Philosophy Exam 2

How is the friendship of pleasure described?

A friendship of pleasure happens when persons experience pleasure when together and engaged in activities that bring them pleasure. Aristotle says that young people pursue these kinds of friendship because young people pursue pleasures more intensely than others. The persons involved in this kind of friendship maintain the friendship insofar as they continue to experience pleasure together. If the activity they enjoy doing together is no longer pleasurable or the cause of the pleasure disappears, then the friendship will likely dissolve. The friends are involved in the friendship because they are each getting pleasure out of it.

How is the friendship of utility described?

A friendship of utility takes place between persons who use each other to reach some other ends. For instance, I go to the barber and get my haircut and in exchange I pay her money (I use her to get my hair cut and she uses me to get money). These relationships are ordinary and fine as long as the persons involved are both willing participants. These relationships dissolve when the persons no longer get what they want from each other (if a person goes bald and no longer needs to get his haircut). Slavery is when the person is treated as a mere instrument without dignity.

What is the difference between incontinence, continence, virtue, and vice?

A person is incontinent when he knows what he should do but his passions and appetites are in conflict with his reason and he is unable to resist his passions and appetites, acting as his disordered passions and appetites demand. A person is continent when he knows what he should do in a situation but his passions and appetites are in conflict with his reason. However, unlike the incontinent person, he is able to resist his passions and appetites and act in accordance with reason. A person is virtuous when he knows what he should do and his passions and appetites are in harmony with reasons. He acts in feels in accordance with reason. A person is vicious when he does not even know what he should do and acts instead according to his passions and appetites - there is no conflict with reason because his reason is thoroughly corrupted.

What does Aristotle think about being active and being inactive?

Activity is one of the fundamental principles in Aristotle's philosophy. It is better to be active than inactive. It is better to see (experiencing the activity of sight) than to be blind (lacking the capacity to experience the activity of sight). It is better to be awake (the clearest, most basic manifestation of being active) than to be asleep (when we seem to be inactive). Our existence is most fully manifested in being active - we are alive insofar as we are active. The more active we are the more fully alive we are. For Aristotle, each species has its own special kinds of activities (or work - ergon). Human beings have can engage in rational activity and are most fully alive and developed when they are exercising their capacity to act rationally.

What characterizes an involuntary action?

An involuntary action is characterized as either happening through external force or ignorance of the particular details of a situation. Obviously, when someone is forced to do something, what they do is involuntary. Aristotle says that a person can mistakenly interpret some aspect of a situation (the people involved, the instruments involved, the time period, etc.). If the action that is carried out is regrettable, then it is involuntary according to Aristotle (because such actions that do not cause regret can be brushed aside as insignificant). It is important to note that Aristotle does not count ignorance of general principles as involuntary; if a person is ignorant about how he should act in general, then he is to blame. If something is done involuntarily, then the agent can be excused for the action and is not to be blamed (this is most true when actions are forced; when an action is done out of ignorance of particulars, then the agent can be pardoned or pitied).

What does Aristotle say about pleasure and activities?

Aristotle asks whether pleasure is the ultimate goal of the happy life. Is the happy life the life with the most pleasure? According to Aristotle, most people identify pleasure with the bodily pleasures (like eating, drinking, and sex) and if we understand pleasure in this way, then pleasure is not the goal of the happy life. The person who has not mastered his appetite for bodily pleasures by becoming temperate will not be happy. However, there are many other kinds of pleasures. For Aristotle, distinct kinds of pleasure accompany the activities we engage in. Pleasures supervene (accompany, flow from) upon our activities. Better activities have better, nobler pleasures. Insofar as the happy life consists in engaging in the best activities, we will experience the best pleasures and pleasure will be a constitutive part of the happy life. When engaging in a sport that I love to play, I experience a specific kind of pleasure. The better (excellence/virtue) I perform the activity, the more pleasurable it is. Similarly, if I am engaging in an especially engaging conversation, I will experience a distinct kind of pleasure. This holds true for virtually all of the activities we engage in. Two additional points can be made. First, sometimes we choose to engage in an activity even if we do not experience pleasure, because we determine that it is the best action to do in a situation. For instance, if we face a fear that is intense, we will not necessarily experience pleasure by being courageous. However, Aristotle says that the virtuous person will experience pleasure towards and in the right things and will be pained by and about the right things. Second, many of the activities we engage in can be differentiated according to the objects involved. Certain objects are more fulfilling to be actively involved with than others. For instance, it is more pleasurable (a better pleasure) to behold a beautiful tree on a sunny day than a coffee stain on a desk. It is more pleasurable (a better pleasure) to talk about profound things than about trivial things. It is more pleasurable (a better pleasure) to listen to good music than to bad music. Etc. The objects of our activities influence the nobility of the activity and the pleasure we experience.

