That's an interesting question. The way the Stoics see it is that Nature provides us with "the beginning" of virtue, i.e., with prosocial instincts. Then reason perfects it, if we use it correctly.
Love and reason, yes, balance the sphere. What do Aristotle and the Stoics say about purpose in life? I'm struggling with that one, if you couldn't tell...
Well, as I said, "purpose" is a tricky word. One could argue, from a Stoic perspective, that our purpose in life is to function well as human beings. After all, the word virtue, arete, means excellence. So to be excellent human beings. Which means to be rational and prosocial. There are, of course myriad ways of being so.
In the book he was comparing people involved with literary studies with scientists; in particular a man who wrote a book called “The Modern Temper”, which Russell said cast a gloomy image of modern life; no God, no romance, a very cynical outlook due to all the old comforting ideas being explained away. I think he was trying to make the case that a life of reason, like that of a scientist, may not offer the kind of comfort that the arts do, but it holds reason to be the most important guide to navigating life. One of Russells quotes goes “The good life is inspired by love, but guided by reason”.
In “The Conquest of Happiness”, Bertrand Russell says that the man of science is the happiest of men, because his work is vital and it takes all of his waking energies, leaving no complex emotions to plague his sleep
Hmm, with all due respect to Bertie, I did the man of science thing, and it didn’t feel that way. But perhaps I wasn’t good enough. It sounds like he’s describing a sociopath.
I agree with Aristotle when he says a complete life of reasoned purpose is necessary for happiness; happiness is an ongoing quest requiring struggle according to Paul Bloom
Two assumptions I see: first, there is a purpose to life; second, humans are differentiated from other species by their ability to reason and thus that differentiation should be our path to purpose. Doubtful in both cases. We evolved as bipedal with big brains, but why is the randomness of natural selection to be entrusted with "purpose"? Is a whale that can dive 3km under water for food to say, "I dive better than any other species, therefore my purpose is to dive"? It does so in order to survive, but that doesn't determine its purpose, if there is indeed any inherent purpose in anything at all. I agree with Ed: the only purpose we have is the one we choose.
Darin, Aristotle doesn't really talk about purpose, as much as function. On of the functions of a whale is to swim and dive, and sure enough, whales that swim and dive well will survive and reproduce, that it, they will flourish.
For human beings, one can make an evolutionary argument that reason and prosociality are our major weapons for survival and reproduction. So a human being that reasons well and is prosocial will flourish. There is good evidence from modern psychological research that that's the case, especially the prosocial part.
I agree that we have broad latitude choosing our specific purposes. I decided to be a teacher and writer, someone else decides to be a musician, and so forth. But the point remain: we all, as human beings, need to reason well and be prosocial.
I see. So as a human, using reason in society is the best way to survive and hopefully flourish, as opposed to, say, trying to free-dive 3km down for lunch. Makes good sense. We'll leave purpose aside for now...
Right. The word “purpose” is a bit tricky. One could say that we could pick a number of purposes within the broader umbrella of what makes us flourish. Which is reason and social cooperation.
Oh, Aristotle is just plagiarizing from Dan Barker, et al. Seriously, the broader point doesn't even require distinguishing ourselves from the cows and cats and cabbages. There is no purpose except the one(s) we pick. But that's enough. (Whether these are honorable and noble is also up to us--and also matters, though only to us.) Jeez, I sound like a secular humanist!
If one lives, perceives, reasons, throughout their life, would one happy? As I live and breathe, I see this as a reasonable argument and am content with it. 😊
That makes sense in evolutionary terms since we are a social species descended from other social species.
Exactly.
I was thinking that reason naturally leads to virtue, because it doesn’t rely on things outside itself
That's an interesting question. The way the Stoics see it is that Nature provides us with "the beginning" of virtue, i.e., with prosocial instincts. Then reason perfects it, if we use it correctly.
But then why is virtue sufficient for happiness?
Because everything else depends on virtue. Unvirtuous reason, or love, are not really reason, or love.
Remember that for Seneca virtue simply is right reason.
Love and reason, yes, balance the sphere. What do Aristotle and the Stoics say about purpose in life? I'm struggling with that one, if you couldn't tell...
Well, as I said, "purpose" is a tricky word. One could argue, from a Stoic perspective, that our purpose in life is to function well as human beings. After all, the word virtue, arete, means excellence. So to be excellent human beings. Which means to be rational and prosocial. There are, of course myriad ways of being so.
I believe this quote makes an important point; love without reason is a sure path to unhappiness
Agreed. Though I think the other combination, reason without love, is also pretty bad.
In the book he was comparing people involved with literary studies with scientists; in particular a man who wrote a book called “The Modern Temper”, which Russell said cast a gloomy image of modern life; no God, no romance, a very cynical outlook due to all the old comforting ideas being explained away. I think he was trying to make the case that a life of reason, like that of a scientist, may not offer the kind of comfort that the arts do, but it holds reason to be the most important guide to navigating life. One of Russells quotes goes “The good life is inspired by love, but guided by reason”.
I like that quote.
In “The Conquest of Happiness”, Bertrand Russell says that the man of science is the happiest of men, because his work is vital and it takes all of his waking energies, leaving no complex emotions to plague his sleep
Hmm, with all due respect to Bertie, I did the man of science thing, and it didn’t feel that way. But perhaps I wasn’t good enough. It sounds like he’s describing a sociopath.
I agree with Aristotle when he says a complete life of reasoned purpose is necessary for happiness; happiness is an ongoing quest requiring struggle according to Paul Bloom
Bloom is an interesting source for a modern, evidence based take on these issues.
Two assumptions I see: first, there is a purpose to life; second, humans are differentiated from other species by their ability to reason and thus that differentiation should be our path to purpose. Doubtful in both cases. We evolved as bipedal with big brains, but why is the randomness of natural selection to be entrusted with "purpose"? Is a whale that can dive 3km under water for food to say, "I dive better than any other species, therefore my purpose is to dive"? It does so in order to survive, but that doesn't determine its purpose, if there is indeed any inherent purpose in anything at all. I agree with Ed: the only purpose we have is the one we choose.
Darin, Aristotle doesn't really talk about purpose, as much as function. On of the functions of a whale is to swim and dive, and sure enough, whales that swim and dive well will survive and reproduce, that it, they will flourish.
For human beings, one can make an evolutionary argument that reason and prosociality are our major weapons for survival and reproduction. So a human being that reasons well and is prosocial will flourish. There is good evidence from modern psychological research that that's the case, especially the prosocial part.
I agree that we have broad latitude choosing our specific purposes. I decided to be a teacher and writer, someone else decides to be a musician, and so forth. But the point remain: we all, as human beings, need to reason well and be prosocial.
I see. So as a human, using reason in society is the best way to survive and hopefully flourish, as opposed to, say, trying to free-dive 3km down for lunch. Makes good sense. We'll leave purpose aside for now...
Right. The word “purpose” is a bit tricky. One could say that we could pick a number of purposes within the broader umbrella of what makes us flourish. Which is reason and social cooperation.
Oh, Aristotle is just plagiarizing from Dan Barker, et al. Seriously, the broader point doesn't even require distinguishing ourselves from the cows and cats and cabbages. There is no purpose except the one(s) we pick. But that's enough. (Whether these are honorable and noble is also up to us--and also matters, though only to us.) Jeez, I sound like a secular humanist!
You certainly do! 😆
If one lives, perceives, reasons, throughout their life, would one happy? As I live and breathe, I see this as a reasonable argument and am content with it. 😊
Then you're making more progress than most! 👍