Aristotle on the ‘soul’
Aristotle divides the human soul
in to three parts: the Vegetative Soul
which is found in all living things (plants, animals, and humans), the Animal Soul which is absent from plants
but present in animals and humans, and the Rational
Soul which is found only in mankind.
In reality using the word ‘soul’ is deceptive because Aristotle is not
talking about anything spiritual that survives death; the Greek word that
Aristotle used was ‘psyche’ which is better translated as ‘mind’ and is where
we get our word ‘psychology’ from. What Aristotle
is actually talking about is the functions and activities that living beings
perform, for example, he says that the soul of the eye would be sight, and he
adds that when a living being no longer functions it is like a broken machine
and it no longer has a soul or mind.
Suppose that
the eye were an animal – sight would have been its soul, for
sight is the substance or essence of the eye… the eye being
merely the matter of seeing; when seeing is removed the eye is
no longer an eye, except in name – it is no more a real eye than
the eye of a statue or of a painted figure.
Aristotle,
On The Soul.[1]
In modern terms an analogy can be
made with a computer: the body is the hardware and the soul is the programmes
it is running; when the hardware is broken the programmes stop running and it
is ‘dead’; it is effectively no longer a computer because it no longer performs
the function of computation. Nothing lasts after death.
For Aristotle the definition of
life is the ability to move or grow. Aristotle points out that all living
things, whether they are plants, animals, or human beings, must operate
functions which maintain their life; in modern biology we would describe this
in terms of the seven life processes such as nutrition, excretion, respiration,
reproduction, and growth. This set of
functions he describes as the Vegetative Soul and it is something found in all
living beings including plants. With plants this Vegetative Soul is the only function
they possess.
Aristotle argues that what
separates plants from animals is that animals can experience sensations, which
makes them sentient; they have perceptions of their environment. Being able to
experience sensations brings with it the ability to experience pleasure and
pain, and therefore it creates appetites or desires such as thirst and hunger –
animals have appetites for things which give them pleasure and help them to
survive, and they have aversions to pain and things that are a threat to
them. Because of these desires the
majority of animals have the ability to move (locomotion) in order to attain
what they desire and avoid what they are averse to. What we have here is actually three functions
of the soul, the sensory, the appetitive, and the locomotive, but they are
closely linked and together are what could be described as the Animal Soul.
The Vegetative and Animal Souls
are both found in human beings too, but what humans possess and animals lack is
a third and final factor: the Rational Soul – the power of thinking. In part
thinking involves imagining things, and animals are also capable of this to
some extent as they must imagine what they desire and imagine ways of getting
it, but proper thinking is more than this, it involves the reasoning abilities
necessary to make judgements, to calculate the best ways of achieving goals and
to decide which ends are best and which are not. Only human beings have ‘logos’ (which
translates as both ‘speech’ and ‘reason’), and this gives us the ability to
distinguish between what is good and bad:
Nature, as we
often say, makes nothing in vain, and man is the only animal whom she [nature]
has endowed with the gift of speech. And whereas mere voice is
but an indication of pleasure or pain, and is therefore found
in other animals (for their nature attains to the perception of
pleasure and pain and the intimation of them to one another, and
no further), the power of speech is intended to set forth the expedient and inexpedient, and therefore likewise the just and the unjust.
Aristotle, Politics.[2]
This may seem very similar to
Plato’s distinction between reason and emotions but there are significant
differences. Aristotle is less antagonistic towards the emotions believing that
pleasure is an essential part of a good life and that emotions should be
harnessed to help achieve the goals that Reason dictates rather than being overcome,
for example, instead of saying that anger is wrong he would say that sometimes
it is useful, at other times it is not.
Aristotle and The Meaning of Life
Aristotle uses his thesis about
the nature of the human soul or ‘psyche’ to support his ideas on what
constitutes a good and meaningful human life.
He then uses his ideas about what makes a good life to put forward a
theory of ethics for how it is possible to live this good life, and his theory
is known as Virtue Ethics. For Aristotle the purpose of human life is
‘eudaimonia.’ This Greek word is often translated in to English as ‘happiness’
but this is a poor translation as its true meaning is more like ‘flourishing’
or ‘doing well.’ Eudaimonia is not just
about being happy in a psychological sense, it is about your general wellbeing
and is about developing your abilities and talents. For Aristotle to be alive is to function, and
eudaimonia is about functioning well as a human being, so the question is, what
is the function or purpose of a human being?
