Tuesday, June 07, 2011

On #Aristotle Ethicas: A Happy Man

Again, it is perhaps absurd to make our happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others.  Of course the happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude therefore, that the happy man does need friends.

This includes both Material goods as well as social goods.  After all, which man would want to be all alone, sharing nothing with society, or at least family and friends?

I recently stayed at home, while my wife, sister-in-law, and foster-son went to visit my parents for the day.  By the end of the day, I was pacing like a caged animal, and wondering what time they'd be coming home.  It's the small things such as people in the house that make a man happy.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Friendship

Some will say that they who are blessed and independent have no need of friends, for they already hall that is good, and so, as being independent, want nothing further.  Whereas, the notion of a friend's office is to be as it were a second self and procure for a man that he cannot get by himself.

It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends.  This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship.  There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.

Sunday, June 05, 2011

On #Aristotle Ethicas: On Payments

They are certainly fairly found fault who take the money in advance and then do nothing of what they said they woud do, their promises having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform what they agreed, The sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge.  These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what they have already taken money for doing.

This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver.  And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.

On #Aristotle Ethicas: Honor and Property

This is plainly the principle acted upon in political communities: he receives no honor who gives no good to the common stock: for the property of the public is given to him who does good to the public, and honour is the property of the public; it is not possible both to make money out of the public and receive honour likewise; because no on will put up with the less in every respect: so to him who suffers loss as regards money, they award honour, but money to him who can be paid by gifts since as has been stated before, the observing due proportion equalises and preserves friendships.

The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution.  However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you.  Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.