What does Aristotle say about ultimates/particulars and why is experience necessary to have practical wisdom?

Aristotle characterizes particulars/ultimates as the ultimate focus of practical reasoning. Practical reasoning is always concerned with the particular details of specific situations and must conduct its deliberations in light of the particular details of specific situations. One cannot how to act without consulting the particular situation, since action always takes place in concrete circumstances. An individual who is inexperienced lacks the familiarity with the many situations of life in which actions take place. Practical wisdom requires familiarity with concrete situations if it is to be perfected. The individual must be able to assess the situation so as to identify the right ends and the best way to reach the rights ends. Even though every situation is unique, we are able to rely on having experienced similar situations to determine how we should act and respond. If we are faced with a totally unfamiliar situation, we must seek assistance from others to figure out how to act and respond. As any of you who play a sport or know how to do some craft or how to play an instrument understand, it is by becoming familiar with a multitude of particular details and situations that you can develop the ability to act well when engaged in these activities. The excellent football or soccer player is able to act and to respond well in whatever situation he finds himself in.

How does Aristotle describe virtue or excellence?

Aristotle describes virtue or excellent (arête) in terms of performing an action well. There is a distinction between doing something and doing something well. A knife that can cut through a piece of meat only with difficulty is worse than a knife that can cut through a piece of meat easily. A runner that crosses the finish line last is worse than the runner who crosses first. A student that merely passes the test is worse than the student who does very well. It is one thing to complete an activity; it is another thing to complete an activity with excellence or virtue. Aristotle defines the moral virtues as (1) states of character concerned with (2) choice, lying in a (2) mean that is relative to us, which is determined by (4) reason, and by the reason of a prudent person.

How does Aristotle talk about self-awareness and how it is related to friendship?

Aristotle discusses self-awareness in Book 9 in connection with friendship. We are always engaged in activities. Right now, I am seeing, writing,, thinking, listening to music (Mozart). I can also reflectively become more aware of these ongoing activities and appreciate them more intensely (mindfulness is often used nowadays to describe this). I can be aware that I am seeing, that I am writing, that I am thinking, that I am listening to music. This heightened awareness increases the enjoyment I take in these activities. Aristotle calls the virtuous friend another self, since virtuous friends are in harmonious agreement and treat each other with the same concern each has for him or herself. When our friend is engaged in activity, we can be aware that our friend is engaged in that activity. Since our friend is physically in our presence, we can clearly and explicitly see what he/she is doing. We can therefore delight in the sheer fact that our friend is engaging in an activity. We can be aware of what our friend is doing. Since the friend is like another self, it is as if we are aware of what we are doing. We take delight in being aware of what the friend is doing with the same pleasure that we take delight in being aware of what we are doing.

What are the two types of virtue Aristotle identifies?

Aristotle distinguishes between moral and intellectual virtues. So far, we have only focused on the moral virtues: Courage, Fortitude, Temperance, Good Temper, Friendliness, Ready Wit, Truthfulness, and Justice (we have skipped a few of them, as you recall). We will look at the intellectual virtues next class.

What part of the soul is concerned with practical wisdom and why?

