A Functional Understanding

Cyril C House

Ancient Metaphysics

A Functional Understanding

    Aristotle, throughout his successive series’, builds up to what has come to be labelled ‘The Function Argument’. He begins leading up to this argument  as early as Physics and makes his ultimate statement(s) regarding his thesis in Nicomachean Ethics. The intention of this short paper is to identify and assess this Function Argument. I will begin by pointing to a few highlights throughout Aristotle’s reel of argumentation, and thereafter dip into one of the common criticisms of this argument. By the end of the paper I trust to find that Aristotle’s Function Argument will remain standing tall.

    In Physics Aristotle identifies four foundational causes of things: material, formal, efficient, and final. For the sake of brevity I will assume the reader is already familiar with these causes. Of these four causes, it is primarily the final cause with which we are concerned herein. Aristotle says, of the final cause, that:

[It is] in the sense of end or ‘that for the sake of which’ a thing is done, e.g. health is the cause of walking about. (‘Why is he walking about?’ we say. ‘To be healthy’, and, having said that, we think we have assigned the cause.) The same is true also of the intermediary steps which are brought about through the action of something else as means towards the end (194b)

So it can be understood that the purpose of some-thing is its final cause, and this ‘purpose’ may be otherwise referred to as its ‘function’. The function of a tree is the resultant phenomena of all the tree-activities working in harmony, and this function is understood as ‘to tree’, the function of the tree is to do tree stuff and when the causes of the tree are in harmony with one another it is only then that the tree is ultimately tree-like. Of artifacts there is typically a function which the artisan has in mind as she creates the artifact itself, so therefore the function of a guillotine is to cut the heads off of people. The guillotine is then ultimately guillotine-like only as it is cutting the heads off of people. This argument is the beginning of how Aristotle leads up to the Function Argument itself. It can be understood from the previous reasoning that a human is only ultimately human-like as far as it is able to fulfill its function, whatever that function may be.

    Moving on throughout the writings of Aristotle, we come across De Anima. In 413a through 414b he distinguishes between differing tiers of a nested hierarchy of being. The inner most nest is nutritive and is characteristic of plants (they are able to feed themselves). The middle most nest is sensitive and is characteristic of base animals (they are able to feel things), there is also reference to locomotive capabilities in this tier. The outer most nest is rational thought and is characteristic of humans. So the inner most nest is only capable of feeding itself, while the middle most is capable both of feeding itself as well as sensing its surroundings and moving about, and the outer most nest is capable of all faculties, feeding itself, sensing its surroundings, moving about, and thinking rationally. This is how Aristotle distinguishes the unique capability of humans as apart from other forms of life. It is this uniqueness which he presumes must be the unique function of the human animal, and therefore its function. For to simply feed oneself cannot be considered to be an activity which would make one ultimately human-like, for plants and animals also do this thing. The same considerations apply to sensation and locomotion, these are not ultimately human-like for base animals are also capable of these things. So we see that De Anima, in part at least, serves to flesh out the function(s) of different living things; this is the foundation of the thesis which Aristotle will render within the framework (from Physics) of final causation in humans.

    Finally, coming to Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle puts forth the Function Argument itself. In this book he is exploring the chief good of being human. He comes to rest upon the point that the chief good of any human is to be eudaimon, roughly translated as happiness. However, it is not just any sort of happiness, and certainly not the common conception of happiness. For happiness is often constructed in such a way as that “even the same person identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor” (1095a). Aristotle seeks a happiness which is ”always desirable for itself and never for the sake of something else” (1097a), and in the pursuit of such a thing he unveils eudaimonia which is more like a virtuous happiness, or else the type of well-being associated with living a virtuous life. What type of life is a virtuous life? He goes on to explain that “the function of man is to live a certain kind of life, and this activity implies a rational principle, and the function of a good man is the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed it is performed in accord with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, then happiness turns out to be an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue” (1098a). He concludes that happiness, as is understood to be the rational exercise of virtue, is the ultimate function of the human animal..

   

