REPORT TRANSCRIPT

OF

BOOK I: THE GOOD FOR MAN

Submitted to: Moses Aaron T. Angeles, Ph.D.

Submitted by: GROUP 5

ALIDO, Xyle Michael

MADRIAGA, Bien Vicson F.

MAGAYANES, Alexis Zobel S.

PANELO, Charneth Tresha

3CPL/AB Political Science

April 23, 2022

INTRODUCTION

Who is Thomas Aquinas?

He is the patron saint of students and January 28 is his feast day. Thoms Aquinas, a prolific writer,
proved that Catholic faith can be in harmony with philosophy and all other branches of knowledge
by combining theological principles of faith with the philosophical principles of reason. He is even
called the “angelic Doctor” by the Roman Catholic Church.

The Summa Theologica “The Summation of All Theology,” which sets out an entire book
dedicated to the question of happiness is his greatest work

born in the castle of Roccasecca on 1225 Italy, north of Naples, to a wealthy aristocratic family

He is a Son of Landolf, count of Aquino and Theodora countess of Tejano, they are descendants
of Emperor's Frederick I and Henery VI

Holy Hermit told his mother that his son Aquinas would enter the order of friar’s preachers and
would become a great learner and achieve unequal sanctity

8 siblings, youngest

Following tradition, He was sent to the abbey of Monte Casino to train among the Benedictine
monks when he was just 5 years old till 13, political climate forced him to return to Naples where
he continued his study

He was introduced to his philosophical influences: Aristotle, Averroes, and mimonities and he also
met John of saint Julian who influenced him greatly

Sometime later, he Joined the order of preachers or the Dominicans which was founded by Saint
Dominic De Guzman, they give emphasis on preaching and teaching

His Parents rejected the idea

His mother even sent his brothers to fetch him and put him under house arrest

Trivia:

It was believed that his family sent a prostitute for Aquinas, but Thomas drove her off with
fire iron and traced a black cross on the door after shutting it

Angels appeared in his dream, made him strong

Later, his parents no longer prohibit him, and He returned to the Dominican order and studied at
the faculty of the arts at the university of Paris where he met Albertus Magnus (also known as
Albert the Great), chair of theology.
stout, seldom quiet, and was believed to be dimwit

called “The Dumb Ox”

Albert however After reading his thesis and thinking it was brilliant, responded: “You call him a
Dumb Ox, but I tell you this Dumb Ox shall bellow so loud his bellowing will fill the world.”

After completing his education, he devoted his life to a life of traveling, writing, teaching, public
speaking, and preaching

Later Ordained to the priesthood

Combined traditional principles of theology and modern philosophic thoughts

Believe that faith and reason should coexist because all forms of Knowledge came from God

God for him is an unmoved mover, uncaused cause, the perfect good

1273, seen by sacristan levitating while prayer, during this Christ is said to have appeared and
said, “you have written well of me Thomas, what reward will you have for your labor?” “Nothing
but you lord”

Something happened; however, Thomas never wrote or spoke about it and refused to write
anymore

His reason was “I cannot because all that I Have written seems like straw to me”

Died on the monastery of fossa nova on March7, 1274

Nicomachean Ethics

• A book written by Aristotle

• It tackles How one should live and find the highest good in life
• Generally considered Most important ethical treatise in the western philosophical tradition
• Influenced political philosophy and gave enduring advice for seekers of happiness
• For Aristotle, Happiness came from virtue and wisdom by examining political science,
justice, desire, and human relationships

Since we will be discussing Aquinas’ commentary on the Nicomachean ethics not the ethics itself,
we will not dwell deeper into it.

LECTURE 1: Subject Matter and End of Moral Philosophy: Diversity of Ends

Moving on to the main course of our discussion today is lecture 1 of the commentary