The purpose of a pair of scissors
is to cut items such as paper, and we can judge between a good pair of scissors
and a bad pair of scissors based on how well it performs this function. Similarly, the function of a teacher is to
educate people and develop their skills and knowledge, and we can judge the
quality of a teacher based on whether they have the skills to do their job well
and the results they produce. Aristotle believes that since all living things
carry out specific natural functions it is possible to conclude that life has
purpose built in to it, and furthermore it is possible to judge the quality of
a living thing by how well it functions.
We can judge the quality of a
plant by how well it functions in terms of its Vegetative Soul, for example, by
looking at whether it is healthy and fertile. If the plant is wilting and
unhealthy then it is a ‘bad’ plant, whereas if it is flourishing then it is a
‘good’ plant which is achieving its natural purpose. Similarly we can judge the quality of an
animal based on its vegetative functions, but also in terms of how well it
functions in terms of its Animal Soul, for example we can ask questions such as
‘does the animal have good eye sight and hearing?’, ‘is the animal able to
attain what it desires such as food and mating?’, and ‘is the animal able to
move well to catch its prey or avoid being caught by its predators?’ This
allows us to distinguish between good well functioning animals and poorly
functioning ‘bad’ animals.
According to Aristotle we are
able to judge the quality of a human being in similar terms, by considering how
well they are functioning in terms of the Vegetative, Animal, and Rational
aspects of their souls. For Aristotle a good human life involves being healthy
and having pleasure, but it must also involve intellectual stimulation and
achievement – knowledge, analytical abilities, and good judgement. Additionally,
since Aristotle holds the view that we are naturally social animals, this means
that a good human life ought to include friendships with others and the
performance of civic duties in order to help preserve society and make it
function well for the benefit of all. A
good human life, therefore, consists of health, pleasure, knowledge,
friendship, and being a good citizen: this is the purpose of life for man and
it allows us to differentiate good quality persons who function well from poor
quality persons who do not.
Aristotle dismisses the life of
pleasure that the majority of human beings seek for themselves as being a
bovine life suitable for animals; since it is only mankind which possesses the
Rational Soul this means that achieving knowledge and wisdom is a more
important goal for us than seeking pleasure, something which all animals are
capable of. For Aristotle eudaimonia is not simply happiness or pleasure, but
goes beyond this and must involve intellectual challenges and achievements,
even if these mean that we must often forgo pleasure or happiness. This
perspective was echoed by JS Mill
who stated “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied;
better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”[3] Aristotle sees the pursuit of knowledge as
the most meaningful form of human existence, but sees the life of civic duty as
a worthy and close second.
Aristotle’s Virtue Ethics
In order to achieve a good life
certain skills and personality traits are required, and it is these which we
call the ‘virtues.’ The word that Aristotle used was arête which means
‘excellence.’ There are two main types
of virtue, the moral virtues and the intellectual virtues.
Intellectual virtues are required
in order to make you a wiser and more analytical person and include virtues
such as technical skill, prudence, scientific knowledge, and good
judgement. These virtues allow a person
to function well in terms of their Rational Soul and they are useful in both
the life of knowledge and the life of civic duties, allowing a person to learn
important information and exercise good judgement. At all times a person should
develop these talents in order to help them seek knowledge or serve their
society well.
The moral virtues include
courage, temperance, generosity, helpfulness, patience, honesty, and even wittiness
(a good sense of humour). The moral virtues are required in order to moderate
your behaviour in order to allow you to lead a successful and well functioning
life, for example, temperance allows you to control your appetites for pleasure.
It is good to have pleasures in your life, however you should not indulge too
much and allow animal desires to control your life because this can stand in
the way of the pursuit of knowledge and can also lead to you being selfish or
failing to perform your civic duties.
Temperance also means the ability to put up with discomfort and pain
when it is necessary to do so, which is important for any form of success.