    So what is so problematic about this view? Turning now to a criticism of the thesis, Micha Gertner tells us that “[i]t is difficult to see how this reasoning follows. Just because a thing has distinctive properties in relation to other like things does not mean that these distinctive properties are its function. Consider a tall tree in a forest of shorter trees. Is tallness the purpose or function of this tree?”. There are two things which I find flawed about this particular claim. The first is that tallness is not a distinct property, plain and simple. All things have a certain height and therefore it is flawed to assume that just because some particular tree is tall-er than other things around it that this tree’s particular tallness somehow makes the property unique to it. Secondly, if we are to assume, for a moment, that this tree’s tallness is in fact unique to it then it could follow that tallness is indeed the function of a tree. For when we consider trees we will recall, from the first paragraph of this paper, that the end goal of a tree is to do tree stuff like photosynthesis and reproduction. So if we consider a tree which performs the act of tallness poorly we can project that this tree, being buried beneath taller trees than itself, will hardly catch any sunlight, therefore being unable to photosynthesize, therefore being unable to feed itself, therefore being unable to reproduce. Is this tree truly a tree? Is it able to realize its ultimate potential? No clearly not. So to go back to Gertner’s example: the tree which performs the act of tallness well will tower above the rest and thus be able to catch the lion’s share of sunlight, therefore photosynthesizing extremely well, therefore reproducing at a greater rate than those smaller trees around it. So to perform the act of tallness well enables a tree to be the best tree it can be and such tallness actually brings about its ultimate state of tree-ness. Following this line of reasoning it is plain to see how ‘tallness’ could be considered to be the function of a tree. This is identical to the idea Aristotle actually proposes: that, for humans, to perform the act of rationally exercising virtue well enables the human to be the best human it can be, eudaimon in other words. The function seems to be the act by which the chief good is realized, and therefore any property of a thing which enables it to realize its chief good is perfectly applicable as that thing’s function.

    Throughout this short paper I have done my best, in the space available, to assert, identify, and layout the buildup towards and execution of Aristotle’s Function Argument. We first visited the Physics in which Aristotle lays out the blueprint for all things by means of the four causes, and he seems to leave the final cause of the human animal open for interpretation or guesstimation. After which we sojourned in De Anima, wherein Aristotle lays out the blueprint of the souls of all living things. We discussed the nested hierarchy of plants to animals to humans and reiterated their unique properties. For plants this property was nutrition, for animals these properties were sensation and locomotion, and for humans this property was rational thought. Leading onwards into Nicomachean Ethics we were briefed on what the two previous paragraphs had to do with one another, that was that the unique property of humans from De Anima was being fed into the partially empty blueprint from the Physics, the final cause being solved for. We saw how comfortably the two fit together and briefly examined why this seemed to be the case. Finally we departed from the exposition of the topic to consider a critical reply against the thesis. A critique which I hope to have succeeded in either shutting down, or at least weakening the resolve of. Aristotle remains a canon of philosophical thought and discourse today and this is not for no reason, and I believe that other criticisms of the Function Argument could also be readily resolved by adamant Aristotelian advocates.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Richard McKeon. The Basics Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 2001. Print.

Gertner, Micha. “Aristotle’s Dysfunctional “Function Argument””. The Distributed Republic. 19/11/2004. Web. 05/04/2017.

Killing In The Name Of..

Cyril C House

International Relations

Killing In The Name Of..

    In March of 2011, in Syria, pro-democracy protests erupted which contested the autocratic regime being led by Bashar al-Assad. Assad responded to the protesters with lethal force, and in doing so sparked the brewing powder keg of revolution. The war that followed has been catastrophic. More than 250,000 Syrians have been killed in the conflict, more than 11,000,000 have been forced from their homes. In a three-sided civil war between the country’s government, pro-democracy rebels, and Islamic State jihadists, there seems to be no end to the savagery and atrocities being committed. The power struggle has lost any strong tether to one side or another and is now up for grabs, and it seems that the world powers have begun to take notice.

Today there are multiple layers to the Syrian Conflict, there  are now rebels fighting the government, rebels fighting the jihadists, and jihadists beheading anyone they come across. Additionally, the Syrian governmental regime has several ‘big sock supporters’, Russia among these, while the rebels have their own ‘big sock backing’, the United States among these. Is this a coincidence, the fact that old time Cold War rivals find themselves on rivaling sides of a conflict which has little to do with either of them? I assure you it is no coincidence. This is a proxy war between the two great powers and if there is a state which has little to do with this conflict that state is, ironically, Syria. This is a power struggle which goes far beyond the borders of Syria to encompass the entire international power structure of the modern world. There is a battle against corruption playing out, and corruption’s name is ‘America’. I will argue that the primary reason for Russian support of the Assad regime is to push back against, what has become, the American bid for global domination in a world that no longer views  ‘the conqueror’ as legitimate. The neorealist lens is the tool which will best aid your understanding of my argument as I delve into the murky waters of American power strategies over the last several decades. This should provide ample backing to support my secondary claim, that America is vying for global domination while attempting to maintain its facade as one of the world’s ‘good guys’. I will then conclude by addressing my primary claim, that Russia is proxy warring in Syria as a means of pushing back against the American hegemon. Guerisoli suggests that the Syrian Civil War is not really a proxy war due to the major military powers’ direct actions in the conflict, rather than just simply supporting one or another side. However, in this paper I will be referring to it as a proxy war due to the context of my thesis which suggests that the major powers are fighting in Syria as an indirect means of combatting each other, and as such I find the war to remain worthy of the proxy qualification.

