The Stoic Attitude

Although we've seen philosophic schools like Epicureans and Academics find followers in Rome, by the time of Imperial Rome it was definitely the Stoic school that had the most prominent and influential members – take for instance, Seneca, famous as a minister for the emperor Nero.

It was a clear need for education that drew Seneca to philosophy. He admits that learning anything for the sake of profit is not worth the time of a gentleman – a common attitude among ancient philosophers. But not even the usual studies of nobility of his time satisfied Seneca. Grammar and poetry are of no consequence in matters of life, and neither is music. Mathematics can be useful in ascertaining the lay of my lands, but this does not still tell me whether I should own land at all. And even if astrological predictions are true, it is of no use to know my future, if I cannot avoid it.

Even all areas of philosophy were not so important in Seneca's eyes. Logic he especially regarded as often concerning itself with mere trivialities. What does it help to know in how many ways word “friend” is used, if it does not tell us what to do to a friend? Seneca ridicules even the seemingly clever syllogisms of Zeno and other Stoics, who try to prove great ethical truths with simple logical tricks. Even worse is to spend time thinking about fallacies like Liar's paradox – learning about such mistakes in reasoning does not advance us at all in what is truly important in our life.

Yet, abstract reasoning about genera and meaning of being might have a place in life, Seneca admits, for if one is to be entertained, one might even at least train one's mind with one's entertainment. And at least Platonic idea of true being residing in something covered by reasoning shows us not to hold things of sense world in great value.

Questions about nature Seneca found somewhat more interesting, and he even compiled a treatise of curiosities of natural phenomena. Although interesting in themselves, these phenomena also point to some builder behind all these wonders, who shares a similar relation to world than soul to its body. The existence of such a creative intelligence suggests to Seneca that life of a person continues, even when separated from its dying body.

But it was especially the question of how to live that interested Seneca and one that he thought philosophy was especially fit to answer. Of course, philosophical study itself might benefit of an addition of simple guiding lines in these matters – in spur of the moment, remembering a simple piece of wisdom might be easier than going through elaborate proof. Yet, mere sayings are still not enough, especially as, Seneca says, current times are perverted and so far from the natural way of life that every possible help is required for living well.

It seems no question of human condition was too small to interest Seneca, as he ponders even such problems whether it is best to read detached sentences from several books or concentrate your attention on few books. Indeed, he says, philosophy is not just a source for some isolated principles, but an example for molding your whole life.

But it is especially big questions of life that Seneca is interested of. One should live the life to utmost and take advantage of every moment, because death is something that is inevitably following everyone and may surprise us suddenly. And if one should live old enough, one should cherish every day even more and relish the days when the desires of youth have gone by. And when the time comes, one must seize the opportunity and leave the aching body behind without any care.

Seneca's advice to seize the day was especially meant to eradicate all fears of future disasters. Why should one be unhappy before an event has occurred? If one is complacent with the idea that even the seemingly worst fate of them all, that is, one's death, can be an honourable event and that death leads either to cessation of all experiences, good and bad alike, or to release of human mind from bondage of body, all reasons to fear vanish. A person who has truly understood this will remain indifferent to her outward conditions – whether he is sensually pleasured or tormented by pain, her state of mind will be unaffected. Even a loss of something dear, like a good friend or beloved child, is something she does not regret – at least she has not switched good to a devious friend and at least she has had the opportunity to enjoy the life of her child thus far. And all the seeming hardships of life she deems to be mere challenges set by god, in which she can show the strength of her character. Even if this seems like an ideal that one cannot truly perform, it is an idea that one should try to emulate as much as she can.

Even the most seemingly useful negative emotions prove to be disadvantageous on a closer look. Thus, while Aristotelians would have commended the emotion of anger, as long as it was kept under strict control, Seneca wants to have none of this, since giving even restricted freedom to rage means losing one's self-control. Indeed, it is some results of rage that are more to be commended, such as a brave stance towards injustice, but these can also be a consequence of a controlled mind. In fact, it is much better not to hate people, whom one punishes, since their crimes are just a sign of their lack of self-control. Especially important this ability to control one's anger and be merciful is to people with great power, since on their decision depends lives of many people.

A good question is whether it is at all possible then to get rid of such negative emotions like anger, when they seem to arise in us without any choice on our parts. Yet, Seneca suggests, it is only the first impulse that is generated naturally, but turning impulses into actions still requires our assent. We might weaken impulses through exercise, but most important remedy against e.g. angered behaviour is not to give in to impulses demanding such a behaviour. For instance, we should take time to let our first feelings cool and to reflect whether the thing that made us angry really is worth all the fuss.

The result of losing all these negative emotions, Seneca believed, was not a state of no emotions, but a state of full joy. It was a state in which one truly controlled oneself and felt happy about this self-control – and this was the true source of happiness. Thus, things like traveling can by themselves lead to no happiness, since the main source of human activity or person's own mind remains same throughout one's travels. Yet, this does not mean that a truly wise person would completely disparage all external matters – if it be in her power to choose, she will still e.g. prefer doing honourable deeds benefiting her family or country than to be assailed by sickness and pain, and she would gladly have riches, because she can use them for good purposes.

Although Seneca thus insisted that perfect living would imply taking control of oneself, he also admitted that some reactions of body can never be fully controlled. For instance, some people naturally blush in novel situations, but this is just due to an increase in blood flow and not to any weakness in their character. Similarly, although a perfectly wise person would feel joy when thinking of happy times spent with departed friends, the body might still force some tears to her eyes. Indeed, Seneca says, one should not take that much care of body – only a moderate exercise is enough, because one should concentrate more on the well-being of one's mind, which was the truly divine element in a person.

