Ancient: Aristotle on the purpose of life발음듣기
대기중
Ancient: Aristotle on the purpose of life
72문장
100% 한국어
번역 45명 참여
출처 : 칸아카데미
Ancient: Aristotle on the purpose of life
I'm a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and today I want to talk about the purpose of human life, Aristotle's Ergon Argument.
The word "ergon" in Greek means "work," or "job," or "product," or "function."
The term is most clearly used in the context of artifacts or skills.
So the ergon of a saw is to cut.
The ergon of a house is to protect against weather and intruders.
And the argon of an architect is to build houses.
A connected term is "arete," which means "excellence" or "virtue."
The excellence of a saw is sharpness, since its function is to cut.
The excellence of a house is stability and security, since its function is protection.
And the excellence of an architect is the building of good houses.
Do human beings have an ergon, or a function?
And if so, do they also have a corresponding arete, or excellence?
Aristotle argues that they do, And his argument can help us think more clearly about the purpose of human life.
But before we can discuss the ergon argument itself we need to discuss some background assumptions about the nature of life.
Aristotle recognizes four distinct classes of living things: plants, animals, humans, and Gods.
And we'll set Gods aside for a moment here.
Aristotle defines living things by their capabilities.
Plants have the ability to grow, use energy, and reproduce.
When we talk about a plant doing well or poorly, we refer to these capabilities.
Thus, when a plant is growing properly, deepening its roots, throwing out leaves and flowers and shoots, and fructifying, we say that it is flourishing.
The opposite happens when a plant's capabilities are stymied, when a tree, for instance, is stunted, or leaves are withering and dying on the vine.
Botanists and gardeners know what is good or bad for plants, that is, what kinds of things help and what kinds of things hurt the activities related to their capabilities.
Notice that it is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact, what is good and bad for plants in this respect.
Different plants might require different kinds of nutrients or different amounts of shade and water.
But every plant is said to do well or poorly on the objective basis of the activities related to its specific capabilities.
Animals, in a way, are like superpowered plants.
They too have the ability to grow, use nutrition, and reproduce.
These things are just as objectively important for animals as they are for plants, as veterinarians and zoologists can tell you.
But animals also have other and higher capabilities.
For example animals, unlike plants, can move themselves around in space.
Animals that cannot do so, whether because of a birth defect or because they're encaged, cannot be said to be doing well.
This is why animal rights activists campaign for larger cages or free ranges for animals, because it's obvious that it is better for the animals if they are capable of exercising their capacity for self-movement fully.
Most importantly, animals have the capability of perception.
They can feel hot and cold, smell, taste, hear, and see.
And some of them can do all of these things.
Animals that are incapable of seeing, even though members of their species are normally able to do so, are thought not to be doing as well as their relatives that can.
With the ability to sense comes the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and thus appetite and aversion.
These capabilities are connected with an animal's capability for self-movement, since they pursue that which they have an appetite for and avoid things that might interfere with their natural activities.
Now an animal cannot do well if it is deficient with respect to its plant-like or vegetative capabilities.
But even if it is fine with respect to those capabilities, it cannot be said to flourish if it is stymied with respect to self-movement and sensation.
For example, if an animal is in a lot of pain or is unable to satisfy its desire for food because of injury to its organs of movement, that animal will not be said to do well.
For an animal to flourish, it needs to be able to move around and to sense the world in such a way that produces, for it, pleasure or at least more pleasure than pain.
Now let's move on to humans.
It's often pointed out that humans are animals, animals with superpowers.
But it is less often pointed out that we are plants too.
That is, we, like other animals, have the capabilities of plants: growth, nutrition, and reproduction.
And we need to exercise these capabilities if we are to live.
And like the other animals, we have the capabilities for self-movement and sensation.
And with these, pleasure and pain, appetite and aversion.
All life is deeply connected in this way.
But humans also have unique capabilities that no other animals have, most importantly the ability to reason and to use language.
These capabilities allow us to cultivate friendships and social relations, build and contribute to political structures, plan for the future, modify our appetites and desires, educate our young, develop music and mathematics, and even to contemplate the nature of the universe and the purpose of human life.
If a human does not have these capabilities, they are missing out on part of what it is to be human.
