ria of a specific object or real to undertake the search, the end of all things could be the move simply. But I have enough arguments to defend this thesis, therefore not worth continuing with it.
For Aristotle, if there is a universal order which is happiness, reason that he belongs to the eudemonists. He argues this by saying that all other purposes even lead to happiness, that although at different times of life one might think that the end is another universal.
According to this thinking, the reason I'm in school is:
I go to school to finish, so I will get my degree (I've been here for two purposes: to finish school and get my certificationer. So a poor say that happiness is money, someone with no friends to define as friendship, etc..
This however does not define happiness, but as it says in our book of ethics, this just reaffirms the need to define happiness.
One way to define, as we said in the ethics class is through the genus and species, and acts similarly to Aristotle, he says that the goods can be classified into: external, soul and body.
then states that happiness belongs to the goods of the soul, so that it gets the kind of the definition of happiness, which for now would like: Happiness is a kind of good soul ... it is at this time start looking for sex, that is, what differentiatesthe happiness of the remaining assets of the soul.
To continue, the author mentions that as an end, happiness requires actions, because without them can not reach happiness. Thus, people who are happy are those who, through their actions have achieved happiness but also will enjoy this, because in my opinion, someone who does not enjoy any actions that Aristotle describes as leading to the happiness (point where somehow I disagree, since it conflicts with the next thing you mention) can not be called happy. (Here's the reason I come into disagreement with Aristotle, and then the definition of happiness would be too narrow, because if someone does notenjoy some of the actions mentioned, then it could be called that person happy, but this does not take into account that people will not necessarily enjoy the same things.
Well, Aristotle says that virtuous actions, the man come to happiness, so his definition of happiness, which was left incomplete remains that happiness is some kind of activity of the soul according to virtue "( Aristotle, 2007).
Now the next problem posed by Aristotle is to know when someone might be called happy because as you can not know the future, then we can not know if anyone laughs at this point can be depressed the next day. At this point I think the idea of himwas to act. Then extrapolated this claim and included in this division to the virtues. Call
virtue connected with maximum rationality and intellectual, and other moral flame. The first says that it needs to be taught to emerge, however morality must be exercised with the custom to arise, "the virtues (...) the army first acquired them" (Aristotle, 2007). This means that if I want to become fair, for example, I do many actions just thinking about them, until finally come to get used to them, such as bathing, nobody tells me to do so now, I do out of habit and out of habit.
For the author, a sign that you get the habit is to not feel shame in disan excess, a mean and a lack, but which by definition belong to one thing. In this I disagree because, although it is wrong to steal because you harm another person, there are cases where the trial of persons is attenuated or even change, as when someone steals from hunger.
The next point that emerges from the existence of the poles is that he says it is impossible to perform the same division and was found at one end, this means that there is no average, the excess and deficiency of the excessive, or else defective. Here it seems that perhaps only half there, but I think that if you can classify the defects of excessive bad and equally as flawed. However, this involves very complicated, so itmore efficient to accept what Aristotle says.
Finally, the last aspect that is clear is that there is always a contrast between the extremes, and even that tends to affect more middle ground, making it more difficult to keep them. This is because, since the media is going to be always more than the default but less than the excess, then those who are at the extremes tend to send to the middle to the opposite end. He that speaks much tell that the speaker is quiet enough, and the quiet say the opposite.
To resolve this, Aristotle proposed that one, as this should be a habit, you must perform the actions many times, sometimes falling over, sometimes failing, but finally, following andmprove, become a friend of virtue.
Finally, to summarize, the people, according to Aristotle, always looking for happiness, for which they should perform virtuous actions. To achieve this, we must build the habit of doing, which involves learning by trial and error to find the average of all shares. Finally, one of these virtues is friendship, which, as a virtue, it must also be within the average, and must be practiced to achieve happiness, which in turn, will relate better to more people.
Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle
Porrua, 2007
Savater, Fernando
Ethics for Amador
Ariel, 2008
0 comments:
Post a Comment