Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
The Human Function Argument
Aristotle argues that the human function is activity of the soul that expresses or requires reason. This argument is found in Nicomachean Ethics approximately between Bekker lines 1097b24 and 1098a9.
1. Humans must have a function, or else they would be idle, which is absurd. Aristotle directly asks the reader if humans might have no important overall function other than a chosen occupation in society but suggests that this would not be expected of nature. Terence Irwin used the word idle in his 1985 translation when phrasing this disjunct of Aristotle?s question.
2. Each human body part has a function, so the whole human must likewise have a function. This premise appears parallel to Aristotle?s argument that many goods serve higher goods within a hierarchy (1094a10). Aristotle is invoking the concept a hierarchy to consider functions of body parts. Each part has a function that serves a larger part with a different function, and so it seems that the largest unit, the human body itself, must have a function.
3. The human function is unique to only humans themselves. Aristotle does not seem to consider that unique human features could simply be superfluous; he simply states as a goal that he is looking for a unique function.
4. Human function is not growth and nutrition because these aspects of life are shared with plants. It is sensible to make this exclusion if one accepts the third premise.
5. Human function is not sense perception because this aspect of life is shared with animals. Fulfilling a function like this would constitute a life of gratification, which Aristotle rejected earlier (1095b16).
6. The part of the human soul with reason is unique to humans. This is simply...
... middle of paper ...
...unction argument points out its inadequacy to stand alone since the argument provides little evidence for some of its premises and rests only on certain common beliefs without making a strong connection to the supporting evidence.
Bibliography
Aristotle. "Nicomachean Ethics." Classics of Moral and Political Theory. 3rd ed. Trans. Terence Irwin. Ed. Michael L. Morgan. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2001.
Aristotle. "Nicomachean Ethics." The Internet Classics Archive. Trans. W. D. Ross. [sic].
Aristotle. Nicomachean Ethics. Trans. Terence Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985.
Aristotle. Politics. Trans. C. D. C. Reeve. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1998.
Plato. Protagoras. Trans. Stanley Lombardo and Karen Bell. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1992.
Consequently, in the case of non-sentient organism, both i and ii must be applicable in order that their biological functionality lead to interests. So let’s consider the case of taking nutrition in humans and plants. For humans, receiving adequate nutrition makes them strong and this prevents diseases. This process results in a better qualitative life for individuals. But can one argue that providing nutrition to a tree can lead to a better qualitative life for it? No, because a tree lack the capacity for “subjective mental life. So biological function in the case of non-sentient species does not provide interests for
Aristotle tries to draw a general understanding of the human good, exploring the causes of human actions, trying to identify the most common ultimate purpose of human actions. Indeed, Aristotelian’s ethics, also investigates through the psychological and the spiritual realms of human beings.
He raises artisans as examples; the functions of the flute-player and sculptor is to play the flute and sculpt, respectively. Body parts also apply, as the human eye’s function is to see, as the leg is to walk. He then assumes that for any of these functions, the “good” is to perform that function “well”. The flute-player’s good is to play the flute well, and the eye’s good is to have good vision. Aristotle then questions, if a sculptor and leg have functions, then why shouldn’t a human? This argument is weak in that it is purely an assumption. It relies on teleological philosophy, where everything is accepted to have a function. This also implies that Aristotle assumes that men were designed to have a single function, meaning some high being/entity crafted the human being. However, his words can also be questioning the human function in respect to the human body parts. If body parts each have their own function, then it would only make sense if the whole, or the human, to have a function to which the body parts function for. Although this argument seems better, it still doesn’t serve as a good explanation to why humans should have a function. This argument does not hold any much validity either, as a statement saying a (two-meter-tall) man has little cells, therefore he too is little would also be true in this context. The inference does not make any sense because nothing
For this reason, Plato believes that we must separate the soul based on how it
The goal of human life according to Aristotle is Happiness as he stated in Nicomachean Ethics, “Happiness, then, is apparently something complete and self-sufficient, since it is the end of the things achievable in action.” Aristotle states that happiness is not just about being content in life but that one has to have lived their life rationally, well, and to the fullest of their capabilities. Happiness, according to Aristotle, can only be achieved by focusing on mans’ life as parts of a whole.
In arguing for the distinction between mind and body, Descartes seeks to show that the two are independent substances and can exist separately. It will be useful to outline Descartes’ argument based on clear and distinct perception by listing his premises and conclusion. The essay will then analyse each premise in turn, arguing that the argument fails because his premises are faulty. The argument, found in the Sixth Meditation, runs as follows
It is only natural for humans to question why we have been put on this wonderful earth of ours. What does it mean to be these lucky ones called humans? Do we really have a human nature that is all our own? Are there really living beings that kind find something within this world to call our life purpose? And if there are, how do may we achieve it? It is happiness or simple the drive to survive that propel us forward? These are just some of the types of questions that philosophers have been wrestling with for centuries. Some argue that human nature is very much a real thing and that it is essential to living a happy fulfilled life, while others reject that idea completely. However, despite the completely opposite stances that philosophers can take when it comes to human nature, it’s not uncommon to see some surprising similarities between those who support it, and those who do not. One of the biggest examples of this, would be in regards to the Aristotle and his books on Nicomachean Ethics and Sartre with his writing of Existentialism Is a Humanism. When it comes to these two philosophers in particular it would appear on the surface that they are nothing alike. Aristotle being quite the supporter of human nature and it’s ability to give humans fulfilling lives, and Sartre who rejects the human nature completely for the idea that we as humans are essentially just going through life and making choices. Having said this, I would now like to discuss the individual views and arguments that both men have in regards to their views on human nature, it’s relationship to purpose, free will, and politics, and show that within these both Aristotle and Sartre give us the ability to see, that maybe to a certain that we are in fact responsible fo...
