Dan Blizzarian, Aristotle and Friendship

Dan Bilzerian gets it.....the pursuit of money for money and sex for sex are blackholes, what Hegel would call the 'spurious infinity" of things. (Yes I  really do think he is correct about this.)


‘For, it seems, not everything is loved but [only] what is lovable, and this is either good or pleasant or useful’  Aristotle 
(N. Ethics 1155b).

Those who wish good things to their friends for the sake of the latter are friends most of all, because they do so because of their friends themselves, and not coincidentally. (1156b9–11) 

---------------------------------------------------------

Here we see Dan Blizerian (who for some odd reason does not call himself 'the Bliz' AKA Ozzy's handle in the 80's) playing captain of one of his pleasure crafts- of which he would own many. #CBD 



Background:

Dan is a around 40 years old and an US Instagram/internet star who I knew about because of social media and originally due to his dad's "questionable" financial activity in the '90's, see this article about how his family lived in a $60 million dollar mansion without actually owning it for decades.I am not a poker player but he was a big poker guy for a few years, as well. Was it a way to launder money or just spend an inheritance -who would know. 

https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/markets/years-after-62-million-judgment-paul-bilzerian-is-alive-and-well-on/2198173/


Now I am not going to start bashing Dan for being a privileged American playboy. That would be pointless. He does not seem to be a mean spirited person or out to hurt people. Why would I attack him?

I mean its the luck of the draw in many ways that led to his life. As Aristotle would say "luck" is a major component of happiness.

The guy has had his shares of health scares (heart attacks) and legal scares and who knows what else. The guy also has zero privacy.  Life is not all roses for anyone, ever.

What I want to talk about today is somethings he recently said in an interview. I only watched about 10 minutes of it but that was enough. He said, "chasing money and sex are black holes- you will never have enough". Furthermore he said that money does not make one happy, instead true friendships does. This is TRUTH. This is classical Greek wisdom. This is in Aristotle. 

Human strive for the good, as political animals it means we need others. Much of the world is survival and deception and loss. But sometimes we can transcend necessity and find other human beings we can truly call friends. It is in these social relationships, small groups at that, where humans find deep, satisfying happiness.

I was in fact taken back at how much I agreed with him and what he said. How could Dan be so astute on this. 



One word: EXPERIENCE. 

He has had the experiences of lots of money, or lots of models around him, or lots of parties, or lots of guns or lots of whatever he wants and you know what he said about being happy, "Doing mushrooms on beach with his buddies". For his this was a happy episode of life, it had little to do with money or anything else. He went on to say social media is bad for human relationships and he wants off it. This is some good advice.

While the guy is not really educated academically, he has a long forgotten form of education:

Its called being very rich and very independent and doing what you actually want until all the meaningless shit is revealed for what it is. 

In simple terms, millions of young people look at Dan and want his lifestyle. Whether it is legit real or a social media stage show for 'likes' and all the cars and models are in fact hired (who would know) it does not matter. The reality is Dan has been able to apparently live a lifestyle many young men would envy- and old men, and women and everyone -anyone, who likes to have fun would envy.

The point here is that when he says "friendship is what makes you happy" this is not some theory he has. 

Its more like, we did this big experiment and just did whatever we wanted, acted like super rich US capitalists, and pursued all the status symbols and actually lived THAT life. And found it wanting. That life does not make you happier. Is anyone smart enough to take this advice? I mean the curse of humanity is that we seem to have the desire to learn each thing ourselves, and want to ignore others. Its where the crazy idea that all opinions are equal comes from. 

If you want to be happy, focus on friendships, real friendships and carving out real quality time with these people. Make sure the people close to you are actually friends and ask yourself how you can be a better friend. 

“Friendship is unnecessary, like philosophy, like art…. It has no survival value; rather it is one of those things which give value to survival.” 

― C.S. Lewis, The Four Loves

COMING SOON: CHANGES

THANK YOU FOR VISITING MY BLOG. 

It is on a hiatus right now -in a maintenance phase while I develop my new website. 

