LESSON 3

THE GOOD LIFE

INTRODUCTION
In Ancient Greece, long before the word "science" has been coined, 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 gave 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 and 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 stop 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 hinger 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 of 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 accion benefits the greatest number of
people, said action is deemed ethical. Does nining benefit rather than hurt the majcrity?
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 Greece, Democritus and Leucippus led
a school whose primary belief is that the world is made up of and is controlled by the tiny
indivisible, units 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 heaver. The
ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. The world where we
are in is only just 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 oy the
enlightenment ia seventeenth century, humanists see themselves not merely as
stewards 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 impossib!, 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 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 s multitudes of schools of thought that all promise their own key to finding happiness.
Science and technology has been, for the most pan, at the forefront of man's attempts at
finding this happiness, The only question at the end of the day is whether scienor is
taking the rightipady ord attaining what it really means to live a prolife.