|
Book 1
1
Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is
thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly
been declared to be that at which all things aim. But a certain
difference is found among ends; some are activities, others are products
apart from the activities that produce them. Where there are ends apart
from the actions, it is the nature of the products to be better than the
activities. Now, as there are many actions, arts, and sciences, their
ends also are many; the end of the medical art is health, that of
shipbuilding a vessel, that of strategy victory, that of economics
wealth. But where such arts fall under a single capacity- as
bridle-making and the other arts concerned with the equipment of horses
fall under the art of riding, and this and every military action under
strategy, in the same way other arts fall under yet others- in all of
these the ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the
subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter
are pursued. It makes no difference whether the activities themselves
are the ends of the actions, or something else apart from the
activities, as in the case of the sciences just mentioned.
2
If, then, there is some end of the things we do, which we desire for its
own sake (everything else being desired for the sake of this), and if we
do not choose everything for the sake of something else (for at that
rate the process would go on to infinity, so that our desire would be
empty and vain), clearly this must be the good and the chief good. Will
not the knowledge of it, then, have a great influence on life? Shall we
not, like archers who have a mark to aim at, be more likely to hit upon
what is right? If so, we must try, in outline at least, to determine
what it is, and of which of the sciences or capacities it is the object.
It would seem to belong to the most authoritative art and that which is
most truly the master art. And politics appears to be of this nature;
for it is this that ordains which of the sciences should be studied in a
state, and which each class of citizens should learn and up to what
point they should learn them; and we see even the most highly esteemed
of capacities to fall under this, e.g. strategy, economics, rhetoric;
now, since politics uses the rest of the sciences, and since, again, it
legislates as to what we are to do and what we are to abstain from, the
end of this science must include those of the others, so that this end
must be the good for man. For even if the end is the same for a single
man and for a state, that of the state seems at all events something
greater and more complete whether to attain or to preserve; though it is
worth while to attain the end merely for one man, it is finer and more
godlike to attain it for a nation or for city-states. These, then, are
the ends at which our inquiry aims, since it is political science, in
one sense of that term.
3
Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the
subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in
all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. Now
fine and just actions, which political science investigates, admit of
much variety and fluctuation of opinion, so that they may be thought to
exist only by convention, and not by nature. And goods also give rise to
a similar fluctuation because they bring harm to many people; for before
now men have been undone by reason of their wealth, and others by reason
of their courage. We must be content, then, in speaking of such subjects
and with such premisses to indicate the truth roughly and in outline,
and in speaking about things which are only for the most part true and
with premisses of the same kind to reach conclusions that are no better.
In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be
received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in
each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it
is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a
mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs.
Now each man judges well the things he knows, and of these he is a good
judge. And so the man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge
of that subject, and the man who has received an all-round education is
a good judge in general. Hence a young man is not a proper hearer of
lectures on political science; for he is inexperienced in the actions
that occur in life, but its discussions start from these and are about
these; and, further, since he tends to follow his passions, his study
will be vain and unprofitable, because the end aimed at is not knowledge
but action. And it makes no difference whether he is young in years or
youthful in character; the defect does not depend on time, but on his
living, and pursuing each successive object, as passion directs. For to
such persons, as to the incontinent, knowledge brings no profit; but to
those who desire and act in accordance with a rational principle
knowledge about such matters will be of great benefit.
These remarks about the student, the sort of treatment to be expected,
and the purpose of the inquiry, may be taken as our preface.
4
Let us resume our inquiry and state, in view of the fact that all
knowledge and every pursuit aims at some good, what it is that we say
political science aims at and what is the highest of all goods
achievable by action. Verbally there is very general agreement; for both
the general run of men and people of superior refinement say that it is
happiness, and identify living well and doing well with being happy; but
with regard to what happiness is they differ, and the many do not give
the same account as the wise. For the former think it is some plain and
obvious thing, like pleasure, wealth, or honour; they differ, however,
from one another- and often even the same man identifies it with
different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is
poor; but, conscious of their ignorance,
they admire those who proclaim
some great ideal that is above their comprehension. Now some thought
that apart from these many goods there is another which is
self-subsistent and causes the goodness of all these as well. To examine
all the opinions that have been held were perhaps somewhat fruitless;
enough to examine those that are most prevalent or that seem to be
arguable.
