Proper Functioning Paper
According to Socrates, the proper function of a human being is to work with virtue instead of vice. He explains further that virtue compromises the excellence of one’s functioning. Socrates gives some examples of the virtues that he considers encompassing what it means to be functioning properly. He states that moderation, courage, wisdom, and justice all allow those who practice them to function well. He employs this argument in describing why the just life is favorable over the unjust one. When someone preforms the functions of the human soul well and properly, he or she will then live a happier life than an unjust person not preforming adequately.
Socrates argues and gives a few key points as to why those who are
…show more content…
just are better off than the unjust. The first comparison he makes is that a just man is wise and good, while the unjust man is ignorant and corrupt. A just man is good because he does not give into the pleasure but understands the principle of limits. If one were to live by no limitations this would create conflicts and enable corruption to disperse. Socrates continues to argue that the injustice that an unjust man does is also not effective when compared to a just man’s actions. The just man is able to make a society internally good and harmonious. Doing a just action or living a just life not only fulfills the person doing the just action but the people who benefit from its goodness. A just action is fulfilling as Socrates makes the argument that justice is the virtue of the human soul as the virtue of a knife is to cut things. When the knife or in this case the human practices justice this is what he believes to be the proper function. It is important to note his remarks that a just man is wise and good. Wisdom is something that one must acquire and at some point, work to understand different forms of knowledge. Knowledge doesn’t just appear in front of someone by accident. One has to be intent on making the deeper connections that are eminent in gaining wisdom. By this logic, it could be established that intent and the right motivations is what drives people to gain wisdom. With that in mind, a person must care about things of higher stature to believe wisdom is imperative. Furthermore, the argument could be made that someone who functions properly and has good morals/values will care about living justly. A person is therefore wise, functioning properly and believes in good values making it possible for he or she to live well. Therefore, proper functioning, in other words, is a form of excellence that is practiced in one’s life. To rephrase, living excellently or properly is the key to happiness. For example, individuals within a family have instrumental roles that they need to fulfill in order to have a healthy, prosperous family. It is important that parents of young children begin to teach their children life skills through example and behavior. The four virtues that Socrates mentions come into play in a situation such as looking at ways to build a family- allowing it to function properly. The parents, if displaying the virtues of moderation, courage, wisdom, and justice in front of their children from an early age, will have allowed their children to reap the benefits of their model behavior. These children will likely, through acquiring proper values at an early age, have an innate sense of what is right and wrong and an ability to function properly with the tools they learned from their parents. This then allows these children to be happy as they continue to work hard, seek justice etc. throughout their daily lives. This not only benefits the children, and the family as a whole to have such good values instilled within them, but it also benefits the rest of society. The children are doing their best and giving to society by doing what they are best at efficiently. These children will also grow up to be examples for others and will in affect be an inspiration by continuously acting on these virtues, stimulating productivity. This shows how rewarding the acts of justice can be. The parents lived their lives justly and then are enjoying themselves rightfully so, while the children they raised with just standards also produce happiness within themselves. The parents are then content in looking at how their children properly function as adults later on. Justice, in the example of a basic family dynamic, can produce healthy relationships as well as morals on a micro level and macro level. This is a way in which, Socrates presentation of proper functioning can produce happiness or living life well. Aristotle also presents his version of what functioning means and how it relates to justice. He starts off by explaining that to discover human good one must first be able to identify the very function of a human being. He describes that life is shared by even plants and from here we can distinguish how humans are different from other life forms. He settles with the idea that unlike other beings, humans are rational in their activity. Aristotle makes it clear that the human function does not necessarily mean its purpose but the way one goes about functioning. Humans function by making their own rational choices. Aristotle is then able to show how this equates to happiness. He affirms human good is not just an effect of rational activities, but the motive behind the rationalization is what determines happiness. This can be clarified even further when examining what creates unhappiness. The inborn inclinations that humans possess can lead them away from true happiness and lead them to misery. This occurs when one becomes so preoccupied with pleasure or allows his or her appetites to control every activity instead of living by the virtues. Aristotle believes contemplation and rational thinking/activities are a person’s proper function. Contemplation is key to one’s psychological development as well as being successful in most everything someone can do. Contemplation is also self-sufficient allowing a person to internally achieve stability and rationality. This can therefore be considered the most proper way of functioning in not having to have external pleasures to be happy. Aristotle explains that if someone is happy by contemplating then he or she is in his definition properly functioning. This supports the cycle of a person to live his or her life happily. Not everyone may be able to derive complete happiness from contemplation.