Seneca's ideas of social relations are ambiguous. On the one hand, one should avoid crowds, especially when they are engaging in some brutal and inhuman activity, like gladiator battles, which Seneca despised. One should even try to make oneself as uninteresting as possible in eyes of the people, in other words, live as unluxurious life as possible – at least one should from time to time try to live with just the barest essentials. Indeed, why should one gather much wealth, when needs of nature can be fulfilled so easily, and in case of total deprivation one can still leave the life? Equally unimportant is social status, since we all derive from the same stock, and it is quite unimportant if other people think less of you because of your status in life. Some might even say that low status means easier life, since one does not then need to care about envy of people – and one should not take slavery as a reason to not enjoy a person's company.

On the other hand, it is good to have companions whom you trust, whom you can help in their need and with whom you can share all that you have learned from the art of living. Indeed, a person who is still just learning the art of good life requires some guidance from other people. And even if truly well-living persons can spend their time happily with themselves and live their whole life as a hermit, they still prefer having around them people they like, since company of friends is a source of joy also. One should just not be beguiled to think that one needs a lot of riches to provide for one's friends, for true friends will remain one's friends, no matter what one's financial condition.

Seneca's opinion on political affairs is equally ambiguous. Surely a wise person should help the community in any way she can, but if the community does not want her advice and especially if it is ruled by power-hungry and self-seeking persons, there is no duty to take care of such a community. Then a wise person might as well spend her life quietly contemplating the wonders of the universe – that is also useful, since surely such divine works require some observer.

Compared to Seneca, Epictetus seems more like the traditional image of a Stoic – a former slave, who dedicated his life to teaching other people the secrets of philosophy. His main conviction on this score was that students often just tried to memorise sayings of famous philosophers, which in itself was still no philosophy – a true philosopher was known of his actions, not of his lectures.

Like Seneca before him, Epictetus spoke of all three traditional parts of Stoic philosophy. He didn't disparage even logic or study of what is true. Indeed, he despised all skeptical philosophers who had thrown away the greatest gift of human beings or the capacity for reasoning, which is the only true measure of truth. An irrational person or a person who falls for all sorts of false deductions has erred and should thus correct herself, even if an error in reasoning seems a less important thing than an error in behaviour. Even study of rhetoric was of some use, Epictetus thought, because clarity in speech made it more easy for others to understand you. Still, one should not confuse such preliminary studies with the genuine philosophy.

The use of the study of nature lies in Epictetus' view especially in the evidence that it offers for the existence of some artificer or god behind the whole world. God has created the world purposefully and has given every creature its share of natural capacities to use – even such a seemingly useless thing as a beard is valuable, since it is such a clear sign of gender, Epictetus claims. To human beings, god gave something divine, namely, reason. Thus, we should be proud of our own heritage, which ultimately leads to god, and at the same time, respect the value of other human beings, no matter what their station in life.

Just like with Seneca, the true value of philosophy, according to Epictetus, lies in the art of living – it is here that one's progress in study of philosophy is evaluated. Epictetus notes that the art of living is in a sense something that everyone must look for herself, because everyone has different capacities – for some people, it is good to humble oneself and carry the chamber pot of their superiors, for others, that would be a great insult and a reason to object one's superiors. Similarly, one cannot really condemn people for living badly, because it is not their fault if they haven't been taught the skills required for good life – a thief just hasn't been explained well, why she shouldn't continue in her ways.

Still, even if no detailed rules fit for everyone can be made, Epictetus is still willing to say something general about good life. There is only one thing we can control, he insists, namely, our attitude towards all what we perceive to happen, while everything else lies beyond our control. The rule of good life is then to aim to control what we can – that is, our attitudes toward everything – and not care about things we can never control, like riches and health. This is the only way to true freedom, Epictetus says, because true freedom requires complete control of oneself.

In other words, we should be cautious about things we can control and confidently bear things we cannot control. Among the things one cannot control is one's bodily appearance. Thus, Epictetus says, we should not spend our time for improving our appearance or lamenting our bodily health. Instead, one should make one's inner choices as beautiful as possible and bear one's illnesses as gracefully as possible. And if one's life becomes unbearable, one should always remember that in suicide lies the final escape route out of all miseries.

Among the things one cannot control are also the actions of others. What should if I care, if others despise or pity me? What should I care, if a powerful person threatens my external conditions or my body? What should I care, if someone else failed to live like a philosopher? All of these things are such that I have no say on them. Because the lure of other people is so enticing, Epictetus suggests that a philosopher-to-be should at first avoid large crowds and return to civilisation only after fortifying one's mind.

Although Epictetus did not place much value in community life, he did not want to make Stoics into complete hermits. Indeed, he says a philosopher should clean oneself, so as to be worthy of being called a human being – and not to repulse other persons from philosophy, because of the stench. Epictetus is also willing to disregard certain radical ideas on community life of earlier Stoics. For instance, when earlier Stoics had declared that all women should be communally owned, Epictetus points out that we still shouldn't touch a woman with a different husband, because it would also be rude to take one's seat in a theater, although neither of you exactly owns the seat.

Epictetus divides the learning to live well into three phases. Firstly, one should try to tame one's emotions, so that neither love nor hate would affect one's judgement in any manner. Secondly, one should know one's duties in relation to other persons and act according to them. Finally, one should cultivate one's faculty of judgement, so that one is always in a position to say what is good or bad, no matter whether one's faculties are in a good condition or not.

Epictetus held Cynics as an ideal of living well. He congratulated Diogenes as truly independent and thus kingly person, because Diogenes was never perturbed by sudden blows of fate, such as being captured by pirates, but treated them with the same disdain as all others. Epictetus himself admits that he has a long way to go, if he wants to achieve the ideal result.