Aristotle distinguishes two parts of the rational soul: one part is concerned with unchangeable, eternal truths and another part is concerned with what is changing. Practical wisdom deals with circumstances that are always changing since we are always immersed in different situations. The virtue of practical wisdom enables the virtuous agent to respond quickly and successfully to whatever situation she finds herself in: it enables the individual to determine the mean/intermediate way to act (right time, right way, right extent, right reasons, etc.). Further, the person with practical wisdom is able to deliberate to find the best way to reach the goal.

What does Aristotle say is the end (telos) towards which all actions aim and how does he distinguish two types of actions?

Aristotle maintains that all actions tend towards what is good as the end or fulfillment (telos). The end (telos) is the reason why an action is done. If you ask someone why they did something or are doing something, he/she will identify some good they wish to obtain, produce, or are enjoying. For example, in writing this study guide I am producing something that I understand to be good (a study guide). Further, I am striving for the goods that come from being a good teacher and how this influences the overarching good of leading a fulfilling life. Aristotle distinguishes two kinds of actions at the outset of chapter 1. The first kind of action is one which has its end (telos) within itself; the reason these actions are done is because they are intrinsically worth doing. For example, going for a walk on a beautiful day or conversing with friends is intrinsically enjoyable. We do such things for their own sake. The second kind of action is one which has its end outside itself because it is an action that produces something. Someone who builds houses engages in the actions that contribute to building the house primarily in order to build a house. The house stands outside of the actions. We do such things for the products we make (however, some people like producing things because the activity of making is intrinsically enjoyable. In such cases, the action is a combination of these two kinds of actions).

How are we responsible for our characters?

Aristotle maintains that we are responsible for our characters insofar as our characters are formed over time after many actions. Our characters do not change overnight but are the result of repeatedly acting in certain ways. Our characters reflect the persons we have become. If a person is unable to control their urge to eat, the person is incontinent and this reflects a long chain of actions that contributed to this result. Once a person has developed such a bad character that he is unable to control himself, we can wonder how much he should be blamed for acting badly here and now. However, Aristotle maintains that he is responsible for having let himself get to such a state of character. An important question to consider is the role of upbringing on the formation of character. Good parents raise their children to have strong characters and bad parents neglect this task. How should we evaluate someone who was raised badly? To what extent is he responsible for his bad character if he began adulthood at a disadvantage?

What does Aristotle say about truth and friendship?

Aristotle references his relationship with Plato and claims that Plato ultimately was wrong about an important issue. He declares that piety demands of us that we honor the truth above our friends; therefore, Aristotle must reject Plato's position and pursue the truth. As we will see later, the best kind of friendship involves pursuing and appreciating the truth together.

What does Aristotle say about giving the appropriate honor to different kinds of people?

Aristotle says that he distribute honor to persons according to how much they deserve it. We treat people as they deserve or according to what we owe them (it is a matter of justice). Aristotle says that we owe our parents more than we can ever repay them, because they brought us into existence and raised us. In class we talked about whether a person who was raised badly owes his parents as much respect and honor as a person whose parents raised her well. We concluded that the person whose parents raised her well owes more respect and honor to her parents. Aristotle also comments that the person with whom one studies philosophy is worthy of special honor (extra credit points for this - just kidding). Additionally, Aristotle says that excellence and virtue are the standards according to which we should respect and honor persons. The virtuous person deserves more honor because they have merited it or are deserving of it.

Does Aristotle think it is better to promote the fulfillment (telos) of a country/state or an individual?

Aristotle says that it is more noble and better to promote the fulfillment or end (telos) of an entire country/state than for an individual. He sees this as a non-controversial point, one that is immediately sensible. The flourishing of many is better than the flourishing of only one. A skeptic might doubt this point, but generally virtually everyone can agree that this is true.

What does Aristotle say about self-love and whether it is good or bad?

Aristotle says that when a person is not virtuous, then his self-love is disordered and should therefore be limited. For example, an unjust person believes that self-love demands treating other people unjustly. But this person does not what is good or how to live and will be miserable and cause misery for others. He should therefore be restricted until he becomes more virtuous. The self-love of a virtuous person, on the other hand, is very good and should be encouraged. The virtuous person knows what is good and pursues what is good. He treats everyone justly. Since he is virtuous he is a blessing to other persons, simply because it is good to be in the presence of a virtuous person. The virtuous person is especially a blessing for his friends because he seeks what is truly good for his friends and is able to help his friends reach what is truly good.