Framework

    Allow me to touch on the conceptual framework, of neorealism, within which I will be working herein. Neorealism evolved out of classical realism, both realist blocks are still in popular use to this day and each of these two blocks also has myriad sub-blocks of itself. Realism, as an overarching term meant to encompass all the blocks and sub-blocks, is a style of thinking that bases itself primarily on the concept of power; power as is divided into three key distinctions: 1) Statism, 2) Survival, 3) Self-Help (Dunne). Statism meaning that states themselves are the only actors of relevance and states are defined by sovereignty. Survival meaning that the continuation of the state as a sovereign power is the fundamental end towards which all means are aimed. Self-Help meaning that states must rely on themselves to provide their own security. Security, from a realist perspective, is primarily defined in terms of military capacity. Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz are popularly seen as the most influential proponents of classical realism and neorealism, respectively. “Morgenthau and Waltz both see the international arena as a competitive and hostile stage where power is the main currency. That is why the concept of power is at the heart of their analysis of international politics” (Pashakhanlou). Pashakhanlou also identifies several key differentiations between classical realism and neorealism. Two, of which I find pertinent to my use of the term, are: 1) Classical realists believe that the root of the realist power struggle can be traced back to the imperfect nature of human beings, while neorealists believe it traces back to the anarchical structure of the international system. 2) Classical realism differentiates between status-quo powers and revisionist powers, what is to say those states who wield their power primarily to maintain themselves and those states who wield their power in an effort to alter, or revise, the structure of the system itself; meanwhile neorealists believe that a state is a state and there is no point to contrast how and why it wields the powers it does. Further along in this paper, in the section entitled ‘Competitive Thought’, I will take a moment to discuss why I believe that neorealism is the way in which we should be thinking about this issue.

King of the Hill

    The Cold War was a dark time in international history, with tensions taut as the world’s inhabitants could only guess at how much time they may have left before nuclear winter descended upon them. In ‘89-’91 these tensions would relax, following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the implicated dismantling of its Communist Empire. However, it seems that the tensions’ tautness, for the American government, did not ease. They were now concerned with the reemergence of some power or another which would contest their apparently decided hegemony. On March 8, 1992, a document called Defense Planning Guidance was leaked by a top U.S. official to the New York Times. This document shows stringent concern with the return to power of Russia and its allies, stating:

American strategic nuclear weapons will continue to target vital aspects of the former Soviet military establishment. The rationale for the continuation of this targeting policy is that the United States "must continue to hold at risk those assets and capabilities that current -- and future -- Russian leaders or other nuclear adversaries value most" because Russia will remain "the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States” (Tyler)

The Americans were clearly not satisfied with Russia’s surrender to the capitalist ideal. In fact the document goes on to state that American policies "must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role" (Tyler). So America did not feel comfortable with countries ‘even aspiring’ to play larger roles than they already played. There seems to be little room for other kids at all in the post-Cold War American sandbox. This seems like an extremely oppressive mandate to enact, it brings up the question of exactly how they intended to enforce such a policy?

Big Kid on the Block

    America has just come into uncontested supremacy in the global system, and is now seeking not only to fortify its claim to power, but also to snuff out any potential future threats to their decisive hegemony. But just how can they do this, in a war-weary world striving towards peace, without looking like they are stirring up the pot unnecessarily? Well the easiest way to do so was to incite the public aggression, to take the war-weariness of the American population and turn it into a bloodthirst. By creating a pretext, upon which to rest the public opinion, they could more easily gain the public support they needed for an ongoing campaign. It is important to note that the use of pretexts was going on before the end of the Cold War, such as the 1964 Tonkin Gulf Incident, which would pretext the invasion of Vietnam (Johnson) . In fact the Cold War itself was largely based on pretext considering “Harry S.Truman was encouraged to [‘]scare the hell out of the American people,[‘] since this was felt to be the only way to elicit their support for conflict with the Soviets” (Gibbs). Americans would use similar tactics to achieve their politico-military goals up through the turn of the millennium: Iraq in 1998, Yugoslavia in 1999, Afghanistan in 2001, and Haiti in 2004 (Cordesman1). But in a world striving towards peace and resolution such tactics could not work forever, and so after exhausting the ‘old tact’, American foreign policy makers came up with a ‘new tact’, although there was not much new about it, it was simply the same old tact but this time it had an extra layer of dirt and deception on top of its already decrepit face.

