NICOMACHEAN HAPPINESS. PART III.

And here at last we come to man’s ultimate happiness, which has no bearing on, nor any influence from, the outside world, but lies strictly and exclusively within the individual mind. If Aristotle’s God Himself has no love for humanity, but inspires love in everything else for His perfect goodness, then man’s highest happiness contains within it no love for anybody or anything outside him, thus being a state of perfect selfishness. It is exceedingly strange to understand Aristotle’s doctrine of happiness, and this is really the most remarkable part of his ethics, as far as I am concerned, frightening and completely honest at the same time. Applying it to my own self, I see my loves and compassions for my loved ones as my weaknesses draining out my strength and depriving me of happiness, as my private miseries, which I have learned to transcend, are multiplied by the real, or perceived, pains of the loved ones, which I find impossible to transcend, and the resulting burden weighs down on my life, pushing me into the wretchedest state of unhappiness imaginable, yet also making me more human, as perfection in this life is for all time outside our grasp, while pain and affliction are our constant companions.

But no matter how human man’s suffering, and the resulting unhappiness, are (No man is happy on a rack, says Aristotle!), this has little bearing on the nature of perfect happiness, which is essentially dehumanized and devoid of emotion and of all other irrational elements. Aristotle’s ideal of happiness is thus perfectly consistent and true, in the sense of rational happiness, but, being a one-sided happiness, it is consequently limited, and, as such, cannot be perfect.

Such is my personal philosophical objection to Aristotle’s ethical theory, but as always I am immeasurably grateful to him for the powerful stimulus he has given to my own thoughts, resulting in this disagreement.