Monday, September 22, 2014
Aristotle vs Matthew
After today's class, I thought about what Maureen said about how Aristotle and Matthew contradict each other. Aristotle focuses on how irrvirtuous actions affect your character and how habits dictate the type of person you are. Matthew asks what kind of person you are and says that this dictates your habits. Matthew also notes that feelings are the basis for actions. This makes me wonder about the questions that were brought up in class such as that of whether happiness is a fleeting feeling or not. In addition, what about the other feelings, such as anger? Is it impossible to not be angry? Because the things you say when you are angry are often the most dangerous. In the case of these questions, do Aristotle or Matthew's thoughts aid us in answering them? I am not so sure, to be honest.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Personally I feel as though I lean towards agreeing with Matthew more so than Aristotle. I believe that the type of person you are has an effect on your actions which therefore affects your habits. I think that before we can really answer your question about whether or not happiness is fleeting, we must first define what happiness is, which has been a major topic of discussion over these last couple of weeks. If happiness is as we discussed it last Friday then it would seem as though the better question would be “Is joy fleeting?” because we discussed that our definition of happiness may be too broad. But again, this all depends on what defines happiness.
ReplyDelete-April Currey
There are a lot of questions in your comment, Connor, and so I will address each of them in a systematic way. First, you stated that happiness is a feeling, which I believe is something that we discussed frequently in class as pleasure. We saw this in terms of a drug addict-- he receives pleasure from highs which are good feelings, but no one would say that he's happy. We discussed the way that happiness depends upon an impact from the outside world, a "response to reality" as Sosa says. In this way, because Sosa states that happiness is not a state of mind, I think it could be argued that happiness is then deeper than a state of mind and maybe a constant in one's life. In other words, you could be happy, but you could also have feelings like anger layered onto that. You mention anger, and ask if the feeling of it is fleeting. I think because it is classified here and in general as a feeling, it is fleeting. This could be seen in the most obvious sense that if one is angry once, that does not make someone a constantly angry person. Matthew views anger as something evil, if you'd like, because it has the potential of leading to actions that cause death, resentment, destruction and the like. As we discussed in class, it seems as though it is something higher than anger, such as rage or contempt. While it is possible to never be angry--as is practiced with meditation and religious outlooks which practice love, patience and perhaps an isolation--Matthew does not imply that anger in itself is bad, but rather the actions that result from it.
ReplyDelete--Amanda Eliades
I somewhat agree with April on whether or not happiness is fleeting. I believe there are many levels of happiness, and the happiness that we have been talking about in class is the highest level of happiness. It is the kind of happiness that we can only achieve by living a long life, and then reflecting on that life to decide whether or not we are truly happy. However, I believe that there are lower levels of happiness that we can experience on day to day. Whether it is getting an A on a paper, seeing your family, or having a good day with friends you can experience happiness in these moments. I believe that these lower levels of happiness foreshadow the highest level of happiness and give you a glimpse of the happiness you are trying to achieve, pushing you to work harder towards total happiness.
ReplyDelete- Amanda Alcamo
I tend to agree with Matthew's perspective on the matter (our feelings dictate our actions) more so than Aristotle's (our actions dictate our feelings) because it works for almost all human emotions, not just happiness. For example, if someone were to wake up in a horrible mood, then his actions and the way that he treats people that day will directly correspond to these own personal feelings. He might be quieter, or come off to other people as being rude. This chain of events works for Matthew's argument, but not necessarily Aristotle's; his rude actions are not what dictates his horrible mood. Although this is examining feelings from a more "fleeting" point of view, I believe that Matthew's argument is stronger than Aristotle's for more permanent feelings, as well. If someone were to be clinically depressed, his overwhelming feelings of sadness would probably cause him to act differently; him acting differently would not be what was causing his depression. Even if this person's depression did start out from acting on a bad decision, this bad decision was inevitably made due to a feeling that compelled him to do so. Everything stems from personal feelings.
ReplyDeleteI believe with Matthew. The way we feel towards someone either resentment or love is shown through our actions. People can always not act on how they feel, they can be kind to someone even when they don't like them. But, for the most part we show people the way we feel about them through the way we communicate and interact with them. I do not believe it is possible to never be angry. If someone does something horrific to a loved one, it is impossible to not get upset or mad. Even a peaceful person would feel ill feelings. But, I do believe with free will we have control over our actions. We can control how we react to life situations, but we cannot control the way we feel.
ReplyDeleteI agree with April. As a Catholic, I grew up with the idea that one's actions affect whether or not one will make it into Heaven. If one lived a life of following the Word of God then he or she will enter Heaven in the after life. If he or she lived a life full of sin then he or she will be sent to Hell. These ideals match up with the Gospel of Matthew. The question of whether one would have to forfeit "happiness" arises. I believe that one can still achieve happiness and make it to Heaven. I think that it depends on what your definition of happiness. If it is to live a sinful life, then one will never actually obtain happiness, just an empty void that is hungry for more. If it is to get to Heaven, then one can be happy because one knows what the final goal is.
ReplyDeleteTo go off of Maureen’s comment earlier, I also agree with Mathew’s perspective- that our feelings do dictate our actions. Sometimes there can be underlying medical reasons why people are acting a certain way. Often for people who have these reasons, they tend to take and process information differently. They tend to have a different perspective on life and reality. One that would drive them to act upon something differently than someone else in the same situation would. I think we need emotions and feelings to make decisions. Without them we would never really get anywhere. We would just sit there weighing the pros and cons of each situation and thinking of what the logical decision would be. Thinking things out logically is something we should do, but you can only really do it to a point. Sometimes we need to act our feelings and instincts to help us guide us to actions that we should and should not take when it comes to decision making. How we feel at the time we make are making a decision will then dictate how we choose to act.
ReplyDelete