Color Me Crooked

    At the turn of the millennium the world would begin to see what has come to be known as the ‘Color Revolutions’. Some examples of these are: the Rose Revolution of 2003 in Georgia, the Orange Revolution of 2004 in Ukraine, and the Tulip Revolution of 2005 in Kyrgyzstan. These ‘color revolutions’ can be defined as “various political upheavals [which] happened following allegations of electoral fraud in national elections [of post-Soviet regimes] since 2000 [which] seem to indicate democratic breakthroughs” (Thien). Color revolutions have been extremely troublesome, however, considering they cause general instability in large regions, they encourage further instability in neighbouring regions, and they have been breeding grounds for terrorists, such as in Libya. John Breuilly supports this claim in telling us that “the [Western dominated] system preferred dysfunctional states”. Russian military leaders feel that the color revolutions and all their inherent consequences are a direct result of the West, and in particular the US hegemon, attempting to unilaterally impose their culture and ideology onto others throughout the world, and that this imposition, more often than not, fosters radical Nationalist attitudes (Cordesman1). So how does the US do this precisely? How do they impose their culture and ideology onto others throughout the world? It was previously mentioned that the US had developed a newer, dirtier strategy for achieving their politico-military goals. That strategy is a three-step plan as described by senior Russian military officials and summarized by Cordesman1. First incite a revolution, or what has come to be known as a color revolution. Second, if the revolution meets resistance from the government, then apply a ‘concealed use of force’ such as supplying the revolutionaries with arms, training their soldiers, or even hiring out private military companies to go in and lend combative support. Thirdly, if the revolutionaries continue to meet government resistance, then search for a pretext to feed the public and put the US military on the ground. Neorealists agree that one of the main sources of global international instability are bids for global hegemony and unipolarity; Emmanuel Guerisoli throws his hat in this ring, and in doing so points also to Bull 2012, Gilpin 1983, Mearsheimer 2001, Walt 2005, and Waltz 2010.

   

The Russian Responsibility

    Before ‘89-’91, and the end of the Cold War, the Russians (Soviets then) were one of two major hegemonic powers in a bipolar world. And if we go even further back into the age of imperialistic conquest, Czarist Russia was yet a dominating force, albeit one of many. The way this information can be viewed is as a sporting game, that is to say that we (the world) started out with a great deal of hegemonic potential. Then after many decades of competition the weakest potential hegemons were beat out by their stronger opponents, and those who were left competing moved up a bracket. Eventually we came to the semi-finals and we witnessed the great battle (the ‘finals’) for the leading world hegemon, otherwise known as the Cold War. The United States was crowned World Champion those days in ‘89-’91 and we have been moving forward ever since. But I believe that as time went on and America continued along as the uncontested World Champion of hegemonic sport, that the power began to go its head. The photographs of an intoxicated America hanging out in a dingy part of the city, with friends of a questionable nature and background, have begun to pop up in the fourth estate. The world has begun to see America as more than just the decisively-infallible victor from some decades-old competition, but rather as a real State, with real-State problems, real-State concerns, and real-State shortcomings.

Russia in particular has begun to view America in this way, and as such has discovered an opportune moment to make its long awaited comeback in the hearts and minds of the world. After all, Russia was the silver medalist from the Cold War and that clearly gives it a degree of power and authority. A degree of power and authority which has been futile to attempt to exert for a long time, simply due to the aggregate infatuation of the world with the American munificence. Still so, does much of the world stand in awe of its American master, but a time comes along when that no longer matters, and that time is now. With the ongoing incitations of color revolutions throughout the developing world America has begun to destabilize the entirety of social, economic, and political order upon which this globe has come to depend. Through the incessant proliferation of politically-unstable hotspots throughout the world America has come to breed terrorists and terrorism in droves throughout their awe-ful wake (Cordesman2). It is no longer reasonable, for those who can do something about it, to not. No longer can idle players stand-by and watch as the world is destroyed around them. No longer is it permissible, either ethically or morally, for those with power to not wield it with responsibility; for it is precisely such responsibility which is the defining point of the authority of power (Parker). Should someone not step in and assert themselves before this onslaught of subversive democratization, what has become a staple of the American reign of power, then surely the world will ceaselessly tumble towards some undefined precipice of no return. Perhaps such a precipice could be a unified democratic world in which all states are at peace with one another and too busy foddering their economies and human happiness indices to actually care about whether their neighbouring state is Christian, Muslim, Pagan, or Atheist; White, Black, Brown, or Red; Heterosexual, Transexual, Homosexual, or Asexual. But this utopia is not a scenario which the current evidence of the situation seems to suggest. Rather, when looking at what is happening in the wake of the color revolutions: what is observed is instability, chaos, and a deepened sense of hatred and xenophobia. If we should we take this picture, the actuality of reality in the here and now, and project that into the future then the resulting image of politically upturned, hate-centric, ultra-ethno-national states seems to suggest a Hobbesian dystopia in which life becomes “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (Hobbes). I am not suggesting, necessarily, that should America continue on its trajectory without a check on power that the world as we know it is destined to become some Hell-on-Earth ethno-blood feud of state interactions. I simply seek to clearly define the line, between ethical and unethical endgames, so that there is a poignant understanding of the affairs at hand. And again, I do not intend to imply that by inciting color revolutions throughout the world that America is intentionally striving for chaos, but rather I seek to point out that their reckless fragility (remember that they seek to democratize in fear that some power will rise up to challenge their authority) is very likely to have rather vicious consequences down the line. Russia now has begun to assert itself more prominently in the world theater, perhaps as a means of saying ‘Hey America, settle down please, the Cold War is over’.