And if they also lack even the animal capabilities we might consider them less than animal, at least while they're in what we, for these very reasons, call a "persistent vegetative state."
Thus, we can determine what is good for us in a parallel fashion to how we determine what is good with respect to the other kinds of living things.
Those things that allow us to engage in the activities that exercise our capacities are good, and those that impede or prevent this are bad.
Now that we have that background in place, we should be in a good position to answer "What, for Aristotle, "is the ergon of a human being?"
It would be odd if the purpose of human life was related to our lowest vegetative capabilities, unless we aspire to being a good plant.
Thus, the exercise of our capabilities for reproduction, growth and stature, and even nutrition, however important for us, cannot be the ultimate purpose of our life any more than it could be for a brute animal.
Similarly, mere sensation, pleasure, and satisfaction of our bodily appetites cannot, as they are for brute animals, be the purpose of our life.
What makes cows and pigs flourish can no more make a human flourish than what makes oaks and vine flourish can do so for cows and pigs.
Even if those lower vegetative capabilities must be in a satisfactory condition in order for the higher ones to do their work.
Thus, by a process of elimination, we arrive at the capabilities to use reason and language.
These are the capabilities that define us, which is why Aristotle defined the human being as a rational animal, which is reflected in the modern name for our species, "Homo sapiens."
Thus, the forming of friendships and social relations, the controlling of our appetites and emotions, the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues, and the observing of the cosmos and our place in it are the activities that, because they correspond with our highest and most unique capabilities, give meaning to human life and represent the flourishing of our kind of living thing.
The things that are good for us follow from this, and thus can be determined with the same degree of objectivity that gardeners and botanists can for plants, and veterinarians and zoologists can for animals.
These arts and sciences can objectively determine what is good and bad for those kind of living things, and so anthropology and philosophy can determine what is good and bad for our kind of living thing.
In fact, the very highest activity, the one that Aristotle calls godlike, is philosophy, because this involves the pure exercise of reason and thought, just as the Gods constantly engage in, according to Aristotle.
And philosophy engages in reason and thought not only in order to serve our vegetative and animal needs, but just for its own sake as well, for the sake of living a human life.
For this reason, Aristotle thought that doing philosophy was the ultimate end of human existence.
In conclusion, you should be happy that you're watching this video, because I have just shown how you are now engaging in the exercise of your highest and most godlike capabilities. Good work.
번역
0%
I'm a professor at the University of California, San Diego, and today I want to talk about the purpose of human life, Aristotle's Ergon Argument.발음듣기
대기중
Aristotle argues that they do, And his argument can help us think more clearly about the purpose of human life.발음듣기
대기중
But before we can discuss the ergon argument itself we need to discuss some background assumptions about the nature of life.발음듣기
대기중
Aristotle recognizes four distinct classes of living things: plants, animals, humans, and Gods.발음듣기
대기중
Thus, when a plant is growing properly, deepening its roots, throwing out leaves and flowers and shoots, and fructifying, we say that it is flourishing.발음듣기
대기중
The opposite happens when a plant's capabilities are stymied, when a tree, for instance, is stunted, or leaves are withering and dying on the vine.발음듣기
대기중
Botanists and gardeners know what is good or bad for plants, that is, what kinds of things help and what kinds of things hurt the activities related to their capabilities.발음듣기
대기중
Notice that it is not a matter of opinion, but of scientific fact, what is good and bad for plants in this respect.발음듣기
대기중
Different plants might require different kinds of nutrients or different amounts of shade and water.발음듣기
대기중
But every plant is said to do well or poorly on the objective basis of the activities related to its specific capabilities.발음듣기
대기중
These things are just as objectively important for animals as they are for plants, as veterinarians and zoologists can tell you.발음듣기
대기중
Animals that cannot do so, whether because of a birth defect or because they're encaged, cannot be said to be doing well.발음듣기
대기중
This is why animal rights activists campaign for larger cages or free ranges for animals, because it's obvious that it is better for the animals if they are capable of exercising their capacity for self-movement fully.발음듣기
대기중
