The Right Mixture

Aristotle taught the doctrine of the mean. We see extremes in everything. Too much or too little can be destructive and we search for the right application to everything in life. It doesn't mean the middle ground but the right ground. This is similar to cooking. When we put the right amount of the right ingredients and bake at the right temperature for the right amount of time, something good comes out. Making adjustments in each area can either make it better or worse. Too much salt or too much heat aren't evil, they just don't make the end product turn out as well. So we can have fun pulling ideas out and organizing them to see what seems to work best.

We are examining ways to bring people together on a state level so they can reach their potential. Rather than having broad ideals based on passions such as everyone having everything in common and commitments only to the state, we find there are always certain things should only be shared with the people we are close to. Some areas of life are better shared to a lesser degree in order to belong to certain associations.When an arrangement works out well, we naturally keep it in mind, especially if it works consistently. This approach gives us a natural philosophy rather than an idealistic one.

It is important that there be unity and that is the purpose of having a state or a government. It is a beautiful thing when people work together in unity. Great things can be done. We see technological advances that can be attributed to cooperation between individuals. But history shows that not all cooperation is good. It can be destructive also. Wars occur between countries even though inside each country there is strong cooperation. That seems to be what happens with totalitarian rule. We are after a basic level of proper unity that brings contentment and peace.

The basic structure for unity can be seen in a family. We want our children to be well taken care of yet at the same time, they need to be independent. A home belongs to the parents yet each child wants his own room. Having and taking care of possessions and having a degree of cooperation while remaining independent are what parents want for their children. We need social interaction yet also need our privacy. The family is the closest natural relationship we have as an example. A state would need to address similar terms with its citizens on a level that is less.

So we ask ourselves, who is going to run this thing, what needs to be shared, and how do we keep greed and vice out of the mix?. We already know that people have ambitions and we don't want someone else's ambitions to overshadow our own. Ambitions can be skewed when influenced by vice. If someone gets in power who has an ego problem, the citizens suffer to feed it. People have self-interest and it is natural to want to get the most for the least amount of effort. This makes it necessary to limit governing to work within specific parameters. Those who are insecure will desire security and ease. They will tend to trust more government control. Those who are independent and secure will want less intrusion in their lives. We see this with our own children in a family situation. The teen years are defined by the desire to be independent and parents can have a hard time letting them go since they like being their security and feel a void without it.

When it comes to leadership, the family example is one of perpetual governing where the children go out and lead their own families. But in order to have equality in a state and keep from having only one group's interests represented, we should rotate leadership out and back into a private life. A leader that makes politics a career would be the best at the bureaucratic part of governing but would also lose touch with the practical things that are of interest to private citizens. Rotating them back into their place as private citizens also gives others a chance at governing. We don't want the leaders to consider the citizenry their own possession or worse, they have been sent to save the people from themselves. Good leadership in a state will consider everyone's interests and everyone their equal in the decisions they make. The ideal leaders will realize they are servants of the citizens with an assigned job to do and will work hard at enforcing the laws the people have agreed upon.

Responsibility

When discussing ownership, we are talking about responsibility. The less ownership there is, the less responsible people feel toward things. True responsibility takes action to improve one's lot. When we train our youth that the community is responsibility for their actions, they feel less responsible for themselves. This increases crime and dependency. We still want a society that has compassion for others and wants to help those who are in need. The concept of ownership and the concept of compassion for those without are good in the right amounts and with the proper applications. We are looking at what applications give us the best community. As is the usual manner, the extremes are examined first; the excesses and deficiencies. Rather than  calling anything utterly bad, in these studies, we look at the merits of each idea. So far it has been concerning personal relationships and how much responsibility we should have for raising our children and taking care of a family verses how much that should be the community's responsibility.


What conditions cause people to become loyal to each other and their community? This will also apply to the state when it comes to warfare, and overall welfare of the participants. When a community breaks down into a free love community, the goal becomes what is the most pleasurable at the time. This makes the people vulnerable and gullible since they can be led about by their appetites rather than reason. It becomes more about what makes them feel good rather than what is actually good. There is a plurality since we also want to have freedom to do as we please and enjoy life. That is why it is good to encourage teh personal traits of temperance and independence so individuals can have pride in their accomplishments and stay motivated. A strong family environment with a good education system is the most effective environment to nurture this. The state shouldn't interfere and erode family relationships yet we might give them responsibility for education in a family cannot provide.

The more people own themselves and their families, the stronger a community becomes. When ownership and responsibility is spread over a large group, the participants aren't as responsible. People become indifferent since there isn't an environment of close personal relationships or exchanges. This indifference makes it easier to commit crimes without conscience and also produces poor leaders. Those who have been raised to show honor to parents and siblings will show honor to fellow citizens. A state exists for the independence of its citizens. It is better that the people governing are normal citizens and not career politicians. This way they have a private life similar to those they represent.

Concerning personal things, we have concluded in the past, it is much more difficult to cast them off on governing since there are so many factors involved. A person of good character will be responsible for himself and be cooperative in limited areas; a passive person will depend on others for every area; an aggressive person might be independent but will refuse to cooperate at all. So good character is the foundation of having a good state. We see concerning personal things, it is best to limit the level of cooperation only to specific areas and encourage self motivation, lest the people become resentful toward each other and the state loses its ability to support itself because of bickering, blame and lack of motivation.

When it comes to the economy and principles of ownership we can sort things out with much more clarity. The Greeks experimented with communism also and they have an interesting take on this.

Loyal or Superficial?

It is hard to stay on track with the study of politics since there are so many trails to take. It is my goal to present principles over agenda. There is nothing wrong with agenda if presenting it is the goal. But presenting objective principles broken down to their simplest form isn't always an easy task and takes work. The end result is pure and refreshing.

What we are after in politics is a cooperation among people that brings the most happiness to the individuals in a state. Which is the best approach? Is it best to own everything in common or to have nothing in common? Is there some kind of mixture that works best? We want everyone to be unified and content. But does common ownership also bring unity? Socrates presented a concept that perfect unity meant that we claim ownership to everything yet claim ownership to nothing. But this is confusing since there are always some things we want all to ourselves. Our family and private possessions are examples. The concept of all things in common is impractical and unachievable since we can't be happy without some kind of ownership. We would feel like slaves to a system. People tend to get resentful since we normally feel that our own contribution is more than another's and it is human nature to do the least amount of work to get the most amount of benefit.

Sharing always sounds like a positive concept. But there is a certain closeness with exclusivity that can't be produced emotionally in a commune setting. When we ask that people share, there has to first be a concept of ownership. For everyone to have all things in common, we are asking people to give what we assume they own to a common pool. You cannot share what you do not own. When we ask people of a state to share, we are asking that they cede over a portion that would otherwise be due them. To force our own opinions of what we think should be shared onto our fellow private citizens is a violation of the natural right to ownership.  

Those who live in a commune setting end up having the deepest loyalties and commitments diluted. A child  is more apt to behave and excel out of loyalty and desire for the approval of loving parents than a vague notion of community. The deepest relationships between men and woman involve sharing intimacies that aren't shared with others. We call common relationships superficial since there is less loyalty toward common people. Aristotle observed that those who share relationships broadly end up fighting among themselves more often than those who have a culture of loyalty and intimacy toward a close few. Those who live a commune lifestyle have less need for self control and this makes happiness and satisfaction harder to achieve. It also tends toward less satisfaction since people look to others to satisfy their needs rather than taking responsibility for themselves.

It gets down to the question of whether the individuals exist for the benefit of the relationship or relationship exists for the benefit of the individual. When we are talking about a state, the former makes the state a personal entity that has needs. The latter keeps the needs of the individuals in the forefront. A state cannot be a family relationship since the people aren't that close; the state cannot be an individual since it cannot take care of the interests of every individual. It exists only to fulfill certain common needs. 

Natural law follows owning ourselves first, sharing the biggest portion of our lives to those we choose to be the most intimate with, our families, our immediate communities and then the state. Communities that don't follow this natural order tend to be the least happy. Relationships and assumptions that cause individuals to lose their identity will also take away their potential. Unrealized potential in a community is a tragedy and the participants become frustrated. The objective of politics is to cooperate in a way that the participants can realize their full potential. We all desire to be protected, settled and satisfied.

All Things in Common

So we've established the fact that we need governed. As we govern ourselves and establish communities, everyone benefits. We do our best work when we cooperate with the rational part of our being and when we reason among ourselves. In everything according to individual talent, there is a natural order. If we work with that natural order and don't interfere by establishing social castes or give special favor with laws, the potential in each individual is more apt to be realized. Each person should do the best they can with what they have and we should respect others for their abilities also.

