Understanding Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Words: 1034
Pages: 5

Aristotle’s book of Nicomachean Ethics is split into ten separate books however we are going to be focusing on his first book, happiness. We will be analyzing the Nicomachean Ethics to understand Aristotle’s assessment on him having a low opinion of the pursuits of most people. He establishes that the soul can be broken up into three unique sections. The first section is the nutritive soul, the second section is the sensible soul, and the last part is the rational soul. Each of these souls dictate certain actions or pursuits. The nutritive soul focuses on the things living things do to ensure they have the ability to maintain someone or something in life. “The cause of nutrition and growth, would seem to be plantlike and shared [with all living …show more content…
It is foolish to think that any happiness is everlasting because at a moment’s instance everything could change. “For anyone who is not deformed for virtue will be able to achieve happiness through some sort of learning and attention” (Aristotle 12) Aristotle believes that through things such as academic pursuit lead a permanent happiness. However I completely disagree with that idea. For example, if someone who has dedicated their whole life to the pursuit of philosophy or academia in hopes to be self-sufficient and that is presumed to be something that cannot be taken away. That notion is not true though. There are many circumstances in which one could have their knowledge taken away. One circumstance is if they got into an accident and suffered head injuries which affected the brains ability work or comprehend. Another circumstance is when you grow older and eventually some people suffer from Alzheimer or dementia which makes them forget things. In each of these circumstances happiness is just as easy to take away regardless if it was from the rational side of things or from the sensible side of things. Hence it is not a valid argument that happiness is everlasting when it is through the rational …show more content…
I would like to argue that those short term things are part of life and bring happiness and sadness however it is a part of life’s experiences. People have a tendency to say that it is about when you get there, it is more about how you got there. A prime example that comes to mind is when you go on vacation. (If we are assuming that this vacation makes you happy.) We also know that this trip has a definite end but we would want to do regardless because it is simply for the enjoyment. Even though this happiness and enjoyment was short lived doesn’t mean the experience itself was not worth experiencing. Aristotle is right about material things though. “Clearly wealth is not the good we are seeking, since it is merely useful, choice worthy only for some other end. Hence one would be more inclined to suppose that any of the goods mentioned earlier is the end, since they are liked for themselves.” (Aristotle 5) I take from this that people who think money is happiness are wrong because they use that money to for happiness. We will never know if we had a good life until we are dying like we wouldn’t know it was a good game until the game was near done or over. From the sensible soul I think it is those short experiences which yes, can be taken away from us easily but it is the experiences you had which brought you happiness