Competitive Thought

    Is there any other way to look at this problem? I have spent the last number of pages taking quite a dig at American foreign policy from a neorealist perspective and have managed to draw quite a vivid picture of the American intention and character. However, it would be irresponsible of me to claim that this is the way that things are and if you have another opinion then you are foolish. There are, in fact, many other ways of looking at the problem of the Russian-US Syrian proxy war, and many other ways of looking at the color revolutions of the last 15 or so years. Not only are there alternative views, but they are actually quite strong views. I possess neither the time, nor space herein, to address all the various alternative perspectives but I would like to take a short half paragraph to at least tip my hat to the myriad opponents. Liberalists would be likely to argue that Russia and US are simply doing what it appears they are doing on the surface, that is: helping people with whom their belief systems align. Liberalists will likely bring up the point, in response to the color revolutions, that the people of these countries are making free decisions to rebel against the authoritarian regimes in place above them, and that it is specifically the oppression of these regimes which incited the people to revolt. Social Constructivists may argue that the color revolutions are a result of the portrayal of the happiness, freedom, and luxurious lifestyles of the West in popular media and thus that the people of these countries are striving towards achieving a similar collective ideal for themselves. As for the proxy war I think that a Constructivist might point back to the Cold War and say that it has not yet been long enough for the social construction of fraught bipolar tensions to be replaced by something more progressive, and therefore that Russia is in Syria to ‘oppose the Capitalists’ just as much as the US is in Syria to ‘oppose the Communists’. Post-Colonialists, I believe, would indicate that the color revolutions are a result of colonial subordinates final breaking free from the reigns of their masters, and likewise that the proxy war is simply two colonial masters attempting to maintain control and authority in the system. Now these are just three of many, many viewpoints on the situation; why should we understand this problem from a neorealist perspective, rather than any of the others? I am of the firm opinion that power corrupts, it is so very improbable to maintain power for any extended period of time without developing a thirst for more; more power, more authority, and more recognition. Another thing which I believe to corrupt is ultimacy. That is to say that when one is not checked and balanced by some greater authority than itself, this tends to lead to discrepancies in the ethics by which it asserts its own dominance. I commented previously on the long-standing history and authority of the Russian Empire. The US does not have quite such a long standing history to be able to show the same thing of it; but the US has had now nearly 30 years of uncontested ultimacy, and it is this which corrupts it as a state. What I am saying is that Russia and the US are capital ‘P’ Power Players, and that whenever and wherever Power Players are acting, such situations must be viewed in the context of power itself. Neorealists believe that security is provided by the structure of the international system; by this reasoning it follows that insecurity also flows from the structure international system.

In this paper I have done my best to point out that the international system is becoming progressively more unstable with each advancement of US foreign policy. That is why I believe neorealism to be the correct lens with which to view the Russia-US proxy war in Syria, and also the US incitement of color revolutions, because the US assertion of power has led to an instability in the international system which has now resulted in instability and, resultantly, another state has stepped in to ‘ease the waters’, as it were. Guerisoli lends further support to my suppositions by telling us that the situation “has to be seen through a neorealist prism that prioritizes balance of power between nations and considers any non-inevitable loss of spheres of influence as a direct attack on national interests”. Guerisoli also suggests three primary reasons for Russia’s involvement in Syria, two of which are: counterbalancing US hegemony, and preventing the emergence of stateless zones of destabilization.