Courage is an important moral
virtue because it allows a person to conquer their fears and carry out
important tasks, which can be anything from standing up and speaking in public
to fighting in a battle. Like all of the moral virtues, courage is considered
to be a ‘mean’ between two extremes, on the one extreme there is the vice of
cowardice which means that you have a lack of confidence, but you must also be
mindful of the possibility of having too much confidence and so being reckless
and foolhardy, which is also a vice. Being witty and entertaining is an
important virtue to help us do well in social situations, but it is also a
balancing act between being boorish and dull on the one hand (a vice of
deficiency) and being a foolish buffoon all the time (a vice of excess). Patience
also is a mean, it is not virtuous to lose your temper quickly, but nor is it
virtuous to put up with things indefinitely and never take action. All of the
moral virtues are a balancing act which it takes practice and experience to
master, the virtues help you to know what actions and emotions are appropriate
to any given situation, and are something which must be developed over time by
practice and following the example of others.
As Will Durrant puts it “we are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then,
is not an act but a habit.”[4]
A major objection is that this
does not seem like a moral theory at all, because seemingly a very evil person
can function well, and all of these virtues can be abused – intelligence and
courage can be used by people to carry out acts of theft, rape, and
genocide. This was the criticism given
by Immanuel Kant, who argued that
what morality needs more than anything else is rules and principles and a
willingness to follow them, yet this is precisely what Aristotle’s virtue
ethics lacks – he does not concentrate on any specific rules but instead on
character traits that allow a person to succeed in life. To counter this, Aristotle would argue that
as a social animal we have duties to society and that because actions such as
theft and killing are destructive to social harmony it follows that they are
immoral, and the intellectual virtues would allow an individual to realise
this. Aristotle also took the view that there were no set universal rules that
applied to all people as each society has its own notions of what rules its
people should follow. For Aristotle the rules are not universal and are best
learned from copying the people in your society; this is known as Cultural
Relativism.
Today this view is known as Communitarianism or Collectivism and it is the
sentiment that lies behind the famous assertion of John Donne that “no man is an island entire of itself.”[6] Modern
Communitarians such as FH Bradley would
argue that your society is not some alien entity outside of you, but it is
actually part of your very own identity, your society is part of what you are,
and therefore that you should help others, serve your society, and celebrate
its culture and traditions. There is, of course, the possibility of taking this
position to the extreme and concluding that individuals ought to be totally subservient
to society just as bees are to their hive and ants are to their colony; this
can lead us to totalitarianism all too easily.
In contrast to Communitarianism
there is Atomism according to which
each person is an individual, complete in his own right and master of his own
self. From an Atomist perspective the individual is primary in importance and society
or the state is seen as an imposition on the individual’s natural freedom;
moreover there are no natural duties to other people. This view is perhaps best
summed up in Margaret Thatcher’s famous aphorism “There is no such thing as society. There are individual men and
women, and there are families.”[7] This was the view taken by Thomas Hobbes who imagined man in his
natural state as an individual who could do whatever he desired whenever he
desired without any concern for others. Hobbes believed that having to live
with others and do what you are told to by rulers was unnatural. Hobbes
believed that the existence of a government and its control over an individual’s
life could only be legitimate if that person agreed via a social contract to
become part of that society and obey its rules. This perspective gives
importance to the individual, but it can also be seen as morally problematic as
it seems to encourage selfishness and indifference towards the needs of others.
In Aristotle’s own time there
were philosophers who took an Atomist point of view and therefore argued that
people should be selfish if they could get away with it, and that the
government of the polis had no right to order people what to do. Aristotle wanted to show that this was not the
case: society is natural and has existed as long as human beings have existed,
we are citizens by nature, part of a greater whole that we must recognise is
greater than us. Therefore in Aristotle’s view society has a natural right to
control its members and impose laws on them, and we individuals have
obligations to our communities.
Aristotle provides us with several arguments to the effect that it is natural for human beings to live in societies and therefore to obey their rulers. Firstly, Aristotle points out that most of us crave the company of others, stating in his Nicomachean Ethics that nobody would choose to live without friends even if he had all the other good things in life. Secondly, Aristotle points to the existence of language: if we are not meant to live together, why are we so highly capable of conversation? Why not just growl to make our presence known as many other animals do? Aristotle argues that nature provides each species with what they need to survive and achieve their best possible lives, and so since we have speech it is a good indication that we are meant to speak and converse with each other, that we are meant to learn from each other, and that we are meant to cooperate.
