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.