I started this blog in 2011 (as a graduate student) and its been over 8 years now- so its time to "mature" my site to include more academic publications since I am now teaching a number of courses every semester and am working on my book.

My upcoming book: 

Leisure: Classical to Contemporary Conceptions should be out in summer of 2019


 

Circle of Iron and the Secret of Life

A Zen Master lived the simplest kind of life in a little hut at the foot of a mountain. One evening, while he was away, a thief sneaked into the hut only to find there was nothing in it to steal. The Zen Master returned and found him. "You have come a long way to visit me," he told the prowler, "and you should not return empty handed. Please take my clothes as a gift." The thief was bewildered, but he took the clothes and ran away. The Master sat naked, watching the moon. "Poor fellow," he mused, " I wish I could give him this beautiful moon." 

Take a moment and reflect on the meaning of this now and then again after the article. :)

----------------------------------

I have a confession: I hate Netflix. Not just because it encourages the worst form of leisure- passive screen time- and I have students write essays on the problems of technology and leisure and sitting in a electromagnetic field, motionless for hours in the evening after siting at a desk all day staring a screen motionless expect for hand and jaw movements- lol I know anyone reading this blog can figure out the problems for themselves.  Beyond that - the content bores me to death - there are the occasional good films, especially on the US version. (The Canadian version being not as good, and the British being the worst version I have come across of NF versions as far as content)  I also have some thing in my analytic mind where I can just "analyze the best thing to watch for like 20 minutes" and this is beyond the worst form of channel surfing and akin to walking through a library and reading titles when one is better off just grabbing a book, any book, and reading it. SO I actually think the YouTube is superior and there are some other alternative services like CRACKLE and TUBI. TUBI is pretty cool since it has a ton of old films (think 70/80 martial arts films) among its weird horror and action line titles. So if one is to engage in passive screen time - I feel one should absolutely enjoy it. (I have the same idea with treat foods- only eat junk food and treats you love- "the mouth watering" amalyse/"I feel good right now"serotonin combo needed for good digestion and assimilation of nutrients/ ready to eat it again and benefit more effect is lacking in foods we force down or dislike). I think that pleasure is an important aspect of growing as human beings and not something we should eliminate-yet it is a means and not the end of why we do things. If we JUST did things for pleasure we would miss out on all of the great ways struggle and pain enhance well being- ex. vigourous exercise. But I digress, recently I watched a gem of a film from the late 1970's starring David Carradine- called Circle of Iron.

AKA "The Silent Flute" which was Lee's original title -but no doubt, deemed not "tough enough" title for Westerners lol 

Now this film is rather philosophical- in a way that rather works in a genre absolutely saturated with actions films using platitudes and out of context sayings to give a sense of "oriental mysticism". Let me give why in bullets:

• the films was originally written by Bruce Lee as a vehicle to teach philosophy - ZEN philosophy- to the masses. 
• Bruce Lee has been over and mis- quoted in recent years on the internet but that is par for the course for internet quoting of course. That being said my whole life of "fitness and philosophy" was inspired by Bruce Lee and my karate and kung fu lessons as a kid. 
• It was a Bruce Lee text that offered my first "satori" in fact when I was 17 years old- and something that ANYONE who has trained under me will recognize and this is the idea that we must learn to "feel our bodies" when we workout and not just "think about what we are doing".  This is also in classic bodybuilding theory - called the mind muscle connection- but was much more acute and focussed on particular muscles and movements and not the WHOLE body as a unit per se. As a youth with no money I often would spend hours in bookstores reading the books and clearly remember the day I was reading this in a bookstore and the idea that we should "feel our body" hit me like lightning and I could all of a sudden feel my feet on the floor and my butt on the chair and it was an absolutely qualitative transformation of my being in that moment- i was broken out of my cerebral prison momentarily. 
• For various film business reasons (greed, racism, greed, ego, greed, budgets, etc) Bruce left the production of the film and just like the TV show KUNG FU he was to write and star in- bring in David Carradine the white dude replacement for Lee. I used to dislike David for this reason but I enjoy his acting when he wa younger in fact- and KILL BILL was awesome and his character in that was basically an extension of the one he plays here. 
• The main idea is there is a fighter (in fact this was a Canadian actor from Hamilton Ontario, who was tall and jacked with a serious washboard) who belongs to no school and has no style (YES MMA was a thing before UFC lol) aka Jeet Kune Do and he was going to beat up everyone necessary until he got to Zoten and could read from the Ultimate Book and have the secrets to reality. 
• He beats everyone up, finally gets to the BOSS, the BOSS asks him to "become him" (well take over his role in life) without even a fight and to therefore become the new Guardian of the book. When the hero finally opens the book - the pages are mirrors. THE PAGES ARE MIRRORS. Not I don't mean the magic book was Richard Rorty's - Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature - : ) - but  really mirrors.  Interpret what the mirror means fro yourself- I am not here to tell you EVERYTHING :) . 