While Seneca wrote long essays on various themes, teachings of Epictetus were collected by his student, Arrian, and were often quite short. Even more aphoristical are the writings of our final example of later Stoics, Marcus Aurelius, who is quite an extraordinary specimen – a ruler of the Roman empire. In contrast with his grand state, he begins his Meditations quite humbly by reminding himself how much he has gotten from people who have educated him and taught of the ways of good life.

Humble is also his view about his own mental capacities. Everything in human life seems like a fleeting opinion, nothing is certain and not just material world, but everything in human soul is flux, he says. Yet, this is all just indifferent, because important thing is to keep hold of what is truly essential in oneself and disregard everything else by severing ties to one's material side. Even if there were no divinities, it would be good to hold on to what seems divine in you and gain complete self-mastery. Yet, even though Marcus Aurelius is sure that there are divinities taking care of the world, this does not mean any change in one's ideal behaviour: it is still good to live as naturally as possible.

An important part of life, Marcus Aurelius says, is the inevitable loss of one's faculties due to old age. This is nothing to complain about, since decay is also a part of natural progress. Even death is nothing to complain about, since it is only dissolution and return of body to the material elements, from which it originally arose. Life is like a stage, and we just have to bow out of it, when our time comes – and who knows, we might have to play the same part again during the repeating cycles of the world, so we should better play our part well.

The fact of old age and death does mean that one should not waste time with anything that one cannot really control, such as thoughts of other people. Instead, one should concentrate on what is most noble in human beings, that is, their capacity to reflect on things. Reason should be put to good use by inspecting and accepting everything that happens around us – whatever happens is just part of the natural course of the world. Being disturbed of all the pain, decay and death is disrespectful of the powers controlling the world, since all these things form the natural cycle of the world. Of course, it is also natural that humans act against their better reason and are disrespectful of everything in their deeds and words. Thus, one should not be disturbed of the fact that some people cannot act in such a philosophical manner, even more so if oneself is also incapable of living all times like a philosopher.

The capacity to reflect gives us a constant resting place from the ordeals and pains of human life. If something disturbs you, Marcus Aurelius says, you have the power to change your opinion and conclude that it wasn't nothing to be disturbed of. It is oneself everyone should be trying to control, not others, who might always be beyond your power. Ironically, this ruler of Roman empire appears to think that one of the worst fates that can befall a human being is becoming an emperor. Still, if one has to take that position, one must hold that position like a philosopher would.

The existence of reason is something shared by all human beings. Thus, reason connects all human beings into one community. Similarly, the whole world forms a unity, in which all living beings should be respected. One should dedicate one's life to this cosmological community by accepting the fate universe has bestowed on one. In world, Marcus Aurelius says, things feed one another, thus, what seems death and destruction is actually just change of one shape of matter into another according to rules and laws of universe. Then again, just like an individual should help the (local or global) community, she should be ready to accept help from others, since a group of persons can achieve things that a single individual by herself couldn't.

Although Marcus Aurelius was a dedicated Stoic, his aphorisms show a bit of carelessness in the acceptance of Stoicism. Thus, he is quite indifferent about the question whether world is governed by a benevolent person or whether Epicureans were right in denying all intention about the behaviour of the world. Whatever the case, Marcus Aurelius says, we should still hold on to our independence and reason.

In a sense, this branch of Stoicism has taken to its inevitable conclusion the idea that philosophy is all about the art of living. This development is in a sense a natural concomitant of the growing independence of other fields of investigation, which is something I'll take a look at in my next post. And when philosophy became synonymous with ethics, it was deprived of all speculations concerning the nature of reality – who cares whether world is ruled by chaos, providence or necessity, as long as I can control myself? Yet, this void of speculation could not be left empty and in yet further posts we will see how philosophy was overtaken by religion.

How to do things with words

The highest point in practical investigations for Aristotle was investigating the final end of all human endeavours  that is, happiness of individuals and communities. The final aim of such investigation was action for the sake of action, but usually activities aim at producing something. Because the end of these actions is something else than the action itself, a science investigating such an action will be lower in status than the science investigating happiness. Thus, we get a third class of sciences, which Aristotle calls poetic.

Now, the easiest examples of such productive activities are perhaps handicrafts: we do not pay for a tailor to continue his activities indefinitely, but to make clothes for us. Aristotle, like any good Greek gentleman, in all likelihood felt that such menial activities are beneath him and thus worthy of no interest. Still, he did study some productive activities, that is, those to do with language.

In one sense we have already seen Aristotle tackle one such productive science, namely, in his methodological writings: after all, the point of scientific method is not the method itself, but its result or science. Even more clear example is provided by rhetoric or the investigation of how to make eloquent and convincing speeches.

Rhetoric shares some features with scientific methodology and even more with debating on scientific and philosophic matters. Yet, the aim of rhetoric is not to find truth, but to convince others that something is true. Hence, a speaker must do something more than just spin out intricate proofs. The speaker must, for instance, make the impression that she is a reliable and trustworthy character. In order to do so, she must know what sort of characters e.g. persons of different age or of different social status have.

In addition to showing a good front to her audience, the speaker must also use some proofs. Yet, the proofs of a speaker must be less intricate than full scientific proofs. Thus, a speaker often leaves some of the assumptions of her proofs implicit, so that she will not appear a bore repeating self-evident matters. Furthermore, a speaker must often rely on mere probabilities and leave the search of certainty for philosophers. Finally, a speaker cannot usually go through all possible individual cases, if she wants to justify some general proposition, but she must be satisfied with few paradigmatic examples.

Mere knowledge of argument forms is not enough to set up a proof, and speaker must therefore be acquainted with a variety of topics, depending on what she is speaking of. Speeches were used in Aristotle's time for convincing citizens of a community to decide on future actions in certain manner. Thus, a speaker should know politics: she should understand what a community and its citizens are striving for, how different communities work and how to achieve desired ends. She should also have clear understanding of what is possible and what is not.

