Nicomachean Ethics Essay Assignment Notes

Theme A: pg 1Theme B: pg 6Theme C and D: pg. 12Aristotle’s function argument: pgs 19, 22.

THEME A

The first theme in this essay topic has to with the meaning of the concept The Good and the difference between two sorts of activities: 1) activities that are valuable (good) for the sake of something else and 2) activities that are valuable (good) in themselves. --Another way of putting it: 1) activities that are means to an end and 2) activities are ends in themselves --Another way of putting it still: 1) extrinsically valuable activities and 2) intrinsically valuable activities

To help understand this theme, read through Ch. 1 of the text and study these notes.--Remember, you need to quote from the text on your revised essays. Don’t just rely on

quoting (or paraphrasing) lecture notes.

CHAPTER 1The Good is the Aim of Every Action

Let’s start with Chapter 1: The Good is the Aim of Every Action

The Good --We get a Definition of The Good early on: “that at which all things aim.”

Another way of putting it (a way that connects relevant concepts)--“The telos (purpose, goal, end) for the sake of which everything is done”

1

Why is The Good the aim of every action? Look at the top of page 3:

“…and if we do not choose everything for the sake of something else (which means the process of desiring would go on to infinity, rendering our desires empty and vain)—if this is the case, then clearly this goal [telos] must be The Good and the chief good.”

, Let’s think about that with an example:

Why did you attend math class this morning? --Well maybe for one of two reasons: 1) You attended math class because you find math intrinsically enjoyable (i.e., good in itself). --maybe that was the only reason (probably not). --In this case, the going to match class was valuable to you regardless of whether it helped you achieve something else (getting grade, degree, job, whatever) --There was something valuable for you within the activity itself of going to math class.

2) Or maybe you attended math class in order to fulfill the requirements of getting a good grade. --Maybe that was the only reason that you attended, meaning that you attended math class as a means to an end.

What does that expression mean? --a “means to an end”

If you attended math class simply as “a means to an end” --then going to math class was only extrinsically valuable --Meaning that attending math class was chosen for the sake of something else --Thus, “the something else” is what is valuable, not math class. --The value was not within the activity of going math class, but the value is outside of the activity of going to math class .

So, attending math class was a necessary requirement in order to pas the class. And perhaps you attended math class only for the sake of passing the class.

But why do you want to pass math class? --Well, passing math class is a means to another end: --Namely, obtaining an Associates Degree.

2

Now, obtaining a degree is probably Intrinsically Valuable --Meaning it is an end in itself. --Meaning it was chosen for the sake of itself, because getting a degree is often valuable, pleasurable, desirable even if having doesn’t help you achieve a further goal.

Activities can be, at the same time, both a “means to an end” and “ends in themselves”

Most likely, obtaining an Associates Degree is like this. --Because in addition to being intrinsically valuable, it’s probably valuable to you for the sake of something else: --It’s necessary as a means to another end. --It’s a necessary step (a necessary means) in order get a job that pays better than fast food (or at least that’s what the world has told you)

Or maybe obtaining an Associate’s degree is a necessary means to enrolling in a four year college --Which, in turn, is a means to another end: getting an even higher paying job or a “career”.

OK, why do you want a higher paying job? Why do you want a career? Why are those goals? --Well, a career, which is probably intrinsically valuable to you, is also (you get it?) a means to another end: namely, having a comfortable life (which, the world tells you, comes only with a fat paycheck

I could keep asking you these “why questions” --Why do you want to get a Bachelor’s Degree? --why do you want to have Money in the Bank? --Why do you want a meaningful career? --Why do you want a lifestyle that includes vacation time and no anxiety over bills? --why do you want to be able to buy your Own Home? --Why do you want to be able to support a Family? --Why do you want the most enjoyable life possible? --Ah, because the most enjoyable life possible is what will make you happy?

3

Aristotle’s point is: --This line of questioning cannot go on infinitely. --Because our desires don’t go on infinitely --We don’t desire everything simply for the sake of something else.

