Comparison between Aristotle's Excellence of Character and Excellence of Thought - Essay Example

Module Aristotle Comparison between Excellence of Character and Excellence of Thought Aristotle defined excellence as the thought of developing, over time, incorruptible values. Aristotle sincerely believed that the achievement of excellence was something that would depend on the individual’s habits. Essentially, a person’s acquisition of virtue was dependent on perfecting his or her mental or psychological reaction to different circumstances. According to Aristotle, in order to attain happiness, human beings would have to achieve excellence of character as well as thought. For Aristotle, the concept of ‘excellence of character’ includes the elements of practical reason as well as emotion. The procedure of realizing excellence of character calls for individuals to develop a steadiness of character by adopting virtuous pursuits and shunning vice. Aristotle stressed the ethical as well as normative effect of virtuous regulations would contribute towards assisting or directing human beings in the pursuit of good. Thesis Statement: From Aristotle’s treatise, all human beings have the capability of acquiring the excellence of character and thought through the constant practice of constructive behaviors such as temperance and duty. Aristotle also wrote about the excellence of thought- or intellectual excellence. He specified that common sense as well as practical wisdom could also be considered as being a kind of excellence of thought. From his writings, it is evident that Aristotle believed that the combination of these two types of excellences is what would be the redeeming factor of the human race. The concepts on the excellence of thought and character tie into Aristotle’s ideas on temperance and intemperance. According to Aristotle, the acquisition of temperance is important because it brings a balance between the excesses that are easily embraced by the untamed human soul and the insensibility that characterizes extreme asceticism. This is directly related to the portrayal of temperance in any challenging situation. For instance, an individual who was practicing temperance would find a balance in the expression of his or her emotions. In a situation where there was a significant threat, the temperate individual’s expressions of fear would not be more or less that the situation called for. However, an intemperate person would either express extreme stoicism or extreme fear that did not correspond to the danger of existing threat. Essentially, the possession of temperance in a human being is what will keep the soul’s need to yearn for different things in harmony with common sense or reason (Pakaluk and Pearson, 81). Aristotle also described incontinence as the unchecked pursuit of gratification and the evading of pain at all costs. Aristotle stated that the excellence of thought is connected with the excellence of character and that the two subjects could not really be separated and still retain their intrinsic meanings. Essentially, the use of excellence of thought is connected to the manifestation of excellence of character when considering how to attain personal objectives. For instance, if an individual who has good character and thus displays excellence of character also displays excellence of thought in having the right desires as motivation for fulfilling a certain objective, his or her actions can then be judged as being intrinsically beautiful. This also means that it is only a person with excellence of thought who can perceive the existence of beautiful things. Also, it is only through the middle ground between the correct habits of thought and the excellence of character that the human soul would manifest the correct desire as well as natural reaction to the different circumstances that are common in human life. From Aristotle’s findings, the only way through which a human being could achieve excellence of character or thought would be by acting in a temperate manner or according to the stipulations of one’s duty. Conversely, this means that incontinent as well as intemperate behavior is also acquired through habit. Aristotle clearly distinguished between the qualities of incontinence and intemperance by using three key points (Ranney, 11). The incontinent person, for instance, participates in wrong acts when his passion overcomes his capacity to engage in logical reasoning. This means that “his actions are not the outcome of deliberate scheming even though they may have identical results with a scheming individual” (Aristotle and Bartlett VII, 1145b.30-32). An intemperate individual will commit errors because of completely different reasons. He is more of a slave to pleasure than the incontinent man is. The incontinent man will be driven by his passion to engage in wrong activities even though he knows he should not participate in them. The intemperate man actually makes direct decision to engage in erroneous acts through deliberate choice because he sincerely believes that he should have the right to always pursue only the things that are pleasurable to him (Aristotle, 37). He is thus more decadent or deceived than the incontinent man. Aristotle further stressed that “incontinence engages an individual to go against his own intended choice while being intemperate is indicative of purposefully aligning with wrong decisions” (Aristotle and Bartlett VII, 1151a.7-8). Aristotle was of the view that incontinence could be compared to a sickness that affected the soul but could be cured. This would speak to the “sporadic character of incontinence in comparison with intemperance which was more identical to ‘consumption’ because it could not really be removed but only managed” (Aristotle and Bartlett VII, 1150b.32-35). The final point that Aristotle pointed out as being indicative of the difference between incontinence and intemperance had to do with awareness of the issue. Intemperate men, he stressed, “were usually not conscious of the fact that they had such a major moral failing; incontinent men, however, could not be said to be unaware of that causes of their incontinence” (Aristotle and Bartlett VII, 1150b.35-37). From these factors, Aristotle made it plain that incontinence was not as damaging for the soul as intemperance. While Aristotle made good points in speaking about intemperance, he did not speak exhaustively about the real nature of incontinence. Incontinence basically has to do with pleasures of the senses and can be considered as a serious vice because it also involves people willfully walking away from the path of reason. The incontinent man, even though he may suspect that his actions are not right, will choose to take the path of least resistance and give in to his passions instead of choosing to persevere in the discomfort of refusing his passions and forcing his will upon the path of reason and practical wisdom. Aristotle appears to have thought that incontinence was a lesser vice because it was not as calculated as intemperance; however, dismissing its true nature on the basis of its fleeting quality and ability to be cured is too liberal. Works Cited Aristotle. The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle: Tr. with an Analysis and Critical Notes. New York: Nabu Press, 2010. Aristotle, and Robert Bartlett. Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press, 2012. Pakaluk, Michael, and Giles Pearson. Moral Psychology and Human Action in Aristotle. Oxford: OUP Oxford, 2011. Ranney, Francis. Aristotles Ethics and Legal Rhetoric: An Analysis of Language, Beliefs And the Law (Law, Justice and Power). London: Ashgate Pub Co., 2005. Read More