Let us not fail to notice, however, that there is a difference between
arguments from and those to the first principles. For Plato, too, was
right in raising this question and asking, as he used to do, 'are we on
the way from or to the first principles?' There is a difference, as
there is in a race-course between the course from the judges to the
turning-point and the way back. For, while we must begin with what is
known, things are objects of knowledge in two senses- some to us, some
without qualification. Presumably, then, we must begin with things known
to us. Hence any one who is to listen intelligently to lectures about
what is noble and just, and generally, about the subjects of political
science must have been brought up in good habits.
For the fact is the
starting-point, and if this is sufficiently plain to him, he will not at
the start need the reason as well; and the man who has been well brought
up has or can easily get starting-points. And as for him who neither has
nor can get them, let him hear the words of Hesiod:
Far best is he who knows all things himself;
Good, he that hearkens when men counsel right;
But he who neither knows, nor lays to heart
Another's wisdom, is a useless wight.
5
Let us, however, resume our discussion from the point at which we
digressed. To judge from the lives that men lead, most men, and men of
the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the
good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the
life of enjoyment. For there are, we may say, three prominent types of
life- that just mentioned, the political, and thirdly the contemplative
life. Now the mass of mankind are evidently quite slavish in their
tastes, preferring a life suitable to beasts, but they get some ground
for their view from the fact that many of those in high places share the
tastes of Sardanapallus. A consideration of the prominent types of life
shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition
identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end
of the political life. But it seems too superficial to be what we are
looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour
rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be
something proper to a man and not easily taken from him. Further, men
seem to pursue honour in order that they may be assured of their
goodness; at least it is by men of practical wisdom that they seek to be
honoured, and among those who know them, and on the ground of their
virtue; clearly, then, according to them, at any rate,
virtue is better.
And perhaps one might even suppose this to be, rather than honour, the
end of the political life. But even this appears somewhat incomplete;
for possession of virtue seems actually compatible with being asleep, or
with lifelong inactivity, and, further, with the greatest sufferings and
misfortunes; but a man who was living so no one
would call happy, unless he were maintaining a thesis at all costs. But
enough of this; for the subject has been sufficiently treated even in
the current discussions. Third comes the contemplative life, which
we shall consider later.
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 take the aforenamed objects to be ends; for they are loved for themselves. But it
is evident that not even these are ends; yet many arguments have been
thrown away in support of them. Let us leave this subject, then.
6
We had perhaps better consider the universal good and discuss thoroughly
what is meant by it, although such an inquiry is made an uphill one by
the fact that the Forms have been introduced by friends of our own. Yet
it would perhaps be thought to be better, indeed to be our duty, for the
sake of maintaining the truth even to destroy what touches us closely,
especially as we are philosophers or lovers of wisdom; for, while both
are dear, piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.
The men who introduced this doctrine did not posit Ideas of classes
within which they recognized priority and posteriority (which is the
reason why they did not maintain the existence of an Idea embracing all
numbers); but the term 'good' is used both in the category of substance
and in that of quality and in that of relation, and that which is per
se, i.e. substance, is prior in nature to the relative (for the latter
is like an off shoot and accident of being); so that there could not be
a common Idea set over all these goods.