  

  Circle of Iron AND this original edition of this book BOTH came out in 1979- coincidence? :) 

OK, OK time to get down to brass tax as they say! What is the main take away here you can use in your next manager meeting or technocratic 'foosball' meeting at the start-up? Well nothing. There you go, a huge slice of, nothing. Ok and just like good music performance begins with a moment of silence just before the music 'kicks in' I wanted to say that :). 

In life we almost always are blind to the good right in front of us, and instead focus on the novel that is coming our way. Let me add to that. If we can see the good in front of us now, like a fractal, we can see it in all things. If we cannot even prepare a meal well, how can we think we can life a life of well being. If we cannot relax enough to breathe and take in what is happening around us, in its beauty, ugliness or in between, exactly when will we? If we have to skip good music, or paintings or films for the sake of the newest or flashiest or most fashionable this month- how much do we lose in life? If we cannot enjoy the trees outside our homes-why do we think backpacking in exotic locations will fulfill us? Why do we need to get so caught up in our clothes, and style and "aesthetic" at the sake of the confortable, affordable and practical? What type of problems lead us to react to life in this way? I say it has partly to do with what the theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson called "maximum novelty" or the idea that human beings always want the novel and the new and this has roots of course for him in evolution. In many ways, even if we take a simplistic evolutionary view, many aspects of human life are unneeded "leftovers' from this process -like the "sweet tooth"- which no longer serves as something useful but as something detrimental (well dentists make a living off it I guess) :). Often "more" is the the right answer. Quantity does not really trump Quality. As the saying in The Iron Circle openign credit says "Tie two birds together, and even though they have four wings, they cannot fly."

What makes a donut a donut- well the hole of course. You see how "nothing" can in fact be "something" 

Now let me take this to a philosophical level/ Remember the film about that bully from New Jersey who goes to California and learns why Okinawa is awesome- it was called the Karate Kid. Well in that movie Daniel (the main dude) is taught Karate (or a form of it) but a Japanese (more accurately Okinawan) man : Mr. Miagi (in reality neither of these actors were actual martial artists). BUT there is a scene where he shows Daniel how to catch flies with chopsticks. This idea come directly from Circle of Iron and there is a amazing quote by Bruce Lee explaining this idea in a forward to the script for the film. Here it is:

"The story illustrates a great difference between Oriental and Western thinking. This average Westerner would be intrigued by someone’s ability to catch flies with chopsticks, and would probably say that has nothing to do with how good he is in combat. But the Oriental would realize that a man who has attained such complete mastery of an art reveals his presence of mind in every action. The state of wholeness and imperturbability demonstrated by the master indicated his mastery of self.

“Purposelessness,” “empty-mindedness” or “no art” are frequent terms used in the Orient to denote the ultimate achievement of a martial artist. According to Zen, the spirit is by nature formless and no “objects” are to be harbored in it…

True mastery transcends any particular art. It stems from mastery of oneself—the ability, developed through self-discipline, to be calm, fully aware, and completely in tune with oneself and the surroundings. Then, and only then, can a person know himself." - Bruce Lee.