As the Philosopher says in the beginning of the Metaphysics (Bk. 1, Ch. 2, 982 a 18; St. Th. 2,
41-42), it is the business of the wise man to order. The reason for this is that wisdom is the most
powerful perfection of reason whose characteristic is to know order. Even if the sensitive powers
know some things absolutely, nevertheless, to know the order of one thing to another is
exclusively the work of intellect or reason. Now a twofold order is found in things. One kind is that
of parts of a totality, that is, a group, among themselves, as the parts of a house are mutually
ordered to each other. The second order is that of things to an end. This order is of greater
importance than the first. For, as the Philosopher says in the eleventh book of the Metaphysics
(Bk. XII, Ch. 10, 1075 a 15; St. Th. Bk. XII, Lect. 12, 2629-2631), the order of the parts of an army
among themselves exists because of the order of the whole army to the commander. Now order
is related to reason in a fourfold way. There is one order that reason does not establish but only
beholds, such is the order of things in nature. There is a second order that reason establishes in
its own act of consideration, for example, when it arranges its concepts among itself, and the
signs of concept as well, because words express the meanings of the concepts. There is a third
order that reason in deliberating establishes in the operations of the will. There is a fourth order
that reason in planning establishes in the external things which it causes, such as a chest and a
house.

To summarize, a person who has an ability to reason also has the capability for order. It can be
in the form of order through arrangement or structure like table, graphs, etcetera) or through the
process or the ranks like step 1 to step 10. A to Z, from past to present, or superior to inferior.
These are the twofold orders mentioned. Between the two, process or ranks is more important,
that is why Aristotle Mentioned that the rank of the commander is more important than the army
in the group. Now this order is related to reason in four ways, but it is actually the four causes that
we discussed some time ago being the (1) formal cause or “the form” “the account of what it is to
be” (2) the efficient cause “the primary source of change or rest” (3) the material cause “that out
of which” and (4) the final cause “the end, that for which a thing is done”.

Because the operation of reason is perfected by habit, according to the different modes of order
that reason considers, a differentiation of sciences arises. (this means to say that science has
different orders of reason based on its study, as we also discussed that political science is the
highest among other natural sciences because it concerns and affects life) The function of natural
philosophy (example is physics, chemistry, biology, anything that can be experimented or seen)
is to consider the order of things that human reason considers but does not establish-understand
that with natural philosophy here we also include metaphysics. (Metaphysics as we know it is the
study of everything under the sun) The order that reason makes in its own act of consideration
pertains to rational philosophy (logic), which carefully considers the order of the parts of verbal
expression with one another and the order of principles to one another and to their conclusions.
The order of voluntary actions pertains to the consideration of moral philosophy. (This pertains to
the dichotomy between good and evil, moral, and immoral, ethical, and unethical) The order that
reason in planning establishes in external things arranged by human reason pertains to the
mechanical arts. (Like inventing things, engineering) Accordingly, it is proper to moral philosophy,
to which our attention is at present directed, to consider human operations as far as they have
ordered one another and to an end.

I am talking about human operations, those springing from man’s will following the order of reason.
But if some operations are found in man that are not subject to the will and reason, they are not
properly called human but natural, as, clearly appears in operations of the vegetative soul. (This
means that if the act was done unconsciously or unintentionally, it cannot be judged or studied
morally the same as a when a man peed on his pants because he can no longer control it, or he
peed out of his will. This is the main point of this part because man should act in consideration to
the end; this is according to moral philosophy. If it is not intentional or conscious, then it is not
subject to moral investigation)

Man by nature is social animal and he need the society for two reasons. 1. So, he could get what
he does not have. He cannot get all the necessities he needs such as food, shelter, clothing, or
knowledge all by himself. 2. So, he could help others get what they need, as an obligation of being
a part of the group. Basically, the purpose of society is to give and receive help.

The operations or movement of a group is united only but does not necessarily belong to the
entirety of the whole, it is not absolutely one. For example, a hospital. The daily obligation of a
heart doctor is to treat patients with heart diseases, and it is not the operation of the whole
hospital. But the heart doctor still has an obligation to the hospital as a whole and that is to provide
exceptional healthcare. This only means that even if the obligation of the heart doctor is united to
the cause of the hospital regarding healthcare. Even if his function is unique, it is still the same
and united to the hospital because they have the same aim. Therefore, the heart doctor’s effort
to cure heart disease is not so different to the treatments administered by the hospital.

In relation to the previous paragraph, there must be consideration to the pieces of the whole.
Therefore, moral philosophy is divided into three parts. The first of these, which is called individual
(monastic) ethics, considers an individual’s operations as ordered to an end. In simple words, this
pertains to the ethics that a person identifies with in respect to people and situations that they
deal with in every day. The second, called domestic ethics, considers the operations of the
domestic group. The third, called political science, considers the operations of the civic group.