We can instruct and make suggestions on what we expect of ourselves and others but sometimes, due to human nature, suggestions aren't enough to keep people from taking advantage of others or losing control of themselves. Without force or penalties, laws are merely suggestions. But what we establish has to apply to ourselves too. We are ceding control of an area of our lives to an entity other than ourselves. How far we should allow that control to reach in order to bring the most happiness is the debate of the ages.

So we start out in book two of Politics with the same arguments we have today. There are two arenas in life, personal and material. People today use the terms social and fiscal. Some consider themselves socially liberal or conservative and others fiscally liberal or conservative. Libertarians consider themselves socially liberal and fiscally conservative. But most political philosophies proceeds out of these areas. Of course we will start at the basics and look at the pros and cons as is Aristotle's style.

There was a thought during that time that if everyone had everything in common that it would bring happiness. Sounds familiar doesn't it? First with relationships, he gives the example where everyone lived in a commune setting with few commitments and people just enjoyed each other whenever they wanted and did what they wanted. Their only commitment would be to the state. Apparently some people tried it even back then. Children would all be common and raised by the community. This would be the extreme of social liberalism. It sounds like fun but there are serious issues that always arise out of it.

As far as the fiscal arena goes, no one could own anything but everything was shared. The land and the produce would belong to the state and they would distribute to everyone equally. This would be the extreme of fiscal liberalism. We will look at the drawbacks and advantages along with a few variations. These philosophies sound like they came right out of the seventies and the hippy movement. I think examining social liberalism sounds like a good place to start on the next blog.

The Naturalist

You can say that Aristotle was more of a naturalist. He didn't look at principles of virtue as something people invented. There seemed to be an unexplained natural order to things. Religions try to define the origin but he just pointed out the fact that they exist. When people recognize them and follow them, good things happen. A stonemason can be a master of his trade but when he cooperates with an architect who is a master also, beautiful buildings are produced. He believed that everything in the universe has a purpose for good. Virtue is what it means to achieve that purpose on the highest level. The human purpose is happiness. So when we approach politics, or any human association, the ultimate purpose is to guarantee the ability of the humans involved to have lasting happiness.

This is the light he shines on every principle also. Identifying the items involved, the actions they are capable of, and the purpose. They are not only displayed but are defined by showing what they are not, what actions are outside their scope, and what they produce when used improperly. Vice is the word used for actions that keep a person from reaching his purpose. But it also applies to objects and animals too. It works in science and works in politics. Identifying the actions that interfere with virtue is what these studies are about. Today we have the ability to manipulate a lot of things. Usually nature has a better way, such as in foods. But there are also things we do to make our lives easier and humans happier. Machines and appliances make a few of Aristotle's slavery arguments moot since there is no need for manual labor in the form of slaves anymore. Hydrocarbons are the slaves for this era. But at the same time, we exercise to stay in shape since the natural use of our bodies is work.

So when we talk about government and getting wealth, it is along the lines of achieving virtue or happiness for all the participants; at least making it available to them. He divided wealth between ways to enrich a household for a good life and other forms of commerce. It wasn't that there was something wrong with commerce, but it didn't always have a direct application to make people happy. The ability to barter the abundance from one group of people for the abundance of another in an honest exchange is the proper use of money. There are many ways to make a living. Manual labor has the least amount of risk involved since it is a direct exchange for coin and then purchasing things for the family. The value of an occupation is determined by the participants. Some that require more skill and intellect are useful for others so they will be worth more money. Hunting was risky but civilized people liked farming both crops and raising animals because the returns were more of a guarantee. Thieves and robbers bypass the risks and simply take from others by force. There are those who use portions of the honest means of exchange from a country and enrich themselves with it. This is a practice that doesn't always provide opportunity to make people of a country happy. Borrowing with usury is also a practice that has no goal but making money with money. The further away it is from the direct exchange of products, the more corrupt it becomes, since the virtue of money is the exchange of goods and services.

Limitations

Aristotle spends quite a bit of time in Politics to make a few points clearly. One is the difference between submission as a slave and the kind of submission between equals that benefits them all. Good investors need good management and good management needs good workers. None of the positions are inferior but they have unique skills and as they cooperate good things happen. Without investors, the money isn't there to build a company. Without good management or with poor workers, a company becomes a bad investment. Retirements are affected. The goal of a good civil government is for everyone to excel and get a good living out of what they invest their time in.

The difference between slavery and cooperation are their limitations. A slave doesn't have a life but is controlled in every aspect. Forms of vice based in pleasures can make a person slave to them also.  A person that can set their own limits is someone who is free. When we talk about rights, this is what it means; the ability to self-determine. It is true with our passions and is also true when it comes to pursuing happiness as a community. Setting our own limits to how we are governed and for ourselves is put in a negative light by those who desire control and submission. But freedom and civility is a system of limited mutual agreements for benefit of each individual. Having a good community benefits all the participants. Wanting to realize benefits for ourselves when we give of our time and investment isn't unreasonable but should be encouraged. The question becomes about what areas we are willing to cede over to others and what we will get out of it.

It is interesting that Aristotle gave a comparison between managing a household and health. He explained that goods for household use were easier to define for both the leader of the household and a statesman. But health and commerce are much harder to define. The relationship between a doctor and a patient are between themselves and the decisions concerning it belong to each individual. What each person needs health-wise is hard to universally define and is determined by numerous factors. You cannot be too healthy. But we can come to agreements on tangible things that are required for a household and make things easier to get.

We can't all hold cattle in our backyard to trade for things and so civil societies come up with a system of coin that represents barter. A certain amount will buy certain things and what we produce can be traded in the same way with other countries.  Business outside household needs is a hard area to define and has few limits. That is why regulation can get complicated. It is hard to sort out the ambitions of those who have ruling authority from the ambitions of business. Of course they both want limits and accuse the other of greed to enable themselves.  But everyone agrees that each citizen should have opportunity to provide well for themselves.

Each skill has it's particular training and education. Businesses and trades want people who are skilled so it would be a natural thing to want to educate them. But when it comes to governing, there seems to be neglect. In a state, each person shares governing and there should be no career politicians.  Therefore every child should be raised up to understand civil government so he can do his part to submit to authority and hold office himself. Understanding both roles is a must. A nation exists as a limited union for protection and uniformity but a state exists for the people to govern themselves in the particulars.

Households

When the natural order is followed concerning authority, it makes a beneficial environment for all the parties involved. A CEO with good character will run a company justly by making the company grow, increasing stock value and taking care of the workers. Some people are great at hands-on things and others do well as supervisors to set priorities. When laws or other entitlements disrupt the natural order between workers and supervisors, both sides suffer. Of course there are varying degrees of talents and abilities so this isn't an exact science.

When we look at a household, it is more of a monarchy where regardless of the skills involved, there is usually one or two people that have the final say in all decisions. Talent isn't really an issue but the authority is important. We don't consider keeping a household difficult but there are habits that can be taught to make it easier on everyone. No one goes to college to be an expert housekeeper. Yet it is the place that holds the things we love. It is curious that so much study is put into everything else while managing a household is an afterthought.

When we talk about the the pursuit of happiness, wealth is a big part of it. But at the same time we despise those who are out to get wealth. In order to look at wealth in its proper context, separations have to be made. At what point does earnings made for taking care of one's own household turn into wealth? The purpose of accumulation would be a factor. Some things are tools and then others are materials. Both are used to make something else. First priority would be our household. But it isn't that simple.

Animals have simple needs and we see them gather food and build homes in order to perpetuate their species. But humans are different. They do things according to taste and have different levels of satisfaction. We all have particular talents and interests that we try to use to make a living. The amount of property and raw materials needed to make a living varies with what a person does. To Aristotle, everything exists for a purpose; soil for the nourishment of plants; plants for the nourishment of animals. The entire world exists for man to use due to his versatility and intellect. We call it the top of the food chain. In the political sense, he believed that we are doing our duty to civilize barbaric people so they too can enjoy the benefits that come through being governed properly and cooperating with outsiders.

As we acquire things, how much is enough to consider oneself rich? There is only so much a person can experience and enjoy and so it would have to be limited. In the same way a civil government should be limited to providing opportunity for its citizens to make a good living. When we get into wealth, it is another matter and it has to be addressed separately.

Out in the Wild

It is hard for us to comprehend a slave culture and it was equally perplexing to Aristotle. He, in his usual manner, organizes it into simple concepts. These concepts have applications today. Slavery comes in different forms and this examination may surprise you.