However, as long as someone is able to be happy without falling to the feet of their pleasures they can still be functioning properly, seemingly, according to Aristotle’s definition. With many pleasures, moderation is imperative. Otherwise, someone would not be functioning properly by allowing these pleasures to overtake their mind- leaving no room for rational thought/contemplation. Aristotle rejects the notion that pleasures can lead to happiness for this very reason, but an exception can be made with bring up limits. Limitations that someone may abide by shows self-control and an ability to rationalize well. Many people have a tendency to overindulge in eating food. The more food they consume may lead to each bite being less pleasurable due to such a large quantity. Each bite someone takes, they become closer to being full or satisfied with the amount they have eaten. However, if someone does not stop eating, extending the limits that their stomach can handle, this not only has physiological repercussions but psychological ones as well. A person will become sick with the food they have just engulfed as well as having a somewhat negative association with the awful physical feeling they experienced after stuffing themselves. When someone places mental or physical limitations to their actions they produce a healthier mind and body. This not only shows stability but a rational mind. In this example, someone who only ate what was served on their plate and did not go back for more, even after feeling satisfied, will continue to enjoy the food in the future by having a fond memory/association from the experience. Even though someone did engage in the pleasure of eating food and then equating this to their happiness, they did go through the process of contemplating their limits. This shows that humans that can function this way are doing so
properly.
Socrates once said, “The unexamined life is not worth living.” He questioned the very nature of why things were the way they were, while never settling for simple, mundane answers. Socrates would rather die searching for the truth than live accepting what he considered a blatant lie. I like to think of myself the same way. I too would rather examine the wonders of life rather than accept what I am just told. The truth is some can’t handle the truth. I on the other hand welcome it with earnest anticipation and fervent enthusiasm.
In Walter Mosley’s Always Outnumbered, Always Outgunned, the reader is introduced to Socrates Fortlow, an ex-convict who served twenty-seven years for murder and rape. Fortlow is plagued by guilt and, seeing the chaos in his town, feels a need to improve not only his own standards of living, but also those of others in Watts. He attempts this by teaching the people in Watts the lessons he feels will resolve the many challenges the neighbourhood faces. The lessons Fortlow teaches and the methods by which he teaches them are very similar to those of the ancient Greek philosopher for whom Fortlow was named: “‘We was poor and country. My mother couldn’t afford school so she figured that if she named me after somebody smart then maybe I’d get smart’” (Mosley, 44). Though the ancient Greek was born to be a philosopher and Fortlow assumed the philosopher role as a response to the poor state of his life and Watts, both resulted in the same required instruction to their populations. The two Socrates’ both utilize a form of teaching that requires their pupil to become engaged in the lesson. They emphasize ethics, logic, and knowledge in their instruction, and place importance on epistemology and definitions because they feel a problem cannot be solved if one does not first know what it is. Socrates was essential in first introducing these concepts to the world and seemed to be born with them inherent to his being, Fortlow has learned the ideals through life experience and is a real-world application in an area that needs the teachings to get on track. While the two men bear many similarities, their differences they are attributed primarily as a result of their circumstances provide the basis of Fortlow’s importance in Watts and as a modern-...
Aristotle believes that happiness rests within an absolutely final and self-sufficient end. The reasoning behind this theory is that every man is striving for some end, and every action he does must be due to this desire to reach this final end. He believes that in order for a man to be happy, he must live an active life of virtue, for this will in turn bring him closer to the final end. Although some may believe that these actions that the man chooses to take is what creates happiness, Aristotle believes that these actions are just a mere part of the striving toward the final end. I believe that Aristotle’s great-souled man is the highest virtue of character; His actions are never too extreme and he is appropriate in all his manners. The magnanimous person is within the intermediate state of character. “The deficient person is pusillanimous, and the person who goes to excess is vain” (§35). The magnanimous person surrounds himself with great things. The great things occurs when “he receives great honors from excellent pe...
According to Aristotle, a virtue is a state that makes something good, and in order for something to be good, it must fulfill its function well. The proper function of a human soul is to reason well. Aristotle says that there are two parts of the soul that correspond to different types of virtues: the appetitive part of the soul involves character virtues, while the rational part involves intellectual virtues. The character virtues allow one to deliberate and find the “golden mean” in a specific situation, while the intellectual virtues allow one to contemplate and seek the truth. A virtuous person is someone who maintains an appropriate balance of these two parts of the soul, which allows them to reason well in different types of situations.
There are times in every mans life where our actions and beliefs collide—these collisions are known as contradictions. There are endless instances in which we are so determined to make a point that we resort to using absurd overstatements, demeaning language, and false accusations in our arguments. This tendency to contradict ourselves often questions our character and morals. Similarly, in The Trial of Socrates (Plato’s Apology), Meletus’ fallacies in reason and his eventual mistake of contradicting himself will clear the accusations placed on Socrates. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not guilty of corrupting the youth with the idea of not believing in the Gods but of teaching the youth to think for themselves by looking to new divinities.
Socrates: A Gift To The Athenians As Socrates said in Apology by Plato, “...the envy and detraction of the world, which has been the death of many good men, and will probably be the death of many more…”(Philosophical Texts, 34) Throughout history, many leaders have been put to death for their knowledge. In Apology, Socrates- soon to be put to death- says he was placed in Athens by a god to render a service to the city and its citizens. Yet he will not venture out to come forward and advise the state and says this abstention is a condition on his usefulness to the city.