B2. Whatever is identified with nature and realm of the physical is inferior to ("below") whatever is identified with the "human" and the realm of the mental; or conversely, the latter is superior to ("above") the former.
When Aristotle gives the example of virtue of the eyes he implies that this concept may be extended not only to the object as a whole but also its parts. So for a human, if he may posses virtues of eyes he must also have the capacity for virtues of the pupil, iris, cornea, lens, and so forth. So forth meaning down to the cell and each process of the cell. This must be true for every part which is not the eye as well. And further, as true for infinitely small, must also ...
Aristotle’s emphasis is on the city-state, or the political world as a natural occurrence. He says “every city-state exists by nature, since the first communities do.” (Aristotle 3). Aristotle continually reiterates the notion that the creation of a community comes from necessity; individuals aim at the highest good of all, happiness, through their own rationality, and the only way to achieve happiness is through the creation of the city-state. Aristotle follows the creation of a household and a village to the creation of the city-state in which citizens are able to come together to aim at the “good which has the most authority of all,” (Aristotle 1) happiness. In turn, this necessity for the formation of a city state comes from the idea of man as a rational being. “It is also clear why a human being is more of a political animal than a bee or any other gregarious animal… no animal has speech except for a human being.” (Aristotle 4). For Aristotle, human beings are political animals because of their ability to speak, their ability to communicate pleasures and desires, and their ability to reason. Aristotle’s state com...
Aristotle’s thoughts on ethics conclude that all humans must have a purpose in life in order to be happy. I believe that some of the basics of his ideas still hold true today. This essay points out some of those ideas.
...d are examples of human nature. All humans die, but they will always live. All humans vary in shape and size. They do not share the same brain, nor the same heart. It takes many things to be a human, but modern people all share the qualities that have been presented and discussed. Admitting to one’s mistakes is crucial and earns trust throughout mankind. Dreams are never out of reach if you just keep trying. Faith comes in many forms, the strongest being religion. Many types of emotion can make the person. Love is the most strongest characteristic one can have. When one loves, he or she is loved. “Love is patient, Love is kind, It does not envy, it does not boast, It is not proud, It is not rude, It is not self-seeking, It is not easily angered, It keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth. Love always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. Love Never Fails.” ( Holy Bible Corinthians 13:4 - 8). As for the five senses, they are the physical characteristic of all humans. Humans are natural and pure in their own unique way.
The human being is seen as 2 dimensional which includes the body and soul. The soul consists of 3 parts: it is alive, reason/intellect, and lastly the decision maker also known as the will. In order to make a will a good will, we must function with reason but reason can become corrupted. Its job is to gather the information, connect the dots, and present the evidence to the will. Reason is only a helper in determining if a will is good. Qualities of the mind can be extremely harmful if the will is not good. To make it good, we must act from a sense of duty, which causes our actions to be good.
To Aristotle leading a good life, for the most part, means fulfilling one’s purpose in a way that is good by balancing life’s pleasures. In order to determine if an object fulfills its function in a good way, we must first consider the object. If we were to agree that a car should be reliable, then we could also agree that reliable car should be considered a good car. Similarly, animals, for example, possess certain traits like the power of locomotion, and the desire to seek nourishment and reproduce. According to Aristotle, an animal that is a fast runner, or a very successful hunter would be considered a good animal. Following this reasoning, Aristotle believed that in order for a human to be good, he or she must also fulfill their purpose. Yet, as an advanced species, we must go beyond fulfilling these animalistic functions like eating right and reproducing well. In order for a human to live the good life, he or she must first be good at using powers of intellect and reason, which Aristotle believed were unique to only humans and, as a result, constitute our purpose (McManaman). It seems that in addition to being a good human, Aristotle also recognized pleasure must play a role in the good life. Still, he recognized the importance of balance when indulging in acts of pleasure claiming that a life of only pleasure was too animalistic (Richter, 2008). In this way, Aristotle believed the key to a good life was to fulfill one’s function a good way, while balancing life’s pleasures in a way that allowed the...
According to Aristotelian ethics, the highest goal in life is happiness. This happiness is often misinterpreted though, as most people think of happiness as a physical pleasure or honor, but this is only because they have a flawed view of the good life. Those who tend to share this viewpoint do not understand true happiness because people are generally deficient in virtue. Aristotle has a proactive conception of the good life: happiness waits only for those who go out and seize it. Happiness, according to Aristotle, is also a public affair, not a private one, so with whom we share this happiness with is of great significance. “... every substance not only possess a form; one could say it is also possessed by a form, for it naturally strives to become a perfect specimen of its kind. Every substance seeks to actualize what it is potentially” (Tarnas p.58). Aristotle also says that humans have a telos, an end or purpose, which is our goal to achieve. This telos is based on our distinct human capacity for rational thought. He also argued that the body & mind are inseparable; so when the body dies, the soul also ceases to exist. Aristotle did not believe in animal rights however, as in Politics, he claimed that nature made all an...