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.

After leaving today's class (9/15), I was a bit confused on what defines our characters.  I really liked what Stephanie said about how the smaller things (like picking up a piece of paper by a garbage can or holding a door open for someone for example) were just reflections of our character, rather than defining elements of it.  However, I also believe that most of our character stems from the environment we are in, how are brought up, where we are from, i.e.  These aren't contradicting ideas, are they?  And how would this affect Aristotle's statement that one can acquire virtue of character by acting in a certain way?

Happiness as "natural"

If we do not have a concept of the soul like Aristotle's, can we have a similar concept of happiness?

Book in class policy

I sat in on a French class years ago at Villanova, back when I wanted to improve my French, and I remember the way that the professor spoke to the students amazed me.  He talked to the students like one might high school students.  Obviously, you are not terribly distant temporally from those days, but when you are in college, a certain difference is expected and I was disappointed that this professor couldn't treat the students the way that he would have liked them to have acted.  Instead, his  relation was adversarial and patronizing.

I do not want to ask people to leave the classroom who do not have the course text, although I have said that I will do that, because I dislike conflict and more strongly I dislike treating students like children.  However, I've made it clear that you must have the course text and yet people still do not have the course text.

So from this point, if I see that you do not have the course text in class, I will be counting you as absent.  That way you are not missing a class, because you should be there.

"Achievement of your happiness is the only moral purpose of your life, and that happiness, not pain or mindless self-indulgence, is the proof of your moral integrity, since it is the proof and the result of your loyalty to the achievement of your values." -Ayn Rand

I recently read this quote and was wondering what everyone thought about it. Do you all agree that happiness is the only moral purpose of life, or is there something else? Do you believe Machiavelli or Aristotle would agree or disagree with this quote?

Questions, 9/3

1. Is Machiavelli gainsaying the history of philosophy's traditional esteem of virtue and the life of virtue in his disapprobation of a prince who seeks virtue?

1a. Does the expedient path promise happiness?  What is happiness?

1b. Is Machiavelli's prescription limited to the prince? Does it hold only for monarchies or principalities, but not for republics?

2. Why must a prince "learn how not to be good"?

3. What is our (ethical) task if we are Machiavellians?  Are we?

Final exam date

The final exam for this section will be held on

Monday, Dec. 15th, from 8:30 - 11 a.m.

Please make arrangements accordingly.  No make up exams will be offered.