Animals that are incapable of seeing, even though members of their species are normally able to do so, are thought not to be doing as well as their relatives that can.발음듣기
대기중
With the ability to sense comes the ability to feel pain and pleasure, and thus appetite and aversion.발음듣기
대기중
These capabilities are connected with an animal's capability for self-movement, since they pursue that which they have an appetite for and avoid things that might interfere with their natural activities.발음듣기
대기중
Now an animal cannot do well if it is deficient with respect to its plant-like or vegetative capabilities.발음듣기
대기중
But even if it is fine with respect to those capabilities, it cannot be said to flourish if it is stymied with respect to self-movement and sensation.발음듣기
대기중
For example, if an animal is in a lot of pain or is unable to satisfy its desire for food because of injury to its organs of movement, that animal will not be said to do well.발음듣기
대기중
For an animal to flourish, it needs to be able to move around and to sense the world in such a way that produces, for it, pleasure or at least more pleasure than pain.발음듣기
대기중
That is, we, like other animals, have the capabilities of plants: growth, nutrition, and reproduction.발음듣기
대기중
But humans also have unique capabilities that no other animals have, most importantly the ability to reason and to use language.발음듣기
대기중
These capabilities allow us to cultivate friendships and social relations, build and contribute to political structures, plan for the future, modify our appetites and desires, educate our young, develop music and mathematics, and even to contemplate the nature of the universe and the purpose of human life.발음듣기
대기중
If a human does not have these capabilities, they are missing out on part of what it is to be human.발음듣기
대기중
And if they also lack even the animal capabilities we might consider them less than animal, at least while they're in what we, for these very reasons, call a "persistent vegetative state."발음듣기
대기중
Thus, we can determine what is good for us in a parallel fashion to how we determine what is good with respect to the other kinds of living things.발음듣기
대기중
Those things that allow us to engage in the activities that exercise our capacities are good, and those that impede or prevent this are bad.발음듣기
대기중
Now that we have that background in place, we should be in a good position to answer "What, for Aristotle, "is the ergon of a human being?"발음듣기
대기중
It would be odd if the purpose of human life was related to our lowest vegetative capabilities, unless we aspire to being a good plant.발음듣기
대기중
Thus, the exercise of our capabilities for reproduction, growth and stature, and even nutrition, however important for us, cannot be the ultimate purpose of our life any more than it could be for a brute animal.발음듣기
대기중
Similarly, mere sensation, pleasure, and satisfaction of our bodily appetites cannot, as they are for brute animals, be the purpose of our life.발음듣기
대기중
What makes cows and pigs flourish can no more make a human flourish than what makes oaks and vine flourish can do so for cows and pigs.발음듣기
대기중
Even if those lower vegetative capabilities must be in a satisfactory condition in order for the higher ones to do their work.발음듣기
대기중
Thus, by a process of elimination, we arrive at the capabilities to use reason and language.발음듣기
대기중
These are the capabilities that define us, which is why Aristotle defined the human being as a rational animal, which is reflected in the modern name for our species, "Homo sapiens."발음듣기
대기중
Thus, the forming of friendships and social relations, the controlling of our appetites and emotions, the cultivation of moral and intellectual virtues, and the observing of the cosmos and our place in it are the activities that, because they correspond with our highest and most unique capabilities, give meaning to human life and represent the flourishing of our kind of living thing.발음듣기
대기중
The things that are good for us follow from this, and thus can be determined with the same degree of objectivity that gardeners and botanists can for plants, and veterinarians and zoologists can for animals.발음듣기
대기중
These arts and sciences can objectively determine what is good and bad for those kind of living things, and so anthropology and philosophy can determine what is good and bad for our kind of living thing.발음듣기
대기중
In fact, the very highest activity, the one that Aristotle calls godlike, is philosophy, because this involves the pure exercise of reason and thought, just as the Gods constantly engage in, according to Aristotle.발음듣기
대기중
And philosophy engages in reason and thought not only in order to serve our vegetative and animal needs, but just for its own sake as well, for the sake of living a human life.발음듣기
대기중
For this reason, Aristotle thought that doing philosophy was the ultimate end of human existence.발음듣기
대기중
칸아카데미 더보기더 보기
-
Slavery and Missouri Compromise in early 1800...
86문장 100%번역 좋아요3
번역하기 -
65문장 100%번역 좋아요1
번역하기 -
Bonheur, Sheep in the Highlands
22문장 100%번역 좋아요1
번역하기 -
Verifying hedge with futures margin mechanics
34문장 100%번역 좋아요0
번역하기