At some point, you’re going to provide bedrock answers. That is, you’re going to answer me with something final --a final goal --a final purpose --That is, a final telos.

And so, if we start the line of questioning with: “why you came to class today?” --by the end of that line of questioning, you’re going to refer to the vague concept of “ a happy life. Happiness --The Final Thing --The Final Purpose --The Good.

Aristotle says: If we chose everything simply for the sake of something else, then desire itself would be would be empty and vain.

It would also be psychologically absurd. --I can’t really ask someone: “well, why do you want to have the most enjoyable life possible?” --It’s non-sensical to ask someone: oh, why do you want to be happy? --Happiness is desired solely for itself.

“Why do you want to be happy?” is sort of an insane question, right? --Because if someone wanted to be unhappy, then they are sick, damaged. --Or maybe: they are not being fully human (that’s what Aristotle would say).

Now, as Aristotle says, everyone understands that The Good (this “final goal”) is identical with happiness (eudaimonia).

So, Chapter one establishes that there is some ultimate, final goal, for the sake of which everything is done. --And that is the ultimate telos, the ultimate purpose, for which all of actions and activities are pursued.

The Good: i.e., the “aim of every action.”

4

By the end of chapter 1, we also have an idea of these two different sorts of activities. And we cannot understand the concept of The Good without understanding the

meaning of these different activities: 1) Activities that are means to an end. 2) Activities that are ends in themselves

Think of your own examples and use those examples in your essay.

o Having sex: --Usually (hopefully) an end in itself. It’s enjoyable in itself. --But it can be a means to an end: You’re trying to have a child.

o Going fishing on Little Grassy Lake: --An end in itself: it’s enjoyable in itself (if you like fishing).--But perhaps it’s also means to end: You’re trying to catching dinner--Perhaps it’s a means to a further end: Performing the leisure activities that are

necessary for you to have an overall enjoyable life.

o Paying your slumlord rent money:--merely a means to end: namely, preventing eviction

o Studying for yourcalculus exam--(unless you enjoy math) merely a means to end: passing a test

Now, Chapters 1 and 2 will also identify the master art that investigates The Good--That Mater art is politics.

Let’s skip over this because it is not one the themes you are required to address in this essay topic. However, it may show up on a test.

THEME B

The next theme for this essay topic has to do with: --Aristotle’s argument against the popular opinions that pleasure, wealth, and honor

5

constitute The Good for human beings.

For that, let’s move to Chapter 4 and 5.

CHAPTER 4Eudaimonia is The Good

But Many Views are Held about it

Aristotle notes: “Here we find that there is general agreement; for both the common lot of men and people of superior refinement say that [The Good] is happiness [eudaimonia]. And they both identify “being happy” with living well and doing well. But when it comes to a precise definition of happiness, the many (the masses) do not give the same account as the wise.”

Aristotle is telling us: OK, happiness is The Good; The masses of people know that— clever people and idiots alike.

But the masses also disagree when it comes to giving happiness/Eudaimonia any sort of definition.

Ultimately, Aristotle says, there are three prominent types of life which are considered to constitute the Good Life:

1) The life of pleasure and enjoyment, --He calls that the vulgar life

2) The political life, which pursues honor--He says this is the form of life valued by more refined and educated types

3) And The contemplative life--He thinks of this as the philosophical life of leisure and reflection (you do not have to talk about the “contemplative life” in your essay)

Aristotle critiques these “popular opinions” on the Good Life” in more Detail in Ch. 5

Aristotle reckons that everyone understands (at least intuitively) that all of their decisions and choices are made in order to make them happy or to put them in a better

6

position to be happier in the future.