Further, since 'good' has as
many senses as 'being' (for it is predicated both in the category of
substance, as of God and of reason, and in quality, i.e. of the virtues,
and in quantity, i.e. of that which is moderate, and in relation, i.e.
of the useful, and in time, i.e. of the right opportunity, and in place,
i.e. of the right locality and the like), clearly it cannot be something
universally present in all cases and single; for then it could not have
been predicated in all the categories but in one only. Further, since of
the things answering to one Idea there is one science, there would have
been one science of all the goods; but as it is there are many sciences
even of the things that fall under one category, e.g. of opportunity,
for opportunity in war is studied by strategics and in disease by
medicine, and the moderate in food is studied by medicine and in
exercise by the science of gymnastics. And one might ask the question,
what in the world they mean by 'a thing itself', is (as is the case) in
'man himself' and in a particular man the account of man is one and the
same. For in so far as they are man, they will in no respect differ; and
if this is so, neither will 'good itself' and particular goods, in so
far as they are good. But again it will not be good any the more for
being eternal, since that which lasts long is no whiter than that which
perishes in a day. The Pythagoreans seem to give a more plausible
account of the good, when they place the one in the column of goods; and
it is they that Speusippus seems to have followed.
But let us discuss these matters elsewhere; an objection to what we have
said, however, may be discerned in the fact that the Platonists have not
been speaking about all goods, and that the goods that are pursued and
loved for themselves are called good by reference to a single Form,
while those which tend to produce or to preserve these somehow or to
prevent their contraries are called so by reference to these, and in a
secondary sense. Clearly, then, goods must be spoken of in two ways, and
some must be good in themselves, the others by reason of these.
Let us
separate, then, things good in themselves from things useful, and
consider whether the former are called good by reference to a single
Idea. What sort of goods would one call good in themselves? Is it those
that are pursued even when isolated from others, such as intelligence,
sight, and certain pleasures and honours? Certainly, if we pursue these
also for the sake of something else, yet one would place them among
things good in themselves. Or is nothing other than the Idea of good
good in itself? In that case the Form will be empty. But if the things
we have named are also things good in themselves, the account of the
good will have to appear as something identical in them all, as that of
whiteness is identical in snow and in white lead. But of honour, wisdom,
and pleasure, just in respect of their goodness, the accounts are
distinct and diverse. The good, therefore, is not some common element
answering to one Idea.
But what then do we mean by the good? It is surely not like the things
that only chance to have the same name. Are goods one, then, by being
derived from one good or by all contributing to one good, or are they
rather one by analogy? Certainly as sight is in the body, so is reason
in the soul, and so on in other cases. But perhaps these subjects had
better be dismissed for the present; for perfect precision about them
would be more appropriate to another branch of philosophy. And similarly
with regard to the Idea; even if there is some one good which is
universally predicable of goods or is capable of separate and
independent existence, clearly it could not be achieved or attained by
man; but we are now seeking something attainable. Perhaps, however, some
one might think it worth while to recognize this with a view to the
goods that are attainable and achievable; for having this as a sort of
pattern we shall know better the goods that are good for us, and if we
know them shall attain them. This argument has some plausibility, but
seems to clash with the procedure of the sciences; for all of these,
though they aim at some good and seek to supply the deficiency of it,
leave on one side the knowledge of the good. Yet that all the exponents
of the arts should be ignorant of, and should not even seek, so great an
aid is not probable. It is hard, too, to see how a weaver or a carpenter
will be benefited in regard to his own craft by knowing this 'good
itself', or how the man who has viewed the Idea itself will be a better
doctor or general thereby. For a doctor seems not even to study health
in this way, but the health of man, or perhaps rather the health of a
particular man; it is individuals that he is healing.
But enough of
these topics.
7
Let us again return to the good we are seeking, and ask what it can be.
It seems different in different actions and arts; it is different in
medicine, in strategy, and in the other arts likewise. What then is the
good of each? Surely that for whose sake everything else is done. In
medicine this is health, in strategy victory, in architecture a house,
in any other sphere something else, and in every action and pursuit the
end; for it is for the sake of this that all men do whatever else they
do. Therefore, if there is an end for all that we do, this will be the
good achievable by action, and if there are more than one, these will be
the goods achievable by action.