The final line of course now makes a link back to the Western tradition of philosophy and the Socratic maxim of "Know Thyself" which came famously from the oracle of Delphi along with the parallel instruction (far less popular today) "nothing in excess." Well I would say that the whole idea of "novelty" or the "grass is greener" over there or the "just around the corner is best" way of thinking is a HUGE problem. What if instead of trying to find new CONTENTS for our consciousness, we instead worked on the QUALITY of consciousness itself. Starting RIGHT NOW, you can slow down, take a breathe and live the next 5 minutes paying attention to how you feel and what is going on around you. If you can tie you shoes with majesty and grace, you can take that long with you into your daily conversations, and into your work and your busyness. If you can learn to see the joke in the midst of the problem or learn to feel the vibration of our voice in our throat- when we can see and feel that which is right in front of us- we can then start to live from a place of stability. If we can think of ourselves and the world we live in as a collection of perceptions and experiences which we will never truly totally understand - we can move away from thinking about life as a series of chess moves or problems that need constant attention or worry. 

So, while the thief gained some material possessions from the Zen master- he missed out on the true gift of having his eyes opened to the beauty of a much more phenomenological approach to life. 

An Interpretation of Aristotle's Epistemology

Aristotle’s Epistemology

            Book Six of the Nicomachean Ethics deals with the intellectual virtues and what is essentially Aristotle’s working epistemology. Aristotle answers how it is a human being comes to understand things. He gives five instances in which humans understand but quickly reduces them to four. He writes, “Let us assume there are five ways in which the soul arrives at truth by affirmation or denial, namely; art, science, prudence, wisdom and intuition.”[1]

Each of these deserves some commentary in relation to education, leisure and the intellectual life. However, these translations can be problematic and misleading. Therefore, some Greek translations and certain Latin translations will be used. 

            The first is techne, which is translated as skill, art or craft and involves general know how.  The possession of technemeans one has certain skills for a certain type of production. This could be the production of a sculpture, the production of good health by a physician or the production of music by a musician. It can be thought of as applied science, which deals with production. However, Aristotle curiously says that it is less like knowledge and more like luck. Aristotle writes  “there is a sense in which art and luck operate in the same sphere.”[2]There can be four different ways that the soul arrives at truth, or understands something. In this sense, it is not counted as an intellectual virtue.  

The second way to arrive at truth is episteme, which is translated as science, or more accurately as scientific knowledge. However, it sometimes deals with the functioning of nature (physis) and the world of necessity. “The object of scientific knowledge is necessity.”[3]This is based on the empirical observations[4]and the classification of nature, which Aristotle popularized. Episteme deals with knowledge for its own sake and in regards to leisure, philosophy and science tend to form a continuum, since they are both part of the intellectual life of the mind. In the Posterior Analytics Aristotle technically defines epistemeas knowledge of a universal through its causes. In the MetaphysicsAristotle explains all forms of change and rest with his explanation of the four causes: the material, formal, efficient and final causes[5]of a bronze statue. However, episteme has no actual access to the first principle and in this sense is a detached and truncated form of knowing. 

The third is phronesis, which is translated as practical wisdom and sometimes as prudence (which can be misleading).Phronesis deals with particulars, things that could have been different and is the subject matter of ethics and politics. Aristotle writes, “Clearly then prudence is a virtue and not an art… Yet it is not merely a rational state, as is indicated by the fact that such as state can be forgotten, but prudence cannot.[6]

While one can think about making a good choice, phronesisis an engrained habit of character. That is why he distinguished it from a rational state and it is something deeper that can be easily forgotten. This is the nature of habits. Aristotle also thought that some people naturally had the practical wisdom to live well. While most people need to be educated and learn from experience to gain good habits for life. 