Speeches could also be used to praise or damn persons either living or dead. Because a speaker should already have the ability to make her own character to look good, she should have no trouble convincing people that a character of someone else is good or bad. Furthermore, she should be able to augment or diminish the worth of things and persons, whatever the case requires.

A third use of speeches beyond planning for the future and praising of present persons is convincing court officials that a certain event has or has not happened in the past, e.g. that someone has committed a crime. Thus, speakers should know a thing or two about motives of human beings, especially as it comes to unjust actions, and also be acquainted with the laws in question. In addition, some basic knowledge of how to establish past events is required.

In addition to proving things through their own speech, especially in courts the speakers can have sometimes recourse to other sort of evidence. One example are witnesses, but a good speaker must also know when to use witnesses, how to make them look reliable and how to discredit witnesses of the opponent.

A speaker should not just know human character and modes of reasoning, but also human passions: that is, how certain emotions arise and what are they targeted at. Thus, she should be able to, for instance, make people pity a person and thus look at him in favourable light, or on the contrary, envy and therefore despise him.

The core of a speech should consist of the justification of the statement to be defended. In addition to this, usually just the statement itself is necessary, Aristotle thinks. At least one does not need a long prologue just to awaken the interest of the listener – usually the listener is most apprehensive in the beginning, while the attention starts to lag only after a while. The end of the speech might require a recapitulation of the main points, if the justification has been long.

Aristotle also considers the style in which the speech should be made. He is somewhat reluctant to speak of the topic, because style is something extraneous to the matter to be discussed. Still, the speaker must know stylistic issues, because these affect the listeners. Even so, complex and too poetic style should be avoided, as it just makes listeners confused.

If rhetoric is just hindered by too ornate language, a second productive science studied by Aristotle or poetic thrives in metaphors. Poetry is one species of activities characterized by the desire to capture natural and social life in presentations – nowadays we would speak of arts. Such arts use many different media, Aristotle notes: for instance, some use musical instruments, others painting. The medium specific for poetry is language, which imitates events of real social life through words.

Now, poetry itself falls into different categories. On the one hand, we can differentiate types of poetry or literature through objects they imitate: some of them describe lives of noble persons, such as legendary heroes, while others describe lives of commoners and even rabble – Aristotle was apparently used to seeing such characters only in comedies. On the other hand, we can differentiate types according to the literary strategies used in them. In this respect tragedies as dramatic texts are closer to comedies than to epics, which described heroes as well as Greek tragedies.

While Plato had disparaged poets and denied letting them in his ideal society, Aristotle had a more positive idea of poetry. As pieces of art poetic texts were meant to imitate, but even imitations may have beneficial results. Indeed, poetic works produced emotions of sympathy and thus purified human mind from all repressed feelings.

Aristotle is interested not just to describe poetic works, but also to find some rules how to make better literature and especially dramas. His answer is that one should concentrate on the most important element of dramas or the plot – all other elements, such as character building are subservient to the plot, and especially means for the actual theatrical production of a play are completely superfluous in comparison. Because of the importance of the plot, the play should be small enough so that the spectator couldn't forget all the intricacies of the events. Thus, good dramas should concentrate on one problematic and not use many plot strands, unlike epics which allowed for a more variety.

The role of dramas and especially tragedies was to purge emotions by showing events of tragic nature, which then aroused feelings of pity toward the characters in play. Aristotle noted that misfortunes of bad persons do not arouse pity, because the spectator feels that bad person deserves bad luck. Indeed, seeing bad persons get lucky is also not tragic, but an outrage. Furthermore, when an incomparably good person faces misfortune, we are bound to feel horrified instead of pitying him. It is then only misfortunes of persons like or slightly more better than us, caused by mistakes that we ourselves could have also made, which cause most pity and thus form the most suitable topic of tragedies.

Aristotle also considered the problem whether tragedies were of more value than epics. He admitted that the theatrical form of tragedies appeared to hinder the true enjoyment of their literary qualities. Yet, this is more of a question of bad stagecraft, which concentrates on more spectacular aspects of theater. Even tragedies merely as read fare better than epics, Aristotle contested, because they could unravel and analyse one incident more completely than epic, which had to use many different plot strands to keep the reader awake. Thus, tragedies as a whole, as pieces of literature and combined with stagecraft, are much more dignified than epics.

The proper way of living

Physics that studies things that change in some manner, mathematics that studies invariable properties of these changing things and theology that studies invariable and perfect things are all according to Aristotle meant only to produce knowledge – after I learn how the universe is shaped, I can just enjoy my knowledge. Now, other type of learning changes not just the condition of our knowledge, but also makes us do something. Such practical studies are in Aristotle's opinion lower in status than the former, theoretical studies, because the practical studies are subservient to some external end – you don't study e.g. horseback riding just for the pleasure of study, but for the sake of learning to ride.

Now, all the practical studies form a sort of hierarchy – an art of riding horses might e.g. be subservient to the military science, because horses are ridden because of their usefulness in wars. Clearly, if there is some final end, which is desired for its own sake and towards which all human endeavors strive, there must also be the highest practical field of study, to which all other are subservient. Aristotle suggests that this highest practical study would obviously try to show how people should in general live. Of course, it would not go into details, but it would attempt to discern some general patterns peculiar to a decent living.

What then is the highest type of life for human beings? Aristotle first criticizes some views of contemporary thinkers. Many people would undoubtedly say that human beings life perfectly when they can satisfy all their lusts and desires. Aristotle rejects this possibility lightly: it is fit more for pigs than for human beings. Money is even worse contender for the proper satisfaction of life, because it is required only for the sake of obtaining something else, e.g. a decent living. Honour and reputation fair somewhat better, but these are too reliant on other persons, while a humanly perfect life should be as independent as possible of external influences. Finally, even having capacities is not enough for a fulfilling life – what if one never had to use them?