Thus Aristotle, as he begins the treatment of moral philosophy in the first part of this book called
Ethics, or morals, first gives an introduction in which he does three things. First [1] he shows what
he intends to do. Second [Lect. 3, II], at “Our study will be etc.” (B.1094 b 13), he determines the
manner of treatment. Third [III] in the same lecture, at “Now every man etc.” (B.1094 b 29), he
explains what manner of person the student of this science ought to be. In regard to the initial
point, he does two things. First [A] he presents in advance certain things necessary to explain his
intention. Second [Lect. 2, B], at “If our actions etc.” (B.1094 a 19), he manifests his intention. In
regard to the first he does two things. Initially [1] he shows how it is necessary to start with the
end. Then [2], at “Since there are many etc.,” he compares habits and acts with the end. On the
first point he does three things. He states initially [1, a] that all human beings are ordered to an
end. Next [1, b], at “Now a certain diversity etc.,” he shows that there can be a number of ends.
Last [1, c], at “If the ends are works etc.,” he makes a comparison among ends. In regard to the
first point, he does two things. He states his intention [i]; and then, at “For this reason etc.” [ii], he
explains his purpose. This passage is more on about the ends on how important to start and keep
in mind what end you ought to achieve

May dalawang principles ang human acts or moral acts: reason and appetite. Yung reason
concerned sa practical intellect and sa speculative intellect. Appetitive intellect is more on sa
choice and execution (or action) Lahat yan ay aligned sa goodness as an end. Sa reason, yung
goodness sa speculative intellect ay through teaching, from teacher to student, while yung
practical intellect is nasa art (yung part sa art, hindi ko masyado gets.) sa appetitive intellect,
inclined dyan ang choice, and whatever your choice is, ayun yung gagawin mo; which is the
execution or action. As long as everything is aligned with intellect, lahat yan ay directed towards
sa end na good.

In reference sa [ii] na nabanggit which is “For this reason it has correctly been proclaimed that
good is what all desire,” ang sinasabi raw rito is that it goes against Plato’s belief that ang good
daw ay nauna kesa sa being. Kumbaga, before tayo nag-exist, may goodness na. Pero diyan,
ang goodness ay isang effect or consequence. Ang goodness ay nacoconvert sa being ng tao,
hindi siya andyan na. Ang good ay yung “mover” ng appetite to make a choice that is good, to
execute what is good. Dahil dito, everyone wants what is good.

Walang contrast na may mga taong gusto ang evil, kasi ang iniisip parin ng mga ito ay good talaga
ang evil. Hence, ang intention nila ay good parin, at nagtatouch lang tlaga siya sa evil.

To justify number 10, ang ibig sabihin kasi ng “what all desire”, ay EVERYONE (which means
included yung may lack of knowledge) gawin mo ritong example yung sa election. May mga taong
gusto si bbm manalo, kasi akala nila he is good, even though skeptical ang goodness na meron
siya. Kumbaga, itong natural desire for good, na nararanasan ng lahat, ay cognitive at focused
doon sa pag-target ng good. Kaya all beings desire good as they “tend” to good. Tend means
gawin. Sa pagrationalize ng good, sinasabi rito na nothing is good because imperfect baga ang
world natin. Kaya yung good that we are tending is a particular good, na nagrereflect sa highest
good, which is yung ideal na good. As long as gumawa tayo ng particular good, it is still considered
good as general, kasi it is under the umbrella of the highest good. Kaya ALL desires good.

Sa “Now a certain diversity of ends is apparent, for some are operations while others are works
outside the operations,” diba sinasabi na may diversity of ends. Sabi ni Aquinas, we must keep in
mind na yung final good is yung ultimate and perfect good. The first perfection ng good is sa form
(formal cause kumbaga ng good, which is the highest good na hindi natin ma-achieve sa Earth)
at yung second perfection ay sa operation (pag-execute ng good). Dahil dito, may diversity ang
ends through operations and objects. Ang ends na ito ay depending on sa field. Like for example,
may factory na gumagawa ng rake for farming. Ang factory, may object as an end, which is ang
rake. Pero ang rake ay may end for raking the soil, which is an operation.