The fourth is Sophia which is generally translated as theoretical wisdom. It involves the skill of thinking in universals, such as the subject matter of mathematics of logic. It is also translated as simply, wisdom, and refers to one who is very wise and engages in acts of genius. It is famously, if not inaccurately said that Plato had written over the door of his Academy, “Let no one enter, who is ignorant of geometry.”[7]This meant that one needed to be familiar with universal truths and was wise before studying philosophy. However it needs to be noted that Plato used the term sophiaas wisdom to refer to both practical and theoretical wisdom. Therefore, the technical distinction between the two forms of wisdom comes in Aristotle. He uses sophiato specifically mean theoretical wisdom which is a synthesis of epistemeand nous. As Aristotle writes, 

The wise man must not only know all that follows from the first principles, but must also have a true understanding of those principles. Therefore, wisdom must be intuition and scientific knowledge: knowledge ‘complete with head’ (not truncated or having separation between first principles and their demonstrations) of the most precious truths.[8]

Finally, the English word philosophy is based on the combination of philia (loving friendship) and sophia (theoretical wisdom). Therefore, a philosopher was someone who was a lover of wisdom. A philosopher is someone who is free to pursue the theoretical life. 

            Finally, the fifth way of human understanding is νοῦς (nous)which is often translated as intellect and related to intuition. This topic can lead to some confusion, since at the time of Aristotle nous could refer to intelligence generally. Plato writes in the Philebus that, "all philosophers agree…whereby they really exalt themselves…that νοῦς is king of heaven and earth. Perhaps they are right."[9]The importance that Aristotle gives to νοῦς is seen in his definition of human nature as uniquely intelligent. "Therefore for man, too, the best and most pleasant life is the life of νοῦςsince the intellect is in the fullest sense the man. So this life will also be the happiest.”In the Phaedo, Socrates on his deathbed states that it was his discovery of the concept of νοῦς in the pre-Socratics, namely Anaxagoras, as the ordering principle of the universe, which had stimulated his life of philosophy.  While the concept ofnous can be the subject of debate, for the present purposes, his definition in the Ethicswill be used. He defines nousas that which grasps the fundamental principles of things in thought. It is the mind’s eye, which involves the intelligibility of things and is similar to the vision of the eye, which makes sight possible. 

Scientific first principles of nature cannot be known through episteme, which deals with the invariable nor through phronesisand techne since they deal with things demonstrable and variable. As Aristotle writes, 

Nor again are first principles the concern of wisdom, because the wise man possesses the ability to demonstrate some things. So if the state of the mind by means of which  we reach the truth , and are never led into error, with regard to things, both variable and invariable are episteme, phronesis, sophia and nous: and if it cannot be any one of the three of them, namely phronesis, episteme, and sophia; what remains is that state of mind that apprehends the first principles is nous.[10]

Therefore, nous is the capacity to think like a human and the unifying principle of the mind. Finally,nous has also been associated (controversially) with the idea of immortality in Aristotle. Nousis sometimes considered the portion of a human being that survives bodily death, when based on certain interpretations of Aristotle’s De Anima.

---

[1]Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 1139b15.

[2]Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 1140a20.

[3]Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics1139b25.

[4]Plato’s idea of the divided line has a hierarchy of knowledge and reality starting with singular pieces of empirical data, up to beliefs based on experience and repetition, into the grasping of reason and knowledge of the forms, and finally and ultimately the vision of the Good itself. 

[5]Aristotle, TheMetaphysics,1013a30.

[6]Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 1140b30.

[7]Socrates says at the very least that: “geometry will draw the mind towards truth, and create the spirit of philosophy”.Republic527.

[8]Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, 1141 a16.

[9]Plato, Philebus,28 C.

[10]Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics,1141 a37.

Guest Post: Health and Wholeness: From Plato to Quantum Physics

Health and Wholeness: From Plato to Quantum Physics

By Matthew Allen Newland, PhD (c)

The following is somewhat autobiographical, but describes my coming to realize the importance of “wholeness” in the concept of health. Growing up in a religious home, I always heard a lot about the soul, the state of which was a prime concern of my mother's. Granted, we talked about the resurrection of the dead, etc., but the soul dying, leaving the body behind, and going to heaven was the real belief, if one considers things as they were really imagined. The body was just a shell; what really mattered lay hidden inside, and caring for the body was secondary to that.

