The Concept of Human Excellence - Essay Example

?Human excellence Brief summary My proposal of the human excellence corresponds to ideals of a number of philosophers including Aristotle. However the comparisons made demonstrates many common but similar ideals in the quest of striving to find the definition of human excellence. It is not feasible to answer with the precision of a mathematical puzzle the excellence of human beings since mathematics begins with common principles and argues to conclusions. Excellence is a quality or talent which is strangely good and so surpasses usual standards and it is also an aimed for standard of performance (Karl, 1996). Introduction In this paper, I will argue for a model of human excellence according to Aristotle but all the while making comparisons with other philosophers. These theories work to specify the character virtues or traits which lead to human flourishing (Karl, 1996). Such virtues include compassion, justice, courage, tolerance, intelligence, patience, imagination, persistence and creativity. Virtue in the regard is synonymous with goodness and human excellence. Human excellence materializes in our modern-day society in many kinds of forms and studies have revealed that the most significant way to realize excellent performance in fields such as music, sport, scholarship and professions is to practice. The attainment of excellence in such fields generally needs more or less 10 years of loyalty, embracing about 10,000 hours of effort (Karl, 1996). The Ancient Greeks had a perception of arete which meant an exceptional fitness for intention. This takes place in the works of Aristotle and Homer. An additional related notion was eudaimonia which was the happiness which resulted from a life fulfilled and well-lived, and being prosperous (David, 2006). The comparable theory in Muslim philosophy is called ihsan. According to Aristotle, the best good or "the god" is that which is desired for its own sake and for the sake which we wish for all other goods or ends. For the human beings, happiness or eudaimonia is the motion of the soul in harmony with arete which in Greek means excellence, what something is good for or virtue (Rosalind,1999). Eudaemonia is characterized by living well and doing well in the affairs of the world. Moral virtue is not the end of life since it can go with misery, inactivity, and unhappiness (Kelvin, 2007). But happiness, and the end of life, to which all things aim, is activity in accord with reason of the arete or peculiar excellence of any person. At the same time, happiness is an activity that involves both the moral and the intellectual arete but some external goods are essential to exercise that activity. However, happiness can never be identified with wealth, pleasure, or honor even though nearly everyone tends to think so. On the other hand, excellence is the quality of being excellent or the circumstances of having good qualities in an prominent degree; illustrious merit; supremacy in virtue but a title of honor or respect is termed as his or her Excellency (Rosalind, 1999). Important questions How do we know what human excellence is? How does the definition compare among other moral theories? Can there be more a number of definitions? What does it feel to fulfill our human beings and how does this compare to virtuousness? How should we live our lives? What does the human excellence imply about the purpose of our existence? Views proposed Aristotle argued that every human being has a function or goal in life and that the goal of human existence is to do the things that are distinctly human and that they must do it well so as to be a good human being. Ethics as a subject begins with the works of Aristotle. In its original form, this subject is concerned with the question of virtue (Greek arete) of character (ethos), or having excellent and well-chosen habits (Aristotle, 1999). The attainment of an excellent character is in turn meant to be the highest goal of living well in eudaimonia, a Greek word regularly translated as well-being or happiness. Thesis The mind is what makes us human and separates man from the animal and it is what distinguishes us humans as human beings. Eudaimonia symbolizes rational action in the form of virtuous activity. Aristotle also proposed that “virtue of character “ is distinct and separate from “intellectual virtues “ based upon our natural abilities whereas “virtue of character” is developed over a period of time (Aristotle, 1999). There is also the subject of ethics. Ethics is a methodical study of how individuals ought to live better and this study was initially united with the closely interrelated study of politics, including law-making. In his book, titled Understanding virtue ethics, van Hooft gives a broad overview of the history of ethics as it relates to virtue ethics and the philosophies and theories that represent each one. He argues that being virtues appears to be twofold and proceeds to give a synoptic view of what it means to be virtuous by significant philosophers form the past to the current time. Aristotle and the ancient philosophers focused on the fulfillment of the self as a goal for being virtuous. Thomas Aquinas stressed personal salvation while Friedrich Nietzsche focused on self-realization