How does Aristotle discuss the virtue of good temper?

Good- temper is concerned with the passion of anger. The good-tempered person has shaped his passion of anger to be in accordance with anger. The good-tempered person knows when to be angry, to what extent he should be angry, for what reasons he should be angry, etc. His experience of anger is synchronized with his understanding of anger. His anger is rational. Good-temper is the mean/virtue contrasted with the extremes of the excessively angry person who gets angry at the wrong times, for the wrong reasons, to the wrong extent, (too much, too often, etc.) and the person who never gets angry and is instead always passive even when the situation demands that he should get angry to some degree. For example, when a person witnesses an injustice against another person in a specific situation, it is appropriate to feel anger to a certain extent and to act in an appropriate way (perhaps by condemning the injustice and defending the victim). As always, the right action and right feeling must be determined on the basis of the particularity of the situation (for the right reasons, at the right time, in the right way, to the right extent, etc.).

What does Aristotle say about goodwill and concord?

Goodwill is present when we develop sympathy for another person and wish them well. Aristotle uses the following example: when watching an athletic event, you may develop sympathy for a very good player and wish for her success. Even though you wish for the person's success, you do not actually do anything to assist them in reaching the goal. The key point is that you wish them well but you do not actually do anything about it. Goodwill can serve as a basis for friendship. We can have goodwill towards many persons. Concord is present when persons are in agreement about what should be done or about how to live. A person experiences concord with himself when his passions and appetites are in harmony with reason. Virtuous friends are especially in concord with one another. A good city is in concord when they agree about the laws concerning how to live and act.

What is justice concerned with?

Justice is concerned with giving to others what is due to them or what they are owed. Justice is therefore the virtue most explicitly concerned with other persons. Justice is concerned with our tendency to take more than we deserve with what is gainful or to shirk our responsibilities when they are burdensome, which Aristotle calls graspingness. The unjust person does not take into account the reality of other people is therefore unfair. He will take more money than he deserves and will refuse to help take care of the community to which he belongs. In a community, there are burdens and responsibilities that every person must contribute to taking care of. The unjust person will avoid taking responsibility because it is burdensome or taxing. For instance, he will refuse to pay his taxes because he is too concerned with his own gain. The just person has shaped his desire for what is gainful and his aversion to what is burdensome to be in accordance with reason. He will desire what is gainful in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons. He will also be willing to take care of the responsibilities that are allotted to him by his community. The just person takes into account other persons and does not treat himself as an exception.

How are moral virtues acquired?

Moral virtues are acquired through repetition of virtuous actions. Since we are not naturally virtuous, we must become virtuous through practice. In a similar way to how someone becomes a good football player by practicing every day, or a good writer by writing regularly, a person becomes virtuous by doing virtuous actions. We shape our (1) passions to conform with reason (the passion of anger is shaped to respond to situations that demand anger and to respond in the right way) and (2) our ability to act in ways that are appropriate for the situation. However, as we know, the football player and the writer must be guided by those who already are excellent in these activities or know how to become excellent. The football player must imitate the excellent football player and listen to the guidance of his coach in order to become a good football player. The writer must imitate the excellent writer and listen to the writing teacher in order to become an excellent writer. The actions that we repeat over and over to form ourselves gradually must be guided by those who already possess virtue.

What is the difference between natural and legal justice?

Natural justice is binding on all persons at all times and in all places whereas legal justice varies from place to place. For instance, it is a matter of natural justice that every human person should be treated with respect, but how exactly this is carried out in each society can change to some extent. A famous example is how each society takes care of dead bodies - some societies bury their dead, while other societies burn their dead. Each society is responding to the demand to treat The question can be raised whether there is such a thing as natural justice that is binding on all persons at all times and in all places or whether what is just differs from culture to culture. This is a similar question to the one concerning whether there are goods that are good for all persons or whether what is good is different for each person. In each case, Aristotle holds that there are goods and matters of justice binding on all persons at all times and in all places.