Conclusion

    So we have been discussing a couple of things by this point: that Russia is proxy warring the US in Syria as a means of pushing back against the slightly narcissistic hegemony of the US, and we have also dug quite deep into the idea of what America is/has been doing, why they are doing it, and what exactly the issue is with their continuance of such tactics. We touched on the Cold War, the ensuing US concerns regarding the re-rise of Soviet Russia and the terrifying implications which that may have to their own authority. We also spelunked into the murky caverns of American foreign policy since the end of the Cold War, and how those policies were primarily concerned with the belief that Russia would rise again. We were also able to check in on the Russian viewpoint of the American invasions of, and support towards, underdeveloped countries as they experience political turmoil. So I hope that it is plain to see that, although this is not the only way of viewing things, it is in fact a warranted argument that the US has been unilaterally destabilizing the non-West world in an attempt to, not only cause chaos and confusion in the would-be/could-be allies of Communism but also to sway civic opinion, within these states, in US favour as a means of creating a network of support for the American hegemon throughout the world, and also as proxy buffer states to ‘Soviet’ (Russian) expansion. Also it should be concisely understood by this point that Russian expansion is of concern to the US because they do not want to share the power of global hegemony with any others, and Russia is seen as the one state with any true potential to contest American domination. Following the appearance of this global bully (America), it was only a matter of time before some underdog or another stepped up to push back against them, and it is fitting that this underdog is Russia because of its once prominent position in the international system. In fact it is extremely ironic that it should be Russia to push back against the US, considering that it has been America's concern over Russia’s potential to be a competitor that led to the American behaviour which resulted in Russia stepping up and speaking out.

Works Cited

Breuilly, John. “Nationalism”. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. 6 ed. Baylis, Smith, Owens eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Bull, Hedley. 2012. The Anarchical Society: A Study of World Order Politics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cordesman1, Anthony H. “Russia and the [‘]Color Revolution[‘]: A Russian Military View of a World Destabilized by the US and the West (Full Report)”. Center for Strategic and International Studies. 28/05/2014. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = https://csis-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/legacy_files/files/publication/140529_Russia_Color_Revolution_Full.pdf

Cordesman2, Anthony H. “Russia and the [‘]Color Revolution[‘]: A Russian Military View of a World Destabilized by the US and the West”. Center for Strategic and International Studies. 28/05/2014. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = https://www.csis.org/analysis/russia-and-%E2%80%9Ccolor-revolution%E2%80%9D

Dunne, Tim. “Realism”. The Globalization of World Politics: An introduction to international relations. 6 ed. Baylis, Smith, Owens eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014. Print.

Gibbs, David N. “Pretexts and US Foreign Policy: The War on Terrorism in Historical Perspective”.  New Political Science 26.3 (2004): 293-321. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = http://dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/dgibbs.faculty.arizona.edu/files/pretexts_0.pdf

Gilpin, Robert. 1983. War and Change in World Politics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Guerisoli, Emmanuel. “Russia’s Game in Syria: Security, geopolitics, and a balance of powers”. Public Seminar. 09/10/2015. Web. 19/03/2017. URL = http://www.publicseminar.org/2015/10/russias-game-in-syria/#.WM7Y26JMGM9

Hobbes, Thomas. Leviathan. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998. Print.

Johnson, Lyndon B. “President Johnson’s Message to Congress”. Avalon Project. N.d. Web. 08/03/2017. URL = http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/tonkin-g.asp

Mearsheimer, John. 2001. The Tragedy of Great Power Politics. New York: Norton.

Pashakhanlou, Arash Heydarian. “Comparing and Contrasting Classical Realism and Neorealism”. E-International Relations: Students. 23/07/2009. Web. 20/03/2017. URL = http://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/23/comparing-and-contrasting-classical-realism-and-neo-realism/

Parker, Benjamin. N.a. Downtown Library, New York. N.d. Lecture.

Thien, Poh Phaik. “Explaining the Color Revolutions”. E-International Relations: Students. 31/07/2009. Web. 09/03/2017. URL = http://www.e-ir.info/2009/07/31/explaining-the-color-revolutions/

Tyler, Patrick E. “U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Ensuring No Rivals Develop”. New York Times. The New York Times Company. 08/03/1992. Web. 07/03/2017. URL = http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/us-strategy-plan-calls-for-insuring-no-rivals-develop.html

Walt, Stephen. 2005. Taming American Power: The Global Response to US Primacy. New York: Norton

Waltz, Kenneth. 2010. The Theory of International Politics. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.

The Art of 'The Good Life'

Cyril C. House

Ancient Ethics

The Art of ‘The Good Life’