But when it comes to answering the question: of what specifically constitutes a “happy and good life?” There is obviously much Disagreement and Confusion.

o Religious folks say one thing, atheists say anothero Different religious folks differ among one anothero Various Philosophies have different notions all together

People are at odds about what constitutes the good life Or, they have vague and cliché notions about the meaning of happiness, popular

notions which will change from one generation to the next

Popular conceptions of “Happiness” didn’t always mean this, but nowadays “happiness means” --Getting a “Career you love” --Thriving in the economy and having a family --being “Successful”

If a lot of Americans suggest that the point of life is to be successful, we can rest assured that Americans tend to have a vision of Life in mind that would be abhorrent and ridiculous to a whole Lot of other people living in different parts of the world.

Let’s loom more specifically at Aristotle’s criticism’s of the popular conceptions of the “good life”

For that, we need to go to Chapter 5.

Chapter 5: Various Views on the highest good

What the hell is going to make you Happy?

If any life for you could be possible, what would you wish for?

o The life of maximum enjoyment, maximum pleasure?

7

o Being a famous musical artist?o Being a celebrated actor/actress?o Being a rich and powerful executive of your own fortune 500 company?o Having a business/real estate empireo Professional athlete

What if you had such vast amounts of wealth (trillions) so that you could have endless pleasure?

o Countless, beautiful Lovers o Lavish commoditieso Multiple homes, beach front Mansions o A home in city you wantedo Private jet, private islando All the drugs you want (without the consequences)

1. The life of pleasure --The Masses of People tend to believe that endless money sex consumption will make them happy and fulfilled

On pg. 5, Aristotle says:

“Now the masses of mankind are evidently quite slavish and vulgar in their tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts. But they get some justification for their view of life from the fact that many of those in very high places share these sorts of tastes—the tastes of Sardanapallus [sex-crazed King of Assyria].”

Aristotle’s argument against the notion that a life of pleasure constitutes Eudaimonia is this: One has to have very narrow tastes, and very limited passions, to think like this.

Vulgar people—meaning people who lack class, taste, culture, and education—imagine this is the good life.

Essentially, Aristotle is saying that people who would be better off as slaves think about happiness this way.

It’s not a long or technical argument against the argument that the life of pleasure equals eudaimonia. Rather, it’s sort of an elitist dismissal of the tastes of the

8

lower classes, the small souled people—the idiots who don’t know what’s truly important and good.

He thinks that if endless pleasure is what you associate with The Good Life, then that’s a sign that you have a shallow Soul and a narrow conception of enjoyment.

Even if we aren’t as elitist as Aristotle is, we know the stories; we’ve seen the Documentaries:--We know that the celebrities and the powerful people and the mega rich who can acquire all the pleasure they want are often just as horribly depressed and unfulfilled as every other asshole walking the earth.

2. The political life (the life of being honored)

Aristotle argues on pg. 5:“people of superior cultivation and an active disposition identify happiness with honor; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of the political life.”

More refined types; more cultured types; your well-paid, bougie, highly-educated, professional class types; your “better than you are” elitist, liberal professor types

They understand that the happy Life is the political life.

The “political life” doesn’t mean being a politician; rather it means the life of being “honored” --Having achievements, --Having Clout --Commanding Respect from most everyone --Your opinion is widely respected.

Imagine that you’re an opinion former in the community --A leader in the community to whom people listen.

But it is also sort of superficial to consider this form of life constituting The Good or eudaimonia itself.--Why?

As Aristotle argues, your happiness would be dependent on others: namely those in the community who praise and honor you.

And eudaimonia shouldn’t be considered as on something that can be taken away fairly easily

9

If Eudaimonia is dependent on other’s praise, then as soon as you loosed that praise, you would lose eudaimonia

As Aristotle argues:“an ‘honorable life’ seems too superficial an answer, since it is dependent on those who bestow honor rather than on he who receives it. Yet, the good that we are after—it must be something that belongs properly to a man and not easily taken from him.”

Then he gives us another argument against the “political life” constituting eudaimonia:“Further, men seem to pursue honor in order that they may be assured of their goodness. At any rate, they seek to be honored by sensible men, by men of practical wisdom. And they seek to be honored based on their own worth and virtue. Clearly, then, virtue is better than honor (even according to the men who seek honor).”

