LESSON 3 THE GOOD LIFE LESSON OBJECTIVES At the end of this lesson, the students should be able to: * examine what is meant by a good life; * identify how humans attempt to attain what is deemed to be a good life; and * — recognize possibilities available to human being to attain the good life. ete In Ancient Greece, long before the word "science" has been coined, the need to understand the world and reality was bound with the need to understand the self and the good life. For Plato, the task of understanding the things in the world runs parallel with the job of truly getting into what will make the soul flourish. In an attempt to understand reality and the external world, man must seek to understand himself, too. It was Aristotle who gave a definitive distinction between the theoretical and practical sciences. Among the theoretical disciplines, Aristotle included logic, biology, physics, and metaphysics, among others. Among the practical ones, Aristotle counted ethics and politics. Whereas “truth” is the aim of the theoretical sciences, the "good" is the end goal of the practical ones. Every attempt to know is connected in some way in.an attempt to find the "good" or as said in the previous lesson, the attainment of human flourishing. Rightly so, one must find the truth about what the good is before one can even try to locate that which is good. Chapter II: Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition 275 3 uanays>w a misplaced or an Ih the previous lesson, W° have ae for all of us, make the erroncous idea of human flourishing ©" ses a chasm between the seiences work against us rather than for 0 eon, we endeavor to 80 back a search for truth and for the good. In this les it ‘eally mean to live @ goog little and answer these questions: What 402s * ting this understanding, we life? What qualifies as a good existence? Cran te our deepest existential i oncile are assumed to be in a better postion 10 Tver around the world, needs as human beings and science as too! t© ™ Aristotle and How We All Aspire for 2 Good Life hilosopher who approached as we know now, is also the blematization of the end Aristotle. It is interesting to note that the first pI the problem of reality from a “scientific” lens first thinker who dabbled into the complex pro! goal of life: happiness. This man is none other than Compared to his teacher and predecessor, Plato, Aristotle embarked on a different approach in figuring out reality. In contrast to Plato who thought that things in this world are not real and are only copies of the real in the world of forms, Aristotle puts everything back to the ground in claiming that this world is all there is to it and that this world is the only reality we can all access. For Plato, change is so perplexing that it can only make sense if there are two realities: the world of forms and the world of matter. Consider the human person. When you try to see yourself in front of the mirror, you normally say and think that you are looking at yourself—that is, you are the person who slept last night and you are the same person looking at yourself now, despite the occasional changes like a new pimple that grows on your nose. The same is true for a seed that you threw out of the garden last month. When you peek into the same patch of land where the seed ingrained itself into, you may be surprised to see a little plant showing itself to you and to the sun, Plato es ized change asa process and as a phenomenon that happens in th, ane a in fact, iis constant, However, Plato also claims that despite cre a of change, things remain and they retain their ultimat chet ce = oe you remain to be you despite the pimple that now ii fatness”; that Plato was convinced that reality is full of these seeming? oot nee ingly contrasting Sek ‘Science, Technology, and Society € nsmanifestations of change and permanence. For Plato, this can only be 4 explained by postulating two aspects of reality, two worlds if you wish: the world of forms and the world of matter. In the world of matter, things are changing and impermanent. In the world of forms, the entities are only Copies of the ideal and the models, and the forms are the only real entities. Things are red in this world because they participate in what it means to be red in the world of forms. Aristotle, for his part, disagreed with his teacher’s position and forwarded the idea that there is no reality over and above what the senses can perceive. As such, it is only by observation of the external world that One can truly understand what reality is all about. Change is a process that is inherent in things. We, along with all other entities in the world, start as potentialities and move toward actualities. The movement, of course, entails change. Consider a seed that eventually germinates and grows into a plant. The seed that turned to become the plant underwent change— from the potential plant that is the seed to its full actuality, the plant. Aristotle extends this analysis from the external world into the Province of the human person and declares that even human beings are Potentialities who aspire for their actuality. Every human being moves according to some end. Every action that emanates from a human person is a function of the purpose (telos) that the Person has. When a boy asks for a burger from a Filipino burger joint, the action that he takes is motivated primarily by the purpose that he has, inferably to get full or to taste the burger that he only sees on TV. When a girl tries to finish her degree in the university, despite the initial failures she may have had, she definitely is being propelled by a higher purpose than to just graduate. She wants something more, maybe to have a license and land a Promising job in the future. Every human person, according to Aristotle, aspires for an end. This end, we have learned from the Previous chapters, is happiness or human flourishing. No individual—young or old, fat or skinny, male or female—resists happiness. We all want to be happy. Aristotle claims that happiness is the be all and end all of everything that we do. We may not realize it but the end goal of everything that we do is happiness. If you ask one person why he is doing what he is doing, he may not Teadily say that it is happiness sv Chapter Il: Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition 7@ aay motivated by w) that motivates him, Hard-pressed to expii ot motivating fore mtivates him will reveal that happiness 4 that we want t0 be happy, Pemthing that he does, When Aristotle ais ness that We Obtain Whey © does not necessarily mean the everyd2Y ih in a