In connection sa number 12, iconsider natin yung two kinds of activity ni Aristotle: 1. “Action”
remains in the agent (like seeing, wishing, and understanding) 2. “Making” is an operation that
uses and passes over external matter, like a horse and a car for riding, a toy for playing. and a
carpenter using wood to make beds, etc. Both do not have a product, but each is an end. But
“action” is more excellent because it remains in the agent. The third is generation (like a carpenter
using wood to make beds) which is a thing produced. The things done are the ends (products).

The third type, yung generation, yung product is better than the operation. In carpentry, the
wooden bed is better than the act of carpentry, because the generated item is better than the
action. The end is more important than the means, in fact, the means have goodness from their
relation to the end.
Then [2], at “Since there are many operations,” he compares habits and acts with the end. In this
matter he does four things. First [2, a] he shows that different things are ordered to different ends.
He says that, since there are many operations, arts, and sciences, there must be different ends
for each of them, for the ends and the means are proportional. This he shows by saying that the
end of medical art is health; of shipbuilding, navigation; of strategy, victory; and of domestic
economy or managing a household, riches He accepts this last example on the opinion of the
majority of men, for he himself proves in the first book of the Politics (Ch. 3-4, 1253 b 12-1254 a;
St. Th. Lect. 2, 46-51; Ch. 9-11, 1256 b 40-1259 a 36; St. Th. Lect. 7-9, 71-100) that riches are
not the end of domestic economy but the instruments thereof

Hindi ko to masyado magrasp, pero feel ko parang inexpound niya lang ata yung sa kay
archimedes.

Third [2, c], at “It follows then,” he lays down the order of ends according to the order of habits.
He says that in all arts or skills it is commonly true that the architectonic ends are more desirable
to everyone than are the ends of the arts or skills that are subordinated to the chief ends. He
proves this from the fact that men follow or seek the ends of the inferior arts or skills for the sake
of the ends of the superior. The text, however, is suspensive, and should be read as follows: In
all such skills a subordination of one to another is found... in all these the architectonic ends etc.

May mga skills na subordinate ng other skills. Like for example, gun-making, subordinate siya ng
warfare, na may end ng victory sa war. Dito sa part na ‘to, nagiistart si Aquinas na hanapin kung
aling skill ang maglelead sa ultimate goodness or highest good.

Yung architectonic ends dito is yung ultimate ends. Sa military, it is victory sa war. Mas superior
ito kesa sa skills and arts, like gun-making kasi gagamitin siya for the ultimate end, which is victory
sa war. As I said, ito yung start ng journey ni Aquinas na hanapin yung skill that would lead to
ultimate goodness.

Whatever kind of ends may be a product or an activity, has no difference. Meaning, wala silang
pinagkaiba or walang mas superior sakanilang dalawa kasi in every field, iba iba ang superior
end nila. Sa bridle-making and accessories ng horses, activity (riding) Sa mga medicines and
healthcare, good health (product) Sa sports and gymnastics, activity siya Sa fashion, clothing
(product)

LECTURE 2: The Supreme End of Human Affairs; Political science.

So, for the Chapter 2 of the commentary of Aquinas on Aristotle’s ethics, we will discuss about
How the philosopher begins to show what the principal purpose of this science is. The title of this
chapter or lecture I should say is the supreme end of Human Affairs, Political science.

We know about what the end is from the previous lecture, now let us talk about what supreme
End is, why it is necessary to know, and where this science (political science) belong is.

On the first part of this chapter, supreme end exists on the human affair he stated that,
“If our actions have an end that we wish for itself and if we wish other things for that end, and not
each thing on account of another (for this would involve us in an infinite process making our desire
useless and in vain) then obviously that will be not only a good end but a supreme end.”

This end is talking about action that has an end, if our actions have an end that we wish for
ourselves, only for us and not for others it is just not a good end but a supreme end or the highest
end that we will attain. Aquinas also shows the principal of this science (political science) and to
achieve these principal purposes of this science, he does three things; first is he shows what he
already said that there is supreme end in human affairs; second, it is necessary to know this end;
third, he shows where this science belong is.

On the first principle, he proves that there is supreme end on each human affairs, if you remember
what I said earlier the word that if our action has an end and that end is wish for itself and not for
other, it surely a supreme end. It means that the end we wish for is much more important than
they, as he said in an earlier report, but it is necessary to know that there is an end in human
affairs.