and self-affirmation for virtuousness. To these philosophers, the self was the main emphasis but in contrast David Hume points to the concerns for the others as the principal motivator. Emmanuel Lavianas argued that responsibility and responsiveness for others as being the mode of our being. Van Hooft argued that both groups have credible claims and that the definition should include the two points. This philosopher appears to sew these two theories together and offers his own conclusion on virtue ethics should be defined. “ ..the inherent goal of being virtuous is not to achieve eudaimonia for ourselves, but also to fulfill ourselves as interpersonal and social beings concerned for the well-being of others..” (Van Hooft, 2006) Objections Politics has an effect on how the people are brought up, which consequently addresses the same question of how they be are supposed to live, from the point of view of the community but the original Aristotelian and Socratic retort to the question of how best to live was to live the life of deliberation and philosophy. Three Aristotelian ethical works live on at present which are believed to be either by Aristotle or from comparatively other people and include: Nicomachean Ethics; Magna Moralia; Eudaimonian Ethics and; All the three categories may perhaps have been compiled by students of Aristotle, and in particular the Magna Moralia, but they are all deemed to be convincingly comparable in the substance covered and the means of covering it even though the Magna Moralia is occasionally regarded as to be a more reviewed format. The Nicomachean Ethics has received the most academic consideration, and is the mainly easily accessible to the public in many different editions and translations (Cafaro, Phillip 2004). However, some critics regard the Eudemian Ethics to be "less mature," while others, argue that the Eudemian Ethics is the more mature, and consequently a later, work. Incidentally enough, the books IV-VI of Eudemian Ethics also emerge as Books V-VII of Nicomachean Ethics (Cafaro, Phillip, 2004). Customarily it was assumed that the Eudemian ethics and the Nicomachean Ethics were either dedicated to or edited by Aristotle's son and pupil Nicomachus and his disciple Eudemus, correspondingly, even though the works themselves do not put in plain words the source of their names. Though Aristotle's father was also identified as Nicomachus, Aristotle's son was the next principal of Aristotle's school, the Lyceum, and in the early times he was already allied with this work. The fourth treatise, Aristotle's Politics, is frequently considered as the sequel to the Aristotle's Ethics which affirms that the excellence of the individual is secondary to the good of the polis, or city-state (Kelvin, 2007). Aristotle's ethics builds upon past Greek thought, and predominantly that of Aristotle's teacher Plato and his teacher, Socrates. One significant distinction is that Socrates did not leave any written work, and Plato left only a number of works and letters written as dialogues in which Plato himself is on no account a chief character. It is for that reason that the works of Aristotle seems at first sight to be easiest to use but by and large the bearing of each of these philosophers, was quite comparable, and all the three in addition to Xenophon are usually referred to as Socratic Ethics. Aristotle in his Metaphysics avers that Socrates was the first Greek philosopher to deliberate on ethics, even though it appears that did not give it this name, as a philosophical question concerning how people ought to live in the best way possible. Nevertheless, Aristotle dealt with this similar question but gave it two terms, namely "the political" or politics and "the ethical" or Ethics, both with Politics being the term for the two of them together as the more significant part. The innovative Socratic while inquiring on ethics began at least partially with a rejoinder to sophism, which then was a trendy style of speech and education at the time. Sophism gave emphasis to argument and rhetoric, but consequently, it regularly involved criticism of customary Greek flirtation and religion with moral relativism (Kelvin, 2007). Aristotle's ethics, or the study of character, is build around the principle that people should achieve an excellent character, and a virtuous character, or "ethike arete" in Greek as a prerequisite for achieving happiness or well-being (eudaimonia) which is from time to time referred to in relationship to later ethical theories as a "character based ethics". Reminiscent of Socrates and Plato, Aristotle emphasized the significance of rationale for human happiness, and that there were natural and logical reasons for humans to behave virtuously, by striving to become virtuous. Aristotle's conduct of the subject is distinctive in several ways from that found in Socratic’s and Plato discourses. All the Aristotelian Ethics unequivocally aspire to commence with fairly accurate but uncontroversial starting points which is that everything humans do is meant at some good, but with some goodness higher than others. The highest human good that people seek at, he said, is by and large referred to as happiness or eudaimonia which is occasionally translated as "living well" (Foot, P. 2001).. Response