Another possibility Aristotle considers is the Platonistic idea that there is some perfectly good thing that somehow also makes other things good. Aristotle's dismissal is short. He merely points out that goodness has various meanings, but that such hypothetical source of goodness beyond what we can see and hear has really no relevancy to our life in concrete and diverse surroundings, but that the latter is what we as human beings want to obtain.

Aristotle's own theory starts from the idea that all animal species have some peculiar type of perfection that only they can fulfill. Thus, all plants nourish themselves and most of the animals use senses, and therefore these capacities cannot be the highest state of human being. Then again, the higher, more rational aspect of the human mind should on this account be an essential part of perfect human living. In general this perfection would consist of use and not just enjoyment of various human capacities: true purpose of humans lies in action.

Aristotle also suggests that the life of activity is not just what we should do, but also feels good, that is, if one is a person who lives well – pleasure is something that accompanies activity. True, some pleasures are corruptive, if they go to extremes, but still, pleasure in general wins its opposite or pain. Even bodily pleasures are good, when enjoyed in moderation, and a pleasure of a good life cannot be enjoyed too much. A good person is used to feeling pleasant sensations and emotions only for something perfect – otherwise, she would merely pretend to live a good life. Thus, she will also find her perfect activity a fulfilling and pleasurable experience.

Famous Greek thinkers had suggested that a person's life can never be perfect and a person can never be truly happy before her death – who knows what calamities would befall on a seemingly content person. And even when the person in question has lived her life perfectly her descendants might still do something horrible and stain the name of the family. Aristotle's answer is that a perfect life is almost completely unreliant on such matters of luck, because even in bad situations the person would use what is given to her in the best possible manner. Of course, the more livelihood a person has, the more opportunities for good action she has, but true virtue is shown by how a person uses what he has been given. Furthermore, the woes of the descendants cannot be criterion by which to decide the happiness of one's own life. On the other hand, mere lucky coincidences cannot on the long run serve the needs of a good life.

Activity is then the highest point of human experience. Aristotle continues by discussing various types of such a good life. The nutritive functions of our body are automatic, thus, not under our control and therefore not a concern of the search for highest human good. Then again, the functions peculiar to animals are in our control and are at least potentially in combat with the highest function of human being – reasoning. Thus, a good life consists partly in making one's sensuous impulses obey one's reason. Furthermore, a good use of reasoning forms the other part of good life.

Considering the first element of good life or the subservience of senses to reason, Aristotle notes that it is a matter of habituation to make one's impulses perfectly obey reason. One must e.g. venture into situations requiring courage in order to make oneself more courageous. Then again, merely doing courageous acts does not make one courageous, but one must understand that the action one is doing requires some courage.

In addition, one must voluntarily decide to act in a courageous manner to be truly courageous. That is, firstly, one must not be compelled to do the courageous thing by some external circumstances or by other persons – then again, one might be compelled to do it by one's desires and wants. Secondly, one must understand the nature of the courageous thing one is beginning to do – indeed, if a person regretted what he did after learning the true nature of his actions, he would clearly have acted against her true volition.

In fact, the courageous act must not be just voluntary, but one should have also chosen it. By choice Aristotle does not mean a mere wish that might or might not become real, but an action preceded by a process of deliberation. In such a deliberation person considers things that are under her own power and selects one possible course of action that she will take for a certain purpose. It is such deliberate choices that a person makes that are under moral scrutiny, not the actions that might be forced by external events, such as a threat of death.

Furthermore, one cannot recognize e.g. a courageous or otherwise virtuous person by her state of mind – such a state of mind, like anger or excitement, is itself neutral. On the other hand, a mere capacity for having certain state of mind is also not a good criterion, because such capacities are shared by all human beings. The true criterion is that the states of mind and actions of a person should be based on her stable character – a courageous person is disposed to act in a certain manner.

Just like with the general pattern of good life, we cannot exactly say when a student of virtue has found complete perfection in some area of life nor whether a particular action was completely what was required to do. What one can say, Aristotle continues, is to point out that one can fail in activity either by doing something too much or doing the same thing too few times. Thus, good habits can be seen as a sort of mean between two bad extremes. A person is then to be commended, if it is in her character to choose to do the proper action in a proper time.

Although a student of good life should try too veer away from both ”too much” and ”too little”, often it is natural for human beings to approach one direction. It is such natural aberrations that should especially be avoided, Aristotle says. For instance, it is far more natural to have too little courage than too much courage, thus, one should be more careful about being a coward than about being overly confident.

Aristotelian list of good things to do in bodily matters is clearly based on the standards and values of Greek society. Thus, Aristotle considers that one ought to control one's fear in grave dangers and especially during battle – although it is of course not good to attack enemies without any fear like barbarians. Furthermore, Aristotle commends persons who can control their desire for bodily pleasures like eating, drinking and having sex – still, he also admits that people can and should accept all natural forms of pleasure, because that is part of what being human means.

Courage in battle and resistance of pleasures are virtues of a warrior society, but Aristotle also considers more civilized activities. One should not hold on to every penny, but spend one's money on proper occasions and for noble purposes, although losing all for frivolities is foolish. One should strive for honour, but only by doing honorable things. One should not get angry on small things, but one should still not accept all insults without a say. One should not seek quarrels with other people, but one should still not be afraid of saying the truth, even if it hurts. One should not exaggerate one's merits nor should one understate them. One should know how to laugh and make others laugh, but still avoid cheap laughs. This rather long list of social virtues does not include modesty, because the habit of being ashamed suits only minors, while on Aristotle's opinion adults should have learned to refrain from shameful activities.

