LESSON 3

THE GOOD LIFE

LESSON OBJECTIVES

 At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to:

 examine what is meant by a good life;
 identify how humans attempt to attain what is deemed to be a good life; and
 recognize possibilities available to human being to attain 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 end 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 again 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 atop 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 higher 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
or 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 action
benefits the greatest number of people, said action is deemed ethical. Does mining benefit rather than hurt the
majority? 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 t” 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 in 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 heaven. The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. The world
where we are in is only just a 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 by the enlightenment in 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 impossible. 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 life 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
see multitudes of schools of thought that all promise their own key to finding happiness. Science and technology has
been, for the most part, at the forefront of man’s attempts at finding this happiness. The only question at the end of the
day is whether science is taking the right path toward attaining what it really means to live a good life.