to objections The question of how to be happy consequently becomes a question of which activities of the human soul embody the highest excellence in using reason. Aristotle proposed that we may perhaps acknowledge it when people say that the soul can be divided into three parts namely, namely the Perceptive Soul which are animals and humans; the Nutritive Soul which include plants, animals and humans, and the Rational Soul which is humans only. It is not possible to accurately say if habitual temperaments are vices or virtues which only concern the emotions, for the reason that it is here is variance between the diverse works which have survived, but the fundamental instances are consistent, as is the base for distinguishing them in theory. Philosophers have progressively campaigned for a virtue-based ethics that challenges the customary moral theories established on the moral delineation and obligation of wrong or right in given any circumstances. Stan van Hooft offers a broad general idea of the history of virtue ethics from Aristotle to Nietzsche to the ideas of modern authors Levinas and Ricoeur. He investigates the chief themes of moral theory and shows how virtue ethics progresses are at variance from those of other traditions. Van Hooft regards how morally intricate practical problems, such as euthanasia, abortion, and integrity in politics, may be approached from a virtue perception and address the charges of egoism and relativism that are frequently accumulated against virtue ethics, by in arguing that virtue ethics is extremely pertinent to our understanding of the moral proportions of professional roles (van Hooft, 2006). Supernatural support was also permitted, by assisting the people to be virtuous and this is where Confucius comes in. Confucius' principles had a foundation in general Chinese belief and tradition and he campaigned for ancestor worship for their children and husbands by their wives, strong familial loyalty, respect of elders, and the family as a foundation for a perfect government. He articulated the well-known opinion, "Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself", which is one of the past versions of the Golden Rule (Cafaro, Phillip, 2004). One of the genuine teachings of Confucius may possibly have been the superiority of personal exemplification over indisputable rules of behavior and his moral teachings give prominence to emulation of moral exemplars, self-cultivation, and the accomplishment of skilled judgment instead of the knowledge of rules. Confucius's ethics may be well thought-out as a variety of virtue ethics as his teachings scarcely ever rely on reasoned argument, and ethical techniques and ideals are expressed more indirectly, through allusions, innuendo, and even tautology. This is the raison d'etre why his teachings have need to be scrutinized and put into appropriate perspective so as to be understood better. An excellent case in point is established in this famous anecdote: When the stables were burnt down, on returning from court, Confucius said, 'Was anyone hurt?' He did not ask about the horses (Aristotle, 1999). The passage puts across the lesson that by not asking about the horses, Confucius had confirmed that a sage values human beings over property and readers of this lesson are led to debate as to whether their reaction would be the same as Confucius's, or to follow the ethical self-improvement if it would not. Confucius, as an archetype of human excellence, serves as the definitive illustration, instead of a deity or a universally true set of theoretical principles. One of his most famous teachings was the Golden Rule (Cafaro, Phillip, 2004). Conclusion The concept of human excellence is continuously being redefined and is not absolute as there is still room for new arguments. This is so because no one will ever come to the same conclusions on this subject. The wise person will be more than human. A man will not live like that by virtue of his humanness, but by virtue of some divine thing within him. His activity is as superior to the activity of the other virtues as this divine thing is to his composite character. Now if mind is divine in comparison with man, the life of the mind is divine in comparison with mere human life. We should not follow popular advice and, being human, have only mortal thoughts, but should become immortal and do everything toward living the best in us. In other words, the thinker is not only the 'best' person, but is also most like God. Reference David Kahneman (2006). Well-being: the foundations of hedonic psychology, Princeton University Press. Karl, A.(1996). The road to excellence: the acquisition in expert performance in the arts and sciences, sports, tacos and games. Oxford University Press. Rosalind, H. (1999). On Virtue Ethics, Oxford University Press. Kelvin, K. (2007). Aristotelian Philosophy: Ethics and Politics from Aristotle to MacIntyre, Polity Press. Stan van Hooft, (2006).Understanding Virtue Ethics, Acumen Publishing Limited. Foot, P. (2001). Natural Goodness, Oxford University Press. Aristotle, (1999).Nicomachean Ethics, Translated by Terrence Irwin, Indianapolis: Hackett Press. Cafaro, Phillip (2004). Thoreau’s Living Ethics: Walden and the Pursuit of Virtue. Athens, University of Georgia Press. Read More