Name: Nandini Negi

Roll no: 200336

Philosophy Assignment
Ba programme psychology and philosophy
Engaging in the ‘Good of the City’ is the ‘Finest Activities of Human Beings’. Explain in
context of Aristotle.

The key question for Aristotle is the nature of the polis and how it relates to human virtue. The
polis grew naturally out of simpler communities such as the family, the household and the
village. The first natural association to serve everyday needs was the household. The village
naturally emerged when several households came together. The natural impulse of male and
female to unite serves the purpose of reproduction. In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle argues
that the end is only good when pursued in moderation. The city-state, therefore, is the end and
perfection of natural associations.
Aristotle reveals what distinguishes man from animal and why man is a
polis-living animal. Unlike animals, men possess reason and speech. As a result, they can
communicate and declare what is just and unjust. Aristotle believes that the state is a creation of
nature and is prior to the individual. The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to
the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficient; and therefore he is like a
part in relation to the whole. From this one could infer though that the individual has little value
beyond contributing to the common good. The polis is the agent of cultivating talent and exists
for the good life. The good life for man results therefore from making full use of his natural
function and the polis exists for the sake of the good life. It is achieved by education and moral
habituation. The good life is either contemplative or practical. While the first is achieved in
solitude, the second is achieved by actively engaging in the polis. The state provides the
opportunity to exercise virtue, which for Aristotle is important to ensure the good life.
He believes that the polis is not a substance. The polis is not animate, in the
strict sense that it does not have a soul. However the polis is alive: it has a “life”. It is an organic
being in the sense that it has functional parts. And it has states of character and makes decisions
that are not reducible to the characters and decisions of its citizens. Individual citizens have their
own intrinsic value, which is largely but not entirely independent of the city in which they live.
On the other hand, the city as such has intrinsic value that is not reducible to the value of its
individual citizens. The value of citizens to the city is partly instrumental, but also partly
intrinsic; the life of the city includes the lives of its citizens.
Aristotle’s search for the good is a search for the highest good, and he assumes
that the highest good, whatever it turns out to be, has three characteristics. It is desirable for
itself, it is not desirable for the sake of some other good, and all other goods are desirable for its
sake. Aristotle thinks everyone will agree that the terms “eudaimonia” (happiness) and “eu zên”
(living well) designate such an end. The Greek term “eudaimon” is composed of two parts: “eu”
means “well” and “daimon” means “divinity” or “spirit”. To be eudaimon is therefore to be
living in a way that is well-favored by a god. But Aristotle never calls attention to this etymology
in his ethical writings, and it seems to have little influence on his thinking. He regards
“eudaimon” as a mere substitute for eu zên (living well). These terms play an evaluative role,
and are not simply descriptions of someone’s state of mind. According to Aristotle eudaimonia is
the ultimate goal of all our choices and activities: we would never pursue it for the sake of
something else; rather, we pursue everything else for its sake.
According to Aristotle’s function argument, the human good must consist in
the perfection of whatever is particular about human nature. He believes that this is the reason,
and he defines eudaimonia as some kind of activity that makes use of reason. To successfully use
one's logical faculties, however, is necessary; failing to do so could result in living a life that is
distinctly human, but without achieving the human good. Eudaimonia therefore involves the
rational soul's functioning in accordance with "excellence." The Greek term for this is aret,
which is typically translated as "virtue" in this context.
According to Aristotle, the human soul may be broken down into several
sections and is composed of both rational and non-rational components. We all have the capacity
to deliberate, consider, and make plans. We also have appetites and feelings. These can
occasionally appear to operate against reason, as in the case of incontinence (akrasia) or the
phenomena of weakness of will, where a person defies their better judgment. However, emotions
can also be controlled by reason; for instance, we can control our rage in response to reflection.
The ability of the emotions and appetites to "obey" reason in this way, as opposed to the ability
of a kid to obey a parent, qualifies them as rational in the sense of being "reason responsive."
This has a significant impact on how Aristotle defines eudaimonia. The term "rational activity"
includes both thinking and feeling. Correctly assessing a situation, correctly feeling the degree of
emotion that corresponds to the situation and correctly acting upon it, all these are involved in
“rational activity”. This is where the idea of "virtue" is introduced. Each aspect of the mind,
including reason and the passions, has the capacity for its own unique kind of virtue or
excellence and the capacity to fall short of it.
Another type of virtue exists in the area of reason responsiveness, and it entails
having the appropriate level of an emotion (such as dread in the case of courage) and acting in
the appropriate manner. The kind of virtue associated with the rational part of the soul is referred
to as "intellectual" virtue and the kind connected to the moral part is known as "moral virtue" or
"virtue of character". Since there are many different passions and types of action, there are
several moral virtues. Aristotle discusses several more virtues such as the virtue of patience or
“mildness” which is concerned with anger, generosity, magnanimity, friendliness, wit and justice.
Therefore, living a life of eudaimonia will require engaging in a variety of virtues. Aristotle
stressed the significance of activity, saying that having a virtue alone is not sufficient. The virtues
must be put into practise. This will entail making the right judgments, feelings, and decisions in a
wide range of interpersonal interactions. Aristotle made a distinction between two major
categories of intellectual virtue: theoretical and practical. He argues that the capacity for
theoretical thought is very different from the capacity for practical reason. However, since
humans are capable of both, the activity of the rational soul and subsequently, eudaimonia should
include both theoretical and practical reasoning. There are really two aspects to a good life: the
development of our practical nature, in which reason moulds emotion and guides action, and the
development of our divine nature, by which we engage in theoretical contemplation.
Nature has endowed us with the ability to experience a variety of emotions
and to integrate them with reasoned conclusions. Utilizing the possibilities that nature has
provided us with is essential for a truly flourishing human life. As a result, every feeling has a
purpose in the ideal life. Therefore, Aristotle opposes the notion that emotions are merely natural
byproducts of the human state and have no intrinsic value.

