Lesson 2

THE GOOD LIFE

LESSON OBJECTIVES
At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:

 examine what is meant by a good life;

 identity how humans attempt to attain what is deemed to be a
good life; and
 recognize possibilities available to human being to attain the
good life.

INTRODUCTION
In Ancient Greece, the need to understand the world and reality
was bound with the need to understand the self and the good life.
For Plato, the task of understanding the things in the world runs
parallel with the job of truly getting into what will make the soul
flourish. In an attempt to understand reality and the external world,
man must seek to understand himself, too. It was Aristotle who gaye
a definitive distinction between the theoretical and practical
sciences. Among the theoretical disciplines, Aristotle included logic,
biology, physics, and metaphysics, among others, Among the
practical ones, Aristotle counted ethics and politics. Whereas "truth"
is the aim of the theoretical sciences, the "good" is the end goal of
the practical ones. Every attempt to know is connected in some way
in an attempt to find the "good" or as said in the previous lesson, the
attainment of human flourishing. Rightly so, one must find the truth
about what the good is before one can even try to locate that which
is good.
In the previous lesson, we have seen how a misplaced or an
erroneous idea of human flourishing can turn tables for all of us,
make the sciences work against us rather than for us, and draw a
chasm between the search for truth and for the good. In this lesson,
we endeavor to go back a little and answer these questions: What
does it really mean to live a good life? What qualifies as a good
existence? Granting this understanding, we are assumed to be in a
better position to reconcile our deepest existential needs as human
beings and science as tool to maneuver around the world.

Aristotle and How We All Aspire for a Good Life

It is interesting to note that the first philosopher, who
approached the problem of reality from a "scientific" lens as we know
now, is also the first thinker who dabbled into the complex
problematization of the end goal of life: happiness. This man is none
other than Aristotle.
Compared to his teacher and predecessor, Plato, Aristotle
embarked on a different approach in figuring out reality. In contrast
to Plato who thought that things in this world are not real and are
only copies of the real in the world of forms, Aristotle puts everything
back to the ground in claiming that this world is all there is to it and
that this world is the only reality we can all access. For Plato,
change is so perplexing that it can only make sense if there are two
realities: the world of forms and the world of matter. Consider the
human person. When you try to see yourself in front of the mirror,
you normally say and think that you are looking at yourself-that is,
you are the person who slept last night and you are the same person
looking at yourself now, despite the occasional changes like a new
pimple that grows on your nose. The same is true for a seed that you
threw out of the garden last month. When you peek into the same
patch of land where the seed ingrained itself into, you may be
surprised to see a little plant showing itself to you and to the sun.
Plato recognized change as a process and as a phenomenon that
happens in the world, that in fact, it is constant. However, Plato also
claims that despite the reality of change, things remain and they
retain their ultimate "whatness"; that you remain to be you despite
the pimple that now sits atop your nose. Plato was convinced that
reality is full of these seemingly contrasting manifestations of
change and permanence. For Plato, this can only be explained by
postulating two aspects of reality, two worlds if you wish: the world
of forms and the world of matter. In the world of matter, things are
changing and impermanent. In the world of forms, the entities are
only copies of the ideal and the models, and the forms are the only
real entities. Things are red in this world because they participate in
what it means to be red in the world of forms.
 Aristotle, for his part, disagreed with his teacher's position and
forwarded the idea that there is no reality over and above what the
senses can perceive. As such, it is only by observation of the
external world that one can truly understand what reality is all
about. Change is a process that is inherent in things. We, along with
all other entities in the world, start as potentialities and move
toward actualities. The movement, of course, entails change.
Consider a seed that eventually germinates and grows into a plant.
The seed that turned to become the plant underwent change – from
the potential plant that is the seed to its full actuality, the plant.
Aristotle extends this analysis from the external world into the
province of the human person and declares that even human beings
are potentialities who aspire for their actuality. Every human being
moves according to some end. Every action that emanates from a
human person is a function of the purpose (telos) that the person
has. When a boy asks for a burger from a Filipino burger joint, the
action that he takes is motivated primarily by the purpose that he
has, inferably to get full or to taste the burger that he only sees on
TV. When a girl tries to finish her degree in the university, despite
the initial failures she may have had, she definitely is being
propelled by a higher purpose than to just graduate. She wants
something more, maybe to have a license and land a promising job
in the future. Every human person, according to Aristotle, aspires
for an end. This end, we have learned from the previous chapters, is
happiness or human flourishing.
No individual – young or old, fat or skinny, male or female-
resists happiness. We all want to be happy. Aristotle claims that
happiness is the be all and end all of everything that we do. We may
not realize it but the end goal of everything that we do is happiness.
If you ask one person why he is doing what he is doing, he may not
readily say that it is happiness that motivates him. Hard-pressed to
explain why he is motivated by what motivates him will reveal that
happiness is the grand, motivating force in everything that he does.
When Aristotle claims that we want to be happy, he does not
necessarily mean the everyday happiness that we obtain when we
win a competition or we eat our favorite dish in a restaurant. What
Aristotle actually means is human flourishing, a kind of
contentment in knowing that one is getting the best out of life. A
kind of feeling that one has maxed out his potentials in the world,
that he has attained the crux of his humanity.