So the argument has by a different course reached the same point; but we
must try to state this even more clearly. Since there are evidently more
than one end, and we choose some of these (e.g. wealth, flutes, and in
general instruments) for the sake of something else, clearly not all
ends are final ends; but the chief good is evidently something final.
Therefore, if there is only one final end, this will be what we are
seeking, and if there are more than one, the most final of these will be
what we are seeking. Now we call that which is in itself worthy of
pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of
something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of
something else more final than the things that are desirable both in
themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call
final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and
never for the sake of something else.
Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we
choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but
honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for
themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose
each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other
hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for
anything other than itself.
From the point of view of self-sufficiency the same result seems to
follow; for the final good is thought to be self-sufficient. Now by
self-sufficient we do not mean that which is sufficient for a man by
himself, for one who lives a solitary life, but also for parents,
children, wife, and in general for his friends and fellow citizens,
since man is born for citizenship. But some limit must be set to this;
for if we extend our requirement to ancestors and descendants and
friends' friends we are in for an infinite series. Let us examine this
question, however, on another occasion; the self-sufficient we now
define as that which when isolated makes life desirable and lacking in
nothing; and such we think happiness to be; and further we think it most
desirable of all things, without being counted as one good thing among
others- if it were so counted it would clearly be made more desirable by
the addition of even the least of goods; for that which is added becomes
an excess of goods, and of goods the greater is always more desirable.
Happiness, then, is something final and self-sufficient, and is the end
of action.
Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a
platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This might
perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. For
just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in general,
for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the 'well'
is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if
he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain
functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a
function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts
evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a
function apart from all these? What then can this 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. Next there
would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to
the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life
of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such
a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the
sense of possessing one and exercising thought. And, as 'life of the
rational element' also has two meanings, we must state that life in the
sense of activity is what we mean; for this seems to be the more proper
sense of the term. Now if the function of man is an activity of soul
which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say
'so-and-so-and 'a good so-and-so' have a function which is the same in
kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification
in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of
the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and
that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and
we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to
be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and
the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of
these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in
accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human
good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if
there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most
complete.
But we must add 'in a complete life.' For one swallow does not make a
summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not
make a man blessed and happy.
Let this serve as an outline of the good; for we must presumably first
sketch it roughly, and then later fill in the details. But it would seem
that any one is capable of carrying on and articulating what has once
been well outlined, and that time is a good discoverer or partner in
such a work; to which facts the advances of the arts are due; for any
one can add what is lacking. And we must also remember what has been
said before, and not look for precision in all things alike, but in each
class of things such precision as accords with the subject-matter, and
so much as is appropriate to the inquiry. For a carpenter and a geometer
investigate the right angle in different ways; the former does so in so
far as the right angle is useful for his work, while the latter inquires
what it is or what sort of thing it is; for he is a spectator of the
truth. We must act in the same way, then, in all other matters as well,
that our main task may not be subordinated to minor questions. Nor must
we demand the cause in all matters alike; it is enough in some cases
that the fact be well established, as in the case of the first
principles; the fact is the primary thing or first principle. Now of
first principles we see some by induction, some by perception, some by a
certain habituation, and others too in other ways. But each set of
principles we must try to investigate in the natural way, and we must
take pains to state them definitely, since they have a great influence
on what follows. For the beginning is thought to be more than half of
the whole, and many of the questions we ask are cleared up by it.
8
We must consider it, however, in the light not only of our conclusion
and our premisses, but also of what is commonly said about it; for with
a true view all the data harmonize, but with a false one the facts soon
clash. Now goods have been divided into three classes, and some are
described as external, others as relating to soul or to body; we call
those that relate to soul most properly and truly goods, and psychical
actions and activities we class as relating to soul. Therefore our
account must be sound, at least according to this view, which is an old
one and agreed on by philosophers. It is correct also in that we
identify the end with certain actions and activities; for thus it falls
among goods of the soul and not among external goods.