The principle of slave and master is found naturally in everything. We see laws exist in the universe and even on a molecular level there is a semblance of obedience. When we confine ourselves to the earth and consider natural laws, we also find an order at work. Looking at animals, we find that they are slaves to their appetites. They roam, dig in, and obey instincts. The more advanced or free an animal is, the less this is a consideration. With pets, they are pampered almost as a child but it would be a different story out in the wild. When they are confined, with a good master, they have it better than if they were in the wild.

With men, we see that some need the guidance of another. We range from diligent, self-controlled to destructive and lazy individuals. At times those who are in charge are incompetent while the servants are intelligent. There is a natural order that is at odds with human made associations at times. We see things work better when this natural order is followed. A person who lacks leadership qualities is by no means less valuable but it is better to have the right people in the right positions.

There is a class entitlement that societies give in defiance to natural order. A caste system makes the claim that due to genetics, some should be masters and others slaves. This is perplexing and full of conflicts for those who see the obvious natural order. Ancient writings lament about this. The Bible has a theme of contrasts where bad leadership is replaced by normal people who were elevated out of good character. Native born entitlement has been in place for all of history and we enjoy stories when paupers becoming royalty. We like it when the natural laws usurp class systems.

Another form of slavery comes through laws. When a nation conquered another it was customary to make the citizens of the defeated country slaves. Those who receive majority political advantage feel those who don't agree or don't belong should serve them. But even when this is in operation, we all suffer when due to politics, incompetent people are put in charge. When the natural laws of competence and good character are violated, it doesn't matter what the political persuasion, everyone suffers.

Within ourselves Aristotle saw a natural order too. Our appetites want to lead us into areas that are bad for us. When the rational part of our soul is in charge, we do what is best. Most of the damaging things we to to ourselves are done when appetites overrun rational thought. There is a part of us that looks out for our best and wants lasting happiness in our lives. When things are out of order, the body is in charge and we call it vice. But making it obey helps us achieve virtue. Generally Greeks believed that the natural world, since it is temporal, is where corruption was based. Purity is found in the spiritual or contemplative part of our being. All of Mankind has a connection to it and the principles it holds. As we take time to contemplate, truth can be found that leads us to the mastery of life. Those who choose to live by appetites alone, miss out on this connection and are no better than animals. We have the saying," Think about what you are doing".  Of course we all enjoy letting go occasionally. There is a certain pleasure in getting out from under the master's rule. But no one wants to be stuck out in the wild either.

Master and Servant

In order to get anything done cooperatively, it is required there be a certain amount of servitude. We have to submit ourselves to others in some ways and take charge in others. There's nothing bad either way, serving or leading, as long as it is done with good character. What good character brings to the transaction is justice. Lets look at cooperation and justice; how they work together.

Justice as a concept means that a person is rewarded for what he puts into action. Action requires time and effort. It has a negative context where wickedness deserves punishment and a positive where goodness deserves reward. We have an innate drive that wants to see things balance out. It isn't as easy as it looks since we don't often know particulars or motives. But we all agree that the standards should be the same for everyone. That is what is meant by "all men are created equal". Sometimes we wish for injustices to be overlooked because we care for a person. This is the application of grace. As a general rule, people want more grace for themselves than for others. But the purpose of government is to bring justice to the transactions between people.

Someone has to lead in order for a goal to be reached. A strong leader will use justice as a guiding principle for all he does and won't demand more than he deserves for his part in the transaction. He will reward those who do well and try to raise up those who don't. Sometimes it takes encouragement and sometimes it requires punishment; this depends on the particulars and motives. In every transaction, there are also boundaries. A boss has no authority over a person's private life. Tyranny is nothing more that the assumption of authority beyond the scope of a relationship.  As servants head in the right direction, less authority has to be asserted.

We all serve each other in different areas. A good servant will  be just and won't take more than what he deserves for his efforts. He will have no problem doing what he is told when it is within his scope of work. A good servant will go above and beyond. An injustice occurs when he expects reward with little effort.

A master is oriented toward the big picture or the whole. You can say he has full opportunity and potential of action. A servant is only has a part in it. The servant assists the master in accomplishing his goals and his scope is narrow. There is a just exchange that they work out between themselves.

When we form the social structure of a civil government, we first want to define and limit the scope. It should operate to bring justice to every transaction. We must determine who will be the masters. When the people are the masters, the politicians will be servants with a limited scope of actions. They are assigned to assist individuals in accomplishing their goals. Individuals will be the ones with unlimited potential. When politicians are masters, they are interested in greatness according to their world view while the people become servants with limited actions.

Absolute Freedom

Everywhere we go there is a hierarchy of some kind. In a family setting there is sibling rivalry and parents who carry authority. It is the same on the job and with a community. The Bob Dylan song says "You are going to have to serve somebody." We don't want to be enslaved to anyone or anything however, and freedom is an attraction to all. Aristotle spends quite a bit of time explaining the proper treatment of slaves and their purpose in politics. With the Industrial Age, slavery became a thing of the past and we use machines to do what human power once did. We use carbon driven equipment to build our buildings and to heat our homes. The age we live in has given mankind a freedom in this way that has never been experienced in past history.

But what is ownership? There are things we own that have a productive purpose, we could call business oriented. Also things we own that are for pleasure. Most government differentiate between the two and tax us heavily on things for pleasure since they aren't necessities. But in the activity of living, the things we work for are on the pleasure side. We want a nice house to entertain rather than a simple hut to stay warm. Everyone agrees that necessities are important but the conflict of greed and jealousy mostly occurs over the pleasurable things.

Is there such a thing as absolute freedom? Animals are slaves to their appetites and live by the law of the jungle. It is romanticized by our society but the wild is a dangerous and violent place to be. When working with other humans, there is a hierarchy too. The more a person has virtue, the better he does in whatever position he has. From slave to free, president to laborer; things work best when we treat each other well and advancement that comes from diligence is the best kind. A tyrant will limit the choices of those under him. We are all servants but a slave is someone who has limits forced on his associations. Servants do what they agree to do and then go about their free time to pursue their own interests where a slave is always under the master's authority. A poor servant won't perform his duty for the wages agreed upon.

It is interesting that the more authority one gets, the more people you have to serve and show diligence toward. It isn't as glamorous as some people make it. A business owner might be able to set his own hours but they are really dictated by their customers needs and the availability of their workers. The struggle between necessity and pleasure is more evident when one owns a business. But for those who work under someone, there is merely a duty to perform the tasks assigned. Home and free time is mainly for enjoyment. Necessity is always trying to impose itself on our free time. It is easier for some to relax than others. Some, on the other hand, become slaves to pleasure and never accomplish much. So keeping things in perspective is something every individual has to do.

The State

The more tribal or primitive a society is, the less everyone is able to live the good life. We see that the woman, in order to nurture, has to work as a slave and do her part while the men go out to defend and hunt. Neither male or female can enjoy the good life or a life of leisure since providing necessities takes up all their time and defines their role in life. But when families get together and help one another, the burden becomes lighter for everyone. This becomes a village. The first rule that comes out of a village is the monarchy, with a chief or a king, since the father and eldest in families naturally end up making the decisions in a similar way they would in a family.

When the society has a king, they will assume their gods rule in the same way. It is natural to look to a higher power as similar to themselves and cultures, as a rule, will match the authority of their gods with their present view of hierarchy. If a society remains primitive, it will remain primitive. If it becomes a just society, the view of god will change to where he is just too.

As villages join in confederations, the unit becomes a state. Forming a state is the natural course for humans. Animals don't contemplate, organize and negotiate with language on the level that humans do. So we can say with certainty that forming a state is what comes natural to humans. It is a part of the inherent nature of man. When reasoning ability is at its peak performance, men will form states that make each other's lives easier. Aristotle claims that man is a Political Animal. In the same way that good character depends on virtue, there is also virtue in politics, the good of a society.

Men who avoid politics and go out on their own usually do so out of bitterness, anger or wanting to avoid responsibility. But it is obvious by nature that humans perform at their best when there is cooperation. People who live in the wild with no human association will become vicious since their only concern is survival. Without others, there can be no virtue practiced and without virtue, there is a poor concept of justice. Man by nature needs social interaction and the ultimate interaction is a state. It is where justice is practiced and the details are negotiated among men. Justice is the bond of men in a state.

