Aristotle was one of the most important philosophers of his time, making contributions all over the map from his ethics to biology and even logic. Although, he is somewhat overlooked by people because of his counterpart, Plato, Aristotle is equally as influential, if not more in these types of areas. There is a famous quote from a Roman philosopher Cicero saying; “If Plato’s prose was silver, Aristotle’s was a flowing river of Gold.” Aristotle is known by many for teaching Alexander the Great and founding his own school where he finished out his life teaching, writing and studying. Reading the passages, articles and books on Aristotle is challenging to even the most avid of readers. The amount of dense, thick information that is thrown at …show more content…
Seems to aim at some good.” Aristotle is assuming here that within everything we do as humans, we are aiming at some sort of good. Whether it is a specific good for our own well-being or doing something good in the world, that is what we are striving for. And within this assumption of Aristotle, one would have to assume that there is an overarching good that one is striving for. To Aristotle, this ultimate good, is happiness or Eudaimonia. We figure out later in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle believes that everything we do; we do aiming for happiness. Happiness is that one, ultimate good that drives us to act. Now that is Aristotle’s view on what we aim for when we act, along with necessary assumptions to make sense of the whole action. I see it a bit differently which is why I get a little caught up or confused. If everything we do aims for something good, I would very much like Aristotle to explain to me how something like the Boston Bombing is good, Columbine or even Sandy Hook school shootings. How are any of those good things? That was the end of the act, so shouldn’t that produce something good? Because according to Aristotle, in every single one of our crafts, decisions and actions, we are constantly aiming for something good. And to me, that doesn’t really seem all too pleasing. This also brings up the question, how does one define “good?” Is it defined as the outcome as being beneficial to society or maybe the person? Or maybe it is looked at as having good intentions when one does something. Those are the only two ideas that I could really think of off the top of my head and either way, they still don’t seem to justify acts that were shown