Another belief
which harmonizes with our account is that the happy man lives well and
does well; for we have practically defined happiness as a sort of good
life and good action. The characteristics that are looked for in
happiness seem also, all of them, to belong to what we have defined
happiness as being. For some identify happiness with virtue, some with
practical wisdom, others with a kind of philosophic wisdom, others with
these, or one of these, accompanied by pleasure or not without pleasure;
while others include also external prosperity. Now some of these views
have been held by many men and men of old, others by a few eminent
persons; and it is not probable that either of these should be entirely
mistaken, but rather that they should be right in at least some one
respect or even in most respects.
With those who identify happiness with virtue or some one virtue our
account is in harmony; for to virtue belongs virtuous activity.
But it
makes, perhaps, no small difference whether we place the chief good in
possession or in use, in state of mind or in activity. For the state of
mind may exist without producing any good result, as in a man who is
asleep or in some other way quite inactive, but the activity cannot; for
one who has the activity will of necessity be acting, and acting well.
And as in the Olympic Games it is not the most beautiful and the
strongest that are crowned but those who compete (for it is some of
these that are victorious), so those who act win, and rightly win, the
noble and good things in life.
Their life is also in itself pleasant.
For pleasure is a state of soul,
and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant; e.g.
not only is a horse pleasant to the lover of horses, and a spectacle to
the lover of sights, but also in the same way just acts are pleasant to
the lover of justice and in general virtuous acts to the lover of
virtue. Now for most men their pleasures are in conflict with one
another because these are not by nature pleasant, but the lovers of what
is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and
virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such men as
well as in their own nature. Their life, therefore, has no further need
of pleasure as a sort of adventitious charm, but has its pleasure in
itself. For, besides what we have said, the man who does not rejoice in
noble actions is not even good; since no one would call a man just who
did not enjoy acting justly, nor any man liberal who did not enjoy
liberal actions; and similarly in all other cases. If this is so,
virtuous actions must be in themselves pleasant. But they are also good
and noble, and have each of these attributes in the highest degree,
since the good man judges well about these attributes; his judgement is
such as we have described. Happiness then is the best, noblest, and most
pleasant thing in the world, and these attributes are not severed as in
the inscription at Delos-
Most noble is that which is justest, and best is health;
But pleasantest is it to win what we love.
For all these properties belong to the best activities; and these, or
one- the best- of these, we identify with happiness.
Yet evidently, as we said, it needs the external goods as well; for it
is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper
equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches and political power
as instruments; and there are some things the lack of which takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the
man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless
is not very likely to be happy, and perhaps a man would be still less
likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends or had lost good
children or friends by death. As we said, then, happiness seems to need
this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason some identify
happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue.
9
For this reason also the question is asked, whether happiness is to be
acquired by learning or by habituation or some other sort of training,
or comes in virtue of some divine providence or again by chance.
Now if
there is any gift of the gods to men, it is reasonable that happiness
should be god-given, and most surely god-given of all human things
inasmuch as it is the best. But this question would perhaps be more
appropriate to another inquiry; happiness seems, however, even if it is
not god-sent but comes as a result of virtue and some process of
learning or training, to be among the most godlike things; for that
which is the prize and end of virtue seems to be the best thing in the
world, and something godlike and blessed.
It will also on this view be very generally shared; for all who are not
maimed as regards their potentiality for virtue may win it by a certain
kind of study and care. But if it is better to be happy thus than by
chance, it is reasonable that the facts should be so, since everything
that depends on the action of nature is by nature as good as it can be,
and similarly everything that depends on art or any rational cause, and
especially if it depends on the best of all causes.
To entrust to chance
what is greatest and most noble would be a very defective arrangement.