Presently as our population has grown, some ascribe to the theory that this principle continues on to the entire population and we should work toward a one world government. Others observe that the further the governing authority is from the individual, the less it serves their needs and the more corruption affects everyone. The founders of the United States sought a compromise where the states determined justice for themselves while a federal government would keep them all in unity. The debate goes on today as to how much authority should be given to a distant government and how it affects the well-being of the citizens in a state. It is a debate that has gone on in various forms throughout the centuries after this was written.

We will continue and look at how we form units of authority and their purpose in book three. 

Hierarchy

Politics and religion are two of the most contentious subjects to approach with others. There is so much dogma involved it becomes tiresome reasoning with people. Having dogma toward religion doesn't make much sense since most of it is speculative anyways. So arguing speculations is best confined to those who share the same beliefs. But politics can be different. Everyone observes behaviors and hierarchies from the time they deal with siblings all the way to national politics. Some behaviors are detrimental and others are advantageous. This study can actually be fun absent the dogma. What I mean by dogma is hard headed opinions that lack objectivity. So let's toss a few opinions of this Greek philosopher around!

One thing to keep in mind is the cultural differences. Slavery was an acceptable practice to the Greeks. Although some in our culture feel guilty about the industrial age, we have given our menial labor to electrons and motors. This has caused a great advance in civilization. One of the purposes of being civilized is to make everyone's lives easier. A Greek woman was considered to be in charge of the household and its slaves. We have appliances today. I think you will be surprised at how struggles and attitudes haven't changed much over the millennium.

We start out observing that hierarchies exist that vary with how many people a person has authority over. Siblings protect each other; a boss is important career-wise; and a statesmen looks after the good of an entire state. A king or dictator rules with his own interest while a statesman represents the people. But this structure is too simplistic to apply to every particular situation and so we should break each area down and look at their components to know what we have to work with.

The furthest we can break down dependencies is that between a man and a woman. In order to continue with our species, we like anything else have to reproduce. With humans, one has to provide shelter and protect while the other puts their bodies to use in nurturing.  This creates a hierarchy with the man making decisions due to his part and a woman submitting so she can do hers. Whatever name we use, be it master and slave or other terms, they both have the same interest of raising a family. This follows the basic hierarchy we have within ourselves. Our minds rule over our bodies. But a woman shouldn't be treated like a tool and a slave, so the more a society is civilized, they can pursue their own interests. In barbaric or tribal societies, women become more like slaves since everything they do is out of necessity.

Politics

This is where Aristotle leaves off in the study of Ethics. It has been an interesting study. The subject of Ethics has to do with getting along with ourselves and with others. He took time to describe the struggles we have inside and out and pointed out the best route to take. That route is called virtue. A person who pays attention to this is said to have good character. Instruction without condemnation is refreshing. He uses a method of studying out behaviors objectively and pointing to ideal behaviors. At the same time we aren't told what to do. We get to figure it out for ourselves since we all have unique personalities and passions.

For those who have read the history of Alexander the Great, it is important to to note that Aristotle was his mentor. Alexander's father hired him since he was one of the best teachers at that time. After Alexander the Great died, Aristotle had to go in hiding because the leadership void left him vulnerable. He died shortly afterward.

There is more to study and I would like to continue on to Aristotles' Politics. In Politics, he says that under a tribal system, women have a status that is close to a slave. Everything is about survival. When a civilized society wars against a barbaric society, they are doing them a favor. The women for example, are given more of a managerial role in the household. Of course we have appliances now, so there is no need for slaves. We have grocery stores that help in that area too. I find these tidbits about Greek society interesting and hope that you do too.

The Pursuit

We have arrived at the point in ethics where we look at legislation. Things that pertain to primary happiness, such as discussing and practicing philosophical matters, creativity and pursuing dreams, are areas that laws shouldn't touch. This is what is meant by protecting "rights". But in practical matters, those that have to do with character, such as honesty and having just transactions, we need laws.

In a perfect society, everyone would be just and kind to themselves and to their neighbors. Unfortunately, there are always people who have less than perfect character. The reasons are numerous as we have discussed in past blogs but the fact remains that some only obey through penalties. It is best that we learn through instruction rather than hard knocks and pain but at least some of us learn that way. For those who refuse to exhibit good character regardless of the method, we need laws. The worse a society is character-wise, the more strain is on the legal system. So we should encourage those who teach good character and should make it a part of our public curriculum.  

In a prison, inmates enjoy necessities and are constantly forced to treat each other properly. They lose their rights, the ability to pursue dreams, as a penalty for violating laws that protect themselves and others. We don't want a society that is set up like a prison and need to preserve rights while at the same time maintaining order. By focusing on having just transactions between people in a society, the pursuit of happiness can also be preserved. We see this in our family interactions also. As long as people act according to virtue, they should be free to pursue their passions.

Utopian philosophies although primary to happiness have little use in the practical sense. The secondary part of happiness that has to do with satisfaction and character will always need laws based in character. These laws must also protect the primary pursuits for each individual. The simplified term used years ago was separation of church and state. But today we have a myriad of utopian ideas based in personalities, probabilities and forces. No system is practical without its individuals possessing good character. Its people must be ruled by laws based in virtue. This is what we are after when we study Ethics.

I've Been Thinking

Since contemplation is given so much importance, we should spend time examining just what it is. It is a unique kind of reasoning. Some try to say that all reasoning is contemplation, but Aristotle makes it clear that the reasoning attached to morality and life’s activities are of a different kind. He likens philosophical contemplation to what a god would think about and gives it a divine air. It is something animals don’t seem to have. Philosophers have gone in different directions to describe exactly what  contemplation is.  They all agree that it is our way to reach something higher than what sensory knowledge is capable to comprehend. The speculative part of our thinking; the what-ifs and the whys. You could almost say it is the “for no reason” part of our reasoning since it doesn’t have a practical basis. The Things we do under obligation can be good but things we dwell on for no reason and have no basis give us the most pleasure. We could call it pure leisure. The Odd thing is that it can turn out to have a practical benefit. Einstein’s mind exercises are an example of this. Religions have different takes on what contemplation means. Eastern thought would lean toward clearing one’s mind in a form of meditation. Christians use memorization of scriptures and prayer. Some lean toward memorized prayers and others  engage in normal conversation with God in their leisure time. But they all have in common that the mind needs focused on things that are higher than necessities. The more a person keeps his life simple and sacrifices his life, the more he has the ability to contemplate to enjoy life. It is as if practical reasoning is more of a distraction to them.  Aristotle makes the point however that success in practical things does contribute to happiness in a secondary sense. To be settled in one’s philosophy is primary and having freedom to do so is important. That is why freedom of religion is important. It is hard to categorize thought specifically since so much is interconnected; our morality is connected to our world view and our ability to reason properly in practical things can also be linked in the same way. Freedom is practiced when a person has the ability to question conventional thinking. No one wants to be trapped in their thinking to certain  dogmas. But dogmas do give a sense of security. Even in thought there can be adventure and risk taking.  Adventure, when connected to the arts, enables creativity. A Person needs to know art basics to be good, but those who abandon convention are refreshing to all. It is the same way in music. When commercial value is a consideration, it tends to dilute the meaning. There is nothing like just playing or singing for no reason. And to use one’s creativity without worrying about other people’s opinions also has a certain freedom to it. Giving gifts to others for no reason but you felt like it also has special meaning. Giving due to needs or a special occasion is good but not the same. It seems the best things in life are free because they always exist inside of us. If the thoughts give us practical benefits, all the better.  Sent from Yahoo! Mail for Windows 8

The Future

We looked at ideal happiness as being self supporting. A god wouldn't need to show justice or appear virtuous since he would always live in perfection and truth. Those are are human traits associated with living on the earth. But since we cannot deny our humanity, we have needs associated with living on the earth. Human happiness is also tied to necessities such as needs and accomplishments using virtue. These require interaction with other people. A just person gets satisfaction from making things equal with others and a liberal person is happy giving to others.

Since we want to reach beyond ourselves, our contemplation is primary to happiness but we also have human needs that are secondary. This is called our composite nature. We have a draw toward the divine contemplative nature with reasoning that wants to know truth. But it is also necessary to have desires fulfilled and needs met to our satisfaction and in a proper manner. As all of these areas are satisfied we become happy. This requires will and action. Is one better than the other? Is it worse to do something compulsive that is mostly passion with little will involved or to always do what is right and yet wish for something else? There is no good answer but we can conclude the ideal is that our actions have our will behind them when we are dealing with the human side of happiness.