On the second principal, it is necessary to know this principal, he made 2 steps to prove that it is
necessary to know this supreme end, first is, necessary for a man know that there is an end, and
the second step is manifest what man should know about end. Why is it necessary? He concludes
that the end helps man, and it is an immense importance for life, immense help in all phases.

On the third principle, he shows what science is political science is. He made 2 proofs for this
claim, first is he proof his first presume, that this science truly architectonic science and second
that political science is that most important science. There are 2 characteristics of architectonic
science, “that it dictates what is to be done by the art or science subject to it, as the equestrian
art dictates the manner of bridle-making” and the second is “it uses it for its own ends.” Which is
both applicable to political science. Why? On commentary of Aquinas, he stated that “Political
science dictates to a practical science both in the matter of its activity, that is, whether or not it
should operate” just like a first characteristic of architectonic science, it dictates what has to be
done by the art of science. And in regard of the activity that should operate, the operation should
be directed like the supreme end, when the archers aim its target and he hit the target because
the target wants to be aim not because of other, that is not just an end but supreme end, so
political science is a supreme end.

The other characteristic of architectonic science is its use of subordinate science. If you read the
commentary of Aquinas, he stated that political science only reference in practical science.
Political science uses such skill for its own end and that end is for the common good of the state.
In the end of the chapter, Aquinas stated that the end of political science is the good of man, and
this end is not a good but the supreme end of human things.

LECTURE 3: Qualities of the Teacher and Student

The method of any scientist in expressing the truth must be appropriate to the subject of science.
According to the philosopher, they find that by showing that certainty is no longer to be sought in
all discussions where we argue about anything on the same level. Because today, moral learning
by nature does not require perfect certainty.

In terms of morality, virtuous deeds take priority. They are referred to as "just," and they are
political science's primary focus. There are no unanimous viewpoints on them; rather, men's
assessments of them are markedly different. There are many inaccuracies in this area because
certain activities that are regarded as reasonable and good by some are viewed as unjust and
evil by others, depending on the time, place, and person. A deed may be regarded as vicious at
one time and in one country, but not at another time and in another country. As a result of this
debate, some people believe that no behavior is just or good by nature, but only by the disposition
of the law.

External goods, people have moral consideration when they employ external assets for a specific
purpose. In their case, we frequently encounter misunderstandings because these material
commodities are not always used in the same way by everyone. They assist some men while
harming others. Those who are slain by thieves, for example, are wrecked by their wealth. Some
people have recklessly exposed themselves to danger because of their physical daring. The moral
issues are variable and divergent, with no consistent level of certainty.

When dealing with such variable subjects and when proceeding from likewise variable premises,
it is desirable and preferable to bring out the truth first in a rough outline by applying universal
principles to singulars and proceeding from the simple (universal) to the complex (particular) when
it comes to acts. For every practical science, a composite (i.e., deductive) approach is required.
In speculative science, it is required to take an analytical approach by breaking down the
complicated into basic concepts. Second, we should highlight the contours of the truth, i.e., a
close approximation to the truth. This is done under scientific principles. Moral science is
concerned with the acts of the will, and the motivating force is not just the good but also the false
good. Third, we must discuss events as they occur in the vast majority of situations, namely,
voluntary acts that arise from the will, inclining one way or another but never acting under duress.
We must also proceed in such a way that principles are consistent with the findings in these cases.

He demonstrates that in moral considerations, the pupil must accept this restriction. He claims
that it is proper for everyone to take what another says to them in the same spirit, that is, as the
situation merits. The rationale for this is that a wise or well-informed person should seek as much
certainty as the subject allows. Variable and contingent staff cannot have the same level of
certainty as essential matter, which is always the same. As a result, the educated man should not
strive for more certainty than is necessary for the issue at hand, nor should he be satisfied with
less certainty. Allowing a mathematician to utilize rhetorical arguments and demanding conclusive
demonstrations from a rhetorician appear to be equal faults. However, errors occur when the
proper method for the situation is not examined. Mathematics is concerned with the subject of
complete certainty. Rhetoric, on the other hand, deals with political issues where there are
multiple points of view.