Though I am (and I realize the irony) intellectually aware of this mistake, I continue to grapple with old habits which have a real effect on my life. I am both a teacher and a student, and as a result spend most of my time either at the computer or in ach air. My work and studies preoccupy my mind, but my body is often neglected. Of course, one might ask why it matters; my work requires that my mind function well, not my body, right? (Even my role as a parent doesn't seem to hinge on anything but the most basic physical abilities; I drove my kids to the swimming pool, and am at this very moment writing this text on a bench by the poolside ... sitting again). I trim my nails, wash my hair, and eat when I'm hungry; why isn't this good enough?

Luckily Plato and my studies have set me straight. Plato makes the health of the body a prime point of focus in the Republic (the very book I am writing my doctoral thesis on). Specifically, Plato tells us (via Socrates) that

The man who makes the finest mixture of gymnastic with music and brings them to his soul in the most proper measure is the one of whom we would most correctly say that he is the most perfectly musical and well harmonized.

Plato recognizes the individual who exercises both her or his body and her or his mind as someone who is harmonized, well-cultured, and educated; a prime example of humanity, in other words. Plato was especially concerned with exercise and gymnastics, as they had great potential to add to the formation of good citizens. Through working and playing together, citizens could strengthen their friendships, learn to trust and rely on one another, and cultivate a spirit of teamwork that would aid them in all aspects of life. It is Plato’s understanding that the individual’s purpose is to serve society and play a particular, unique role (each according to her or his talents and capabilities), ensuring the fitness of the body to do that role. In that case, getting along with those others with whom I share citizenship, makes sense; as long as I live in society, this aspect of life needs to be cultivated. 

On the other hand, if my job is to teach, should going to the gym (or at least having a regular workout routine) really be that essential? My job is not physically demanding after all. My studies would not let the mater go; my look at Plato’s Republicand the tripartite soul sent me to look at more present-day understandings of the human mind and body: Paul MacLean's triune brain (his parallels with Plato’s parts of the tripartite soul are striking) and neuroscientist Antonio Damasio, who not only emphasizes the brain’s links with the body (for it is an organ of the body, after all), but reminds us that neural activity does not exist isolated on its own. To function, the mind depends on stimuli taken in from the nerves, from one's physical and socio-cultural environments and the body's actions on those environments. Damasio says: “I am saying that the body contributes more than life support and modulatory effects to the brain. It contributes a content that is part and parcel of the workings of a normal mind.” Indeed, soul and body were not the separate things I'd been led to believe growing up!

Aiming to supplement and contrast my investigation into the mind-body relationship with an alternative perspective, my studies in Asian philosophical viewpoints led me to a fascinating insight from Fritjof Capra in his 1975 book, The Tao of Physics. My old idea of the mind-body distinction, it would seem, owes something to Rene Descartes, whose thought had a major impact on the scientific worldview on which the West has built its understanding of the world. In its effort to understand reality, I learned, the West has taken it apart. It has analyzed the components, but forgotten to see them as parts of a larger, single whole:

As a consequence of the Cartesian division, most individuals are aware of themselves as isolated egos existing ‘inside’ their bodies. The mind has been separated from the body and given the futile task of controlling it, thus causing an apparent conflict between the conscious will and the involuntary instincts.

This Cartesian separation has put us at odds not only with our own bodies, but with the world in which we live as well. “This inner fragmentation of man,” he goes on, mirrors his view of the world ‘outside’ which is seen as a multitude of separate objects and events.” It has turned the world into a collection of objects, rendered the environment ripe for exploitation, and has separated us from our bodies as well. Capra sees this as a major flaw in the Western understanding, and so long as these distinctions remain it will always be incomplete (something I think the author of the Republic would certainly agree with). 