Contemplative reason is best and actions based on careful thought to engage our will are the ones that secure our happy lives. But this isn't a common practice in a normal society. The only alternative to living a virtuous life by choice is to live in misery. It is possible to delude ones self and accept a lot in life that is less than ones potential. We use laws and self discipline to help each other stay the course. Pain is the teacher that steps in when reason is absent.

This human side can be given to excess and a life focused on excess can end up miserable. The reality is that to exercise virtue a person doesn't need much. A person who gives out of what little one has is as virtuous if not more than one who gives out of an abundance. This works with honor and integrity. It is interesting to observe the outrage at dishonest politicians by dishonest people. To be honest is to be truthful and integrity works to correct wrongdoings. Everyone deals with this to different degrees depending on what habits they have formed. That is why ethics is an important study; if from youth good habits are formed it is easier to do what is right. It is never too late to improve and change habits. Some things cannot be undone but there is always a future where we can do better.

























 

Self Support for Happiness

Happiness, we have concluded isn't all about amusements. It is a pleasure all its own. There is almost a seriousness about it since it contains the area where decisions are made and contentment lies. Chasing pleasures ends when the objective is reached in most cases. Things outside of mere objects and temporary pleasures are the truths that stay with us; they are lasting on their own merit. To be satisfied, we need an ability to grasp truth and live with it. This occurs in our contemplative self.

When we point to the good, it is related to the best application of something. Morally good is according to a perceived moral code. Being right is a different matter. It is based in our ability to sort out truth. Truth is what we arrive at when our reasoning faculties are operating at their best. When someone is confused, they are alluding to their inability to see the best route to take. Anxiety is a result. Guilt is a result of having the inability to reconcile a moral matter. Confusion is what comes from losing a grasp on truth. Both are miserable states to be in.

Things in life aren't static but changes occur constantly. No decision is permanent but we should own them. There is no better feeling than coming clean by telling the truth. And being truthful with ourselves is no different. Part of being a free human being is having the ability to make choices and that is something to celebrate. These choices can seem ominous but all have good points and bad. When we talk about what is right, it pertains to the best application of numerous areas of our lives. Greater goods exist and we should choose them, but that doesn't make everything else bad.

The reason for philosophy is to sharpen our ability to see truth. There is no other objective beyond it. All other pleasures depend on certain objects; music has instruments, hearing and our desires for it. Those who constantly seek entertainment become dependent on others to keep them happy. But philosophy applies to everything and finding pleasure in truth applies to every area of our lives. Being right is the best application of the human mind and of course we should be humble enough to admit that we all need work. Gathering information, gaining understanding and sharpening our skills shouldn't be neglected. Self supporting happiness is the kind that lasts.

The Best Skill

What do you say when someone asks how you are doing? It depends on the person you are talking to. We would tell those we party with that we're having fun, those we work with that things are going smooth and those we are dependent on that we are being obedient. But to a person we are close to, we will say what comes out of our contemplative nature. It is in that area that happiness is found. That is why there is such a draw between those who have similarities in the soul arena. We say that it is nice to find someone who thinks the same way.
Some would like to say that happiness is a disposition. But that would make us static like a plant. It would mean that it is due to fate and we are helpless. Thankfully happiness belongs to the activity realm. As we said before, it isn't based in amusement although having fun contributes to happiness. Happiness is an activity of the contemplative part of our being. We mistake amusement for happiness but what amuses some people doesn't always bring happiness. A cruel ruler or an immature child might amuse themselves with things that aren't good. We have to conclude that the things a good person would do for amusement would also be the things that preserve happiness. And the things that relate to the disposition of the individual also come into play, talents and interests can have their fullest expression when turmoil from vice is avoided. This gives us the greatest pleasure which contributes to our happiness. But notice that without virtue, our accomplishments and outside pleasures control us, which leads to a miserable life, especially when the pleasure they give fades away such is the case with wealth or old age.
So when we discuss virtue, we are talking about excellence; the best application of the particular passion or talent. If we want to excel, what is common to everyone is in the ethical part of our being. It doesn't matter what our particular interests are, it is what that we think about when we lay our heads down at night that brings us the most joy. And through out the day if we think about what is good, our countenance changes. This is the area everyone should focus on to create a good environment inside themselves and when they interact with others.
To be wise is something that doesn't have to depend on outside sources. Wisdom keeps our hearts serene and removes anxiety. That is why it should be everyone's goal to acquire it. It is exercised in our inner being and should be kept in shape by our contemplation. Practical wisdom, that which has a goal, such as how to operate equipment or make a piece of art, are dependent upon the outcome. But philosophical wisdom, that which is according to truths in our inner being, isn't dependent on what happens externally. We should, with all our being, work on having peace within, resolving the conflicts of our soul so that we can be happy. Let external things be the dessert while our inner thoughts become what sustains us. This is much harder than it looks but to have this area mastered is more important than any other skill we can acquire.

Contemplation

There are two types of activities; the things we have to do and the the the things we want to do. It comes down to needs and wants. There are always things we need to do and to ignore them would be negligent. But it is much more fun doing the things we want. When we are spending too much time on a need, we say that a person is a slave to it. Slavery is synonymous with misery. A life constantly under someone else's direction isn't a life at all. As we have learned earlier, actions that involve our own will and passions are the best ones. All of this is governed by standards of virtue, the best application of our talents while showing good character.
Freedom is necessary for a person to pursue happiness. This goes for a society too. The flaw with collectivism is that the entire society is based on needs and necessities. The pursuit of dreams and successes are directed by a governing body rather than the individual. No one wants to be a slave to their nation. Governing is best limited to law and order. Victories that come out of a string of miserable failures are the sweetest. Those who step in and meddle with this, give themselves credit while taking away the sense of accomplishment for others. But this has to do with activities of  virtue and using our talents.
It is interesting that Aristotle doesn't think that vacations are a means to happiness. Things we do to get a little pleasure out of life are considered necessities. When we work hard, we need to rest; entertainment and travel are a means to get away from it all and rest. Happiness is something we want in and of itself. Things we do with another goal in mind are incomplete. The things we do to amuse ourselves, give us a break from life. This is good and necessary at times but happiness isn't a break. A break is associated with getting away from stressful activity. The part of us that wants to be happy reaches beyond activities. It has the nature of something divine. We are happiest living as though life will never end. It is based in an area of our life that is continuous; the contemplative self.

An Actual Goal or a Vague Notion

Keep in mind that we are using an ideal in these studies; how the perfect person would act. We look at what would be a perfect and good life. It is interesting how we have ideal standards within us that we all look to for advise. The same way that virtues are practiced by good people, pleasures also have proper applications to our lives. Good pleasures correspond to activities that are good for our lives.  We consider those activities that take away happiness, bad. We have concluded that virtues, friendships and pleasures all come in different varieties but at the same time they all have ideal applications that are best for our lives. The best life seems to end with the ultimate goal; Happiness.

It is hard sometimes getting an English word to describe a concept. I am not a Greek scholar but I realize that words from other languages can lose their deep meaning through interpretation. The word "Happiness" is one of those words. The English word doesn't capture the full meaning. There is a god like good quality to the word with the Greeks and a particular goodness of character toward actions on the earth too. It is a combination of goodness, joy and satisfaction. Pleasures exist to steer us toward happiness when they are used properly.

Virtue, we have concluded, is the best function of our passions and intentions. Happiness is the best application of human existence toward life. I like what Aristotle says later in this book; the only reason a god would even bother to make a human is to see them be happy. It is the best and proper function of a soul. Happiness is what we want in our children's lives and those we love. This happiness isn't based in having needs and ambitions met, although they are important. Everything ends up settling into the contemplative part of our lives; the place we pause and enjoy living for life itself; the ultimate pleasure. That's the area where peace and contentment are found. We study this subject out so we can steer ourselves and our culture to pursue happiness in a way that has an actual destination rather than a vague notion. A happiness that allows us to accomplish things and fulfill our needs while being settled in our souls.

Ambitions

We humans have ambitions that give us pleasure above mere bodily pleasures and survival instincts. This makes us different from animals. Each person has a unique way to express them. Some are good at functionality and others at artistic expression. We can all enjoy and appreciate not only the our own creations but those of others; be it construction, poetry or music. Our ambitions produce all forms of art. 

Since enjoyment is confined to our moments in time, it would follow that we would want to focus on every moment to give it the pleasure we want it to contain. Every moment ideally should be filled with a satisfaction about the past, a certain amount of contentment and anticipation for good in the future. We don't want regrets, misery or impending doom cluttering our hearts and lives. 

