| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Lucinda Weber
Fledgling
6 Posts |
 Posted - Nov 04 2008 : 7:30:37 PM
|
From class I gathered that activity and action are two distinct things with action being more specific as to a beginning, a middle, and an end, implying time, maybe? If happiness is an activity of soul, but 'in a complete life' implies a beginning, middle and end, then can it be that an activity can also be an action?
[Lightly edited to enhance readability -TT] |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Nov 05 2008 : 08:42:05 AM
|
| Good question, Lucinda! This makes it clear how inadequate what I said on Monday about the difference between activity and action really was. Obviously, anything that takes time but that is limited in duration has a beginning, a middle, and an end in at least this sense: it starts, it goes on for a while, and then it stops. If this is the only[ sense in which something a thing or a person does has a beginning, a middle, and an end, then it's an activity. At least part of what makes an action different is that the following three things are all true of it. (1) It doesn't just start; it has a beginning in the sense that it begins with a beginning, i.e., an opening. (2) It doesn't just go on; it unfolds. (3) It doesn't just stop; it comes to an end, i.e., to a close. It's because of this that actions cannot be interrupted prior to their completion without it's being the case that we have to say that they haven't yet been done, i.e., completed. |
 |
|
|
Lucinda Weber
Fledgling
6 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Nov 05 2008 : 10:06:34 PM
|
| OK. Now I'm lost. I don't see what leads you to raise these two questions. Both seem to me to rest on misunderstandings. Let me begin with a misunderstanding I think underlies your first question: human good -- happiness -- isn't ever deemed virtuous on Aristotle's view. People are deemed virtuous or vicious, i.e., good or bad. |
|
|
|
Lucinda Weber
Fledgling
6 Posts |
|
|
Tom Trelogan
Forum Admin
1368 Posts |
Posted - Nov 07 2008 : 06:49:18 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Lucinda Weber
Happiness is something final and is the end of action.
This means: happiness is an end--something aimed at (that's what "final" means here)--and specifically, the end of action, i.e., that at which all action ultimately aims. [In this particular context, you have to think of the term "end" as meaning what we use it to mean when we contrast ends with means.]
quote:
Originally posted by Lucinda Weber
I tied that in with the human good's being an activity, activity of the soul, but within a complete life.
As well you should have!
quote:
Originally posted by Lucinda Weber
I concluded that he was referring to goodness' being a function of soul, and saying that that cannot be complete until its end.
But I don't think this follows. First, it's happiness (eudaimonia), not goodness (aretê) that's activity (and in that sense the function [ergon]) of soul according to Aristotle. Second, he doesn't say that happiness can be complete only in a complete life. What he says is that the activity of soul in question doesn't qualify as happiness if it lasts for only a little while. It qualifies as happiness only if it lasts (goes on) throughout the natural span of an entire life. It's the individual who can reach his end (that at which he aims (whether he knows it or not) in a full life. Happiness doesn't have an end in this sense. It doesn't aim at anything. It is the end--the thing that is aimed at--in all our actions, in every deed we do. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Can an Activity Be an Action?
Forum Locked