Capra’s understanding that wholeness is an essential part of accurately understanding reality is reflected in the writings of other physicists, who are now working to unify our understanding of the world as a single whole. David Bohm also saw a divided, selfish world arising from the old Cartesian understanding, but also saw the potential for something new and better to follow from the acceptance of the quantum understanding of reality. While Western scientific successes allowed the Cartesian worldview to endure for several centuries,, human beings have “always been seeking wholeness – mental, physical, social, individual.” From the twentieth century on, quantum physics has specifically sought a wholeness which unites the whole universe into a single event. Bohm, like the Greeks long before him, sees a clear connection between the concepts of wholeness and health: “To be healthy is to be whole.” Of late humankind (at least in the West) has been living in fragmentation, but this has sadly not allowed for a truly well-lived life.

Early on I mentioned that I continue to grapple with old habits, and now find myself in the interesting position of knowing intellectual what I am not yet regularly putting into practice physically (thus making me a living example of this aforementioned fragmentation). I know a physically active life is best, not only for my body, but for every aspect of my being. I realize that mind and body are really one; they are all connected, and are all aspects of a single, united being (that’s me). And having realized this, and understanding that every facet of my life would benefit from a more physically active lifestyle, I know the time has come to get started. 

Luckily for me, I went to school with the Fitness Philosopher. 

It’s time to give him a call.

Matthew Allen Newland, PhD Candidate 

Faculty of Philosophy 

Dominican University College

References

Bohm, D. Wholeness and the Implicate Order. New York, NY: Routledge Classics. 2002. Originally published in 1980.

Capra, F. The Tao of Physics: An Exploration of the Parallels between Modern Physics and Eastern Mysticism (Revised 2000 edition). Boston, MA: Shambhala Publications, Inc. 2000. Originally published in 1975. 

Damasio, A. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York, NY: Penguin Books, 2005. Originally published 1994.

Plato. The Republic. A. Bloom, trans. New York, NY: HarperCollins Basic Books. 1991, translation originally published 1961.

Trump talk: The life of money making in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Plato's Phadreus

Trump talk: The life of money making in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Plato's Phadreus 

In classical Greece, the good city-state (such as Athens for a period of time) was based on the good lives of its citizens. This simply means that a state exists in order to make better lives possible for all, as an alternative to the earlier communities such as small family collectives and rural villages. (Aristotle in his wisdom, does not make the silly mistake of modern philosophers like Hobbes, who pretend there existed some 'state of nature' in which individuals popped up and existed with no built in connections prior to forming various social contracts). 
 I argue that the good lives of the citizens in a good state are based in leisure, as they are today. Leisure is based primarily on having relative wealth in a community to not just prevent one from having to engage full time in labour that degrades the mind, but also in having the character that chooses correctly- that is actually virtuous. Today most people no longer labour like they did in the past but manual labour and drudging work still exist. (No sitting in a heated office with a computer is not drudging work historically- think rather, those men who do the diamond mining in Africa as an example of hard labour today.)  So while an important part of Aristotle’s good state is wealth- and he even offers some ideas on how one creates it- it must be noted that the pursuit of wealth was just another means to the end of a good life and was not an end in itself. The miser was not celebrated in Aristotle. Aristotle would not agree with Trump that the good life is simply the wealthy life. There are countless examples of miserable wealthy people historically. 

So when Aristotle says that εὐδαιμονία (happiness) includes many things, it must primarily contain enough wealth to gain some σχολή (leisure). This leisure time can then be used for certain activities that contribute to an excellent life. (The Greeks had the term a-skole for having to attend to business and social obligations and this is the literal opposite of leisure.) A life without proper leisure cannot be called a happy one- but it does not negate a life dedicated to a great cause or great work in which one might work very hard. When properly educated, one knew that the best use of leisure was for friendships and the speculative life of philosophy. Aristotle writes in the Politics:  “but leisure seems in itself to contain pleasure, εὐδαιμονία and the blessed life.”[1] Εὐδαιμονία (happiness or the good life) results from having the leisure to engage in certain activities deemed good. The leisure to engage in them is necessarily dependent upon on a good social organization, including a proper education and at least some freedom from full time labour, meaning wealth. An issue of social justice was at the time only Greek noble males were really educated in the community, but today with many advances in human rights and equality, this is no longer the case in liberal democracies. 
But hold on a minute, you might be thinking, does this mean philosophers were just a bunch of rich people? Well yes and no. Yes because historically one could not be born into poverty and expect an education. No, because wealth in itself is not a necessary or sufficient component of wisdom. Socrates was poor and wise. In the Phaedo, Plato summarizes Socrates lifestyle as a poor one:

…I do not have the leisure to engage in public affairs to any extent, nor indeed to look after my own, but I live in great poverty because of my service to the god. Furthermore, the young men who follow me around of their own free will, those who have most leisure  the sons of the very rich, take pleasure in hearing people questioned; they themselves often imitate me and try to question others.[2]

Here Socrates denies he has leisure for public affairs or personal matters, and instead must participate in his ‘divine duty.’ The economic connection is made when Socrates says it is the sons of the very rich who have the most leisure, such as Plato himself, from a rich noble family. It shows that money is needed for leisure but can also be a burden as Aristotle emphasizes. Socrates emphasizes the same idea. Neither of them sees a point in the constant growth and chasing of excessive wealth. Too much wealth can create vicious amounts of competitiveness, greed and bring on the jealousy of others. It will be a distraction from political contributions, also from the arts, and from philosophy. 

            

Yet, Aristotle in his discussion of every detail offers three ways to gain wealth. The first and most natural is in the attainment of natural needs such as meat through hunting and fishing, or plants through agriculture and farming. Of course, a Greek citizen would have slaves and servants to labour for him. The second and intermediate way was through bartering these things on gained in farming or another natural way. This is the idea of the market and the exchange of certain goods for other goods, such as the exchange of wheat for olives. The third “unnatural” way was in the exchange of money, as a way of bartering goods and services. This distain for the exchange of money was part of the distain for commerce in general, which like labour was below the character of the good man. 

            It needs to be reiterated that most wealth in classical Athens was hereditary and the wealthy families would pass this money down in the generations. In fact, only those inheriting money would be fit for proper leisure, since if one was not born wealthy then one most likely did not have the necessary education for proper adult leisure. Like all of the other external factors to the good life, there was a limit to the amount of wealth needed, since wealth is only a tool. Aristotle writes, 

Although Solon in one of his poems said, ‘No bounds is set on riches for men’. But there is a limit, as in the other skills, for none of them have any tools which are unlimited in size or number, and wealth is a collection of tools for use in the administration of a household or a state.[3]

The common theme of Aristotle is not to become obsessed with any single component of the good life to the exclusion of others, and leisure was prevented by the constant pursuit of wealth.  

Aristotle’s main use of this type of life is as a type of contrast to better ways of life. The problem was not that one was being paid to do something, but that all of a sudden the action may become restricted by external factors. This may be the tension of having spectators, or being forced by certain outside agendas to rush and this will prevent the leisurely attitude. Certain issues like professionalism (just like classical labour) can hinder the timeless and leisurely quality of an activity. Therefore, even if leisure can include work, work may have external constraints such as time limits, which becomes an obstacle, making the work less leisurely and falling into labour.

Furthermore, when any activity becomes all-consuming it blocks other components of εὐδαιμονία. This may take the form of obligations to work, business, politics, indulgence, or even forms of education such as the theoretical sciences. Aristotle warns,

Even in the case of some of the sciences that are suitable for a free person, while it is not unfree to participate in them up to a point, to study them too assiduously or exactly is likely to result in the harm just mentioned.[4]

This notion of not allowing anything to be all consuming is a common theme for Aristotle. A prime example for him was found in the early athletic competitions, which gave natural gifts such as laurel wreaths as prizes, but this devolved eventually into monetary prizes. The monetary prizes which devalued the activity from a philosophical point of view. Being paid as a motivation to compete and win was equivalent to a Sophist taking money in the name of creating a clever argument. When money gets involved, both Plato and Aristotle think that a necessary degradation will occur since the action falls back into the world of labour and necessity, the animal world. 

---

[1] Aristotle, The Politics, 1337b33.

[2] Plato, Phaedo 59a.

[3] Aristotle, The Politics, 1256b30.

[4] Aristotle, The Politics, 1337b3.