” Now every man,” He sets up his claim, namely, that a young man is not a good student of political
science, or any aspect of moral science included in political science, because, as was mentioned
a man can only judge what he knows. Every student should now be able to make sound judgments
about what they are studying, accepting what is correct but rejecting what is incorrect. As a result,
no one can be a competent student unless they have a basic understanding of the subjects they
should be studying. However, a young man lacks knowledge of moral science subjects, which are
usually learned by experience. Moreover, because of the brevity of a young man's life, he is
inexperienced in the ways of life, whereas moral science principles proceed from and treat human
life's activities. For example, if it is mentioned that the generous man retains the less expensive
items for himself and gives the more expensive items to others, a young man may not believe this
because of his lack of experience. Other social interactions are the same. As a result, a young
man is clearly not a competent political science student.

He showed that those who waste time in this field of study are We must recognize that moral
science teaches people to follow reason and to avoid things that appeal to selfish passions such
as concupiscence, hatred, and so on. He said men have two attitudes on these matters. In a
sense, it is a choice. An example is when a person with a specific goal in mind wants to satisfy
their lust. He refers to such a person as an emotional slave. Alternatively, when a person decides
to abstain from dangerous pleasures but is occasionally overtaken by the impulse of passion, he
follows the cues of lust, despite his determination. Incontinence is associated with this type of
person.

The one who is dominated by emotions, he asserts, will study this knowledge in vain, that is,
without yielding any results and without achieving its correct goal. The goal of this research is not
just to gather information, which those chained to passion might be able to do. But, as with all
practical sciences, human action is at the end of the line. Those who act on their emotions no
longer achieve virtuous behavior. So, whether the student of this study is immature in age or
immature in character, that is, a slave of emotions, makes no difference in this regard. It is often
noticed when an immature person fails to achieve the ultimate goal of this science. His deficiency
is because he lives according to his feelings, seeking everything that those feelings point to. Now,
this knowledge of science is useless to such people, and the same can be said of incontinence
who do not act in accordance with their own beliefs and moral understanding.

He proves that he is an excellent student in this subject. He claims that knowing moral topics is
particularly important for individuals who manage their wants and operate in the external world
according to reason's mandates.

LECTURE 10: The Definition of Happiness

He investigates the definition of happiness from two perspectives. He looks at its genus first, and
then at its distinctions in "The Function of Man." The first point necessitates a three-step process.
First, he demonstrates that enjoyment is based on human action. Second, he demonstrates that
there is human activity in "Have a weaver, etc." Third, he demonstrates what is man's proper
activity in "What, therefore, etc." In addition, he claims that considering human actions can reveal
the nature of happiness. When a thing has a proper operation, that proper operation is the source
of the thing's good and well-being. Thus, a flute player's worth is determined by his ability to play,
just as a sculptor's worth is determined by his ability to create. The reason for this is that
everything is ultimate good is its perfection, and the form is the first perfection, while the operation
is the second. If an outer thing is referred to as an end, it is only because of an operation in which
a man comes into contact with it, whether by building it like a house or by using or enjoying it.

If happiness is stated to consist in something else, it will either be an item appropriate for such an
operation, or it will be something he achieves by his operation, as God is said to be man's
beatitude.

In two ways, he establishes the existence of a human-specific activity. He first accomplishes this
through actions that are unrelated to man. A man can work as a weaver, tanner, grammarian,
musician, or any other profession. Every one of his faculties has a suitable operation; otherwise,
they would be empty and useless. It is far more unfitting for anything decreed by divine reasons,
such as the naturally existing, to be unprofitable and worthless than anything arranged by human
reason. As a result, because man is a natural being, he cannot be without a purpose or correct
operation by nature. Then man, as well as his incidental abilities, function properly. The reason
for this is that everything exists through its shape, which is a principle of some operation, whether
natural or gained through art. As a result, just as each item has a proper existence based on its
form, it also has a proper operation based on its form.

Using the human members, he establishes the same truth. We must believe that the same method
of operation exists in the whole and portions of man, because, just as the soul is the act of the
entire body, certain powers of the soul are the acts of certain parts of the body, just as sight is the
act of the eye. But each part of man has a certain function; for example, the eye's function is to
see; the hand's function is to touch; the feet's function is to walk; and so on. As a result, we
conclude that some operations unique to humankind exist.