Here, Aristotle is arguing that these people who think the life of being honored and respected and praised is the best type of life --Well, they still want to be honored and praised and respected on the basis of their worth, their Moral Character, their Virtues

So even according to the People who value this type of life as the highest good, --If they were honest with themselves, they would have to admit that the life of high moral character and virtue would more praiseworthy than an honorable life.

--Precisely because it is on the basis of those things that these people want to be

honored in the first place.

3) Lastly, there is the life of Contemplation: --The philosophical life. He says, he’ll get to that one later

Now, in your essay topic, I have included the life of pursuing wealth—the “life of money making--as a popular definition of eudaimonia that Aristotle rejects.

Read pg. 6“Now, the life of money-making is one undertaken under compulsion. And wealth is evidently not the good we are seeking. For it is merely useful and for the sake of something else.”

And so one might rather regard the before mentioned objects—pleasure, honor, contemplation—to be the end, the purpose, the telos of the good life.

10

For they have intrinsic worth. They are loved and desired for themselves.”

Here, Aristotle puts the life of money-making further down the list than the previous mentioned candidates for the good life. --There is nothing intrinsically valuable about money. Its only value is an exchange value.

Money is simply useful in that it can be exchanged for the sake of acquiring commodities, pleasures, enjoyments, resources, and necessities that are valuable in themselves.

You can’t eat money; it can’t keep you warm. It’s only valuable as means to an end.

The fact that copious amount of money has no value if no one ever sells anything reveals that money lacks intrinsic value.

This is not the case for pleasure and honor and virtue, so they are better candidates than money-making and wealth for a final telos. But they still fall short, Aristotle says.

Even if those things are valuable in themselves, they are still valuable, also, a means to an end: --namely, as means to happiness

Happiness on the other hand is only pursued for the sake of itself. --That is, it is non-sense to pursue happiness as a means to something more preferable than happiness.

Happiness is the ultimate good.

All the values and goods that make up theProminent ways of life that Aristotle identifies

Those goods shouldn’t be avoided. --They are valuable, and should be pursued.

But the life that pursues them can’t be Identified with the good life

PleasureHonor Virtue Philosophical contemplation:

11

They are definitely choice-worthy ends--these are goals and activities that are valuable, in themselves

But they are also chosen for the sake of eudaimonia --They are necessary ingredients for a full life of happiness

However, unlike Pleasure, Honor, Respect, Contemplation. Love

Happiness is never Chosen or Sought for the sake of anything else. Happiness is always chosen for itself and only for itself.

This is what Aristotle means in next Chapter 7, where he defines happiness as the most final and self-sufficient

THEMES C and D

The following notes are to help you understand themes C and D, which focus on Aristotle’s function argument and the relationship between logos and desire.

We’ll start by quoting a long passage from Chapter in 7, in which Aristotle outlines his “functional conception of goodness” and provides his “function argument” for the meaning of eudaimonia

CHAPTER 7The Good is the Final and Self-Sufficient;

Happiness [Eudaimonia] is Defined

In pages 9–11, Aristotle writes:“Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a little trite, a mere platitude. A clearer account of what eudaimonia is, is still desired.” Perhaps, a clearer account of happiness could be given, if we could first ascertain the function [ergon] of man. For just as it is for a flute-player, or a sculptor, or an artist—and in general, for anyone who fulfills some function or performs some action—the “good” and the “well” seem to reside in the proper function, if of course that thing has a function.

Does the carpenter, then, and the tanner have certain functions or activities, and yet man in general has none? Is man born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts of the body evidently has a function, may one lay it down also that man,

12

similarly, has a function apart from all these? What then can this function be?

Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth as being the function [ergon] of a man. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. So, neither nutrition nor perception qualify as the function of man. There remains, then, the active-life [energeia] of the rational element. The rational element of man has two parts: one part is rational in the sense that it is obedient to reason and the other part is rational in the sense that it possesses and conceives of rational rules (it possesses and exercises thought).

Because the “active-life of the rational element” has two meanings, we must make it clear that we mean—when we’re getting after the function of man—a life that is determined by the activity (as opposed to the mere possession) of the rational element [logos] of man. For the activity, it seems, has a greater claim to be the function of man.

The proper function of man, then, is an activity of the soul [psyche] which follows or implies a rational principle or standard. And if we say “so-and-so has a good function,” we mean that he sets high standards for himself. He is a “serious man” [spoudaios]. For example, the proper function of a harpist is the same thing as the function of a harpist who has set high standards for himself. The same applies to any and every group of individuals.

Of course, the attainment of excellence must be added to the mere function. In other words, the function of the harpist is to play the harp. The function of the harpist who sets high standards for himself is to play the harp well.

On these assumptions, if we take the proper function of man to be a certain kind of life, and if this kind of life is an activity of the soul and consists of actions performed in conjunction with the rational element [logos], and moreover if a man of high standards is he who performs the actions well and properly, and if a function is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the excellence appropriate to it—then based on all this, we reach this conclusion: that The Good of man is an activity of the soul in conformity with excellence or virtue, and if there are several virtues, then in conformity with the best and most complete.

Let’s unpack this by way of a broader summary of Aristotle’s theory, and then return to the particulars of the function argument afterwards.

If Eudaimonia is the actualization of human nature and human purposeIf Eudaimonia is Doing WELLIf Eudaimonia is an ACTIVITY

Then of all the different sorts of human Activities, What is the UNIQUE HUMAN ACTIVITY that Fulfills that natural human purpose?

13

What is the activity that makes Human Purpose Manifest?What activity is the key signifier of Human Flourishing?

Aristotle says, the final Purpose or Goal of a human being will be based on our Uniquely-Human capacity for Reason

Logos.

The Activation of Reason/Logos is the Activity that expresses our Purpose--the activity Actualizes—brings into being—human nature.

Using reason and Logos is this Essential Activity that is peculiar to human beings And Only human beings.

Now we could, but we won’t, spend a lot of hours talking about the Greek concept Logos --It means “reason” and “rationality” (amongst many other things)

But Logos is reason specifically in the sense that reason functions as an ORGANIZING Principle as an ORDERING Principle

A principle of gathering, arranging, organizing, and ordering

For humans, our Logos, this word we translate, as “reason” --our Logos is meant to attune itself to our desires our wants our ends our goals

For Aristotle, Logos attunes itself in this way in order to--Discover our desires--To Develop worthwhile desires--And then to Guide our desires, --To analyze, arrange, prioritize and order our desires --And to actively fulfill our desires with high standards

14

So reason, or Logos, asks: Not just: “How do I get what I want” --BUT: “What do I really want?”

For Aristotle, this activity of Logos, which prioritizes our desires and goals and projects isn’t about a sort of COLD CALCULATING LOGIC

LOGOS is not the use of human logic that nothing to do with emotions, passions, desires

Far from it. --Rather, the Work that LOGOS DOES is about the development our desires --the development of worthwhile desires, worthwhile ends worthwhile goalsin order that we might develop, as a person, in a way that realizes and makes manifest a beautiful well-lived, human life

When our soul—when our psyche—performs this activity of logos well, that’s when we flourish --That’s eudaimonia

But like we said: --a growing oak tree can be chopped down --It can be stunted while it’s still an acorn --it might never become a full oak tree.

So also can a human being be morally damaged or Existentially Impaired --Such that one never takes up the activity of DEVELOPING WORTHWHILE DESIRES” as a conscious project.

Or perhaps one’s society, one’s world has led to the deterioration of the Ability to Generate worthwhile dreams and desires --such that human beings never become “fully human” --perhaps they become something more like a herd creature of sheep creature. --Mediocre and Conformist --easily taught what to desire --leading a life on auto-pilot

15

--with ready-made desires.

