Good - Aristotle, Platonism, And Christianity
life conception platonic human
We may notice how Aristotle's conception of the good partakes of both elements of this dichotomy between objective and subject conceptions. For Aristotle, the good is identified in the first instance as what one "aims at" in any given activity—in a word, "the end" (telos) of that activity. Thus the end of running might be health or winning races. Ultimately, though, we arrive at the aforementioned "happiness" (eudaimonia) as the final good (end) for human beings. This end, however, is not a mere subjective preference. It depends, in Aristotle's account, ultimately on our natural purpose or function as rational creatures. At the same time, however, it is not a Platonic object, existing separate and apart from humanity or human tendencies.
This difference between Aristotle's "teleological" and Plato's more "metaphysical" conception of the good is important in understanding the good as it figures in Western religious thought. One important strain in Christian thought draws on a Platonic conception of the good as residing in a distinct object accessible to human knowledge yet quite remote from ordinary, this-worldly experiences. A more "Aristotelian" strain of Christianity, most clearly represented in the thought of Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225–1274), accepts Aristotle's conception of the good as happiness but construes this "final end" as including our spiritual as well as our physical, social, and intellectual ends as humans. So in this conception more than in the Platonic, secular and otherworldly goods are seen as complementary; the spiritual is seen as completing or "perfecting" nature—rather than as standing in stark Platonic opposition to it.
User Comments
over 1 year ago
Josephus
A friend of mine recently questioned me in regards to my religious beliefs. He says," Let's say that there isn't a god. Even so, wouldn't it be better to be on the "safe side" and believe that there is and go to heaven rather than not believe and go to hell?"
Normally I'm not one to discuss this sort of topic with anyone, but he asked and so I told him. "Yes, it would be better to be on the "safe side" according to your question. Although there isn't a god so it doesn't matter what "side" you are on. That is how you believe it in the first place, by the fear of going to hell. With that deal, you have no choice but to believe in it either way. And you were taught this to be true as a child. What if you were born somewhere else? You must take demographics into account. So people who were born in other countries governed by different religions, according to your beliefs are automatically condemned to hell."
There were other things said among this conversation, but to make a long story short; he was speechless and had no further argument. I don't enjoy pressing my opinions on others, but he asked. People should figure it out for themselves. I don't want to be held accountable for any dismay I might have caused him. Ugh... People.