A person feels pain when required to do things that don't interest them; the things we enjoy bring pleasure. In the same way that virtue gives good character, pleasure associated with an art produces a good product. A musician is one who loves music, an artist, painting and an architect, design. When the activity is enjoyable to a person, he will want to excel in it. When we do things other than what we love, focus is lost and the product isn't as good. A person can only realistically focus well on one thing at a time. The distraction can range from something of less interest that is still good to something that isn't good for us at all. Sometimes providing necessities can interrupt our ability to use our talents. We all have to work to support other people's interest in order to live well enough to pursue our own. 

The pursuit of happiness involves our own desires, actions and the resulting pleasures that go with it. It should be our goal to encourage others in their pursuits even if we have no interest in their passion ourselves.When we have an interest we do better to understand that others might not have the same ones. That is how people are made free in their pursuits. If there is no pursuit, or a person lives by distractions, talent isn't actuated. Envy and blame have no place in a free society. Our sense of well-being depends on how we manage our own moments. It is the actual arena of success. An ambitious person will look for ways to balance pressing needs with doing what they love; at the same time enjoying each moment it takes trying to get there. 

Pleasure in Living

We have concluded a few things about pleasure. It seems to be what everyone is after. Pleasure isn't a good because not all pleasures are good for us. But we can’t say it is a bad either since taking pleasure in noble things is good for us. People who have understanding of an activity will enjoy them more. A musician understands music, enjoys it and will have a better handle on what good music is. A just or a kind person in the same way will enjoy justice and kindness. The end product is what puts a pleasure on the good side rather than the bad. And when we make use of our unique interests, pleasure is enhanced. The absence of pleasure isn't the reason we go after more or a different kind. A person can have all his needs met but it is normal to seek more. Pleasure isn't confined to our senses alone. A person can be sick or handicapped and still enjoy life.

Aristotle gives it certain characteristics. It is similar to sight where the image is confined to the moment. Any given moment an image is registered in our brain and the image is complete. We can experience a blissful moment but we always move on to the next moment or scene. The pleasure itself is complete and not lacking anything but time is constantly moving. So enjoyment isn't a deficiency such as a hunger where we try to add more over time. It isn't something that is created piece by piece. It is something we experience completely as each moment arises. That is where the saying “Live in the Moment” applies. We also cannot be continuously pleased because everything we do takes energy; we get tired and also lose interest. The things we are good at give us the most pleasure. We aren't talking about just feelings or actions but when our interests and goodness are involved, being pleased can be continued from one moment to the next.  Bliss or a pleasant state of being is a combination of these things. Acting on our interests and desires is completed by pleasure. It makes life worth living. Do we live for pleasure or take pleasure in living? The answer doesn't matter since pleasure and the activities of life are bound up together.

Since this is established, let’s move on and examine the different kinds of pleasure. Pleasure intensifies the activities we have interest in. Everyone has varying interests and we will get into these next. 

Critical Pleasures

The study of pleasure is a critical part of understanding the actions people take. Aristotle takes the view that people always do the things that please themselves. It is the source of these desires and the resultant actions that have been debated through the centuries. Psychology and Philosophy both try to explain this.  The study of pleasure is a vast one that can go in quite a few directions. We can’t do an exhaustive study without taking a little time to organize the different faces of pleasure.

Character is judged by what we take pleasure in. We have seen how self-discipline is having the ability to delay a present pleasure for a while in order to get a more pleasing result. It is almost easier to study pleasure from the standpoint of what causes pain. Pain can be caused when we have too much of something, too little or the absence of it. Displeasure and grief indicates that a pleasure is missing somewhere. It might be manufactured where a person can be never satisfied when their expectations are unrealistic. It could be that a little patience is needed.  It might require a little adjustment in both areas. There are always expectations to look at along with the realities.  Expectations have to do with our desires and what it takes to satisfy them properly. The realities have to do with the costs and amount of work involved.

If we could find a way to please everyone, the world would be a perfect place to live. Why do people chase the things they do? What kind of pleasure is there in terrorizing others? Why are so many people on anti-anxiety drugs? What does it take to bring bliss? Religions, governments and social studies try to answer these questions. But the source of Bliss is pleasure; based in our heart’s desires, our soul’s satisfaction and our body’s appetites being appeased.  A deficiency in any of these areas can bring misery.  The thing about bliss is that it isn't a state of mind but something that has to be constantly tended and maintained.

This seems to be more of a reintroduction since I want to get this subject right. Pleasure is critical to understanding ethics. We want to do what is right and yet accomplish our dreams. Nations, businesses and families all want this and yet everyone has different interests. We don't want to live the life someone else thinks we should live but we get more pleasure with the things we initiate in our own lives. In a situation where everything is given to us by someone in exchange for loyalty, it is difficult to be happy. There is a God-likeness in all of us that wants to be free to do as we will. The conflict between the pleasure of comfort and the pleasure of freedom makes it hard to form governments and to govern ourselves. There is so much that this subject covers that it is hard to stick with the subject at hand and continue on with the flow. Let’s continue anyways and give it a shot.

Pursuits

Words mean concepts and so it is good to explain their meaning at times because the common meanings change over time. When we are talking about pleasure in this context, a better word would be "joy". It is the combination of pleasures in the area of the rational, irrational and physical parts of our being. Pain in this context would be better described as misery.
It would be nice to put all our motives under these terms and say that we should simply avoid misery and do things that bring joy, but that is over-simplistic. Even when we should be happy with what we have, there seems to be another element to satisfaction that is missing. Aristotle addresses this. The problem is that in the three areas mentioned, we always get familiar and have a need for stimulation of some kind. We get tired of the same foods, scenery and things that have to do with our senses. We get tired of the struggle to be a good person not to mention our passions always want more. We want to experience more close relationships.We want a challenge. If everything becomes old, (and everything does eventually) futility hangs over us and we get depressed and anxious. This can make our life miserable even when from the outside everything looks great. The more creative a person is and the more passionate, the more work it takes to deal with this. We tend to do things compulsively to break out but it ends up an exchange for pleasures in other areas. Things that violate our conscience and those we love will make us miserable.
I think the book Ecclesiastes in the Bible addresses this well. The book is depressing in some ways but it is the musings of Solomon, a highly intelligent man who had everything a person could ever ask for. He concludes that having all the wealth, travel, women, intelligence and power in the world is nothing but vanity, a chasing after the wind. His says that in the end, we should enjoy ourselves as much as possible while we still have our senses. The saying. "Eat, drink and be merry", comes from this book. But he also says to keep in mind that we will answer to God. This addresses the rational and principled part of our soul we mentioned. Another suggestion he makes is to "enjoy the wife of your youth". Meaningful relationships are an anchor when everything else is blowing away. His final conclusion is to be "occupied with gladness", we shouldn't live a life of regret but keep our thoughts focused on what is good.
If it was possible to have a community of people who are genuinely happy, there would be no need for laws. We are talking about Ideals when we talk about ethics. We all have unique talents and passions. It would be wonderful if they could all be actuated safely without hurting others. That can be a tall challenge but happiness is worth the effort. There is no sense to back away from challenges; we need them. But it adds work to consider others while pursuing our passions. The founders of our country considered the pursuit of passions the biggest danger to governing since our laws need to be applicable to everyone; even if they don't share the same passions. That is the challenge of everyday life. Not everyone values our pursuits as we do.
So joy is the result of our passions, rational principles, and physical pleasure having a degree of satisfaction. It isn't something we ever arrive at permanently. By appreciating what we have and keeping the drive for new experiences, joy is experienced in lives.

What a Pain!

It would make sense that we address pain since we looked at pleasure. We are oriented to avoid it at all costs. Pain isn't evil as some would have it. Pain has benefits and is a product in the same way that pleasure is. Bodily pain can remind us we are overdoing it  or have a problem. The pain isn't the problem itself but a result. Sensual pain does have benefits too. A song that is out of key or a instrument that is out of tune can be painful to a skilled musician. But that is a good thing since adjustments make the music sound better. It seems that when pain comes, it is can be an indicator for improvement.
We avoid some of the things we desire because of the pain involved. When we look at matters of the soul, the same principles that apply to the body apply there. We don't have to avoid reality to see something isn't feasible because all the pain involved in getting it. In situations where there is a strong desire but a need to do what is right, there is no need to hide or deny the desire. It is a matter of choice. It is reasonable to move toward what would cause the least pain and preserve the most pleasure. In relationships, all the people involved are included in this. Adjustments can be made for a manageable amount of what one desires or it can be avoided altogether. But whatever decisions are made we have to be prepared to endure the pain on one side because of the loss, while enjoying the pleasures that we chose to move toward. This is only complicated by our aversion to pain.