Because if we only have THE POTENTIAL to become fully human, if we only have the potential to flourish,--then this potential may not be FULLY ACTUALIZED

What might that look like?--What does it look like when Logos is dormant, not Active 1) It’s When we go through life on Auto-Pilot2) It’s When we are MISLEAD about our desires3) It’s When we ONLY PURSUE the ready-made desires and aspirations that

society puts immediately in front of us4) When we are too Obedient and too Conformist5) When we do everything to “fit in” so we abandon the quirks and desires

that make us who we are, and stumble through life as a Dreamless Husk6) When we are too accepting of the world as it exists7) When we are too accepting of Ourselves as we Presently exist8) When our “ultimate desires” or in fact Shallow or Non-Existent

When we fail to Grow or Develop as a person, our life might still feel “good,” maybe we’re even “satisfied” with our life

But for, Aristotle, we won’t be flourishing; We won’t be “doing well” or “living well” as humans are meant to live well.

We won’t be making manifest or realizing a Well-Lived human life.

All of us are living a singular Life that one day will end; We have been living this life for a while. --just like plants, we are changing developing, growing

Like the first unfolding of a leaves, different dimensions of yourself are perhaps unfolding for the first time, --new desires emerge, --most of you are young, you’re begin to know yourself in a way you haven’t before.

16

--Potential characteristics are maybe becoming actual

But are you consciously engaging in that project of Self-Becoming? Are you vigorously developing and thriving?

Are you flourishing? --Are you generating dreams? --I mean Worthwhile dream? --Desires that are so novel and unexpected and brilliant that you might doubt they are even yours. --Ask yourself: Do I even know HOW to GENERATE Worthwhile Dreams.

Is it possible that one’s ability to Dream, to Desire, to imagine has seriously deteriorated?

And if that were the case, could one actually be Unaware of the Deterioration.

So, we hear some Weirdo talking about Waking up/activating the Capacity to generate PROFOUND desires, we look back at them Blankly and Blink

I mean, this is a question, right?

If you Lack the Ability to imagine, will you ever be able to Imagine what it is you’re lacking?

Can a society Reduce a human beings to the Level of a sheep, to a Herd Animal? --who only has herd-like desires.

The Creative, Imaginative capabilities Whose USE makes Life truly Worth Living --Those capabilities --Can they Atrophy like Muscles that are never used --Can they deteriorate?

When it comes to our Ability to desires and dream, to what Level of Conformism and Mediocrity can a shitty society reduce human being?

17

Can one’s ability to desire be mediocre to the point of a Moral Fault?

Can Severe Mediocrity and Ordinariness be an Ethical Fault?

When we think about human flourishing / eudaimonia, Aristotle and the Greeks were probably be on to something.

Perhaps, it is not the Purpose of a Human Being to lead a mediocre life --to be capable of ONLY generating Mediocre Desires. --to be Incapable of generating Quality Dreams and Projects. --to be Incapable of analyzing and prioritizing our desires.

For Aristotle, If we aren’t able to take these questions seriously, then we’ve lost what it is to be a Human Being

Perhaps the Creative Fire of life burning inside of us could go out. Or be Extinguished by a shitty society. And maybe we don’t even realize it.

______________________________________________________________________

Aristotle’s Function Argument

IN the function argument, Aristotle identifies an “active logos” as the unique function (ergon) of human beings

Leading up to this argument, Aristotle given us given us a definition of Eudaimonia as Final and self-sufficient

But still, even with this definition, we are left with a truism, a platitude, a cliché

We need clarification, Aristotle!

18

In order to move us beyond the truism that “The Good is happiness,” Aristotle provides what has been called the “function argument”

The Greek word here is Ergon meaning. --Work --Deed --characteristic activity of a thing

“He says on pg 10: “The good and the Well seem to reside in the proper function, if of course that thing has function”

We have to Remember: Aristotle is concerned with teleology? --What is the Final End? --What is the Ultimate purpose of a human being?

