How to live a good life is imperative for countless people. In the Mengzi, Chinese philosopher Mencius explains how to live the good life by way of living the social life. It is in my view that the social life is the most convincing because it demonstrates how we as humans are cultivated into living a full, happy life.
In Mencius’ view, living the social life is identified as living as a truly happy person because you fit into society and have fully cultivated sprouts. The moral sprouts are humanity (ren), rightness (yi), social rituals (li), and wisdom (zhi) (Mengzi 1A7). Society shapes these sprouts much like a woodworker would shape dishware. In Mengzi 6A1, Mencius and Gaozi compare making cups and bowls to human nature. When wood is hacked,
…show more content…
The quote from Mencius, “’Those who follow their greater body become great men, those who follow their lesser body become small men’” (Mengzi 6A15) is one that presents what it means to live a good life. A great man is an individual who listens to their heart and mind and is not overcome by distractions. On the contrary, a small man is an individual who only listens to their desires. When an individual only listens to their desires, their soul is not in harmony. Fulfilling desires relates to a moral sprout having not been fully cultivated. An example in daily life is when an individual is overcome by their desire for money and sells their deceased great-grandmother’s antiques. The moral sprout of yi would not be fully cultivated in this case, making this person’s soul inharmonious. It is both morally and socially wrong to sell a deceased person’s belongs just for the sake of obtaining money. Another reason why the social life is the ideal way to live a good life is when a person knows they are in a truly yi situation. In other words, this is when a person knows to go against social rituals so as to benefit another person. Mencius clarifies this by stating that it is appropriate to touch the hand of a drowning sister-in-law because it is the right thing to do (Mengzi 4A17). The social ritual here is not touching the hand of a woman other than one’s wife. However, witnessing a drowning person, in …show more content…
Plato would apply his critique of the conventional life by stating the claim that following social rituals could have bad consequences. Mencius would respond to this claim by explaining that in the social life, consequences do not matter. What does matter is following the social ritual. Following any ritual is about following one’s moral senses and knowing right from wrong. This applies the sense of wisdom because the individual knows that not following a social ritual would invoke a moral consequence: shame. Once an individual feels a sense of shame, their soul is not in harmony. Thus, they would not be living a good life at that moment. Another point Mencius would make is a social ritual is not merely created because it is the right thing to do. Rather, the reason behind why a social ritual was created makes it right. Plato at this point might point out the fact that there are instances where not following a social ritual does occur. Mencius would agree with Plato, but, explain that an individual would do so for the sake of others. This ties back to Mengzi 4A17, touching the hand of a drowning sister-in-law. While yes, it is the right thing to do in terms of saving a life, it is also the right thing to do in terms of saving the family of the sister-in-law from feeling sorrow. If the person who saved the woman did the opposite and followed the social ritual, they would more than likely feel
After reading Plato’s Apology and Crito, I can conclude that according to Socrates human virtue is knowledge (wisdom). In this paper I will present two disputes that’s Socrates uses to prove what human virtue is. In Apology, one argument Socrates makes is that he is not wise. Socrates starts this off by explaining how Chaerephon went to the god Delphi, and Delphi asked if he knew any man that was wiser
Socrates believes that even though escaping prison would save him from an unjust death, he rather die without any faults than fighting for justice by doing something unjust. Inevitably, Socrates would prefer dying without any slander of his name because it would make him more honorable. As a rebuttal to Socrates beliefs of dying with dignity, dignity serves no just after
One of Socrates’ friends, Chaerephon, asked if there was anyone wiser than Socrates, to which the oracle replied, “no one” (21a, 85). Socrates, knowing he was not very wise, sought to investigate the claim (21b, 85). Already, the reader can begin to understand how an examined life, is a good life. Socrates is unwilling to accept something as truth, just because it is said by a person in a position of power and respect. He chooses to investigate the claim, to find an understanding of how it can be that someone believes he is the wisest person.