If it Feels Good

We hear the saying, " If it feels good, do it". Where do we find pleasure in this? Is pleasure just a feeling that comes from our emotions? Is true pleasure only found in doing what is good? Maybe it is the "it" that is the pleasure. Nailing down what pleasure really is can be complex and prone to opinions. Since it is what everyone pursues and wants to acquire, it is a good subject to study for a while.

We equate happiness with having a certain amount of pleasure. When we educate children, our goal is to get them to take pleasure in doing what is good. We use examples of pain and pleasure to teach good character. It makes sense that we would define this further.

When we talk about pleasure, it is more than a feeling. They come and go. It is a product of feelings and other things. We can say that happiness is a culmination of pleasures. It comes from both the rational and irrational part of our soul. We get pleasure out of getting what we desire and also out of doing what is right. There is action involved too. Pleasure isn't an action itself but can be a product of them.

When we use the word "sensual" in our culture, it is applied to sex. But sensual in a strict sense is merely using our senses. So when a desire or creativity comes from our soul and we take action, it becomes a part of our senses rather than something in our mind. We see a painting and it gives us pleasure through sight. If we create it, the pleasure can be more because it came from our own mind. To hear someone is better than just thinking about them. But the kind of pleasure that is a well-being pleasure is more than something our senses pick up alone. Someone who doesn't like music doesn't enjoy it when it is picked up by their hearing as well as someone who likes it. What our senses pick up is the realm that is commonly called reality; an area that doesn't always include our soul.

Pleasure is derived from a combination of things that converge together. A person can enjoy some things in life but still be miserable inside. Pleasure includes fulfillment of our desires, doing what is right and accomplishments that involve our senses. Absent any of these, we feel something's missing even while the others seem good. To find ways to appeal to each area while we live out our lives can be challenging but the goal is to make it a pleasurable experience.

This is a quick overview of the subject. I am not sure if I am going to go to the next one or be a little more specific. Until next time!

Love and Pleasure

For those who love each other, the existence of the other brings great pleasure. That is why they like to be together; to experience the same things in a partnership. Whatever one enjoys, the other wants to share in it since one person is an extension of the other. Good friends will also have this to a degree and will want to experience things together such as humor, music, art or sports. They enjoy the other person just being there and enjoying the experience. Whatever they enjoy as an activity will  have a product. Good music, philosophy or hunting will be supported by the participants. When wicked people get together, it produces bad things since they are unstable. They may even get in worse trouble. When good people get together, they encourage each other to do better. And that is what good friendships do; they improve each other.

The next subject is pleasure. We are raised with the understanding that there are things we should and should not enjoy. One school of thought is that if it feels good, do it and the other is that we should deny ourselves and our feelings. Which is correct? We see all the time that those who teach denial end up being hypocrites and go after pleasure anyways; even if it is hidden. Those who do what they feel all the time end up on meds or in some sort of vice. Theories abound but the facts always clash with them. This looks like an interesting subject so lets see how it pans out..

The Best of Times and The Worst of Times

We have established that a person with good character has an easier time keeping good friends. No matter how good a person's life is, they always need people to care for and to have others care for them. Although it is a good thing to have friends, time and proximity limit us to having only a few close friends even if we were all perfect people. We should strive to make the best of our friendships regardless of the limiting factors.

It is hard to have many close personal relationships since conflicts occur when one or the other has a need. If one person is mourning and the other having fun, how should we act? So it often gets down to there being a certain person that we give our ultimate love to. We see soldiers and politicians who have a right hand man and see those who are "Partners in Crime" or "Evil Twins". History is full of them. People tend to pair up due to the limitations of proximity and time. We can  have few close friends due to the same limitations. A person who claims to have numerous close relationships would be expected to also have shallow ones because they would have to spread themselves too thin to realistically be close to that many people. The extreme of this would be a people-pleaser who becomes a slave to feeling well liked.

We do need friends in bad times and good. In bad times a friend can be a help and we seek those who are useful. A friend can be pleasant during these times and can also share our burdens. It is nice to have someone who empathizes with us. In good times it is nice to have a good person to enjoy them with and to give help to. It is better to be a person who avoids burdening others with our problems and also better not to take advantage of someones good fortune. So the ideal friends will be there to rely on for support but a good person will avoid using it unless becomes necessary.

A good friend will insist on helping someone they are close to when they grieve even when they aren't asked.. It is also pleasant to enjoy what one has with someone who not only appreciates it but is enjoyable to be around. So there is also a balance to enjoying another person's good fortune too. A person should be ready to share his good fortune with his friends while avoiding troubling them with his problems. A good friend will be ready to help others without being asked yet hesitate to ask for help. Unsolicited help is always the best kind. If it is asked for, someone loses the satisfaction of offering. In the same way, with good fortune, it is best to have someone offer to share since they enjoy sharing rather than because they were asked (or demanded) to help out.  We can conclude in all of this that it is good to have friends in all circumstances.

We will conclude friendship and head on into a study of pleasure in the next post. The discussion of pleasure is the start of book ten and the end of the entire study of Ethics.

Physical vs Spiritual

The Greeks had a predominate philosophy that the physical world was corrupt and the spiritual is pure. We see this in Aristotle's writings and he tries to show why that is so but he stops short of calling materialism and pleasure wicked but only says there is a proper application to each. Concerning friendships, having ones that are for usefulness and ones that are for pleasure aren't bad but the ones based in intellect last the longest and bring the most satisfaction.
All mankind throughout the centuries has based philosophy and religion on observations concerning physical and spiritual. We see the physical world and our pleasures are temporary and prone to decay. But where does the life that animates things come from and where does it go? Life works contrary to physical laws and so it must have a power all its own, must be pure and must be eternal. Our own intellect and reasoning abilities are superior to the rest of the world. It seems inconceivable that it would die out in the same way that a plant does. Every philosophy and religion tries to explain this. Some have special places such as heaven that everyone goes to. Some use these destinations as incentives to do good for others. They have hell for those who are bad and different levels for those who are heroic and good. And there are the spiritualists that simply think everything is a continuum and life just goes from one death and activates another life somewhere. But they all try to address the mystery of how physical life is temporary and a spirit is an individual creation that cannot die the same way. The basic Christian view is that not only is the spirit redeemed but all physical objects will be put right in the future.
Concerning our actions though, the desires that we use all our senses for are the most pleasurable. It is better to go to a place than to simply read about it. It is better to see someone than to simply text them. But our intellect gives us an avenue for experiences that we couldn't otherwise have; television and listening to the radio along with books too. It is the actions that use senses other than our mind that determine our character to ourselves and others. Actions bear ramifications and a wise person carefully considers them. Recklessness may have the appearance of courage; but a person who considers options and is willing to plow through to accomplish best ones has true courage. Relationships that are both physical in proximity and intellectual in commonality are the most rewarding. And this is the conclusion that Aristotle comes to also. He doesn't seem to stand by the philosophy that the spiritual is pure while physical is bad.

Closeness

We have found that the friends that last the longest and the the ones we need even when all our needs have been met are the ones that we want to celebrate life with. Everyone has friends that bring pleasure and those that are useful. These aren't inferior relationships, they simply have a different function. Conflicts arise when people make false assumptions or misrepresentations. It is always best to make expectations clear and to be honest with our friends. If you need someone's help, a person shouldn't try to hide behind closeness to manipulate things. In a utility relationship where help is needed, there is an expectation of a fair exchange. But those who are celebrating life together will help each other out without expecting anything back. The relationship is enough but they will still try to be just.
We can have an unlimited amount of friends that are useful. This goes all the way up to national relationships. Those who entertain us and give us pleasure are also a dime a dozen. But to have someone that celebrates our life with us is a rarity. This person is someone that values your existence, wishes you well, and wants badly to interact with you. A person can have very few relationships like this and normally choose to experience the ultimate love with one person. This supersedes physical objectives and activities.
In every relationship, there can be a mixture of each kind, but the dominating factor should be the most important consideration and should be made clear.

Who Needs Friends?

We have been working our way through Aristotle's notes on ethics. Let's finish the subject of self-love and then answer the question of why we need friends in the first place. We have concluded that the kind of selfishness that is criticized is that which has to do with passions and appetites; the things everyone craves and compete for. A person with healthy self-love goes after what is noble by doing what he ought; the things that are best for everyone especially himself. The ultimate love is when a person endangers his life to protect others. This person loves himself but doesn't choose a life of doing small mundane noble acts. His wants a life that goes beyond simple acts of doing what he ought. It doesn't mean that a person dislikes himself if he puts himself in harms way for a noble purpose. It is because he values both his life and the life of his friends and is willing to take the risk of losing his own life in the process of defending them. This is the ultimate act of love and nobility.