The answer to the question we are asking is plain also from the
definition of happiness; for it has been said to be a virtuous activity
of soul, of a certain kind. Of the remaining goods, some must
necessarily pre-exist as conditions of happiness, and others are
naturally co-operative and useful as instruments. And this will be found
to agree with what we said at the outset; for we stated the end of
political science to be the best end, and political science spends most
of its pains on making the citizens to be of a certain character, viz.
good and capable of noble acts.
It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of
the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such
activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet
capable of such acts, owing to his age; and boys who are called happy
are being congratulated by reason of the hopes we have for them.
For
there is required, as we said, not only complete virtue but also a
complete life, since many changes occur in life, and all manner of
chances, and the most prosperous may fall into great misfortunes in old
age, as is told of Priam in the Trojan Cycle; and one who has
experienced such chances and has ended wretchedly no one calls happy.
10
Must no one at all, then, be called happy while he lives; must we, as
Solon says, see the end? Even if we are to lay down this doctrine, is it
also the case that a man is happy when he is dead? Or is not this quite
absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an activity? But if
we do not call the dead man happy, and if Solon does not mean this, but
that one can then safely call a man blessed as being at last beyond
evils and misfortunes, this also affords matter for discussion;
for both
evil and good are thought to exist for a dead man, as much as for one
who is alive but not aware of them; e.g. honours and dishonours and the
good or bad fortunes of children and in general of descendants. And this
also presents a problem; for though a man has lived happily up to old
age and has had a death worthy of his life, many reverses may befall his
descendants- some of them may be good and attain the life they deserve,
while with others the opposite may be the case; and clearly too the
degrees of relationship between them and their ancestors may vary
indefinitely. It would be odd, then, if the dead man were to share in
these changes and become at one time happy, at another wretched; while
it would also be odd if the fortunes of the descendants did not for some
time have some effect on the happiness of their ancestors.
But we must return to our first difficulty; for perhaps by a
consideration of it our present problem might be solved.
Now if we must
see the end and only then call a man happy, not as being happy but as
having been so before, surely this is a paradox, that when he is happy
the attribute that belongs to him is not to be truly predicated of him
because we do not wish to call living men happy, on account of the
changes that may befall them, and because we have assumed happiness to
be something permanent and by no means easily changed, while a single
man may suffer many turns of fortune's wheel. For clearly if we were to
keep pace with his fortunes, we should often call the same man happy and
again wretched, making the happy man out to be chameleon and insecurely
based. Or is this keeping pace with his fortunes quite wrong? Success or
failure in life does not depend on these, but human life, as we said,
needs these as mere additions, while virtuous activities or their
opposites are what constitute happiness or the reverse.
The question we have now discussed confirms our definition. For no
function of man has so much permanence as virtuous activities (these are
thought to be more durable even than knowledge of the sciences), and of
these themselves the most valuable are more durable because those who
are happy spend their life most readily and most continuously in these;
for this seems to be the reason why we do not forget them.
The attribute
in question, then, will belong to the happy man, and he will be happy
throughout his life; for always, or by preference to everything else, he
will be engaged in virtuous action and contemplation, and he will bear
the chances of life most nobly and altogether decorously, if he is
'truly good' and 'foursquare beyond reproach'.
Now many events happen by chance, and events differing in importance;
small pieces of good fortune or of its opposite clearly do not weigh
down the scales of life one way or the other, but a multitude of great
events if they turn out well will make life happier (for not only are
they themselves such as to add beauty to life, but the way a man deals
with them may be noble and good), while if they turn out ill they crush
and maim happiness; for they both bring pain with them and hinder many
activities. Yet even in these nobility shines through, when a man bears
with resignation many great misfortunes, not through insensibility to
pain but through nobility and greatness of soul.
If activities are, as we said, what gives life its character, no happy
man can become miserable; for he will never do the acts that are hateful
and mean. For the man who is truly good and wise, we think, bears all
the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances,
as a good general makes the best military use of the army at his command
and a good shoemaker makes the best shoes out of the hides that are
given him; and so with all other craftsmen. And if this is the case, the
happy man can never become miserable; though he will not reach
blessedness, if he meet with fortunes like those of Priam.