How does Aristotle distinguish rectificatory and distributive justice?

Rectificatory justice is determined according to an arithmetical proportion or according to a ratio of 1:1. This means that each person is treated equally without distinctions. The clearest example of rectificatory justice takes place with monetary transactions. A product costs the same regardless of who buys it. There is a set price and the transaction takes place when a person agrees to buy the product for the amount of money determined. Each person in the transaction gets something of equal value. Aristotle identifies most forms of transactions as examples of this kind of justice. He also lists crimes as examples of this kind of punishment. The criminal receives the exact punishment for the crime he committed, regardless of who he is (nowadays the punishment allotted to each person for the crime committed often varies according to the circumstances of the person. However, for certain crimes like murder, there are minimum sentences that anyone who commits the crime is punished with). Distributive justice is concerned with distributing goods shared in common among the members of the community. For instance, a community has the power to distribute honor or public recognition to different people to different degrees. One person deserves the medal of honor or a medal honoring their contributions as an artists, whereas other do not. Distributive justice is determined according to merit and geometrical proportion or according to a ratio that varies from person to person in a just way (2:4 in the same way that 4:8). Each person receives the amount for what they have earned. Aristotle says that virtue is the ultimate standard for determining who deserves honor. The persons who are more virtuous deserve greater honor than those who are less virtuous. Distributive justice is also relevant with various kinds of resources including property and money. The community can distribute resources according to how much each deserves. There are many different kinds of community - such as families, social organizations, political societies. Each must determine the standards for determining how to distribute the goods that it has to distribute. The virtue of justice enables persons to determine how to evaluate issues involving distributive and rectificatory justice in the right way, to the right extent, to the right persons, for the right reasons, etc.

How does Aristotle discuss resolve Socrates's problem about having knowledge yet still lacking virtue?

Socrates raised the question as to whether a person can ever do something that he thinks is bad. He concluded that no one does what he thinks is bad because what is bad leads to misery and no one want to be miserable. Therefore, when a person pursues something that is bad, they must believe it is good in some way. Aristotle raises the question and asks how it is possible for someone to know what is good yet do what is bad, or know that something is bad and still do it. His resolution of the issue is presented when he discusses incontinence. He uses the practical syllogism to resolve the issue. A person may during a period of clarity know that in certain situations certain actions and responses are best. If asked by someone what the best thing to do in such a situation is, he may say that this is the best thing to do and be right. However, when the situation actually arises, his understanding is overwhelmed by his passions and appetites. Instead of interpreting the situation in light of what is the best thing to do (as he would during a moment of clarity) his appetite leads him to interpret the situation according to what the appetite wants. The appetite overwhelms reason and leads to a different interpretation of the situation. Aristotle describes this as like being intoxicated or asleep - the person's rational ability is compromised by his passion and appetites. For example, a person may know that in any situation where he has eaten too much already, he should avoid dessert (universal claim concerning actions and responses). However, when he finds himself in such a situation and is faced with the dessert he may be so overwhelmed by the desire to eat that he reinterprets the situation. Instead of saying, "I have already eaten too much, therefore I should not eat this." He says, "This dessert looks very tasty, therefore I should eat it." This individual is incontinent in Aristotle's view because his passions and appetites are not in harmony with his reason. His passions and appetites overwhelm reason during concrete situations when actions and responses are demanded.

How does the brave man experience fear and face what is fearful? Illustrate with an example.

The brave man experiences and faces fear in the right ways, at the right times, for the right reasons, to the right extents, etc. The brave man knows when the situation demands that he stand up against what is fearful and does what reason determines is appropriate. Further, the brave man has shaped his passion of fear and experiences fear in the right way. He is not overwhelmed by fear like the coward. Further, the brave man knows when he should flee a situation because it would be reckless to stay - the reckless person is unable to assess the situation correctly and confronts things that should be avoided, like a pack of lions. Aristotle identifies facing death for the sake of honor as the ultimate expression of bravery/courage. Courage can be expressed in many situations in life and we become better at being courageous over time by repeatedly acting in courageous ways. A related virtue is the virtue of fortitude, which is concerned with persevering in the face of what is difficult. When engaged in a difficult activity we often desire to give up, and the virtue of fortitude enables us to persevere. However, as usual, we exercise the virtue of fortitude when we persevere at the right time, for the right reasons, to the right extent, etc. Someone who perseveres endlessly on matters that are not important is not acting virtuously. Both courage and fortitude are concerned with what is painful and overcoming our aversion to pain.