As teleoligists, we answer that by saying: --The Purpose of any being, the purpose of any Entity in Nature will be Specified in terms of that entity’s Characteristic Activity

That is: it will be specified in termos of its ergon.

Aristotle has a Functional Conception of goodness

Now, the Carpenter has a function. --What is it? --to convert wood into objects.

The Tanner he says has a function. --What’s that? --to make leather out of skins or hides.

The Plumber has a function. --What’s that? --to assemble and repair piping fixtures connected with water drainage

OK, but what about a person, Generally speaking? --Does a human Person in General not have a proper Function, or characteristic activity?

19

Aristotle says: --Well we can even look at the different parts and organs that Make Up a human person

They all have Clear Functions; they have a clear Ergon. --a characteristic task that they do, --a work that is to be performed.

The function of an eye is to see.

What’s the function of an Ear? --To Hear.

What’s the function of a Heart? --To Pump Blood.

What’s the function of a Kidney? --To filter waste from the body.

But apart from all of our Parts and Organs, are we to Assume that a person In General does not have an Ergon?

A functional conception of goodness: What does that mean?

Well, if the function of hammer is to Hammer nails, --then what does a Good Hammer do? --it pounds nails well

If the ergon of a knife is to cut, a good knife Cuts Well

Arête is “virtue or excellence” --It can also be a quality --A quality that aids in the Fulfillment of a thing’s ergon.

So sharpness is a Virtue in a knife designed to cut. Good focus is a virtue in an eye.

What’s the function of a Good or excellent guitar player? --to Play the Guitar well.

20

If Ethics is the investigation into “How to Live Well” --Then knowing the proper function of something would be of Great Concern

Why? --Because only when we know a thing’s Proper Function, can we then Truly Understand when something is not doing As Good or As Well as it might.

If you don’t know what the hell a hammer is, and what it’s supposed to do, --Then how the Hell are you going to know if it’s Broken?

But if we Know a thing’s Proper Activity, then we can maybe even help it do better: Human Beings included.

This is what Aristotle’s Ergon-Argument wants to specify --it’s about specifying Human Nature.

The Function Argument further Broken Down

Well, whatever Human Nature is, it must be distinctive to humans. --It Cannot Be those activities that we Share with plants like orchids: --That is Nutritive Function

The activity of nutrition (simply the activity of being alive)--That is function of the body that Allows for Growth

For humans that means what: 1) Eating and Digesting Food, 2) Taking in oxygen and distributing it throughout our body Etc.

For Plants, what is the nutritive function? 1) The Taking of Nutrients from the soil 2) Photo-synthesizing

21

Etc.

The nutritional activity allows a Life Form to survive and grow

But Because we Share that activity with Plants, It cannot be the unique human Ergon. --The human Ergon has to be distinctive of the Human Being.

So, what Activities does the human Life Form do that other Life Forms like plants do not?

Well, we perceive the world through Sense Organs and then, Based on those Perceptions, we develop Desires and Instincts

Aristotle says: Plant’s don’t that, But other life forms do.

Both Human Beings and Non-human Animals perceive the world Through our Sense Organs.

And as a consequence of this Perception animals (including humans) develop --Instincts --Drives --Impulses --Urges --Desires

But because the perceptual life is Common to Human-animals and Non-Human animals, then this activity cannot name the Activity that is unique to Human Beings.

Fine, Aristotle. If it’s Not the life of Nutrition and Not the life of Perception and Desire --Then what the Hell is the Ergon of Human Beings, which is peculiar to Us and Only

Us?

What does Aristotle say? --He says it’s the Rational Part of the human soul.

But he qualifies this a lot, right? He says it’s the Active-life of the rational element.