In making this lingual argument
Aristotle is relying on teleological notions.
Many people believe that nature has specific purposes and goals written
in to it, for example, that the sun exists in order to support life on Earth,
or that bees exist to help pollinate plants.
It is a perspective which is often linked to the religious view that
Earth has been designed by a god who has a specific purpose for each part of
his creation. Aristotle is basically
saying that nature has designed human beings, that nature wants us to live
socially, and that nature has therefore gifted us with speech in order to allow
us to live in societies. However, from a
modern scientific viewpoint these teleological notions all go out of the
window, according to modern science we have not been designed or created for
any purpose, we are just the chance outcome of blind physical processes. On the other hand, the existence of language
can still be used to argue for our social nature thanks to evolutionary
biology. We are able to speak because of
our highly evolved brains and vocal chords; biologists believe that we have
evolved from primates and that it was the social nature of these primates’
lives which forced our ancestors to evolve their communications skills. So in
other words, human beings were social before they became human, and it is only
living in a social environment which has forced us to develop social skills
such as language, as well as empathy and morality.
Thirdly, we have Aristotle’s
assertion that those who live outside of society are animals rather than proper
human beings. This can be interpreted to mean that without socialisation and
interaction with other people we would lack humanity, after all, Aristotle
believes that virtue is only possible in society. Modern evidence again lends
support to Aristotle as there has been numerous instances of so called ‘feral
children’ who have grown up outside of human society and instead in association
with animals. In many cases these children act like animals, for example
walking on all fours, eating raw meat, and biting other people; some have even
been unable to recognise their own reflections in a mirror. Most show no
interest in sex or money, and most show no ability to learn language or moral
rules, especially when they have passed infancy before being discovered.[8]
What this seems to suggest is that being nurtured by a human community is
thoroughly necessary to make us in to the adults we become, we need
socialisation to unlock or develop various aspects of our humanity, and
therefore that we are little or nothing without our society.
Finally there is Aristotle’s
important argument that only in a society can our most basic needs be met, and
therefore that we need society and are naturally at home within it:
In the first
place there must be a union of those who cannot exist without each
other; namely, of male and female, that the race may continue (and this
is a union which is formed, not of deliberate purpose, but because, in
common with other animals and with plants, mankind have a natural desire to leave behind them an image of themselves), and of natural ruler
and subject, that both may be preserved.
Aristotle, Politics [9]
Aristotle argues that the most basic constituent of society is the household. The household is constituted by persons who share two relations, that between a man and woman who come together to procreate, and that between a master and his servants (or slaves) whereby they cater for the household’s daily needs, such as food, shelter, and warmth. These are our most basic needs and they can only even begin to be satisfied by living and working with others.
Aristotle argues that it is
natural for households to join together in order to form villages because these
allow people’s needs to be met more efficiently and also allow for a greater
degree of safety. In many cases the
village might be an extended family of relations. This is similar to the way in
which small businesses naturally expand (if they are successful) in to much
larger businesses, for example, from being a single corner shop to being a chain
of corner shops. Just as it is natural for a household to have a leader, so too
will a village have leaders whose commands should be obeyed for the betterment
and survival of all.
These same reasons lead to the
unification of villages in to city-states (in ancient Greece
When several
villages are united in a single complete community, large enough
to be nearly or quite self-sufficing, the state comes into existence,
originating in the bare needs of life, and continuing in existence for
the sake of a good life. And therefore, if the earlier forms of society are natural, so is the state… Hence it is evident
that the state is a creation of nature, and that man is by
nature a political animal.
Aristotle, Politics[10]
Aristotle’s Elitism
Aristotle’s Politics gives an argument in favour of slavery, and he himself
actually owned slaves. It is Aristotle’s belief that slavery is necessary to
produce the materials that we need in order to survive, and that those who are
lacking in intelligence and virtue are natural slaves, needing to be controlled
and organised by those with greater minds than themselves. Aristotle rejects equality and takes the view
that some people are better than others and are worth more; those who are
capable of virtue, civic duty, and philosophical knowledge are better quality
human beings than those who are not, and therefore they have the right to rule
over and direct those beneath them in precisely the same way that the human
race rules over animals, or that adults rule over children. Aristotle views
slavery as something that is of mutual benefit to both the slave and the
master, without which neither would survive.
