It’s unfortunate that modern philosophers have devoted vast efforts to attacking the self-confident and optimistic views put forward by Aristotle (384-322 BC) on human nature and life’s purpose.
Aristotle conveyed his main premise in his works “Politics,” “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” namely, that it is the essence of human beings to be rational. In contrast to all animals, we can think, assess facts, develop theories, draw our own conclusions, and test them against reality.
While animals have narrow choices, humans can determine which goals to pursue, how to allocate their energies and their other resources, how hard and how long to work. Humans are uniquely able to shape their lives and make their own luck.
Aristotle identified happiness as the primary goal of human life and defined ethics as the science of achieving happiness. In Aristotelian philosophy, virtues are defined as habits that lead to happiness, not as social obligations.
Individuals are the main beneficiaries of their own virtues, but not the only ones. Society as whole will also benefit when individuals adopt Aristotelian virtues such as courage, honesty, benevolence, truthfulness, generosity, and justice.
Aristotle’s view of human nature is exceedingly optimistic. I do not know of any other philosopher who had developed from scratch such optimistic ethics. Aristotle viewed the attainment of happiness as normal, not as exceptionally difficult.
Despite challenges and setbacks, human beings can achieve happiness if they practise the Aristotelian virtues in the pursuit of the long-term goals that they have chosen for themselves. If you read Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics,” you’ll perceive the strength of his optimism.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to Kierkegaard’s
The Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) is responsible for initiating a deeply pessimistic trend in modern thought.
To his credit Kierkegaard, condemned the abstract delusions put forward by Hegel (1770-1831). He rejected Hegel’s theory that history and human destiny are driven by a universal spirit, against which individuals are powerless.
In contrast to Hegel, Kierkegaard emphasized freedom and individual responsibility. Each of us is responsible for making his own choices, setting up goals and pursuing them. However, Kierkegaard did not share Aristotle’s optimism.
While Aristotle regarded achievement and happiness as the normal outcomes of human efforts, Kierkegaard was controlled by anguish. This anxiety is visible in his late works “Fear and Trembling” (1843) and “Sickness unto Death” (1849).
Aristotle did not deny the difficulties in human existence. In his “Eudemian Ethics” and “Nicomachean Ethics,” he viewed courage as the pillar virtue upon which all other virtues rest. In order to achieve happiness, you’ll need courage and hard work.
Optimism in Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature
Despite being familiar with Aristotle’s works, Kierkegaard failed to understand the benevolent nature of the universe. The odds are on your side if you set up good goals for yourself and pursue them assiduously.
Although there is no guarantee that you will arrive at your desired destination, more often than not, you should be able to improve your situation. Aristotle’s ethics regard the universe as benevolent because hard, intelligent work normally pays off.
In contrast, Kierkegaard regarded anxiety as a fundamental aspect of human existence. He argued that anxiety feelings are normal due to the need to make choices and the uncertainty of success.
Aristotle would have rejected Kierkegaard’s anxiety offhand and told him to learn form history. Simple observation tells us that individuals can make rational decisions and increase their success and happiness. This is a matter of historical record.
You may fail from time to time, but you can change course and pursue more suitable goals. You do not need to let anxiety and fear control your life. Kierkegaard was profoundly wrong.
He also failed to grasp the Aristotelian concept of virtue. In his work “Either Or” published in 1843, Kierkegaard analysed the aesthetic and ethical ways of life, as the two fundamental choices for human beings.
Kierkegaard defined the aesthetic lifestyle as driven by the pursuit of short-term pleasure. In contrast, the ethical lifestyle is chosen by responsible people, committed to morality. In this respect, it’s clear that Kierkegaard meant Kantian morality, not Aristotelian morality.
The conclusion from “Either Or” is that the ethical lifestyle leads to a life without pleasure, which makes happiness hard to achieve; no wonder that Kierkegaard was feeling anxious since his philosophy is profoundly irrational.
Aristotle would never have accepted a split between ethics and happiness. In fact, he had defined ethics as the science of achieving happiness (which also includes pleasure). He would have rated Kierkegaard’s ideas as illogical and harmful.
Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature compared to Albert Camus’
The French novelist and philosopher Albert Camus (1913-1960) continued the attacks against Aristotelian optimism. His short novel “The Stranger” (1942) and his essay “The Myth of Sisyphus” (1942) portray the universe as indifferent and the human condition as harsh and absurd.
Camus regarded as absurd that humans search for meaning, while the universe is meaningless. As an illustration, Camus pointed to the Ancient Greek myth of Sisyphus, who had been condemned by the Gods to roll a boulder up a hill, only to watch it roll down, and then repeat the whole process forever.
From the myth, Camus draws the conclusion that rolling the boulder up and downhill is futile, but that Sisyphus could feel happy if he accepts that his existence is absurd.
Camus’ fundamental mistake is to consider the universe as indifferent to human efforts. His mistake was similar to the one made by Kierkegaard.
Neither Camus nor Kierkegaard had grasped a basic truth identified by Aristotle twenty-four centuries earlier, namely, that the universe is benevolent towards rational action.
The pursuit of happiness is not absurd, but commendable. If one’s efforts are rational and sustained, happiness is attainable in most cases.
Aristotle had come to those conclusions from observing the world. Thus, his theory of virtue consists of habits conductive to achievement and happiness.
If you are interested in applying Aristotelian principles to all sorts of real-life situations, I recommend you my book titled “Rational living, rational working.”
Related articles
Putting Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development into practice
Opponents to Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development
Aristotle’s theory of virtue and character development
Critique of Aristotle’s thoughts on human nature