What is the end (telos) of human beings according to Aristotle?

The end (telos) of human beings for Aristotle is to flourish or thrive. The end (telos) of each living organism is to achieve full maturation. For instance, the end (telos) of a sunflower seed is to become a thriving sunflower. There are certain conditions that must be met in order for this to be realized (adequate sunlight, water, soil, etc.) The end (telos) of a cow is to becoming a thriving cow. Certain conditions must be met for this to be realized (enough space to roam around and eat grass, other cows to interact with, etc.). For Aristotle, each species has its own end (telos) that is the fulfillment of the kind of thing it is. We know what a thing is once it has reached its full potential. We judge a living thing according to how fully it realizes its potential and flourishes. Aristotle maintains that the human being belongs to a distinct species that has its own way of achieving self-realization. This means that there is a certain way of living that fully expresses the human potential. For Aristotle, this is connected to our capacity to reason. We flourish fully when we have formed our lives according to rationality. When we reason well and our lives reflect this we are able to flourish. The specific work (ergon) of human beings is to act rationally and to exercise our capacity to reason. It is through perfecting our unique ability to reason that we enabled to flourish.

What does Aristotle mean about an excess, a deficiency, and a mean? Give an example.

The excess exceeds the mean/intermediate demanded by virtue in a specific situation. A person who is excessively fearless is reckless. This person does not know how to act courageously in a rational way, at the right time, for the right reasons, etc. Such a person will recklessly face what should be avoided. The deficiency falls short of the mean/intermediate demanded by virtue in a specific situation. A person who is deficiently courageous is a coward. This person is unable to stand up to what is fearful, even when it is the rational and appropriate thing to do. Such a person flees when he should stand his ground. Again, this person does not know how and is unable to act courageously in the right ways, at the right times, etc. The mean/intermediate is concerned with the right actions and the right passionate experience in a given situation. The virtuous person is able to strike the mean/intermediate in whatever situation he is in. When confronted with a situation that involves fear, he is able to assess the situation accurately and respond in the right way, to the right extent, for the right reasons, etc. He is able to hit the mark/target and act virtuously. Such a person also experiences the right amount of fear, in the right way, towards the right things, for the right reasons, etc.

What is the highest activity according to Aristotle?

The highest activity for human beings, according to Aristotle, is thinking (or contemplating) about the highest things. The best part of the human being, and what most sets humans apart from other animals, is the part of our rationality concerned with what is eternally true. Remember, we distinguished practical reason as being concerned with things that are changing and with action. The higher part of reason is concerned with the highest things that do not change. Our activity of thinking is most fully activated when we think about God, that which is most perfect (Aristotle's God is understood differently than Christians understand God). For Aristotle, the end (telos) of the virtuous life is to be able to think about or contemplate the highest things. We cannot engage in such activities of thinking until we are virtuous, otherwise our passions and appetites will be in conflict with reason and will interfere with our ability to think. Only the virtuous person, whose whole existence is in harmony with reason, can fully engage in the highest activity available to humans and take the appropriate delight in such activity, which, for Aristotle, is the best delight there is.

What is the difference between the mean/intermediate in relation to the object and in relation to us?

The mean in relation to the object only takes into account the numerical variables. For instance, the mean of 11 coins is 6, since there are five coins before 6 and 5 coins after 6. Similarly, the mean/intermediate a line that is 8 inches long is 4. The mean relative to us takes into account the specific circumstances or characteristics of the persons involved. It determines the right amount (the mean/intermediate) for a given person in a given situation. For example, the mean/intermediate amount of food appropriate for an Olympic athlete is different than the mean/intermediate amount of food appropriate for a monk.

