Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (49528)	6/7/2002 6:44:56 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

You are quoting Aristotle without comprehension. Eudaimonia is not merely a subjective state of happiness ("whatever floats your boat"), but a state of well- being, which means ones fulfillment of one's nature as a rational animal. There is a lengthy discussion in the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, during which Aristotle proves that happiness is not merely pleasure or wealth, but living virtuously and with good fortune. I would not say that the unexamined life is not worth living. I would say that it is inferior. Yes, pre- literate cultures are necessarily unhappier than literate cultures, and the Aborgines were necessarily worse off than bond traders, as a group. I say this indifferent to their subjective sense of contentment, but in the same way that I would assert that anyone who lived a lucid and productive life was better off than a heroin addict or someone comatose. There is room for both Hamlet and the Simpsons, just as there is room for work, rest, play, and sleep. And some people will simply not enjoy Hamlet. But those people who make the most out of their capacity to learn are better off than those who don't. In general, it is better to be free. But one cannot be free unless one knows one's options........