The second aspect necessary for good life is the use of one's intellect. The lowest form of this is when a person has the capacity to produce something, such as an artist who can make statues – this is the lowest form, because it requires meddling with things that have a tendency to change in various manners.

The highest form we met in the previous text: it is the Aristotelian wisdom, that is, a combination of an intuitive grasping of general unchanging principles governing everything and of a deductive system based on these principles. It is also, Aristotle says, highest form of good life, which also the Aristotelian divinity enjoys. Contemplation of eternal truths requires very little from a person, and therefore philosophers need not even the company of others when they use their wisdom. In comparison, less eminent virtues require a society in which they could be applied.

Between the capacity of production and wisdom lies the capacity peculiar for practical science, namely, the combination of an intuitive grasp of what is good and proper and of a capacity to apply this grasp in variable circumstances for determining suitable course of action. Aristotle notes that without this practical intelligence one cannot live a truly good life. One might still have an instinctual feeling of proper actions, which would be like a gift from God and thus not a mere coincidental piece of good luck – it is based on the nature and character of the person and not on accidental circumstances. Still, a mere instinct is not enough for life of rational human beings.

By defining what is a good way of life, Aristotle has also determined what sort of life is to be avoided. Now, there are two different manners of straying from the proper happiness of human beings. Firstly, one might be ignorant of true happiness, and for instance, think that excessive life of luxury will make one perfectly happy. Secondly, one might have a correct understanding of good life, but due to violent emotions or other conditions affecting one's mind fail to apply this knowledge – for example, a person addicted to alcohol might be in a state of mind where she can think of nothing else, but the immediate pleasure of drinking, although she would at other times well know the bad effects of over-drinking  Generally, it is especially the pleasures of the body that disturb such a weak character. Still, the weak character at least knows what she should really do and is thus more able to correct her way of life, while a truly bad character cannot even accept that she is doing something detrimental.

Corresponding to the two bad characters, there are two possible manners of living well. Firstly, one may be just so well habituated to the proper way of life that one will not even feel any temptation to go astray. Secondly, one might have all sorts of temptations, but one might still resist them, because one knows that these temptations will be bad – just like a person who desires to eat candies, but refrains from doing it, because it is bad for health.

The bad and the weak person are both governed by natural impulses, which have just become too excessive. Beyond these characters are persons who are governed by impulses for such unnatural actions as cannibalism – such persons cannot really be even condemned, Aristotle says, because they are completely without reason, although their actions are horrifying and inhuman. Aristotle also mentions that there is a corresponding level of goodness, where person's worth exceeds everything that is humanly possible.

Making people live a good life is for Aristotle an essentially social endeavour. Only a minority will follow the proper way of living because of ethical theories, while rest will need some help in breaking out of their bad habits. In large scale, such moral education should be provided by the community, although in practice this task is often left for the parents. Even they should have some knowledge of social relations, although Aristotle despairs of finding proper teachers for this topic: practical politicians have not theoretical capacities for explaining their practices, while sophists who present themselves as teachers of this topic have actually no idea of it.

Social life, on the other hand, is possible only because human beings sometimes want to do good things to one another. Sometimes they just feel sympathy for another person, but at other times they also actively try to improve the other's condition. Indeed, such mutually agreeable social relations Aristotle deems to be an essential part of a good life – others might help you through bad times, and you might gain honour by helping others. Thus, one has to see what things bind humans together in this manner.

One obvious answer is that people often have mutual interests and must thus act like business partners – this happens especially with more mature persons, who think carefully of what is useful to them. Such partnerships based on mutual profit often lead to arguments whether one has gained what one should have – and they very easily break down when their usefulness has ended.

Another reason for partnerships is that the persons involved find their intercourse somehow pleasant – perhaps they like the witty conversation or perhaps they have erotic feelings toward one another. Such partnerships occur most often among young people, who are more easily driven by their feelings. Such partnership or friendship is more lasting than one based on mere mutual profit, but can break down, if the interests and the feelings of the former friends change.

The most perfect form of partnership lies between two persons living a good life. Because they both can recognise how perfect a life the other lives, they must respect and like one another – thus, they will have a desire to interact with one another and to help the other if he happens to be in need. Such a friendship is based on the stable characters of the two persons and last therefore longest, although even they might break, if the moral character of one person should abruptly change for the worse or better. Yet, they are also the rarest sort of partnership, because the multitude of humanity does not understand what it means to live a good life.

The three types of partnerships are all based on the mutual similarity of the persons involved – they have mutual interests, share pleasures or are both good persons. Yet, also persons of unequal status do frequent one another's company. A person may be more useful to another than the other to him, he may give more pleasure to his friend or he may help the other to become a better person. In all such cases the person giving more should get in return more honour from his actions.

On the other hand, affection for oneself could be seen as a sort of limiting case of partnership. Such self-approval comes actually in two forms, Aristotle says. One might approve one's sensuous desires, and such self-approval should be despised. Then again, a person living a good life should surely also like oneself in the perfect sense of the partnership – after all, who would be more closer to one than oneself.

An important element of good social life is that all goods should be distributed according to the merits of the persons – the more a person gives to the community, the more she should also get from community. Here one could get more than one deserves and thus have an unfair advantage, or one could get less than one deserves and suffer injustice. The mean state is then where a person gets her just desserts. Just person is then one aiming always for that mean state.

The just distribution of goods is based on the worth of the persons involved, but justice in another sense is not related to this personal worth. That is, sometimes a person has in full awareness or accidentally got something that belongs to another person or in other way hurt that other person – for instance, she might have robbed and beaten someone. It is then a task of some mediator or judge to mitigate the wrong experienced by the other – and the judge should make her decision based on the act and not the character of the persons involved. A just judge is then one that can give correctly balanced retributions.