No one tries to live well for the sake of some further goal; rather, being eudaimon is the highest
end, and all subordinate goals—health, wealth, and other such resources—are sought because
they promote well-being, not because they are what well-being consists of. But unless we can
determine which good or goods happiness consists in, it is of little use to acknowledge that it is
the highest end. To resolve this issue, Aristotle asks what the ergon (“function”, “task”, “work”)
of a human being is, and argues that it consists in activity of the rational part of the soul in
accordance with virtue. One important component of this argument is expressed in terms of
distinctions he makes in his psychological and biological works. The soul is analyzed into a
connected series of capacities: the nutritive soul is responsible for growth and reproduction, the
locomotive soul for motion, the perceptive soul for perception, and so on. The biological fact
Aristotle makes use of is that human beings are the only species that has not only these lower
capacities but a rational soul as well. The good of a human being must have something to do
with being human; and what sets humanity off from other species, giving us the potential to live
a better life, is our capacity to guide ourselves by using reason. If we use reason well, we live
well as human beings; or, to be more precise, using reason well over the course of a full life is
what happiness consists in. Doing anything well requires virtue or excellence, and therefore
living well consists in activities caused by the rational soul in accordance with virtue or
excellence.
Aristotle’s conclusion about the nature of happiness is in a sense uniquely his
own.Aristotle’s theory should be construed as a refinement of this position. He says, not that
happiness is virtue, but that it is virtuous activity. Living well consists in doing something, not
just being in a certain state or condition. It consists in those lifelong activities that actualize the
virtues of the rational part of the soul. At the same time, Aristotle makes it clear that in order to
be happy one must possess others goods as well—such goods as friends, wealth, and power. And
one’s happiness is endangered if one is severely lacking in certain advantages—if, for example,
one is extremely ugly, or has lost children or good friends through death because according to
Aristotle one’s virtuous activity will be to some extent diminished or defective, if one lacks an
adequate supply of other goods. Someone who is friendless, childless, powerless, weak, and ugly
will simply not be able to find many opportunities for virtuous activity over a long period of
time, and what little he can accomplish will not be of great merit. To some extent, then, living
well requires good fortune; happenstance can rob even the most excellent human beings of
happiness. Nonetheless, Aristotle insists, the highest good, virtuous activity, is not something
that comes to us by chance. Although we must be fortunate enough to have parents and fellow
citizens who help us become virtuous, we ourselves share much of the responsibility for
acquiring and exercising the virtues.
Thus, external goods are intrinsically valuable components of eudaimonia.
External goods can enter into the life of eudaimonia as means to and opportunities for virtuous
activity. Eudaimonia does not just require that one has the virtues, one must put them into
practice, by which Aristotle means that one must actually go out and perform virtuous actions,
for example, on the battlefield. The life of eudaimonia is impossible to achieve without some
measure of external goods.
Aristotle considers virtues to be central to a well-lived life. Aristotle holds that
virtues originate from actions that human beings perform because one can either be a good or
bad person based on actions. In his ethics, Aristotle asserts that whatever activities that human
beings do ultimately lead to a good or a bad end. Desire and passion compel human beings to
pursue certain activities so that they can achieve certain ends, which determine virtue. If there
were no desired ends, human beings would pursue activities in vain. Human beings seek to
achieve legitimate ends so that they can obtain happiness in life. Aristotle argues that human
actions determine virtues that one achieves and subsequently influence happiness. For example, a
marriage partner who has experienced an unhappy marriage will struggle extremely hard to
achieve a happy life out there with friends.
He regards the ethical virtues (justice, courage, temperance and so on) as
complex rational, emotional and social skills. But he rejects Plato’s idea that to be completely
virtuous one must acquire, through a training in the sciences, mathematics, and philosophy, an
understanding of what goodness is. What we need, in order to live well, is a proper appreciation
of the way in which such goods as friendship, pleasure, virtue, honor and wealth fit together as a
whole. In order to apply that general understanding to particular cases, we must acquire, through
proper upbringing and habits, the ability to see, on each occasion, which course of action is best
supported by reasons. Therefore practical wisdom, according to Aristotle, cannot be acquired
solely by learning general rules. We must also acquire, through practice, those deliberative,
emotional, and social skills that enable us to put our general understanding of well-being into
practice in ways that are suitable to each occasion.
Thus, Aristotle says that the ultimate end of human action is the good of the
city. According to Aristotle not everyone is able to achieve the good life and those who cannot
achieve it must serve those who can.
 Bibliography

1. https://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/aristotle-happiness-city
2. https://iep.utm.edu/aristotle-politics/
3. https://www.academia.edu/33428194/Aristotle_on_the_Happiness_of_the_City_pdf
4. https://www.123helpme.com/essay/Aristotle-And-Aristotles-Three-Types-Of-A-549416