Page images
PDF
EPUB

affection in the benefactor as compared with the benefited? It is not enough to say that this is a case of a creditor desiring the prosperity of the debtor. The benefactor is like an artist who loves his work as increasing his sense of his own powers; he has also the lasting consciousness of doing an honourable act, while the recipient of kindness has only the consciousness of the present profit. Finally the active part taken by the benefactor has more affinity with the active principle of loving. Another question which is asked is whether selflove is good or bad. On the one hand, the worse a man is, the more selfish (píλavros) he is thought to be: on the other hand, we have pointed out that love for self is the original type of love for others. The explanation is that the word self-love (rò píλavtov) is used in two senses, having reference to two different selves. When we use the name 'self-love' of those who are eager to give to themselves the larger share of honours, riches and bodily pleasures, we mean the love of the lower self, that is, of the appetites and passions and generally of the irrational part of the soul. If on the contrary a man sets himself to do always what is just and temperate and thus wins honour to himself, we should not generally speak of such a man as loving himself; and yet it is plain that he seeks the best and noblest things for himself, and gratifies that principle of his nature which is most rightfully authoritative (χαρίζεται ἑαυτοῦ τῷ κυριωτάτῳ); and such a principle we must consider to constitute the man's true self, just as it does in the case of the State or any other system. In this sense then the good man ought to love himself, for his reason chooses what is in itself best, and in obeying reason he performs noble

actions, which not only benefit himself but also do good to others. On the other hand the bad man ought not to love himself, for he will only do harm both to himself and to others by following his evil propensities. It is true that the good man will seem at times to be sacrificing himself for his friends or for his country; for, for their sakes, he will throw away money and honours and even life itself, if so be he may win true glory (rò κaλóv). Nay he will even surrender to his friend the doing of noble deeds; and yet, in all, he does what is best for himself and chooses what is best; for to help his friend to honour is more honorable than to win honour for himself, and the rapture of one glorious moment is worth years of common-place life.

Another question raised is whether the happy man needs friends? Those who deny this take the view that the only use of friends is to supply a want, and the happy man has no wants. But this is plainly a mistake. For (1) the possession of friends being one of the greatest of external goods is necessarily included in perfect happiness (2) the happy man will need friends, not as givers, but as recipients of kindness: (3) companionship is a natural want to him as to others: (4) the good man's happiness consists in doing and seeing good, and he can see goodness in a friend more clearly than he can in himself: he delights in a good action for its own sake, and he delights in it still more because it is his friend's: (5) the performance of good acts is made easier and pleasanter and consequently more continuous by their being done in company with others: and (6) to be in the society of the good is a sort of schooling in virtue. The argument may be put in a more metaphysical form as

follows, 'Life is good, especially to the good man; but man's life consists in consciousness'; the more of consciousness the more of life; if then he doubles his consciousness in a good friend, he has so much more of life and therefore of good.' But to enjoy this sympathetic consciousness it is necessary to live in the company of the friend and share his words and thoughts.

The number of friends for use or pleasure is limited by convenience. The number of true friends is limited by our incapacity to feel the highest kind of affection for many, and also by the difficulty of harmonious association among many ; οἱ δὲ πολύφιλοι οὐδενὶ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι píλo, 'the man of many friends is thought to be no one's friend.'

Friendship is more beautiful in prosperity, more necessary in adversity. In the latter the presence of friends has a mixed effect. While it is sweet to see a friend and be conscious of his sympathy, and while a friend, if he has tact (eaveidéέios), is the best of all comforters; yet, on the other hand, it is inconsistent with a manly character to cause unnecessary pain to friends. We should invite our friends to share our good fortune, and we should go unasked to comfort them in their misfortunes, but not solicit their help ourselves unless the service they are able to do would far outweigh the pain it costs. On the other hand we must beware of the appearance of sullenness in declining offers of help or sympathy. In the ordinary course of life friendship proves itself in companionship. Whatever a man makes the chief interest of his life, from drinking to philosophy, he wishes his friend to share in it. And thus it is that · ἔοικε τὸ ζῆν εἶναι κυρίως τὸ αἰσθάνεσθαι ἢ νοεῖν. IX. 9.

the bad are made worse, and the good better by their friendships.

The subject of the Tenth Book is Pleasure. This forms a part of ethics, because it is an essential element of human life and also of virtuous training; for to take pleasure in what we ought is the foundation of a good moral character. Two opposite views have been put forward by philosophers, (1) that it is the Summum Bonum, (2) that it is altogether bad. Some of the supporters of the latter view have probably overstated the case in order to correct man's common proneness to pleasure; but this is a mistaken policy. The exaggeration is soon exposed, and its exposure brings the truth itself into disrepute.

The first argument alleged in favour of pleasure is that pleasure is the one thing which all creatures, rational and irrational, desire; which proves that it must be the Summum Bonum, because all creatures are led by nature to their good, as they are to their proper food. Aristotle defends this argument in so far as it is founded on a universal instinct; ὃ γὰρ πᾶσι δοκεῖ τοῦτ ̓ εἶναι φάμεν. "Those who dispute this will hardly find any better ground of certainty. Even in the inferior animals nature. has infused something of a higher strain which aims at that which is good for them." I will not dwell on the somewhat technical argumentation which follows, but pass on at once to Aristotle's own view of Pleasure, which comes in, like a virtuous mean, between the two extreme views. Pleasure is something complete in itself at each successive moment of time. It is an accompaniment of the natural activity of the healthy organ or faculty, and is better in proportion to the excellence of the faculty.

It is thus a sort of crowning perfection or consummation of the activity'. Uninterrupted pleasure is an impossibility, because our faculties are not capable of uninterrupted exercise. Since pleasure is thus bound up with the activity, and is sweetest when that is best, it is evident that, in seeking to exercise their living powers, all things seek the pleasure which is the accompaniment and token of their most perfect exercise. Thus we may say indifferently that we desire pleasure for the sake of life, or life for the sake of pleasure.

Pleasures are of different kinds in accordance with the differences of the faculties and activities to which they are attached. Each activity is promoted and intensified by its own pleasure; for instance, he who takes pleasure in a particular study is likely to succeed best in it. On the other hand the activity is impeded by an alien pleasure, as the sound of a flute makes it difficult for a musician to attend to a speech.

Since activities differ in a moral point of view, and we call some good, some bad; there must be the same difference among pleasures. Again, the pleasures of intellect differ in purity from those of sense; and the pleasures of sight, hearing, and smell, from those of taste and touch. Each species of animal has its own specific pleasures, as it has its own powers and activities. Even among men we find great varieties of liking, for instance the healthy man and the sick man have a different judgment as to what is sweet. Amid these varieties we shall make the perfect man our standard that is true pleasure which is pleasure to

1 τελειοῖ τὴν ἐνέργειαν ἡ ἡδονὴ, οὐχ ὡς ἡ ἕξις ἐνυπάρχουσα, ἀλλ' ὡς ἐπιγινόμενόν τι τέλος, οἷον τοῖς ἀκμαίοις ἡ ὥρα, Χ. 4

« PreviousContinue »