Both forms of justice presuppose some standard by which the goods and the bads can be measured. In general, we must be able to say e.g. how much one shoe is in comparison with one horse. Thus, societies have found it convenient to assign some items a task of serving as a measure of exchange – shoe pays for 5 coins, horse pays for 50 coins, thus, you could get a horse with ten shoes. It is then at least somewhat conventional what is just and what is not – in some cultures horses might be valued less and a just price of them would be less. Still, Aristotle thinks that there are some inherently just or unjust actions, although he does not clearly explain what they would be.

Furthermore, justice in general requires that the persons involved should be free of one another, Aristotle continues. Thus, if a person is property of another, the owner cannot fault the owned. Still, one can speak analogically also of just conduct towards slaves, children and wives, although it is not justice in the proper sense.

Justice occurs also only between two persons, although Plato had figuratively spoken of a balance between various characteristics of mind as justice. Aristotle's point is that justice/injustice requires at least two persons, one of whom tries to correct some harms she has suffered. If the two persons would actually be one and the same person, some of the gains of the person would actually be also her losses. This is actually an instance of a wider area of expertise: immoral actions cannot happen towards oneself. A suicide appears to be a counter example, but actually one must note that in suicide it is the community that has something to say about the death itself.

A special field of interpersonal relations is the household, which mostly consists of partnerships between unequals. The economy of Greek city states was based on slavery, and Aristotle was thus bound to accept that people had slaves, who had to obey their masters in all things. He justified the keeping of slaves by suggesting that some persons are naturally meant to be ruled, because they lack the proper resources of managing themselves and their own affairs. Natural masters, on the other hand, have a knack for seeing where the work of the slaves could be used best. Not surprisingly, Aristotle felt that non-Greeks on the whole had a more slavish nature than Greeks. Aristotle also admitted that often persons who had a natural right to be free were in fact enslaved – this happened especially in war, where all defeated were enslaved, although they would have the constitution of a ruler.

Just like masters were supposedly fit to rule natural slaves, Aristotle thought that adults have an essentially higher status than their children. Children have an untrained and raw constitution and therefore adults have the duty to raise them to be independent adults. Aristotle thought also that husband is naturally a better and more able person than his wife, from whom the husband should distinguish himself through his natural superiority. The closest to a true friendship of equals comes the relation of two brothers – and even here one brother is older and thus more respected.

Maintaining a household is not restricted to just governing the interpersonal relations in it, but one must also care for the material needs of the household by acquiring sufficient goods. Aristotle felt that the most natural way to acquire useful goods was to procure them with one's own efforts, e.g. through agriculture. If all needs could not be satisfied by oneself, one could also trade one's own products with those of others. These forms of acquiring goodness have natural limits determined by human needs, but there are also unnatural forms, whereby one e.g. uses money to gain more money – for instance, by giving loans with a interest. As the quest for more money can never be fulfilled, Aristotle commends ignoring it.

The existence of many different interpersonal relations causes the potential problem of preference: which relations should matter most when one cannot fully serve all of them, e.g. when the needs of one friend go against the needs of another? Aristotle notes that no hard and fast rules could be given for all cases, although some relations are more important than others, for instances, close relatives are usually to be respected more than other people.

The final step in the attachment of persons to one another is the creation of a community of several persons, where such a community could feel a similar concord as two friends or relatives. Aristotle felt that the drive towards forming communities is inherent in human nature. As community then is a natural whole, it will be in a sense more important than the individuals forming it – community is the end of the individuals and not the other way around. Even so, in a common type of community a completely perfect life cannot be lived, Aristotle continues: usually people have to take turns when to rule and when to be ruled in a community, while a perfect life would consist only of ruling.

An important question Aristotle considers is whom should we consider as members of any community. He rejected the idea that a community would consist of all people living in a certain area – then even slaves and foreign visitors should be considered part of the community. Indeed, a community is not just a collection of people, but a common undertaking of people for a good and noble life.

A true criterion of citizenship, according to Aristotle, is that a member or citizen of the community should take some part in the official proceedings of the community – thus, even children fail to be true citizens, before they grow up. A peculiar consequence of Aristotle's definition is that a community is automatically changed whenever the power relations between people change – still, Aristotle notes, the new community might have a duty to take care of some of the old community's debts.

Aristotle thought that a community should be large enough to be independent of other communities, but small enough to be governed in a reasonable manner. It should be close to sea to facilitate trade, although care should be taken that the foreigners wouldn't bring with them any bad influences. Climatewise Greece is an ideal place for communities, because it is warm enough to make intellectual life possible, but not so warm as to encourage luxurious life.

Now, the management of the community could be managed in several manners. A question of the best possible constitution for a community was a topic much discussed at the time, and Aristotle had lot to say on the various suggestions. Many people thought that e.g. the constitution of Sparta was the most optimal in existence. Aristotle did admit that there is much to commend in the Spartan manner of living, but still saw too many failings to be perfectly happy with it. The main problem was that Spartans had shaped their community for the sake of warfare, but had then ignored the actual management of the community's day-to-day affairs. The result was that the community didn't spare efforts for making its soldiers brave and skilled in martial arts, but did not take care that its rulers wouldn't take personal advantage of the spoils of war.

Plato's theorizing of an ideal community Aristotle found even more unsatisfactory. A particular piece of criticism concerned Plato's suggestion that the rulers of an ideal community should form a one big family, in which all wives and children would be shared. Aristotle notes that a community should not form as close a unity as a family – then it would not be a community, but a family. Furthermore, he was also convinced that Plato's scheme would not really make the bonds of the rulers as close as the bonds of family members – if affection was to be shared in a big group, it would be bound to be diluted, Aristotle thought.