restaurant. Whar WWe Win @ competition or we eat our favorite kind of contentment jp Aristotle actually means is human fouishin8s 4 kind of feeling that ong Knowing that one is getting the best out of life: A has attained the crux of has maxed out his potentials in the world, that he his humanity. Happiness as the Goal of a Good Life In the eighteenth century, John Stuart Mill declared ie Greatest Happiness Principle by saying that an action is right as far = Ae Pa the attainment of happiness for the greatest number of people. dae when people were skeptical about claims on the metaphysical, people could not make sense of the human flourishing that Aristotle talked viene in the days of old. Mill said that individual happiness of each individual should be prioritized and collectively dictates the kind of action that should be endorsed. Consider the pronouncements against mining. When an action benefits the greatest number of people, said action is deemed ethical. Does mining benefit rather than hurt the majority? Does it offer more benefits rather than disadvantages? Does mining result in more people getting happy rather than sad? If the answers to the said questions are in the affirmative, then the said action, mining, is deemed ethical. The ethical is, of course, meant to lead us to the good and happy life. Through the ages, as has been expounded in the previous chapters,world called atomos or seeds. For Democritus and his disciples, the world, inctuding human beings, is made up of matter. There is no need to posit immaterial entities as sources of purpose. Aromos simply comes together randomly to form the things in the world. As such, only material entities matter. In terms of human flourishing, matter is what makes us attain happiness. We see this at work with most people who are clinging on f© material Wealth as the primary source of the meaning of their existence. Hedonism The hedonists, for their part, see the end goal of life in acquiring pleasure. Pleasure has always been the priority of hedonists. For them, life is about obtaining and indulging in pleasure because life is limited. The mantra of this school of thought is the famous, “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.” Led by Epicurus, this school of thought also does not buy any notion of afterlife just like the materialists. Stoicism Another school of thought led by Epicurus, the stoics espoused the idea that to generate happiness, one must learn to distance oneself and be apathetic. The original term, apatheia, precisely means to be indifferent. For the stoics, happiness can only be attained by a careful practice of apathy. We should, in this worldview, adopt the fact that some things are not within our control. The sooner we realize this, the happier we can become. 1 se Sa: Tc, Sot soca summa mata 73) "atTheism Most people find the meaning of their lives using God as a fulerum Of their existence. The Philippines. a predominantly Catholic country, iS witness to how people base their life Boals on beliefs that hinged on some form of supernatural reality called heaven. The ultimate basis of happiness for theists is the communion with God. The world where we are in is only just a temporary reality where we have to” return to the hands of maneuver around while waiting for the ultimate God. Humanism Humanism as another school of thought espouses the freedom of man to carve his own destiny and to legislate his own laws, free from the shackles of a God that monitors and controls. For humanists, man is literally the captain of his own ship. Inspired by the enlightenment in seventeenth century, humanists see themselves not merely as stewards of the creation but as individuals who are in control of themselves and the world outside them. This is the spirit of most scientists who thought that the world is a place and space for freely unearthing the world in seeking for ways on how to improve the lives of its inhabitants. As a result of the motivation of the humanist Current, scientists eventually turned to technology in order to ease the difficulty of life as illustrated in the previous lessons. Scientists of today meanwhile are ready to confront more sophisticated attempts at altering the world for the benefit of humanity. Some people now are willing to tamper with time and space in the name of technology. Social media, as an example. has been so far a very effective way of e mploying technology i e time and space. Not very long ago, communication See logy in purging from two continents in the planet will involve months t, two people of waiting for a ya $'gq % Science, Technology, and Societymail to arriy ©. Seei ; impossible, Noy e® C22H other real time while talking was virtually is not just Pesta communication between two people wherever they are, time communication easy. The Internet and smart phones made real- 6 N possible not just even with multiple people simultaneously. just between two people, but Technol mile individuals, allowed us to tinker with our sexuality. Biologically sexual reassign can now undergo medical operation if they so wish for vith relat net Brest implants are now available and can be done also be injectan er ete® if anyone wishes to have one. Hormones may ected in order to alter the sexual chemicals in the body. Wh sins re pee OF not We agree with these technological advancements, ard, Undertaken in the hopes of attaining the good life. The balance, » Detween the good life, ethics, and technology has to be attained. ———— = Man is constantly in pursuit of the good life. Every person has his perspective when it comes to what comprises the good life. Throughout history, man has worked hard in pointing out what amounts to a good, happy life. Some people like the classical theorists thought that happiness has to do with the insides of the human person. The soul, as the seat of our humanity, has been the focus of attention of this end goal. The soul has to attain a certain balance in order to have a good life, a life of flourishing. It was only until the seventeenth century that happiness became a centerpiece in the lives of people, even becoming a full-blown ethical foundation in John Stuart Mill’s utilitarianism. At present, we see multitudes of schools of thought that all promise their own key to finding happiness. Science and technology has been, for the most part, at the forefront of man’s attempts at finding this happiness. The only question at the end of the day is whether science is taking the right path toward attaining what it really means to live a good life. Chapter II: Science, Technology, and Society and the Human Condition