Aristotle And Aristotle: A Comparison Of The Good Life

A picture collage of best friends, a credit card, a pair of keys that unlock a car and a house, a picture of a favorite athlete and last but not least, a minion plush toy. All these items are representative of a common idea: the good life. The ability to surround one’s self around people who love them, the ability to purchase any item deemed necessary for living, having a home and car to shelter one from the outside world, people to look up to and the idea that everyone works hard and is equal are all ideas represented by the good life according to typical college students. However, while college students may have an idea on what the good life really is, perhaps someone who would know it better is Aristotle. The basis of Aristotle’s argument

One example of a virtue that is a mean between two vices is that of good temper. To the average person, a simple definition of good tempered can be put together by anyone. If one was to ask the average college student what good temper was he or she might say it is the ability to keep calm in situations that one might not agree with. Although Aristotle would argue, based on his assumption that one must life in a “mean” life, it is important to not sway towards either extreme he states that when actions are justified, it is ok to act out towards one extreme: “The man who is angry at the right things and with the right people, and, further, as he ought, when he ought, and as long as he ought, is praised” (73). Not only does Aristotle define when it is ok to be angry, he implies that sometimes swaying to one end of a virtue is encouraged by saying that the man who does this in the right way is praised. There are many different ways and times that people are praised. Another aspect of praise is who is doing the praising. More times than not, friends are a person’s best cheerleader and always there to congratulate someone. Aristotle notes that friendships are important in life. That being said, what kinds of friendships exist and what is to be gained from each

That being said, just because something is just, does not mean that something is fair. An example that was discussed during class was a murder trial. There always has to be a winning side and a losing side. While the winning side receives justice for the wrong doing, the losing side might not always find the actions fair. There is a difference between acts that people do according to Aristotle: “Both the lawless man and the grasping and unfair man are thought to be unjust, so that evidently both the law-abiding and the fair man will be just. The just, then, is the lawful and the fair, the unjust the unlawful and the unfair” (81). It is with that statement, and others which use figurative and less specific language as well, that Aristotle runs into a problem. While Aristotle’s argument has strong moments, most of his argument is weak due to the fact is lacks specific instructions and does not give examples as to how to apply his words of wisdom, to real