Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success, as presented in the “Nicomachean Ethics” and the “Eudemian Ethics,” can be summarized in three principles; those three key ideas are common to Plato, Taoism and Confucianism.
The first principle is the need of knowledge to achieve self-actualization, that is, to achieve one’s potential. The process of self-actualization or flourishing in essential to happiness, said Aristotle.
You need to take action and pursue challenging goals; if you stay passive or fail to set goals for yourself, entropy will eat up your time and energies, and you’ll end up in despondency. The issue is that, before taking action, you’ll have to learn to think.
Plato (429-347 BC) had arrived at this conclusion decades before Aristotle. In fact, Aristotle took this principle from Plato and integrated in his theory of self-actualization.
In his dialogues “The Republic” and “Phaedo,” Plato stated that the goal of life is the pursuit of knowledge, which in his eyes, must be acquired from studying abstractions or “forms.”
Aristotle acknowledged the role of knowledge in leading an effective life, but did not regard learning as an end in itself. It’s important to acquire skills and expertise, but those constitute a means to an end.
Knowledge in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
One should not confuse the tools with their purpose. Plato is placing a strong emphasis on learning, but fails to explain why. In contrast, Aristotle linked knowledge to effectiveness, which is a great help in achieving challenging goals and happiness.
Plato had observed that most people ignore essential truths. They remain captive of delusions and pleasure-seeking, which prevent human flourishing and happiness.
However, when Plato spoke of “flourishing and happiness,” he was exclusively referring to an intellectual experience, not to the happiness derived from achieving challenging goals and self-actualization.
Aristotle regarded the pursuit of knowledge as a necessary activity amongst many others. Knowledge is crucial, but ethics and friendships are also crucial. They all contribute to attaining “eudaimonia” (happiness, thriving, flourishing).
Plato gave a disproportionate weight to knowledge. He was profoundly unrealistic about human nature and expected men to be happy just by acquiring abstract wisdom.
His view of an ideal society, as described in “The Republic” consists of a totalitarian regime where philosopher-kings order everybody else around; the proposal is so ludicrous that throws a negative light on other aspects of Plato’s philosophy.
Causality in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
The second Aristotelian principle of human flourishing and success is shared by Taoism, the ancient Chinese philosophy. It is attributed originally to Lao-Tzu, who had lived in the sixth century B.C.
According to this principle, the Tao is an eternal force that moves the entire universe. The Tao is frequently described as “the way” or “the path.” It cannot be avoided or circumvented because it represents the natural order of things.
Aristotle never used Taoist terminology, but his concepts of identity and causality are equivalent to the Tao. The world (and human nature) obey to unchangeable rules. We should seek to grasp them, but we cannot change them.
Taoism views human flourishing and happiness as the result of “aligning oneself with the Tao.” You’ll live the best possible life if you obey the laws of nature, using them to your benefit.
Aristotle emphasized the importance of causality in moving things forward. He recommended setting goals and developing one’s potential as the key to happiness.
In this respect, Taoism adopts a less active stance. It relies on the concept of Wu Wei (“effortless action”), trusting the Tao to come to your help. Lao-Tzu argued that higher effectiveness results from letting events unfold organically, instead of trying to swim against the current.
Aristotle regarded causality as a principle to be mastered, so that you can put it to work to your advantage; when he referred to flourishing and success, he meant getting real things done in the real world.
Taoist understand the eternal force of the Tao, but focus on inner contentment and contemplation. The Taoist approach to a thriving life rests on self-awareness, modesty and compassion.
Aristotle defines virtue as the middle point (“golden mean”) between doing too much and doing too little, but demands that you take action. Taoism errs on the side of passivity because its concept of virtue is mostly contemplative.
The concept of causality in Aristotelian philosophy is vastly superior to the Taoist concept of Yin and Yang. Those refer to the existence of opposite forces in the universe. It is a beautiful idea, but leaves you wondering what to do with your life. I see much better chances of success if you adopt Aristotle’s ideas.
Virtue in Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success
Aristotle’s third principle of human flourishing and success is shared by Confucianism, an ancient Chinese philosophy that Confucius (551-479) had established, and that his students had compiled in “The Analects” after his death.
According to this third principle, flourishing and success are the direct result of the practice of virtues. Confucius’ followers such as Mencius (371-289 BC) devoted most of their work to studying virtue and providing ethical advice.
Nonetheless, the virtues defined by Aristotle do not exactly match those in Confucianism. While Aristotle’s virtues revolve around action (self-control, moderation, persistence, rationality and justice), Confucian morality emphasizes benevolence and compassion.
Aristotle’s prescription for human flourishing and success is action-oriented. It asks you to define goals, learn skills, exploit your potential and achieve tangible success. It doesn’t exclude benevolence and generosity, but regards those as beneficial for enjoying life more, not as ends in themselves.
Confucianism is less passive than Taoism, but still places an overweight emphasis on feelings. It exalts empathy, kindness, and compassion at the expense of determination, resolve, drive and ambition. It places social harmony over self-actualization.
The Aristotelian prescription for human flourishing, success and happiness is more action-oriented than Confucianism; both Confucius and Mencius give disproportionate weight to rituals, ceremonies and family reunions at the expense of productivity, wealth-creation, and personal advancement.
I personally find Aristotle’s views of flourishing and success more practical in today’s society. There is plenty to be learned from Plato, Lao-Tzu and Confucius, but Aristotle’s version of the three principles will lead you, I believe, to greater success.
If you are interesting in applying Aristotelian philosophy to improve your life, I recommend you my book “Asymmetry: the shortcut to success when success seems impossible.”
Related articles
Key ideas in Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
Aristotle’s concepts of potentiality and actuality
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success compared to Kant’s
Aristotle’s understanding of human flourishing and success