Aristotle was thus not satisfied with mere theoretical categorizing of possible types of community, but he made careful research on what forms of government the different Greek cities had and how they had developed over time. Only on the basis of these investigations did he then construct a schematic classification of all possible governments.

Besides describing different communities, Aristotle also tried to discover how these communities collapsed and were replaced by other types and how such a collapse might be prevented. Plato had also theorised about the collapse of societies, but Aristotle felt Plato's ideas were lacking: Plato saw only a one line of progression from a constitution to another, while Aristotle admitted that there were several possible ways a community could change. Moreover, he was certain that communities sometimes changed only partially and might even keep the type of constitution, if the change in question was minor.

The primary principle Aristotle followed is that there is not a single recipe that all communities should follow, but that there are many possible options of governing a community: although one type of community would be best, it might not work for all communities. For instance, a rule of the best and the brightest can be justified by professionals knowing things better than laymen, but then again power of common people can also be justified by the argument that many eyes see things better than just one or few eyes. Furthermore, a rigid law is usually more stable than reliance on an unpredictable individual – still, if a person of a remarkable mental stature surpassing all laws were found, we would have to either banish him or relinquish all laws and make him the rightful king.

Thus, according to Aristotle's classification, the community could have a single leader caring for the well-being of his subjects – such a community would resemble the rule of a father towards his children. The paradigmatic case of such a monarchical community is a perfect absolute ruler knowing best what is good for everyone – an ideal community under an ideal governor with full authority. Still, there are monarchies, where the role of the king is more restricted and regulated through laws. In some cases king is just a fancy name for a master of ceremonies.

The main lack in the kingly rule is that it is too much based on the goodness of the ruler. If the ruler was somehow corrupted or if his follower had not the same qualities, the state of the community would quickly deteriorate  Aristotle therefore suggested that the rule of the king should be divided among many officials.

A single individual might err from a correct path, but several individuals could then correct the mistakes of one. Thus, one possibility for managing the community is that the governing should be left to a number of able men. These rulers would have a nature superior to their subjects, just like husbands are, according to Aristotle, wiser than their wives. If these able men were just like the divine ruler in the absolute monarchy, we would have another variation of the ideal community. Because of their worth, the rulers should be free of menial work. The number of the rulers would be kept limited through abortions and slaying of handicapped babies – a brutal practice common in Greek societies.

An important aspect of an ideal community was to be an education of future rulers – a task so important that it shouldn't be left to private citizens. The aim of the education shouldn't be warfare, but peaceful community life. Thus, the rulers should not just be trained in sports, but also in music – not so much to play, but to listen music. The education should begin by training the body and only then personality. In personality we should first educate the habits of the future rulers, and last the most important aspect of human life or intellect. After education is over, the citizens would at first spend a couple of years serving in military. In full maturity, they would become governors, and in old age, they would tend of religious cults.

In a somewhat less ideal type of constitution, the governors would be elected among the most able men of the rich and the noble. All constitutions based on a minority rule face the same problem – the group of truly able people is usually smaller than the group of people thinking they are able, which might thus lead to factions and civil disorder.

The final possibility is a constitution in which all citizens are at least in some measure able to control their lives – such a community would resemble the relation of brothers to one another. A majority of a community cannot be ideal rulers, hence, this sort of community could not be ideal. Still, it could be best that is possible in all circumstances and for all types of people. In this realistic option, no unfair advantage should be given either to the poor or to the rich. The poor would be encouraged to take part in politics by donating them money when they took part in public meetings, while the rich would be discouraged to shy away from politics by appointing fines if they avoided public meetings. Furthermore, Aristotle thinks that a strong middle class would be an essential element in keeping such a constitution in order – the middle class would have no desire to give too much power to either the poor or the rich. The problem is, of course, to guarantee that the balancing act works and doesn't tip to either extreme.

Indeed, these relatively good forms of government could also turn into caricatyric types, where the rulers would care only for themselves and not others. The search of a just share of votes might be replaced by the masses wanting to search gain for themselves. The poorer the masses are, the more extreme such a government would be. In milder forms of mass government, there are still laws that are followed, but in more extreme forms the whims of the rabble and demagogues exciting it rule everything. Such a rule of the rabble might quite easily descend into a complete tyranny, if the people gave their power to a single ruler. Instead, one should try to have more upper class people involved in the government, so that the rich would not be afraid that the poor will use the state to take away their money. Indeed, a good democracy should make all citizens more wealthy, so that no discontent factions would arise.

Then again, the aristocratic constitution based on the goodness of the governors could be changed into a community ruled by most powerful and wealthy – in a household such an event might occur, if e.g. a wife would be allowed to govern her man because of the money she owns. In some cases the upper classes might allow a movement upwards in the society, if the person involved would acquire the necessary financial means. In the worst case, one group of wealthy people would take complete control of the community and prevent anyone else having anything to do with government. The wealthy people might then turn into factions fighting one another. Then again, the rich might aggravate the poor to revolt their rule. If the rich wanted to make their rule stable, they should let even the less rich have some means of taking part in government. Furthermore, the governors should use their wealth to make the community as a whole a better place to live.

Finally, a king might become a tyrant, who rules everyone like master commands his slaves. Even such a tyrannical rule might be tempered by customs and laws, but in the most extreme case, one man would govern anything according to his own wishes and desires. Tyrannical communities are the least stable of governments – its weak points include the possibility of another person grapping hold of the tyrant's position and the possibility of the poor leading a revolution. The tyrant might improve his chances by using literally tyrannical methods and e.g confiscating the property of suspicious individuals. Another possibility would be to make tyranny into a more king-like constitution by showing good example to all citizens.