In Chapter 2, books 4-6 of the Physics, Aristotle extensively explores fortune and chance as
causes. In at least one manner, fortune is an incidental cause stemming from a
made choice. Chance, however, is broader and can occur without choice (197b).
In the Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses chance as it relates to human
happiness. He consents to some
things being caused by chance, but insists that the happy person will bear the
misfortune calmly (Nichomachean Ethics- 1100b 30). However, how does the person
attempting to achieve happiness, not yet there, bear chance? Presumably, there
are a number of demonstrable things that help a human achieve happiness. Some
of these could are of fortune; for instance, you chose to attend a college and
happened upon a good education. However, think of the incidents related to
chance that affect happiness. When you were a child, as Aristotle states, you
could not choose (197b 9). Aristotle stresses that it is necessary to instill
virtues (a component of happiness) into the youth, sometimes against their will
(NE). But what if you are not immediately instilled with the virtues? Is in not
by chance then (for you have no choice according to Aristotle) that you have
been handicapped towards happiness?
I will reply with a more substantial post soon but first: what does NE mean?
ReplyDeleteMackenzie: NE stands for Nicomachean Ethics, I think.
ReplyDeleteMatt: I believe the answer is yes, it is by chance that such a person has been handicapped toward happiness. Here is the rough sketch in my mind: As Aristotle writes about in Book II, chapter 8 (199a23), even beings that have their own "efficient cause" (that which begins the change) inside of themselves, i.e. natural things as opposed to those which are brought about through art--even these sorts of beings seem to act not from some sort of intelligence but because of nature. They are self-moved; they are their own cause, in a way. But ultimately the final cause of nature is their final cause. And as Sachs points out in the commentary on Book III 1-3 (p.79), "art itself is a potency of human beings, by nature, so that the production of works of art is a natural motion." Although we feel completely autonomous as individuals (and it stands to be seen what sort of a "soul" we have), it is as though all things partake in the final cause with nature, as we are all natural entities. Thus, when the "intersection of the motions" of nature, or chance (p.79), causes something incidental to happen, it is ultimately out of the control of any one of nature's parts.
Strangely, Aristotle even writes that as "missing the mark" occurs in things done according to art, "so it is clear that this is possible also among things done by nature" (199b).
It's a sad story, but it's the one I hear Aristotle telling.
A couple responses:
ReplyDeleteIs the child that is not immediately instilled with virtues unhappy? It seems he would just be neutral, since Aristotle in the Nic Ethics states that "the young are apt to follow their impulses" and "their end is not knowing but action" (1095a5-ish). So if the instilling of virtues does not happen immediately, it is okay, because children are to be educated over time (1095a).
In regards to... how does a person attempting to achieve happiness, not yet there, bear chance?
-I think he does it exactly the way Aristotle says in the Nic Ethics that you quoted (1100b30) because in that passage I do not think Aristotle is saying that he who bears misfortune calmly is happy, but rather beautiful things can come out of bearing misfortune calmly.
Am I understanding your questions correctly though?
-Mackenzie
I think it was indeed by chance that the child was not taught virtues from an early age. It did not make a decision that led to a fortunate/unfortunate consequence. It was born into a family that didn't value teaching their children the virtues. I don't think, though, that child is necessarily unhappy, as Mackenzie said. Aristotle tends to lump small children in with animals (working on instinct, seeking immediate gratification), making them more neutral, maybe even content. The child will, however, grow up to be an adult who may have trouble achieving true happiness/fulfillment until he eventually learns the virtues on his own (or doesn't).
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Mackenzie's comment, I think that Aristotle would say that knowing does not happen immediately, but out of habituation the youth come to be virtuous. Only later do they come to know why the virtues are valuable.
ReplyDeleteI also think Aristotle's definition of happiness may differ compared to ours. The modern day definition tends to hold that happiness is a feeling, whereas Aristotle would say that happiness is a way of being (?). He does say that chance plays a role, I just find it disturbing to think that, in this case, it may play the only role.
I agree with Matt's point that we have to make a distinction between our definition of happiness and the Greek idea of eudaemonia, fulfillment or welfare. Even though it conflicts with our modern worldview that we are in control of almost every aspect of our lives (especially our “happiness”), Aristotle seems to argue in the Nic Ethics that a large part of our happiness depends on chance.
ReplyDeleteIn Book I chapter 9 (1100a 8) he says, "...the most prosperous person may fall into a terrible disaster in old age, as the Trojan stories tell us about Priam. If someone has suffered these sorts of misfortunes and comes to a miserable end, no one counts him happy."
As far as children learning the virtues are concerned, they have a lifetime to strive for and potentially achieve eudaemonia, but the threat of chance swooping in and essentially making happiness, as Aristotle uses it, impossible is ever-present.
This is in stark contrast to our views today, especially in the United States where we are taught to overcome, achieve, and never be discouraged because we always have the potential for advancement. I think considering the time, when societal roles were much more rigid, it was easy to say that some people will achieve eudaemonia, and others simply won’t.
I think the idea of being handicapped towards happiness is a very interesting idea to bring up and definitely one worth discussing. I want to side with the other Mackenzie and say that even if a child isn't immediately instilled with virtues it doesn't necessarily mean he's handicapped towards happiness since virtues can be instilled over time. I also think it's fascinating to consider the contrast between our definition of happiness and the Greek idea of eudaemonia and how they play a role in this discussion.
ReplyDelete