Now such a thing, happiness,
above all else, is considered to be.
For this we choose always for itself,
and never for the sake of something else.
But honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose,
indeed, for themselves, even if with them we still should lose.
But we choose them also for the sake of happiness,
judging that by having them, we shall have bliss.
Happiness, on the other hand,
no one chooses for the sake of these,
nor, in general, for the sake of ease.
From the point of view of self-sufficiency,
the same result seems to follow,
for the best good is without dependency.
Self-sufficiency is not a one-man ship,
for one who lives a solo life;
but also parents, children, wife,
and for friends and fellow citizens,
since man is born for fellowship.
Self-sufficiency now defined
is that which, by itself, keeps worry out of mind;
and such happiness we hope to find.
And further, happiness is most
desirable with no need to boast.
If it were somehow something wanting:
Even adding the least amount
Would somehow make it quickly jaunting;
For excess makes a grave discount.
Happiness, then, is that final something:
Independent, self-sufficient, end of everything.
Presumably, however, is the cliché:
“Happiness is the best good,” is what they say.
Yet, we still haven’t it acquired,
and a better account is still desired.
This account might perhaps be given,
if we knew the function of men.
For just as with musician, sculptor, artist:
Knowing one’s purpose is always hardest.
So would it seem to be for man:
to find his purpose if he can.
Have the builder, then, and architect plans:
Yet, was man made without a purpose?
Was he born without a function?
O what gumption!
Or as eye, hand, and foot alike:
All have their proper place and size.
How absurd to think that man is different!
Like having appendix spiritual-eyes.
What then, can this be?
To know these things is heavenly.
Life seems to be common even to plants,
And animals share that keen perception.
Yet happiness is what we’re after:
Which man alone can have with laughter!
There remains, then, an active life;
The kind that depends on a rational principle.
We find that the function of man
Is something of an active soul.
Now if the function of man is activity of the soul,
and if we have a something and a good something, true,
Then, as the musician who is good plays, plays well,
Then isn’t man’s life best lived well, too?
If this, then, be the case we’ve sought,
and human good we have in thought:
I have something very important to tell you:
Happiness is activity of soul in accordance with virtue.
And if there is more than one virtue,
And if time is never, ever forgiving,
Then for all of them must the complete life pursue,
For, happiness comes from a lifetime of good living.
—
This is a poem I wrote (adapting prose into poetry of a sort, inspired by Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics) in 2016. It’s interesting how hard it is to talk of something that you enjoyed doing in terms other than enjoyment. Maybe: I grew through the process? Anyway, after re-reading this just now, I still think Aristotle was onto something… but, the question becomes, what is truly human good? There are two answers: natural good and spiritual good. They don’t have to be antagonistic toward one another. Yet, as Paul says, “the natural man cannot understand the things of the Spirit, for they are spiritually discerned.” This shouldn’t result in a failure to seek human, natural good, for any human. We just have to know that natural good is not enough, and that natural humanity is not all there is. There’s more…
I Love Philosophy 