Happiness as the Goal of a Good Life

In the eighteenth century, John Stuart Mill declared the Greatest
Happiness Principle by saying that an action is right as far as it
maximizes the attainment of happiness for the greatest number of
people. At a time when people were skeptical about claims on the
metaphysical, people could not make sense of the human flourishing
that Aristotle talked about in the days of old. Mill said that
individual happiness of each individual should be prioritized and
collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed.
Consider the pronouncements against mining. When an action
benefits the greatest number of people, said action is deemed
ethical. Does mining benefit rather than hurt the majority? Does it
offer more benefits rather than disadvantages? Does mining result in
more people getting happy rather than sad? If the answers to the
said questions are in the affirmative, then the said action, mining, is
deemed ethical.
The ethical is, of course, meant to lead us to the good and happy
life. Through the ages, as has been expounded in the previous
chapters, man has constantly struggled with the external world in
order to reach human flourishing. History has given birth to
different schools of thought, all of which aim for the good and happy
life.

Materialism
The first materialists were the atomists in Ancient Greek
Democritus and Leucippus led a school whose primary belief is that
tie world is made up of and is controlled by the tiny indivisible units
in the world called atomos or seeds. For Democritus and his
disciples, the world including human beings, is made up of matter.
There is no need to posit immaterial entities as sources of purpose.
Atomos simply comes together randomly to form the things in the
world. As such, only material entities matter. In terms of human
flourishing, matter is what makes us attain happiness. We see this
at work with most people who are clinging on to material wealth as
the primary source of the meaning of their existence.
Hedonism
The hedonists, for their part, see the end goal of life in acquiring
pleasure. Pleasure has always been the priority of hedonists. For
them, life is about obtaining and indulging in pleasure because life
is limited. The mantra of this school of thought is the famous, Eat,
drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die." Led by Epicurus, this
school of thought also does not buy any notion of afterlife just like
the materialists.

Stoicism
Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused
the idea that to generate happiness, one must learn to distance
oneself and be apathetic. The original term, apatheia, precisely
means to be indifferent. For the stoics, happiness can only be
attained by a careful practice of apathy. We should, in this
worldview, adopt the fact that some things are not within our
control. The sooner we realize this, the happier we can become.

Theism
Most people find the meaning of their lives using God as a
fulcrum of their existence. The Philippines, as a predominantly
Catholic country, is witness to how people base their life goals on
beliefs that hinged on some form of supernatural reality called
heaven. The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the
communion with God. The world where we are in is only just a
temporary reality where we have to maneuver around while waiting
for the ultimate return to the hands of God.

Humanism
Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of
man to carve his own destiny and to legislate his own laws, free from
the shackles of a God that monitors and controls. For humanists,
man is literally the captain of his own ship. Inspired by the
enlightenment in seventeenth century, humanists see themselves
not merely as stewards As a result of the motivation of the humanist
current, scientists eventually turned to technology in order to ease
the difficulty of life as illustrated in the previous lessons. Scientists
of today meanwhile are ready to confront more sophisticated
attempts at altering the world for the benefit of humanity. Some
people now are willing to tamper with time and space in the name of
technology. Social media, as an example, has been so far a very
effective way of employing technology in purging time and space. Not
very long ago, of the creation but as individuals who are in control of
themselves and the world outside them. This is the spirit of most
scientists who thought that the world is a place and space for freely
unearthing the world in seeking for ways on how to improve the lives
of its inhabitants.
As a result of the motivation of the humanist current, scientists
eventually turned to technology in order to ease the difficulty of life
as illustrated in the previous lessons. Scientists of today meanwhile
are ready to confront more sophisticated attempts at altering the
world for the benefit of humanity. Some people now are willing to
tamper with time and space in the name of technology. Social media,
as an example, has been so far a very effective way of employing
technology in purging time and space. Not very long ago,
communication between two people from two continents in the
planet will involve months of waiting for a mail to arrive. Seeing each
other real time while talking was virtually impossible. Now,
communication between two people wherever they are, is not just
possible but easy. The Internet and smart phones made real- time
communication possible not just between two people, but even with
multiple people simultaneously.
Technology allowed us to tinker with our sexuality. Biologically
male individuals can now undergo medical operation if they so wish
for sexual reassignment. Breast implants are now available and can
be done with relative convenience if anyone wishes to have one.
Hormones may also be injected in order to alter the sexual
chemicals in the body.
Whether or not we agree with these technological advancements,
these are all undertaken in the hopes of attaining the good life. The
balance, however, between the good life, ethics, and technology has
to be attained.

SUMMARY
 Man is constantly in pursuit of the good life. Every person has
his perspective when it comes to what comprises the good life.
Throughout history, man has worked hard in pointing out what
amounts to a good, happy life. Some people like the classical
theorists thought that happiness has to do with the insides of the
human person. The soul, as the seat of our humanity, has been the
focus of attention of this end goal. The Soul has to attain a certain
balance in order to have a good life, a life of flourishing. It was only
until the seventeenth century that happiness became a centerpiece
in the lives of people, even becoming a full-blown ethical foundation
in John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism. At present, we see multitudes of
schools of thought that all promise their own key to finding
happiness. Science and technology has been, for the most part, at
the forefront of man's attempts at finding this happiness. The only
question at the end of the day is whether science is taking the right
path toward attaining what it really means to live a good life.

(A school of thought, or intellectual tradition, is the perspective of a group of

people who share common characteristics of opinion or outlook of a philosophy,
discipline, belief, social movement, economics, cultural movement, or art
movement.)