Nor, again, is he many-coloured and changeable; for neither will he be
moved from his happy state easily or by any ordinary misadventures, but
only by many great ones, nor, if he has had many great misadventures,
will he recover his happiness in a short time, but if at all, only in a
long and complete one in which he has attained many splendid successes.
When then should we not say that he is happy who is active in accordance
with complete virtue and is sufficiently equipped with external goods,
not for some chance period but throughout a complete life? Or must we
add 'and who is destined to live thus and die as befits his life'?
Certainly the future is obscure to us, while happiness, we claim, is an
end and something in every way final. If so, we shall call happy those
among living men in whom these conditions are, and are to be, fulfilled-
but happy men. So much for these questions.
11
That the fortunes of descendants and of all a man's friends should not
affect his happiness at all seems a very unfriendly doctrine, and one
opposed to the opinions men hold; but since the events that happen are
numerous and admit of all sorts of difference, and some come more near
to us and others less so, it seems a long- nay, an infinite- task to
discuss each in detail; a general outline will perhaps suffice. If,
then, as some of a man's own misadventures have a certain weight and
influence on life while others are, as it were, lighter, so too there
are differences among the misadventures of our friends taken as a whole,
and it makes a difference whether the various suffering befall the
living or the dead (much more even than whether lawless and terrible
deeds are presupposed in a tragedy or done on the stage), this
difference also must be taken into account; or rather, perhaps, the fact
that doubt is felt whether the dead share in any good or evil. For it
seems, from these considerations, that even if anything whether good or
evil penetrates to them, it must be something weak and negligible,
either in itself or for them, or if not, at least it must be such in
degree and kind as not to make happy those who are not happy nor to take
away their blessedness from those who are.
The good or bad fortunes of
friends, then, seem to have some effects on the dead, but effects of
such a kind and degree as neither to make the happy unhappy nor to
produce any other change of the kind.
12
These questions having been definitely answered, let us consider whether
happiness is among the things that are praised or rather among the
things that are prized; for clearly it is not to be placed among
potentialities. Everything that is praised seems to be praised because
it is of a certain kind and is related somehow to something else; for we
praise the just or brave man and in general both the good man and virtue
itself because of the actions and functions involved, and we praise the
strong man, the good runner, and so on, because he is of a certain kind
and is related in a certain way to something good and important. This is
clear also from the praises of the gods; for it seems absurd that the
gods should be referred to our standard, but this is done because praise
involves a reference, to something else.
But if praise is for things
such as we have described, clearly what applies to the best things is
not praise, but something greater and better, as is indeed obvious; for
what we do to the gods and the most godlike of men is to call them
blessed and happy. And so too with good things; no one praises happiness
as he does justice, but rather calls it blessed, as being something more
divine and better.
Eudoxus also seems to have been right in his method of advocating the
supremacy of pleasure; he thought that the fact that, though a good, it
is not praised indicated it to be better than the things that are
praised, and that this is what God and the good are; for by reference to
these all other things are judged. Praise is appropriate to virtue, for
as a result of virtue men tend to do noble deeds, but encomia are
bestowed on acts, whether of the body or of the soul. But perhaps nicety
in these matters is more proper to those who have made a study of
encomia; to us it is clear from what has been said that happiness is
among the things that are prized and perfect. It seems to be so also
from the fact that it is a first principle; for it is for the sake of
this that we all do all that we do, and the first principle and cause of
goods is, we claim, something prized and divine.
13
Since happiness is an activity of soul in accordance with perfect
virtue, we must consider the nature of virtue; for perhaps we shall thus
see better the nature of happiness. The true student of politics,
too, is thought to have studied virtue above all things; for he wishes
to make his fellow citizens good and obedient to the laws. As an example
of this we have the lawgivers of the Cretans and the Spartans,
and any others of the kind that there may have been. And if this inquiry
belongs to political science, clearly the pursuit of it will be in
accordance with our original plan. But clearly the virtue we must study
is human virtue; for the good we were seeking was human good and the
happiness human happiness.