He looks at the nature of man's unique operation. It is now obvious that each thing has a function
that is exclusive to it based on its shape. However, man's shape is his soul, whose act is life, not
life as in the simple existence of a living object, but life as in a specific vital operation such as
knowing or emotion. As a result, happiness is made up of a series of crucial operations. In
addition, Man's happiness cannot be considered to derive from any form of life, even plants have
life. Happiness is desired as a positive quality of man because it is referred to as a human good.
Similarly, enjoyment must be distinguished from the life of sustenance or growth, which even
plants have. We can deduce from this that happiness does not consist of health, beauty, strength,
or high stature, because all these characteristics are the consequence of vegetative life activities.
The life of sensory experience is a step above the life of basic sustenance and growth. Again, this
is not a human trait, but horses, oxen, and other animals have it. Happiness, then, does not exist
in this kind of life. As a result, we. conclude that human happiness cannot be found in any sort of
pleasure or sense perception.

Happiness is more likely to be found in a life of contemplation than in a life of activity, and in a
rational or intellectual deed rather than in a rationally controlled appetite. Because a thing owned
intrinsically is always more proper than a thing gained from another, the rationale is more
appropriately called man's good. Because happiness is man's most proper good, it is more likely
to be found in the irrational by nature than in the rational by participation.

He divides the inquiry into two parts according to the two specific differences investigated, and
begins the second part with "Further, it must extend, etc." First, then we know from premises (126)
that the proper function of a man is a psychic activity in accord with reason itself or at least not
independent of reason. The same is true of all other functions, except for skill.

Perfect happiness cannot be had in this life, but the happiness attainable here must extend to a
complete life, that is throughout the whole life of man. Continuity and perpetuity, to some extent,
are also required for happiness. These qualities are naturally desired by a person who appreciates
not only a particular being, as our senses do, but also being in itself.

LECTURE 15: A Problem About Happiness

On the chapter 9 and 10 entitled A problem about happiness, Aristotle ask if a man can be called
happy in this life. He took three steps. He reasons it, he presents, and he resolution it.

He says that life changes no matter what preference it is, small or large things, bad or good, at
any age etc. he also says that No one will call that man happy who has enjoyed such goods of
fortune and ends his life in misery. The fact that one has been reduced from great prosperity to
extreme wretchedness seems to add to his misery.

He asks solon, one of the 7 wise men, framed a law of Athenians. For his point of view of
happiness, solon replied that no one ought to be called happy so long as he lives, but only at the
end of his life. Also, solon added, is it best, to consider the end of life if happiness continues that
long, in order that a man may be called happy? Or should this be disregarded?

Behalf of the answer of solon, Aristotle did not believe on the answer of solon, he rejected and
find it unreasonable and think it as death is the worst of evils and happiness the greatest of
perfections. And Aristotle believes that happiness is an activity so how can a dead man be happy
if he made no activity. And he also said It should be noted that the Philosopher is not here
speaking of happiness in a future life, but of happiness in the present life. Can we attribute
happiness to man while he lives or only at death?

Solon replies that Solon did not mean that a man is happy when he dies. But he did mean that
when a man is dead, a valid argument can be made about his happiness, because the dead man
is now beyond the danger of evils and misfortune so that there is no longer any doubt about it.
But still Aristotle rejects it. Aristotle explains how a dead man cannot escape on the devils and
misfortune, by which man has no consciousness on after he died, he is not aware of his
surroundings and not known, Aristotle gives example for dead man as honor and dishonor, a dead
man can be honor by celebrating his memory and can be praised by the works he has done when
he is living but he can be dishonor by burning his body and exhumed. By misfortune, he is family
can experience a bad things that dead man cannot be prevent, so in summary of Aristotle, even
in death, a man can be called happy.

Consciousness is what separates a dead man and a living man. This loss of consciousness is of
a good and dreadful thing as you both do not feel sorrow and at the same time, do not feel at all.
You are devoid of what is happening. Was your death honored? or do people celebrate your
memories? This honor and dishonor are neither felt by a dead man, so even in death, happiness
is impossible.
Further discussion leads to the idea of a man who lived a happy life to old age and died a tranquil
death leaving behind his sons and daughters. Does the dead man suffer the difficulty of
misfortunes and changes concerning his children? This presents the question that is the
inevitability of the life of his loved ones affects him and thus, becomes unhappy in death?

