belong to one and not the other.

-Mr. Fritz

Products of Pursuit

After much deliberation Socrates concludes that, “...virtue comes to be present, in those in whom it is present, by divine allotment.” (100b) In class I purposed that the pursuit of virtue could be likened to love, and I believe this parallel could be means to understanding the process by which divine allotment enables such virtue to become.
I will define love as an efficacious emotion that reveals a beauty to the lover. When the human soul sees something beautiful it is drawn to it in hopes of either attaining it or merely knowing it or understanding it. So, a lover, if the love is earnest, asks this question in earnestness: how do I love (or better love) my beloved? When this thought occupies a mind, behaviors will naturally evidence it. Time is spent with the beloved so that the lover can better come to know her better (which will hopefully reveal greater beauty, reciprocating greater love), and various forms of altruism will manifest themselves until, if a third party was asked to judge if the lover loved the beloved, he would doubtlessly answer yes.
Likewise, we can consider the aforementioned divine allotment to be an opening of the eyes to the beauty of virtue. Man, seeing such beauty and how much he lacks it, will ask this question: how do I become virtuous? By putting forth effort to know virtue, virtue will eventually manifest itself in a person’s lifestyle to such a degree that if an observer was asked if the person was virtuous, the answer would be yes.
Though we may not be able to define virtue, divine allotment can reveal to us that it is beautiful, and, being drawn to this beauty, we begin to take it on as part of ourselves.

Warping Our Opinions

Writing dialogue, rather than a formal treatise, to make a point or educate the reader is certainly effective. It's easier to read, allows for questions rather than just statements, and makes the reader think more. This style of writing allows for characters and personalities to develop that wouldn't otherwise, and I think this can add a lot to the writing. I think there can be a major problem with this style of writing, though. Because of the distinct characters that arise, the author can use them to sway the readers' opinions.

The author can express his point of view through a character that's intelligent, virtuous (whatever that means,) and overall likable. The opposing viewpoint can be expressed through a character that's the exact opposite. Of course, the reader will probably side with the likable character, and thereby the author. The viewpoint the author disagrees with will probably be seen as having all the negative traits that the respective character had.

I think that this manipulation of the readers' opinions is very clear in Meno. Meno is arrogant, bossy, pretentious, and ignorant, whereas Socrates is calm, cool, and wise. Meno's opinions are easily refuted by Socrates, and Meno is rarely, if ever, right. However, because this is a balanced discussion, with neither Socrates nor Meno understanding "virtue," I think this opinion-warping is less relevant than it would be in a discussion of two distinct opinions. Either way, in the case of Meno, even if it's present, this attempt to warp readers' opinions doesn't detract from the text. In other works, though, I'm sure that it could have a very negative effect on understanding the reading, and forming independent opinions about it.

-Mr. Small