By human virtue we mean
not that of the body but that of the soul; and
happiness also we call an activity of soul. But if this is so, clearly
the student of politics must know somehow the facts about soul, as the
man who is to heal the eyes or the body as a whole must know about the
eyes or the body; and all the more since
politics is more prized
and better than medicine; but even among doctors
the best educated spend much labour on acquiring knowledge of the body.
The
student of politics, then, must study the soul, and must study it with
these objects in view, and do so just to the extent which is sufficient
for the questions we are discussing; for further precision is perhaps
something more laborious than our purposes require.
Some things are said about it, adequately enough, even in the
discussions outside our school, and we must use these; e.g. that
one
element in the soul is irrational and one has a rational principle.
Whether these are separated as the parts of the body or of anything
divisible are, or are distinct by definition but by nature inseparable,
like convex and concave in the circumference of a circle, does not
affect the present question.
Of the irrational element one division seems to be widely distributed,
and vegetative in its nature, I mean that which causes nutrition and
growth; for it is this kind of power of the soul that one must assign to
all nurslings and to embryos, and this same power to full-grown
creatures; this is more reasonable than to assign some different power
to them. Now the excellence of this seems to be common to all species
and not specifically human; for this part or faculty seems to function
most in sleep, while goodness and badness are least manifest in sleep
(whence comes the saying that the happy are not better off than the
wretched for half their lives; and this happens naturally enough, since
sleep is an inactivity of the soul in that respect in which it is called
good or bad), unless perhaps to a small extent some of the movements
actually penetrate to the soul, and in this respect the dreams of good
men are better than those of ordinary people. Enough of this subject,
however; let us leave the nutritive faculty alone, since it has by its
nature no share in human excellence.
There seems to be also another irrational element in the soul-one which
in a sense, however, shares in a rational principle.
For we praise the
rational principle of the continent man and of the incontinent, and the
part of their soul that has such a principle, since it urges them aright
and towards the best objects; but there is found in them also another
element naturally opposed to the rational principle, which fights
against and resists that principle. For exactly as paralysed limbs when
we intend to move them to the right turn on the contrary to the left, so
is it with the soul; the impulses of incontinent people move in contrary
directions. But while in the body we see that which moves astray, in the
soul we do not. No doubt, however, we must none the less suppose that in
the soul too there is something contrary to the rational principle,
resisting and opposing it. In what sense it is distinct from the other
elements does not concern us. Now even this seems to have a share in a
rational principle, as we said; at any rate in the continent man it
obeys the rational principle and presumably in the temperate and brave
man it is still more obedient; for in him it speaks, on all matters,
with the same voice as the rational principle.
Therefore the irrational element also appears to be two-fold. For the
vegetative element in no way shares in a rational principle, but the
appetitive and in general the desiring element in a sense shares in it,
in so far as it listens to and obeys it; this is the sense in which we
speak of 'taking account' of one's father or one's friends, not that in
which we speak of 'accounting for a mathematical property. That the
irrational element is in some sense persuaded by a rational principle is
indicated also by the giving of advice and by all reproof and
exhortation. And if this element also must be said to have a rational
principle, that which has a rational principle (as well as that which
has not) will be twofold, one subdivision having it in the strict sense
and in itself, and the other having a tendency to obey as one does one's
father.
Virtue too is distinguished into kinds in accordance with this
difference; for we say that some of the virtues are intellectual and
others moral, philosophic wisdom and understanding and practical wisdom
being intellectual, liberality and temperance moral.
For in speaking
about a man's character we do not say that he is wise or has
understanding but that he is good-tempered or temperate; yet we praise
the wise man also with respect to his state of mind; and of states of
mind we call those which merit praise virtues.
Go to Next Page
|