An answer was presented. Looking in the end of life of man and calling him happy and not
because he is genuinely happy now but was happy, then it is inconsistent as it was only true at
that time and not necessarily now. The idea that happiness is something permanent and
unchangeable, as sought by all people, opposes the idea of change. Fortune, nevertheless, does
not always please all man and thus continue to change. These changes must be considered in
the inquiry about happiness, although this recurring happiness and unhappiness give birth to the
insecurities of man in its ever-changing state and therefore, is contrary to the very idea of
happiness. Fortune, therefore, should not be set as the norm in indicating true happiness.

LECTURE 16: Happiness and Changes of Fortune

Thomas Aquinas further discussed another solution to his problem by introducing a point
necessary for the solution. This is that changes of fortune must not be regarded as a factor in
distinguishing happiness even though life itself depends on external goods. It, however, must be
acknowledged that the happiness and unhappiness of man depend on either their pursuit of
virtuous or vicious actions.

While happiness consists in the performance of virtuous actions, external goods that are subject
to fortune are tools of happiness. Human living does stand in need of external goods as means.
Pero ang mabubuting kilos ay ang pangunahing at nangingibabaw na factor sa kaligayahan ng
isang tao as he can be called happy principally because he acts virtuously with his external goods,
and miserable when he enacts evil deeds.

Virtuous actions are more uniformly constant than any other human activity. The happy man is
intent on their virtues and lives according to them, thus, these virtues are not forgotten and through
virtuous deeds, all inconveniences may be avoided.

It is no question that external goods, even internal bodily goods, are subject to change due to
their material nature, the goods that belong to the soul, however, are less liable to change as it is
the person itself. Thomas Aquinas further argued that virtues are more lasting than disciplines,
an example being demonstrative science. Aquinas believed that for all matter that concerned the
ever-changing aspect of human life, the habit of virtue must be rigidly fixed in man as it is used
more than the habit of science, either in acting according or against virtues itself. This continuous
practice of virtue is the reason man does not forget to be virtuous.

Life is not notably affected by a short stroke of good or bad luck, but continuous occurrence of
good luck may further one’s happiness as external goods enrich life. However, a streak of bad
luck will bring about the annoyance of man and may hinder productive work, leading to a gradually
increasing unhappiness. A sense of virtue is critical in enduring frequent misfortunes as it will
fortify their reason, not succumbing to such afflictions. This does not make man impermeable,
rather, makes them courageous and magnanimous in facing such events.

It is also important to note the contrast between Aristotle’s Peripatetics and the Stoics belief
regarding sorrow. The Stoics believed that sorrow in no way affects the virtuous man as corporeal
and external things are not in any sense a good of man while the Peripatetics argued that man
does feel sadness but does not cloud its judgement and that in any case, external things are the
least good of man yet still helps him.

If this remains true, that virtuous actions play a dominant role in man’s happiness, then the happy
man may never be unhappy nor enact evil actions, bearing all misfortunes, kumbaga, when life
gives you lemons, you make lemonades, ika nga. A virtuous man will make the best of all
circumstances. Sadness still does affect them but does not overwhelm their reason, and instead,
moderates it. Subsequently, this being the case, the unhappy man will find it difficult in regaining
happiness as it will take a lot of virtuous deeds over an extended period, or until external goods
are restored.

Thomas Aquinas also emphasized that changes may occur which will entirely take away a man’s
happiness through the inhibition of virtuous actions. This can be seen in man’s descent into
madness and insanity caused by illness, and as this happens, happiness may not be attained as
human living requires an accord with reason and when this reason is gone, human living is not
possible. He further equated that the condition of madness is also death that it may be said that
a man who lived by virtuous deeds until his loss of reason is the same as living a life of virtue until
death.

He concluded that nothing stops us from calling a person who lives and acts in accord to perfect
virtue a happy man, not just for a while, but for all his life. Living and dying in accordance with the
discussed perpetuity and virtues, is with certainty, a happy life, and thus, the ultimate end,
compared to Solon’s argument that only those who enjoyed good fortune most of their life and
dies in tranquil is the only happy life which emphasized happiness on how life ends and not how
it was lived.