Active-life: “Energia” --Looks like the word “energy”

22

--Best translation might be: “Being-at-Work” --Energia means: The Activation of Potentials

The Rational part of the soul—LOGOS—Has to be Active --So, what does it mean when Logos is Active and not Dormant: --Because Logos ain’t always active.

Perhaps logos can be put to sleep?

There’s more that Aristotle has to say about Human Logos

The active life of Rationality has 2 Parts: --The Element that Commands --The Element that Obeys.

1) The Commanding element: --It Guides and Organizes our actions in life it develops the Principles the Standards and the Rules by which we live and Create Goals

What—is properly called Logos.

2) The Obedient Element --it conforms --it can be adjusted --it listens

Well, what Dimension of the Human Organism is obedient? --It obviously ain’t The Nutritional dimension of a human being

When I was in high school I might have commanded my Body to Grow Taller --but it sure as hell wouldn’t listen.

The nutritional dimension of humans is Irrational --in that sense of being without rationality.

OK, but our perceptual life is Also Irrational in that sense. --I got terrible Vision --but my Eyesight doesn’t Obey Logos

23

Because If I command my eyes to see at 20/20 They aren’t going to “Obey Me”, right?

So what dimension of us Obeys Reason?

In order to be able to listen to Reason, something it has to be Rational Itself.

What Element in human beings? --the part of rationality that has desires, urges, passions appetites, emotions values goals dreams aspirations

Whatever it is In Us that Longs, and Dreams, and has Wants --That can experience Moral beauty --This dimension is Malleable

Our Longings and Desires can be Directed They can be Organized and Ordered.

They can obey Logos, --Which develops Principles and Standards --And Issues Command on the Basis of those principles

Non-human animals cannot do this.--They can’t Guide Their Desires--They can be trained by humans--but that’s it, for the most part.

Logos: The rule giving part of the soul: --That is the Ergon of the human being --The part of the soul that Measures and Orders --The Active part of rationality --When in it is active and not dormant.

Logos works in tandem with the emotional and desirous dimension of the soul. Logos is able to

--Search into

24

--Develop --Gather --Analyze --Weed through --Discover --And Generate Desires, Projects Principles Ends, Goals, Telos.

____________________________________________________________________________

More to say on logos

Think Back on those experiences you’ve had --Maybe in a inspirational Class with a great teacher --Or watching a Sunset --Or on a Road Trip --Or with a lover --Experience where you felt moved and inspired—where suddenly anything seemed possible --That your life could be so much more than what it is.

Something—some Latent Potential of what you Can Be—some Better Version of yourself --it Calls You Forth --Issues a Demand: Realize and Develop these Passions --Become Something Extraordinary

That’s Logos Waking Up from Dormancy (a Moment of energeia)

Something calls you Forth and issues a Demands: --Take up your life as a Project--Take it up with a Seriousness.

Aristotle might say: --Those Sort of Experiences: that’s ushering forth of Human Nature: --Human Nature: trying to be let loose. --Human nature: a desire to Flourish --Something in you, Something concealed, Something not yet Present, something

25

not actual that wants to be Self-Actualized.

When Logos is Awake, it’s trying to Sniff that Something Out --To Discover it --To Command into Being.

But maybe this God-Damn society turns Logos Off --Sentences Logos to a life on Auto-Pilot.

When Logos is Lulled and Dormant --You ain’t got Human Nature anymore --What you got is a Domesticated Docile Obedient Mediocre human (herd) beings

--With all of their Shallow, narrow Desires, --desires that were Adopted as Ones Own without giving good reasons, without so much as a thought

The Human Ergon: this use of Logos to set worthwhile goals and standards --“The Proper function of man, then, is.

To be excellent at developing our desires and ends --that is what it Means have High Standards for yourself.

How excellent are you at Performing this function? --How Excellent are you at Discerning Desires, --Letting them Unfold through Projects, --It’s to ask: “How excellent are you at becoming yourself.

Aristotle has a name for the person who is excellent at this activity? --The Spoudaios

26