Since the ultimate good person has everything he needs and has self love, it begs the question, "Why would he need friends?"  It is easy to observe that friends fulfill needs for each other but absent needs, why have them? There seems to be a contradiction. We don't want to say that we have friends only to fill a void in our lives. Having friends helps when we are lacking but the goal is to prosper and so if someone reaches this goal, who needs friends? The greatest of our external goods are our friends and a view that they exist only to be helped or for us to help them leans toward a utility type relationship. These are necessary and good for us to accomplish things and are based on usefulness. If we are lacking nothing yet still want friends then they must serve another purpose. A person who is a hermit isn't considered someone who has reached ultimate happiness. It gets back to the principle that those who love life, want to celebrate it with others. In particular, we seek out someone who has the same values that we can celebrate it together with.

A content person in this way doesn't need pleasures or usefulness in a friend. He desires someone who loves life in the same way that he does. They enjoy living together first while adventures and needs are bonuses. The activity of living together and seeing the world together at whatever level they can is enough. Perception and thinking together are the most important part of being a human. Humans don't herd together like animals just to fulfill their appetites.

Since life is desirable, experiencing life with someone else who perceives it the same is even more desirable. So those who love each other will get a thrill out of sharing and discussing the world around them. A person who is happy and confident will have a need to share it with someone else on the same level. The sharing itself is the reward.

It is Good to Be Alive

We are looking at selfishness and are trying to sort out the bad from the good. There is a part of our soul that has to do with passions and appetites; they rise up in the irrational part of our soul and aren't voluntary. If a person chooses to act directly from these without considering consequences, his actions are more like an unreasoning animal. The object of the passion becomes more of an obsession when ramifications are ignored. This is the kind of selfishness that we try to avoid. We dislike seeing it in others and in ourselves. These actions bring guilt to us. The things concerning pleasures and passions are the things that people compete over, causing anxiety. It might be called being materialistic, self indulgent or just plain selfish.

The good kind of selfishness considers quality of life in the rational area of their mind first. Someone who loves himself will hold his desires up to a light of  innate good principles that everyone possesses. These standards look at what is best for a person's life and point to what's noble. Noble actions are the ones that keep ones soul at peace. This is the characteristics of true love; to love someone's life, celebrate it and to do what is best for it. A person cannot overindulge in this kind of love.

This love will sacrifice present pleasure for a greater good. When we violate principles of virtue, it produces guilt in us. There are two kinds of guilt also. The damaging kind looks at past indulgences thinking they are impossible to forgive. This person can be hard on themselves and constantly loath decisions of the past. The healthy kind looks at poor decisions of the past and sees them as lessons learned. It is alright to judge ourselves and others. We can examine them in an unforgiving way or with a desire for their well-being. Good judgment is optimistic toward future decisions and potential. This includes a commitment to love ourselves and others in a good way.

 It takes far more strength to follow the right principles than to react on appetites and passions. Solomon said that a man who is temperate is stronger than one who can conquer ten cities. Those of us who have strong passions require more courage to be temperate. It is easier to act on passions than resist them. There are heroes around us we may not even recognize.

Imposition

The main reason for ethics is to help people to get along. We accomplish the most when in unity. Ethical behavior also brings peace; both inner and with those around us. We all want the ability to accomplish what we have passion for while staying at peace with each other; this is called "the common weal". The more a people are ethical, the less they need laws. In the rational part of all of us we already recognize the existence of a "governing authority"as Aristotle put it.

Rather than imposing rules on what we shouldn't do, ethics shows us what we should chase. It is a study of observations rather than spirituality. The spiritualist approaches are diverse and are numerous but this approach looks simply at passions and actions; things we all can see as obvious no matter what our beliefs are. Individuals reach their highest potential when we are ruled by the governing authority. It contains justice, kindness; all the things that point us to what is noble and right. For us to need a third party, be it government or religious, to keep us on the right path is second best since neither knows the particulars of each persons life. Rules are based in generalities but we are beings with particulars and are better equipped to recognize what is best for our own selves. Lets move on and study the concept of self love a bit more.

We touched on self love earlier but it is important enough to deserve further study. We looked earlier at being a benefactor or a giver and that the more it costs someone of his own stuff, the more a person loves what he is giving to. This sort of giving isn't always reciprocated but to show love gives us satisfaction. One school of thought is that to love oneself is something to be ashamed of. The only way to be satisfied is to sacrifice oneself for others and live a life that way. They say that wickedness is based in selfishness and that to be good we need only sacrifice our own interests to help our friends. But this has contradictions.

Our friends are an extension of ourselves and so it would follow that we would have to be good at taking care of ourselves in order to have inner resources and the capability to love someone else. Anything else would make us dependent on them for our own well being with little to give. A person really needs to be his own best friend in order to be friendly. But this is in contrast to what we mentioned above and so we are in need of particulars to sort this all out. That will be in the next post..

Expression

It is a good feeling to be a benefactor; to be the giver in a relationship has its certain kind of joy. Recipients are more passive. It is much easier to receive love or help and takes little work. But to give takes value out of one's life and the satisfaction level is higher. There isn't the dependency either and so an element of freedom exists for a benefactor, since choice is involved. You can't make a person give and so dependency has uncertainties. Being on the giving side also has a higher element of love.

Bitter people try to characterize others as being greedy since they want the satisfaction and honor of being the benefactor. But in actuality, if a person isn't a giver with the little they have, they won't be that way with more. To be in the habit of grasping shows bad character no matter what amount of resources one has. It takes motivation and activity to accomplish the things that bring satisfaction. Passivity runs contrary to our nature of creativity.

We can dream about the future and reminisce about the past, but the activities in the present are where our passions are expressed. A poet will write to bring thoughts where they can be enjoyed and he will dote on them like children. We all have things that we enjoy and it takes activity to bring them out. An artist creates and loves what he creates but the created thing can't appreciate them back. This occurs with a beneficiary and a benefactor. Giving isn't always appreciated but the action of love is self satisfying.

Giving that is done to gain some sort of advantage isn't as noble. Supplies always get used up and they don't make memories. We have a stronger desire for useful things but soon forget them. Noble acts committed  for expression instead of usefulness are the things that give us lasting pleasure. A musician can enjoy his music and play for the joy of it but trying to make money with it can turn it into drudgery.

Good things don't come easy. We feel obligated to take care of necessities; pressing needs can take up all of our time. But they don't bring as high amount of satisfaction as when we do the things we do as an expression of ourselves. Someone who gives to get advantage (even if it is to please God) doesn't enjoy life as much as a person who gives simply because he enjoys helping others..

Unanimity

We looked at goodwill; the start of friendship. It is similar to delight; the start of love. It is possible to have goodwill but not actually know a person and it is possible to delight in someone you don't know. But it isn't possible to be a friend without goodwill or be in love without delight. The terms goodwill and friendship get used interchangeably at times but you really have to interact to be an actual friend. A person might have goodwill toward an athlete and know everything about them but until they interact favorably toward each other, they aren't really friends in the strict sense. We use the word love interchangeably with delight but actually have to know a person, miss them and hate being apart to be in love. Goodwill is based in some kind of excellence or worth while delight is in a person's form or being.

The next concept is unanimity. We use the word unity today. Everyone has different tastes and passions so there will never be unity in everything. But they do have necessary things and when we cooperate, it can improve all of our lives. Passions get in the way of this since everyone has opinions of what is necessary, so finding common ground can be an arduous task. Good leadership will do this and help all parties walk away with some amount of satisfaction. It doesn't matter if it is a parent group or a government, getting along forms a good atmosphere that gets things done so all benefit.  An important part of this is that no one is overlooked but each person's interests are important and are respectfully a part of every decision. Identifying and coming to agreement is easy for good people since they seek what is just and good for everyone.

We always address where things go wrong and the deviation from unity is faction. What happens when bad people are involved in decisions is that factions are formed. They look out only for their own interests and disregard everyone else. Their opinion is the only one that matters.When in public office, they criticize everyone else while reaping more benefits than they deserve. Those with bad character have a hard time being friends with people so it follows that they don't govern well either. They delight in putting compulsion on others and justice for them is getting back at people..Having factious people involved in making decisions destroys unity for everyone.