justice...better late than never

I cannot think of a time when the world is complete state of being just. Even if some iniquity is corrected in one part of the world, certainly another part of the world is suffering. Its like squishing a balloon("What is just in this sense, then, is what is proportionate..."1131B), when you press down on one end of the balloon, the air will just travel to other side. Just as it seems impossible to compress the balloon to a perfectly equidistant sphere, it also seems impossible to make things perfectly just. Its frustrating; we so anxiously desire to make things right but the more we try the more apparent our injustices become. Its like were playing a never ending game of wack-a-mole, and it just keeps getting faster over time.

When I think about it this way, why is justice worth the effort? It would be so much easier to just accept things as they are and ignore the problem. However, I don't think this line of reasoning has longevity. Sooner or later, your buttons are going to be pushed and you cannot turn a blind eye anymore. When you lose this capacity to recognize great injustice and respond, I think an essential part of your humanity is dead. People have an innate desire for things to be just even if we don't know what that looks like entirely.

Aristotle says, "Everything, then, must be measured by some standard, as we said before. This standard is in fact demand, which holds everything together". I found this to be an interesting beginning link Aristotelian justice and Christianity's. Injustice is born from wanting more than what is rightfully yours (an overzealous demand in the case of Even), this causes scarcity (banishment from Eden) which only makes injustice more prevalent.

Temperance

Okay so it is established that Aristotle believes virtue to be a mean between two extremes, and temperance is a virtue. The question begs, what two extremes does temperance lie between. On one hand you have un justified anger. Unjustified anger is anger either at an inappropriate amount, at the wrong time, for the wrong reason, invoked too quickly, or a combination of all of these. Aristotle seems to think that this is the most common extreme in respect to temperance, and I would have to agree with him because anger is so easily and quickly invoked it often fails to do so by reason. On the other hand there are people who do not even get angry for the reasons. Aristotle describes these people sort of as push overs saying they, "seem to be insensible and to feel no pain, and because he does not get angry, not the sort to stick up for himself; and its is slavish to put up with being insulted oneself or to over look insults to those close to one. " It seems like justified anger in this sense is stemmed from having an appropriate amount of respect for things. You should not be a push over and let injustices go by, but at the same time have a sense of humor and don't give things too much reverence when they are not deserved.

To be honest when I chose "Anger" as my virtue I thought I was choosing passion or spirit. I am actually somewhat disappointed (but not unreasonably disappointed of course). The word θυμός means anger, passion, spirit, heart, and in the case of Parmenides "longing". Aristotle does talk about θυμός, but unfortunately  it is in respect to courage. What I find interesting about passion is that it carries us to do things that perhaps under normal circumstances we might not be able to do. Passionate people generally able to overcome obstacles, to make sacrifices easier than reason would allow us to permit. The challenge of passion is to not let it make sacrifices that are too large.

Zip it up and zip it out

Aristotle, virtue, and happiness

My dad is a horticulturalist who specializes in palm trees, so all my life I've grown up surrounded by palm trees. Palm trees are weird in the sense that they have different requirements than other trees to grow and maintain health. Its not really surprising my dad's relationship with trees has made him an Aristotelian. Even though he has never read any of Aristotle's works, he often identifies with the mean of virtue Aristotle is famous for. Many times my dad will just say something like, "life is just a balance, from finances to nutrition, its just a balance." I cannot tell you how annoyingly often he says stuff like this, but he is right.  Just as trees have different needs with the amount of water, sunlight, temperature, and  sustenance in accordance to their size and species so that they may become healthy and strong, humans also have different needs for becoming virtuous in accordance to their moral identity and their intellect. Because of different people's innate nature, or their experiences, we approach the balance of virtue from different sides and distances on the teeter todder. In order to become virtuous different people need to practice it in different manners.

Aristotle's idea of happiness has been my favorite part of the reading thus far. He says happiness is the chief end of all things. It is the chief good, and we always choose it for itself, and never for the sake of other things. I've been trying to think of an action that has been done, without the ultimate goal of happiness in mind, and I couldn't. Everything that has ever been done has been done in an attempt to become happy or at least happier. I am not even sure if complete happiness even for a short amount of time has even been attained, at least in this life. Its rather odd that Aristotle calls happiness complete and self sufficient. On one hand complete happiness is the goal of everything, but on the other hand it seems like nobody is completely happy. Why are we set on trying to attain something that appears impossible to obtain? And with that...

Zip it up and zip it out