How is the practical syllogism executed?

The practical syllogism is similar to the logical syllogism, but is concerned with actions. The logical syllogism can be expressed as follows: All students who answer all the questions well will get an A (universal claim). This student answered all the questions well (particular claim). Therefore, this student will get an A (conclusion). The practical syllogism can be expressed as follows: Whenever a teacher promises to complete some activity for his students he must fulfill the promise (universal claim about actions). I promised to complete this study guide for my students and the study guide is not yet completed (particular situation). Therefore, I must complete the study guide (conclusion that leads to an action). In any situation, we can determine the best way to act in light of how the situation is best characterized. The conclusion of our assessments will result in an action, if we follow the model of reasoning presented by the practical syllogism.

What ends does the practically wise person pursue and how is virtue involved?

The practically wise person pursues good ends (the goals of our actions), ends that are worth pursuing because they are part of living a flourishing life. The practically wise person knows what the best goals to pursue are and has shaped his character (with virtue) to desire the best goals in the myriad situations he finds himself in. So, the virtuous agent not only knows what the best goals are, but also desires the best goals and is able to achieve the best goals. As we discussed in class, one's character shapes what ends one pursues and influences how one perceives a situation. The virtuous agent's character is like a clear lens that enables the person to perceive the situation clearly, to identify what should be done and how to reach the goal. The person lacking virtue is not only unable to achieve what is right, but does not adequately perceive the situation to begin with. For instance, the coward experiences situations that demand courage as situations worth fleeing. The courageous person experiences the situation clearly and acts in the best way.

What does Aristotle say about seeking precision in different kinds of inquiry?

The precision we seek when pursuing different kinds of inquiry depends on the kind of inquiry we are pursuing. Certain inquiries require absolute precision whereas others require flexible precision and approximations. For instance, the geometer must seek absolute precision when determining the area or circumference of a circle. If he fails to get it precisely right, the answer is simply wrong. The goal of the geometer is knowledge and truth. How this goal is achieved is always the same; the same procedure is applied to all circles. On the other hand, a doctor must adapt the knowledge he has about treating a certain disease to the circumstances in a given situation. She must adapt the knowledge according to the patient's history, the available medicine, the development of the disease, etc. The doctor follows general guidelines that must be applied differently. The goal of the doctor is to enable the patient to become healthy. How this goal is achieved is always changing depending upon the circumstances. Each patient and each situation is different, and the doctor must adapt her knowledge accordingly.

What is temperance concerned with?

The temperate person has shaped his desire for pleasure so as to be in harmony with reason. He knows when to enjoy bodily pleasures, to what extent, for what reasons, etc. and his appetite does not rebel against reason. Temperance is the mean/virtue that is contrasted with the prude who tries to avoid bodily pleasures as much as possible and the self-indulgent person who enjoys indulges in bodily pleasures all the time. For example, if on an ordinary day I have already eaten a sufficient amount to nourish my body and satisfy my appetite, and I am presented with dessert, it would be excessive to eat a large portion of dessert simply because it tastes so good. In order to be temperate, I would have to know the right amount to eat and I would also have to desire to eat the right amount. We can imagine situations in which it would be appropriate to eat more than is normally appropriate, such as during some kind of celebratory event.

How does Aristotle discuss the virtues of friendliness and ready-wit?

The virtues of friendliness and ready-wit are virtues of social interaction and are concerned with our desire to interact with others. The virtue of friendliness is concerned with the warmth and affability with which we treat others. The person who is virtuously friendly is friendly in the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons etc. She is friendly to different people in different ways; it is not reasonable to be as friendly with our close friends as we are with strangers, but it is appropriate to treat almost everyone with some degree of friendliness. The mean/virtue of friendliness is contrasted with the person who is cold/mean towards people and the person is excessively friendly to everyone. Both persons have not shaped their tendency towards being friendly towards others in to be in harmony with reason. One is deficiently friendly, the other is excessively friendly. The virtue of ready-wit concerns our conversational interaction with others. We exercise the virtue of ready-wit when we say the right things, at the right time, in the right way, to the right persons, etc. The person of ready-wit is an engaging, stimulating, interesting conversationalist and has mastered the art of conversation. Her conversations are in harmony with what is rational. The mean/virtue of ready-wit is contrasted with the deficiency of the boorish person who is boring and the excess of the frivolous person who never takes anything seriously and is always playing as a fool.

