Eudaimonia

At the beginning of the week we went over the three parts of the soul and how it relates to three parts of a city-state. This analogy was created by Socrates to show that happiness and justice isn’t only sought after if one gets what one wants when one wants it. The aforementioned statement was the way many philosophers thought justice was. The three parts of one’s soul as mentioned in class were appetite, spirit, and reason and they resemble fundamental desires, emotions, and rationality respectively. The parts of the city-state they resemble are the workers/producers, guardians, and rulers.

Reason was said to rule the entire spirit and was in charge of the soul; reason is what’s good for the whole. This is where I find the analogy difficult to grasp because Plato states in the Republic that all three are working in sync and in a just person not one characteristic outweighs the other. If this is true then why does reason “rule” the spirit? Does that mean the soul is naturally unjust? Another topic that caused the class to erupt in debate was the concept of the noble lie. This noble caused the workers, guardians, and rulers to know where they belonged in society. Although this is an analogy, the noble lie is where I disagree with the concept. I don’t believe the only thing keeping order and keeping the people in place was the fact that their heart pumped bronze, silver, or gold. I don’t think one just settles for something because that is where “they belong”. I believe it is natural to question and challenge oneself. The concept also stated that everyone had an ergon or something that one does best, their purpose, or niche in society. It was stated in class that one would do something else even if that meant compromising their happiness just because that was their ergon. That just doesn’t seem “just” or virtuous. Plato was supposed to capture how justice leads to happiness; however, sacrificing one’s happiness for something because that is what they are best at isn’t providing true, internal happiness. For that reason, I disagree with Plato.

            Instead, I do take the side of Aristotle and his views on happiness and virtue ethics. I agree with his practical approach to philosophy. I like his idea of everyone having a “telos” or ultimate purpose of life. I agree that one’s journey in life is to find out what this purpose is. It has a very religious approach and my views are the same in the fact that I believe everyone is out on this earth for a purpose. Many seek and try to find this purpose, but I believe that if we think we found the purpose there is always more to find. Like Aristotle stated the things we pursue lead to something else. Finally, I agree with Aristotle’s view on virtue = happiness. Happiness is an abstract thing to me because life is full up hills and valleys and when you think you’ve reached “happiness” it can quickly come tumbling down, but what I like is Aristotle states that a virtuous person can deal with adversity best. This adversity is the ability to overcome the valleys to make it back to the hill and reach this happiness again.