Socrates states that living is a function of the soul; meaning that only a soul can live or a soul lives better than anything else (1) (Page 42). Anything with a function performs it well by means of its own peculiar virtue and badly by means of its vice or lack of virtue (2) (Page 41).This means that something that has a specific function would do it well because of a certain feature or attribute that it obtains. For example, a chainsaw performs its function of cutting by the virtue of its set of sharp blades and badly by its lack of its set of sharp blades or vice of dull blades. Therefore a soul would live by its virtue. So then it must be asked what is the soul’s virtue? The soul has multiple functions not just living. Since only a soul can take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like, then another function of a soul is to take care of things,rule, deliberate, and the like (3) (Page 41). Only something with a soul could nurture things such as animals and children, rule over a country state or city, and deliberate what is right and what is wrong and come to a decision based off of the deliberation. The soul performs its function of taking care of things, ruling, deliberating and the like well by means of justice (4) (Page 42).Socrates defines justice as having a control and balance that creates harmony within a soul (Pages 53-54). To perform a
Aristotle states that the human function is the life activity of the part of the soul that has reason. He extends this further by stating that some sort of activity of the past of the soul that has reason has to be according to virtue. This will create a good man. For Aristotle, in order to be happy, humans must perform their function well in accordance with virtue. In Book II, Aristotle makes a distinction between two types of virtues: those which are considered ethical and those which are considered intellectual.
... find the balance, once you find the balance you achieving the main goal in life and obtaining happiness. According to Aristotle, there is a right answer or an objectively correct mean for everyone when you take it into account his or her situation. All in all Aristotle’s reasoning are very legitimate, for humans finding a balance is a way of life for most of us, we are trying to achieve good and most definitely trying to expand and look for ways towards more happiness in life.
Traditionally justice was regarded as one of the cardinal virtues; to avoid injustices and to deal equitable with both equals and inferiors was seen as what was expected of the good man, but it was not clear how the benefits of justice were to be reaped. Socrates wants to persuade from his audience to adopt a way of estimating the benefits of this virtue. From his perspective, it is the quality of the mind, the psyche organization which enables a person to act virtuously. It is this opposition between the two types of assessment of virtue that is the major theme explored in Socrates’ examination of the various positions towards justice. Thus the role of Book I is to turn the minds from the customary evaluation of justice towards this new vision. Through the discourse between Cephalus, Polemarchus and Thrasymachus, Socaretes’ thoughts and actions towards justice are exemplified. Though their views are different and even opposed, the way all three discourse about justice and power reveal that they assume the relation between the two to be separate. They find it impossible to understand the idea that being just is an exercise of power and that true human power must include the ability to act justly. And that is exactly what Socrates seeks to refute.
Plato’s “Defense of Socrates” follows the trial of Socrates for charges of corruption of the youth. His accuser, Meletus, claims he is doing so by teaching the youth of Athens of a separate spirituality from that which was widely accepted.
One of Aristotle’s conclusions in the first book of Nicomachean Ethics is that “human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue”(EN 1.7.1098a17). This conclusion can be explicated with Aristotle’s definitions and reasonings concerning good, activity of soul, and excellence through virtue; all with respect to happiness.
He talks about virtue like it is the result of living “The Good Life.” He says, “For I do nothing but go about persuading you all, old and young alike, not to take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul” (Slayer). In brief, Socrates is saying that in order to have true “virtue” one needs to be consider where they are in the standards of morality, rather than the standards of material gain (Slayer). Additionally, Socrates also argues, “I tell you that virtue is not given by money, but that from virtue come money and every other good of man, public as well as private.” He is basically saying that anything worth obtaining in the world is only worth obtaining justly because without “virtue” one will have nothing of value
Philosophy can be defined as the pursuit of wisdom or the love of knowledge. Socrates, as one of the most well-known of the early philosophers, epitomizes the idea of a pursuer of wisdom as he travels about Athens searching for the true meaning of the word. Throughout Plato’s early writings, he and Socrates search for meanings of previously undefined concepts, such as truth, wisdom, and beauty. As Socrates is often used as a mouthpiece for Plato’s ideas about the world, one cannot be sure that they had the same agenda, but it seems as though they would both agree that dialogue was the best way to go about obtaining the definitions they sought. If two people begin on common ground in a conversation, as Socrates often tries to do, they are far more likely to be able to civilly come to a conclusion about a particular topic, or at least further their original concept.
Socrates felt that, above all, one should be a good citizen and always do the right thing (Plato 18). However, many in his time did not worry about doing what was correct. Socrates realized this, and understood that they did not care to look into their actions and beliefs. Their first thoughts were on the goals that they had, such as money and pleasure, rather than the thought of whether or not the goals they held were actually what should have been considered important and right (Plato 26). Socrates knew that, unless they took the time to question their lifestyles, they would never do the right thing. By living a life that was being examined, the citizens would be living a life that was, for the most part, also right. Socrates believed that a life that was not right was not worth living, which is why he also felt as though an unexamined life would also be not worth living.