Aristotle is regularly criticised
for his elitism, but many commentators insist that we must view him within the
context of his era, and remember that in ancient times most people were not
educated and could not read or write. Interestingly
Aristotle stated that if machines could operate themselves there would be no
need for slavery. Some philosophers
argue that we can reinterpret Aristotle in a more acceptable light and see him
as simply pointing out the distinction between leaders and followers which is
common to most human endeavours: there are architects and then there are
builders; there is the engineer who designs a new car, and then there are the
machinists who build the parts and assemble it. Satisfying material needs
requires teamwork, but we all have different talents; where one person has the
brains to design a building others without those brains will have the physical
ability to build it. Meanwhile, commentators such as Richard Norman argue that all human beings are capable of
developing the virtues to some extent, and that we should try to take
inspiration from Aristotle’s concepts of virtue and eudaimonia and help
everyone to achieve a fulfilling life.
An analysis of Aristotle’s views on human nature
These criticisms have been
mentioned or hinted at above, this is merely a summary.
1) Aristotle relies too
heavily on teleology
Aristotle took it for granted
that the world has inbuilt purposes which have been established somehow by
nature or perhaps by God: he believed that there are things that we exist in
order to do and achieve. However, this view is rejected by our modern scientific
paradigm of cause and effect in the universe, a chain of events which is cold,
indifferent, and thoroughly unplanned. Aristotle utilises his teleological
perspective to justify normative conclusions about how human beings ought to
live, what they should try to achieve, and so on, but if we reject his
teleology then these conclusions seem to lose their force.
2) Aristotle’s description of
the human mind or psyche is too simplistic
Aristotle gives an interesting
perspective on the nature of the human mind: the mind is the functions that are
being carried out by the body, like nutrition, perception, desires, and
reasoning; there is no eternal soul, when we die these functions stop and the
mind no longer exists. This is essentially a Materialist account of the mind
and his thesis has some similarities with modern scientific views, for example,
the Vegetative Soul is similar to the idea of there being certain hallmarks of
life such as respiration, excretion, and growth. However, Aristotle draws very
sharp distinctions between plants, animals, and humans which seem untenable,
for example, it appears that many animals do possess languages and reasoning
abilities to some extent. Another problem is that Aristotle seems to rank the
Rational Soul as the most important part of the human psyche with knowledge and
wisdom being our major goals in life and survival is just a means of achieving
these. Meanwhile, philosophers like Hobbes would say that our intelligence only
exists to better serve our appetites and more basic needs.
3) Aristotle says very little
about the character of man
Aristotle says a lot about how a
human being should be, but not much about what we are actually like; whilst Hobbes
says that all human beings are selfish and inclined to use violence and manipulation
to get what they want, we do not seem to get blanket statements like this from
Aristotle. On the other hand, perhaps this is a strength of his theory, for it
seems that Aristotle is aware of the fact that different people act in
different ways. Aristotle is aware that whilst some people are courageous
others are over confident or cowardly, and that whilst some are friendly and
helpful others are cantankerous and unhelpful. What Aristotle is arguing is
that there are certain character traits which people would benefit from
developing. What Aristotle gives us is
not a description of what people are actually like, but a picture of what they
ought ideally to be.Aristotle believes that the aim of life is happiness or ‘eudaimonia’ and notes three different notions about what happiness consists in: (i) pleasure; (ii) civil duties and friendship; (iii) knowledge and wisdom. He rules out pleasure as being an unworthy pursuit for a human life and elevates knowledge and wisdom above all else, with the life of civil duty being second. However, it could be said that happiness is a very vague concept because we are all made happy by different things; for some happiness comes from helping others, whereas for others it comes from hurting or bullying people. For some happiness comes from fitness and exercise, whilst for others it comes from being a couch potato, so how can Aristotle really say that happiness consists only in a particular lifestyle, a lifestyle which happens to be his own? Moreover, is Aristotle really correct to rule out a life of pleasure as the goal that we should all seek? After all, surely the reason why he himself was a philosopher was because he enjoyed the hunt for knowledge? According to Jeremy Bentham all pleasures are of equal worth and a simple game such as push-pin is just as good as poetry.