    What is it we aim to do in the time we have on the Earth? Why is it that we feel compelled to remain ‘being here’? Some may say they aim to grow fat and rich, others may say that they aim to leave an ecologically healthy footprint in their time so that all future generations will not inherit a meek and desolate planet, while others yet may say that they aim to witness the total annihilation of mankind. While each of these three answers are quite distinct from one another, they nonetheless share a great similarity, and so too would the infinite many other answers to this question. The similarity is that they are each ends which are based upon values and beliefs, Aristotle calls such aims telos, however, I will be using the word aims as an equivalent term. Now, as aims, there is a thing to which these are ‘aimed at’. As these aims are a result of particular values and beliefs it can be seen that those aims which are born from proper values and accurate beliefs will result in what Aristotle refers to as eudemonia, otherwise translated as happiness. Furthermore, there seem to be some ends which encompass other ends and as such there seems to be some certain end above all others: the ultimate end of all of the activities of life, the end of which there is no higher end. Aristotle says “in all of these ends of the master arts are to be preferred to all the subordinate ends; for it is for the sake of the former that the latter are pursued” (1094a).  And it is in practice of this ‘master art’ by which eudaimonia is to be achieved. In the following pages I shall explain why, as Aristotle claims, that the adoption of a chief good in fact enhances the lives we each lead by giving us a mark to aim at. My argument is based on the Aristotelian Four Causes as a blueprint for our existence, and my case will state that it is only by following such a blueprint that we, as humans, may achieve eudemonia, for it is the function of the human being to be eudemon and it is only by being eudemon that our existence (our blueprint) is complete. Therefore, we must pursue eudemonia that we may achieve eudaimonia, and the only way to pursue eudaimonia is understand that it is to be desired and thereafter to aim for it. I will point out that, while three of the four causes appear to pre-exist any given thing, the fourth cause (the final cause) appears to fall short of pre-destination due to the particulars of the thing’s existence as it has yet to be experienced; so the cup is, finally, a vessel from which to drink, but we can see that its time of existence may not actually bring about its ultimate realization. It is then crucial to deduce an accurate understanding of this piece of the blueprint, that we may utilize our agency to pursue that understanding, in order to realize and achieve our truest selves. For “[j]ust as actors and dancers are not assigned arbitrary roles or steps but certain fixed ones, so too life is to be led in a certain fixed way, not any way that one pleases” (Cicero).

Causal Blueprints

           In his book Physics, Aristotle identifies four foundational causes of things, and together these causes make up the entirety of what it is to be such a thing. These causes are known as the Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final. Let us consider a glass cup in order to demonstrate. The material cause is the physical composition of the thing in question, that is the glass of which the cup is composed. The formal cause is that which distinguishes the particular material cause from other material causes of similarity, that is the property of ‘can contain water’ is that which differs the glass cup from the glass window; the formal cause can further be understood as the ultimate realization of a thing. The efficient cause is that which causes the causes, or else that which does set into motion the being of the thing, therefore the Glassblower is the efficient cause of the glass cup for it is she who did set the being of the thing into motion. The fourth cause is known as the final cause. The final cause might be referred to as the end towards which the being of some thing was set into motion. What is to say: the function for which the glass was created, being the provision of a vessel to drink from. It is clear then that should a cup never be filled, yet having been created to be filled, that it is this state of filled-ness which the cup strives and moves towards as it continues to be a cup. What this says is that things which are created are created for a function. But what about things which are not created? That is natural things. These things, having not been made with any particular intentionality, would seem to lack any specific function, or end towards which they exist. However, Aristotle maintains that all natural motions have final causes and suggests that, in natural things, the formal and final cause is “pretty much . . . one and the same” (715a). Now the cup is only truly a cup in so far as it is able to flesh out the four pieces of its blueprint. Should the cup never be drunk from, or even filled with the intent of being drunk from, then such an object is hardly a cup. Then so too is a human only truly a human in so far as it is able to flesh out the four pieces of its blueprint.

The First Three Causes and the Fourth

           Why is it so important to be discussing the final cause of what it is to be human? The four causes of any given thing are, as I mentioned, a blueprint for that thing’s existence. As a blueprint for the existence of the thing it is plain to see how the four causes of a thing pre-exist the thing itself. So to make a glass cup, it is necessary that the glassblower initialize these pre-existing conditions. She, being herself the efficient cause, would take the material cause, the glass, and blow it into such a shape as it would be capable of ‘coming into’ its capabilities as a cup, or else its formal cause, and the intent the whole time has been to provide a vessel to drink from, its final cause. In the case of an artifact such as the glass cup it is plausible that the first three causes are realized qua creation, yet that the final cause may never be fully realized. Imagine that at the moment a cup is created the cup studio collapses and the cup is buried beneath the rubble, never to be recovered, and is thus never drunk from. Could the same be true for a human? It is conceivable that, if we consider happiness as the final cause of a human, that some humans may live their entire existence without ever being happy. Conversely, however, we must recall that Aristotle tells us that, in natural things, the final and formal causes are “pretty much . . . one and the same” (715a). Since we allowed that the formal cause of a cup is in existence before the cup itself is physically realized, and if we are to consider the formal and final cause of a human to be one and the same, then it seems we must consider the final cause of a human (in being identical to its, pre-existing, formal cause) to also be in existence before the human itself is physically realized. I do not believe this to be the case though, I believe Aristotle qualifies ‘one and the same’ with ‘pretty much’ for the reason that we can see examples in reality of people who appear to ‘miss the mark’ of the final cause, and as such this would suggest that the final cause is in fact not pre-existent. This is the reason why it is so crucial to identify what this cause is and thereafter strive to realize it. This is the reason why the adoption of a chief good can enhance our lives by giving us ‘a mark to aim at’, because if we do not know where we are heading then there is a very real possibility of not arriving there. If we do not arrive at our final cause as humans then our blueprint has been followed inaccurately and therefore deprives us of truly being human.

