The Vision of Ideal Life for Men - Essay Example

Both Plato and Aristotle, two great ancient philosophers, presented different viewpoints on how an ideal life is to be led by men. In Plato's symposium, Plato implied different discourses on love, and how ultimately, this would enable men to arrive at the highest good. On the other hand, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics outlined men aims at a certain good. Plato's symposium occurs at Agathon's party, attended by men of different interests. Here, thay decide to give praises to Eros, the God of love, as it has been proposed that there are praises and songs for all the gods, yet none have been made for Eros. Ultimately, Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics provide different discourses on the different kinds of love, and through Socrates' conversation with Diotima, it is concluded that through love, in the purest and most powerful form, men may arrive at the highest good. In Plato's symposium, different speeches in praise of Eros was given about how great a god he is. Phaedrus began by saying how Eros was a great god, and went on to explain that love, above everything else, is the driving force of man in living a good life. He goes on to justify that love in its superior form, is one wherein a lover is willling to die for another, citing the case of Alcestis, the daughter of Pelias, who was willing to die to be able to gain entrance to the underworld to be with her lover (Plato 179c). Pausanias spoke about love of the "common" and "heavenly" kind. The common love is that which falls on ove with the body rather than the mind, and is concerned with merely the sexual act, while the heavenly love is that is free from lust, and is based on friendship and a lifetime together (Plato 180e). Pausanias also claimed that open love is better than secret love. He concludes by saying that love does not come in only one form, and love is neither right nor wrong as well, but only depends on how it is done. Eryximachus approves the dualities presented by Pausanias yet he attempts to reconcile the physical and spiritual kind of love, and in respect to his profession, cites the human anatomy and physiology as an example. He claims that just like the body, there are good and healthy elements that need to be satisfied, while there are bad and unhealthy elements that need to be kept away from (Plato 186c). Aristophanes, on the other hand, relates love to the myth that says that originally, the human being had four legs, four hands, two heads, etc. and that it was just then divided into male and female, that is why in love, two people would come together and unite as one body and one soul (Plato 190). Agathon, however, argued that love is from where all things are created. All these arguments eventually lead to the summation of all their arguments that are better said in the encounter of Socrates with Diotima. What Diotima basically preaches is that as there are many forms of love, it is neither beautiful nor good, and is neither ugly nor bad. As such, it does not really follow that what is not beautiful is ugly and that what is not bad is good (Plato 202b). In a nutshell, true happiness is found in true beauty, which is, as the clich goes, in the eyes of the beholder, and is recognized only by the mind. This powerful and purest form of love, according to Diotima, is the highest form of happiness that which man aims for. If Plato's Symposium speaks about happiness in the pursuit of love, Arostitle's Nicomahcean Ethics discusses ethics and virtue in the pursuit of happiness. The Nichomachean Ethics of Aristotle begins with the premise that "every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason, the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim." (Aristotle 363) Aristotle poses that there are different goods for which different people aim for, yet at the end of it all, it is happines that is being pursued. Furthermore, Aristotle focuses his Nichomachean ethics on virtues and that for a person to be able to succeed in his aims to reach a certain good, virtuous conducts must at all times be followed and achieve the good the right way. In this, Aristotle cites different situations in politics and education, and how truth, piety, and faith are essential in the pursuit of happiness. In politics, it is said that the good of the state comes higher than that of the good of merely one man, and that the good of the state is "something greater and more complete both to attain and to preserve" (Aristotle 364). In education, Aristotle stresses that where there is education, there is better judgement, as may be implied by the line "each man judges well the things he knows" (Aristotle 364). In education, passion must be directed toward knowledge, not action. Furthermore, Aristotle claims that for every man, the meaning of happiness is different. What may be a form of happiness to one is different from the form of happiness to the other, as their knowledge and goals are different as well (Arostotle 365). For every action, there is an end. This end is, according to Arostotle, "the good achievable by action" (Aristotle 369). It is then the virtue of the actions that matter in the pursuit of the good and happiness. The actions are chosen if man judges that these actions will lead them to the happiness that they so seek. The things that man desires are usually desired for the sake of another good. In Aristotle's Nicomahcean Ethics, it is argued that "happiness is the end of action" (Aristotle 370). For instance, some may want wealth as in their thinking; wealth would provide for them a comfortable life and a life of enjoyment because in their thinking, this life is what would ultimately bring them happiness. This form of rationalization and reasoning, as implied by Aristotle, is the function of man, for no other creature is capable of reasoning. Both Plato and Aristotle present remedies to the harsh and chaotic world that is depicted in the Theogony of Hesiod. The Theogony of Hesiod began by presenting the origins of the gods. First came Chaos, and then came Earth and Eros. From Chaos, Darkness and Night was produced, and from these two, there came light and day (Hesiod 713). From earth came the heaven, the mountains and the sea. This is the world where the gods who are to come live. After this, Earth mated with Heaven and bore children. However, Earth hated his children and used to hide them in a secret place. Because of this, Heaven asked her children to punish their father. Only Cronos obeyed. He castrated his father and his blood spattered onto the earth producing the next generation (Hesiod 714). This is how the theogony began-painting a picture of violence and morbid images. In this, the philosophy of both Plato and Aristotle are applicable. However, I believe that the perspectives posed in the symposium of Plato are more apt. If earth loved heaven in a more powerful form, then would he then hate the children born from her The gods described in Hesiod seem to be those who practice love of the common kind - superficial in a way that it only is interested in the sexual act. On the contrary, as they have born many offsprings, it may then be related to what Diotoma has proposed: love has reproduction in context as man seeks immortality. On the other hand, it may be claimed that Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics may better serve as a remedy for the grim picture that is painted in Hesiod because if the gods were ethical and virtuous in both actions and aims, then events like the above-mentioned would not have transpired. The world would have then begun on a more peaceful note. Cronos may be a very good example in the analysis of the Nicomachean Ethics. Cronos has been described as wily and courageous (Hesiod 713). Aristotle notes that courage is generally concerned with confidence and how commonly, it may be associated with one's desire for honor - as when there is honor, there is excellence; when there is excellence, there is happiness. Cronos, indeed, was courageous, yet this courage is misplaced. His courage may also be associated with his fear of not meeting his self-standards of excellence. In Hesiod, Cronos was warned that one of his children would overthrow him. Hence, he ate all of his children-swallowed them whole - or so he thought (Hesiod 718). Aristotle stated that "human good turns out to be activity of soul in conformity with excellence, and of there are more than one excellence, in conformity with the best and most complete" (Aristotle 371). Given this, would the actions of Cronos be justifiable in his pursuit of honor and excellence as it seems that for Cronos, it was honor and excellence that he sought, that which he probably thought was the ultimate happiness As the Nicomachean ethics outline actions in virtue, it is doubtful that Cronos' actions are reasonable and justifiable. Notably, the gods that follow Cronos are not much better. If Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics applied then, Greek mythology would not have been as grim, morbid, and chaotic as is known now. Read More