Some people would measure it in money, in their successful life. Some others would measure it in good relationships or peace of mind. In “The Bedford Guide for College Writers”, chapter 29, every essay has its own aspect to describe what does a living well life mean. In the essay “Rice,” Lahiri talks about the significance of her father’s dish—pulao and what it really means to her—his unique creation, but also traditional; while the essay “Getting It All Done” by Gareth Cook, it discusses about
It was from a stern ideal because it betrays oneself from life. In his The Genealogy of Morality, he offers a new critique of moral values through an investigation of the origin. He states that moral values originated from the ‘pathos’ of ancient people which also gave rise to the concept of ‘bad’. The concept of altruism begins with the ‘slave revolt in morality’; wherein “ressentiment itself becomes creative and gives birth to values.” The considered bad are those who are powerless to express their feelings thereby
“May it be for the best. If it so please the gods, so be it.” (Cooper 44). Socrates states that if it pleases the gods then thats whats supposed to happen. Socrates has his morals that he grew up with and so does everyone else.
I think that there is a fallacy of irrelevance. In the book, Socrates sets out to defend the idea that it is always in one’s best interest to be just and to act justly and he suggests that the just person as one who has a balanced soul will lead one to act justly or why mental health amounts to justice. I feel that justice includes actions in relation to others, it includes considerations of other people’s good, and includes strong motivations not to act unjustly. I believe that Socrates’ defense of justice does not include constraining reasons to think that a person with a balanced soul will refrain from acts that are commonly thought to be unjust like theft, murder, and adultery.
In Apology, Socrates faces possible execution as he stands trial in front of his fellow Athenian men. This jury of men must decide whether Socrates has acted impiously against the gods and if he has corrupted the youth of Athens. Socrates claims in his defense that he wants to live a private life, away from public affairs and teachings in Athens. He instead wants to focus on self-examination and learning truths from those in Athens through inquiry. Socrates argues that "a [man] who really fights for justice must lead a private, not a public, life if [he] is to survive for even a short time" (32a).
(20c) Socrates mentions that it was human wisdom and nothing more that has allowed himself to know what he knows. (20d) Socrates even mentions
What is the essence of a life well-lived? This question has been asked for millennia, and many have suggested answers. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, presented his own hypothesis (at least partially) in a dialogue entitled Meno, in which Plato’s teacher, Socrates, led a disciple of the sophists, Meno, through a discussion of virtue. As an abrupt start of the dialogue, Meno asked, “Can you tell me, Socrates, whether virtue is acquired by teaching or by practice; or if neither by teaching nor by practice, then whether it comes to man by nature, or in what other way?” (Plato 35).
His goal was to make the court understand his beliefs prove which type of knowledge is worth knowing. When talking about the wise man he examined, Socrates said, “Neither of us actually knows what Beauty and Goodness are, but he thinks he knows, even though he doesn’t; whereas I neither know nor think I know.” This shows that Socrates proved he was more wise than the titled wise man because instead of faking the knowledge, that wasn’t too important, he accepted that he did not know which would result in him then seeking for
This principle lies at the heart of the great-souled man, the first of Aristotle’s peaks of humanly excellence. The great-souled man is chiefly concerned with—and strikes the mean with—external goods. The greatest of these goods is “the one that we assign to the gods, and at which people of high standing aim most of all, and which is the prize given for the most beautiful deeds; and of this kind is honor” (67:1123b19-21). A man who has achieved greatness of soul is deserving of great honors, but more importantly, he understands his own desert and acts appropriately.
Throughout the history, there have been heated discussions on what constitutes a good life. Philosophers have given different annotations on the meaning of good life based on their beliefs, perspectives or even scientific-based evidences. Some view a good life as an accumulation of material goods that brings “large amount” of pleasure to oneself. On the other hand, Mencius and Aristotle advocate good life as possessing of pleasure that incorporates ethical values and they believe that by doing so one will experience enduring happiness. There is no ultimate right or wrong for these interpretations since this is not a factual question.
John Stuart Mill writes, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.” in his book Utilitarianism. The meaning of this quote varies based on what makes an individual satisfied or dissatisfied. The “good life” is the life a person would like to live as well as what makes them better off. Would having a “good life” mean that a person is content, or does virtuosity make one happy?
The ultimate goal of human life for Plato is to know and understand the truth or the “eidos” of the “good”. The only way for us to see this truth is through our minds. The truth is not accessible in the physical world but in the intellectual realm. For us to be happy or for use to know the truth is only when we are beyond our physical sense it is a totally different level. So according to Plato, “knowledge” and “virtue” are corollary meaning that as long as one exists the other will follow.