Why Happiness?

           In seeking the purpose of which there is no higher purpose “both the general run of people and persons of superior refinement say that it is happiness, and identify living well and faring well with being happy” (1095a), however, there is a disagreement on precisely what happiness is, for “often even the same person identifies it with different things, with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor” (1095a). In seeking the appropriate happiness to refer to here, Aristotle posits that such a happiness must be both final and self-sufficient. Final meaning that it encompasses all other things and is in turn encompassed by none; for if there was some-thing above and beyond the happiness of which one speaks then happiness would be aimed at that thing and thus that thing being aimed at would be the thing which one seeks and not, in fact, that which is aimed at that thing. Self-sufficient meaning that the happiness one seeks ought always be desirable in and of itself and never for the sake of something else:

Now we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more final than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else, and that which is never desirable for the sake of something else more final than the things that are desirable both in themselves and for the sake of that other thing, and therefore we call final without qualification that which is always desirable in itself and never for the sake of something else (1097a).

Finality and self-sufficiency are critical to an accurate understanding of happiness as the final cause of the human blueprint. If the final cause is not final then, aside from contradicting its very definition, it would leave itself extremely vulnerable to philosophical attack, for if there is some-thing which can be found to be greater than the proposed final cause then why is this greater thing not an even better understanding of the final cause? Furthermore, the final cause must be self-sufficient for a very similar reason: if the final cause is not self-sufficient then how can it be understood to be the sole definition of the final cause? So to attribute such a definition to happiness and by-the-way exclude other forms of happiness, such as pleasure and satisfaction in health, Aristotle claims that eudaimonic happiness is the state of being in one who leads a virtuous life and also enjoys leading such a life. This state of virtuous happiness is the superset of all other happinesses. It is this which must be the unique function of the human animal, and therefore its final cause, or its function. In De Anima Aristotle argues that it is rationality which is unique to humans, in contrast to plants and baser animals (413a), but rationality does not fit the criteria of self-sufficiency, for it is desirable to be rational for many purposes such as health, wealth, and happiness itself. So while rationality and virtuous happiness (eudemonia) are each unique to the human animal, it is only the latter which fits the necessary criteria of a final cause.

    Having now taken a step back to examine what the Chief Good is and why it is, in fact, as critical as its name might suggest, we can now turn to the question we began with: “Does the adoption of something as ‘the good and chief good’ improve our lives by giving us ‘a mark to aim at’?”. For:

[o]ne’s ultimate aim is to do all in one’s power to shoot straight, and the same applies with our ultimate good. In this kind of example, it is to shoot straight that one must do all one can; none the less, it is to do all one can to accomplish the task that is really the ultimate aim. It is just the same with what we call the supreme good in life. To actually hit the target is, as we say, to be selected but not sought” (Cicero).

I believe I have effectively covered the argument for this point of view already, but it will be fitting to consolidate that information here. It has been agreed that the particular way in which we proceed, towards the thing what it is we proceed towards, will affect how it is that we are able to experience that thing when we get there; such as bringing a raincoat for a walk in the rain will make it a better walk. So how do we find out if we need to bring a raincoat on our walk? We find out whether or not it’s raining where we are going. We discover an appropriately accurate report of where it is we will be in the future, and what sort of conditions there is experiencing, and base our decisions upon that. So to draw back from the analogy: it is critical to understand the final cause, in other words the function, of our being human so that we may strive towards such a state and thus lead fulfilling lives. I have argued herein that eudaimonia is a fitting concept to build into the final cause section of our human blueprint. It is fitting because eudaimonia is final, is self-sufficient, and is a state which is unique to the human animal. Being eudemon is what is known as ‘the good life’, and as such it is desirable, but without knowing where we are aiming in life we run a potent risk of arriving nowhere near where we intended; and thus by adopting a chief good in our lives we will have a target to focus upon and thereby be much more likely to end up in its vicinity; which, when we are in the vicinity of, drastically enhances our lives.

Works Cited

Aristotle, and Richard McKeon. The Basics Works of Aristotle. New York: Random House, 2001. Print.

Cicero. “De finibus bonorum et malorum (On the Ultimates in Goods and Evils). SUB Print: Edmonton, AB. Print.

Sachs, Joe. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 Feb. 2017.