Immanuel Kant believed that virtue theories were incomplete as moral theories because all of the different virtues could be abused, for example, intelligence can be used to plan robberies and courage can be used to go out and do them. For Kant what was required was a set of rules and a willingness to follow those rules, but Aristotle’s virtue ethics does not provide us with rules to live by. Suppose that a teenage girl finds herself pregnant and is considering an abortion; telling her to do the courageous thing doesn’t really help, what is more courageous, facing the difficulties of motherhood or facing the difficulties of terminating the pregnancy? However, Aristotle believes that these rules can largely be filled in by society; in order for any society to function at all certain rules have to be followed such as having restrictions on stealing, violence, and killing, and in order to get on well with our peers traits such as honesty and helpfulness are required so it becomes morally correct to tell the truth and help others where we can. Aristotle accepts Cultural Relativism and believed that in general you should follow local moral customs and traditions. Some find this problematic as they believe that the practices of many cultures are morally repugnant and that these should be a universal code of right and wrong meaning that things such as torture or honour killings should not happen anywhere, but for Aristotle Cultural Relativism was a fact of life clear to plain observation of other cultures.
Aristotle took the view that some people were better than others and of greater worth: those who were virtuous and intelligent were better quality human beings than those who were incapable of virtue. Aristotle further argued that some human beings should be owned and used as slaves, their lack of virtue and intelligence relegating them to a status on a par with animals or children. Many modern philosophers find this to be morally outrageous and therefore reject Aristotle’s notions what makes a worthwhile life and person. On the other hand Friedrich Nietzsche argued that Aristotle was exactly right to reject equality, some people are just better, more useful, and more valuable and important than others and we should just accept this and reject the myth that we all have equal worth, something which devalues the best people in the human race. Another view is that we are all capable of virtue to some degree, and that we should take Aristotle’s views on virtue and eudaimonia as an inspiration to help fellow members of society to develop their potential as much as they can.
Aristotle gives compelling evidence that it is natural for us to live in communities of some form, after all, without communal living infants would never be able to become sentient and intelligent adults, and without communal living language would not exist at all. Moreover, it is difficult to satisfy our basic needs living in solitude, let alone our more advanced desires such as for comfort, enjoyment, and culture. However, is it not too simple to just classify man is a social animal? Human beings are not like ants whose entire existence appears to be a blind subservience to the colony, and very few of us would wish to live this way, we often strive for our personal freedom and autonomy. Is it not more realistic to say that human beings have a mixed nature, being part-social, part-individual? From an early age we depend on other people such as our parents, and we pick up their opinions and habits, but at the same time we always have our own minds and ideas. In various cases we find that we cannot be happy without others, but at the same time we often find that “hell is other people”[11] to quote Jean-Paul Sartre. Each of us seems to be a mixture of the social and the individual, so that neither view is completely correct, and some people are more social than others whilst others are more independent than others.
Aristotle used his thesis that we
are social and political animals to argue for the idea that we should serve
society, do our duties, and follow the commands of its governors, but taken to
its extreme this would lead to a totalitarian state such as Stalin’s Russia , Hitler’s Germany
Bibliography / References
[1] Aristotle, On
The Soul, Book II, part 1, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/soul.1.i.html
[2] Aristotle, Politics,
Book I, part 2, http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.1.one.html
[3] JS Mill, Utilitarianism. Chapter 2.
[4] Will Durrant, The Story of Philosophy:
The Lives and Opinions of the World's Greatest Philosophers (1926).
[5] Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, Book 1, Chapter
7.
[6] John Donne, Devotions Upon Emergent Occasions, Meditation XVII.
[8] Source: Feral Children, http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A269840/
[9] Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, part 2.
[10] Aristotle, Politics, Book 1, part 2.
[11] Jean-Paul
Sartre, No Exit.
No comments:
Post a Comment