How does Aristotle resolve the problem about what is truly good and what seems to be good, since the good seems different from person to person?

This is an important question and will be on the test. In Book 3, Chapter 4 he presents the problem. We know from experience that people disagree on what is good or desirable. It seems at times that each person believes something else is good or desirable; one person sees something as good while another person sees the same thing as bad. How do we resolve the issue? Do we simply say that people are different and have different beliefs and desires, that what is good for you is good for you and what is good for me is good for me? Aristotle does not think so. He maintains that a person experiences things as good or bad on the basis of their character. A person's character is like a lens that determines how things appear. So, the person who is intemperate sees excessive pleasure as good. For example, the drunkard will see an additional drink as desirable rather than as bad and undesirable. The virtuous person, on the other, sees things as they truly are. The virtuous person's character is like a good lens that allows him/her to see things clearly. So, the virtuous, temperate person will be able to assess a situation according to what is in harmony with a flourishing life.

How do the geometer and the carpenter relate differently to a right angle?

This question resembles an earlier question. The geometer seeks to determine the exact measurements of the right angle. He does not tolerate any error; he seeks absolute precision. The carpenter is concerned with building something when using the right angle. As long as the right angle functions adequately, it can be slightly imperfect. The carpenter is not concerned with absolute precision. Ultimately, exact precision is impossible in the physical universe. However, enough precision is needed to ensure that the wall will remain standing.

How does Aristotle distinguish choice from the voluntary, wishing, and opining?

What is voluntary has its source or origin of activity within the agent itself. Anything that is done spontaneously (freely) is considered voluntary. Therefore, the activities of animals and children are considered voluntary insofar as the source of the activity comes from the being itself, even though such beings cannot be said to choose actions after deliberation. Choice is a subspecies within the voluntary; the voluntary covers all actions whose origin or cause lies within the being whereas choice concerns actions that are the result of deliberation carried out by a rational agent.

How does Aristotle distinguish choice from the voluntary, wishing, and opining?

What is voluntary has its source or origin of activity within the agent itself. Anything that is done spontaneously (freely) is considered voluntary. Therefore, the activities of animals and children are considered voluntary insofar as the source of the activity comes from the being itself, even though such beings cannot be said to choose actions after deliberation. Choice is a subspecies within the voluntary; the voluntary covers all actions whose origin or cause lies within the being whereas choice concerns actions that are the result of deliberation carried out by a rational agent. Wishing concerns what cannot be attained and is therefore impossible (flying, breathing under water, etc.) as well as the ends of our actions (I wish to achieve the end of my actions. We set ends, we do not choose them. Rather, we choose the means or way to achieve or arrive at the end (I choose the best way to reach my end). Opining is concerned with what is true and what is false while choice is concerned with good or bad actions. I can sit in a chair and opine all day long and the only criterion to judge my actions is whether they are true or false. When I make choices, I am engaged in actions and my actions can be judged as to whether they are good or bad.

How is the friendship of virtue described?

With the friendship of virtue, the friends are concerned about the well-being or happiness of the other person. These friends wish to benefit each other by giving to the other what is good. They not only wish for the happiness of the friend but do things to bring this about. The friendship of virtue is rooted in being virtuous. This kind of friendship is concerned about engaging in activities befitting virtuous agents. This friendship is lasting insofar as the persons involved have virtuous characters. One's character is formed over a long time of engaging in many actions. A virtuous person's character is lasting and will be maintained because the person knows that being virtuous is the best way to be. This friendship will also include aspects of the other forms of friendship insofar as virtuous friends are useful to one another and they share in pleasures together (the activities they engage in together are the best kinds of pleasure - such as philosophical contemplation and discussion).