Philosophy: Aristotle on the Purpose of Life

In this video, Monte Johnson (University of California, San Diego) explores an approach to the question “What is the purpose of life?” developed by the Greek Philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC). Aristotle reasoned that just as artificial things (such as tools and workers) have characteristic capabilities with respect to which they are judged to be good or do well, so each kind of natural thing (including plants and humans) has characteristic capabilities with respect to which can be judged, objectively, to be good or do well. For plants and animals these mostly have to do with nutrition and reproduction, and in the case of animals, pleasure and pain. For humans, these vegetative and animal capabilities are necessary but not sufficient for our flourishing. Since reason and the use of language are the unique and highest capabilities of humans, the cultivation and exercise of intellectual friendships and partnerships, moral and political virtue, scientific knowledge and (above all) theoretical philosophy, was argued by Aristotle to be the ultimate purpose of human life.

(intro music)

Hi, my name is Monte Johnson.

I'm a professor at the University
of California, San Diego,

and today I want to talk about
the purpose of human life,

Aristotle's Ergon Argument.

The word "ergon" in Greek means

"work," or "job," or
"product," or "function."

The term is most clearly used
in the context of artifacts

or skills.

So the ergon of a saw is to cut.

The ergon of a house is
to protect against weather

and intruders.

And the argon of an
architect is to build houses.

A connected term is "arete,"

which means "excellence" or "virtue."

The excellence of a saw is sharpness,

since its function is to cut.

The excellence of a house
is stability and security,

since its function is protection.

And the excellence

of an architect is the
building of good houses.

Do human beings have
an ergon, or a function?

And if so,

do they also have a corresponding
arete, or excellence?

Aristotle argues that they do,

And his argument can help
us think more clearly

about the purpose of human life.

But before we can discuss
the ergon argument itself

we need to discuss some
background assumptions

about the nature of life.

Aristotle recognizes four
distinct classes of living things:

plants, animals, humans, and Gods.

And we'll set Gods
aside for a moment here.

Aristotle defines living things by their

capabilities.

Plants have the ability to grow,

use energy, and reproduce.

When we talk about a
plant doing well or poorly,

we refer to these capabilities.

Thus, when a plant is growing properly,

deepening its roots, throwing out leaves

and flowers and shoots,

and fructifying,

we say that it is flourishing.

The opposite happens when a
plant's capabilities are stymied,

when a tree, for instance, is stunted,

or leaves are withering
and dying on the vine.

Botanists and gardeners know

what is good or bad for plants,

that is,

what kinds of things help

and what kinds of things
hurt the activities

related to their capabilities.

Notice that it is not a matter of opinion,

but of scientific fact,

what is good and bad for
plants in this respect.

Different plants might require
different kinds of nutrients

or different amounts of shade and water.

But every plant is said
to do well or poorly

on the objective basis

of the activities related to
its specific capabilities.

Animals, in a way, are like
superpowered plants.

They too have the ability to grow,

use nutrition, and reproduce.

These things are just
as objectively important

for animals as they are for plants,

as veterinarians and
zoologists can tell you.

But animals also have other
and higher capabilities.

For example animals, unlike plants,

can move themselves around in space.

Animals that cannot do so,

whether because of a birth
defect or because they're encaged,

cannot be said to be doing well.

This is why animal rights activists

campaign for larger cages
or free ranges for animals,

because it's obvious that
it is better for the animals

if they are capable

of exercising their capacity
for self-movement fully.

Most importantly,

animals have the capability of perception.

They can feel

hot and cold, smell, taste, hear, and see.

And some of them can
do all of these things.

Animals that are incapable of seeing,

even though members of
their species are normally

able to do so,

are thought not to be doing as well

as their relatives that can.

With the ability to sense

comes the ability to
feel pain and pleasure,

and thus appetite and aversion.

These capabilities are connected with

an animal's capability for self-movement,

since they pursue that which

they have an appetite for

and avoid things

that might interfere with
their natural activities.

Now an animal cannot do
well if it is deficient

with respect to its plant-like
or vegetative capabilities.

But even if it is fine with
respect to those capabilities,

it cannot be said to
flourish if it is stymied

with respect to
self-movement and sensation.

For example,

if an animal is in a lot of pain

or is unable to satisfy
its desire for food

because of injury to
its organs of movement,

that animal will not be said to do well.

For an animal to flourish,

it needs to be able to move around

and to sense the world in such a way

that produces, for it, pleasure

or at least more pleasure than pain.

Now let's move on to humans.

It's often pointed out
that humans are animals,

animals with superpowers.

But it is less often pointed out that

we are plants too.

That is, we, like other animals,

have the capabilities of plants:

growth, nutrition, and reproduction.

And we need to exercise these capabilities

if we are to live.

And like the other animals,

we have the capabilities for
self-movement and sensation.

And with these, pleasure and pain,

appetite and aversion.

All life is deeply connected in this way.

But humans also have unique capabilities

that no other animals have,

most importantly the ability
to reason and to use language.

These capabilities allow
us to cultivate friendships

and social relations,

build and contribute to
political structures,

plan for the future,

modify our appetites and desires,

educate our young,

develop music and mathematics,

and even to contemplate
the nature of the universe

and the purpose of human life.

If a human does not
have these capabilities,

they are missing out on part
of what it is to be human.

And if they also lack even
the animal capabilities

we might consider them
less than animal,

at least while they're in what we,

for these very reasons,

call a "persistent vegetative state."

Thus, we can determine what is good for us

in a parallel fashion to how we determine

what is good with respect to the

other kinds of living things.

Those things that allow us
to engage in the activities

that exercise our capacities are good,

and those that impede
or prevent this are bad.

Now that we have that background in place,

we should be in a good position to answer

"What, for Aristotle,

"is the ergon of a human being?"

It would be odd if the
purpose of human life

was related to our lowest
vegetative capabilities,

unless we aspire to being a good plant.

Thus, the exercise of our
capabilities for reproduction,

growth and stature, and even nutrition,

however important for us,

cannot be the ultimate purpose of our life

any more than it could
be for a brute animal.

Similarly, mere sensation, pleasure,

and satisfaction of our bodily appetites

cannot, as they are for brute animals,

be the purpose of our life.

What makes cows and pigs flourish

can no more make a human flourish

than what makes oaks and vine flourish

can do so for cows and pigs.

Even if those lower
vegetative capabilities

must be in a satisfactory condition

in order for the higher
ones to do their work.

Thus, by a process of elimination,

we arrive at the capabilities
to use reason and language.

These are the capabilities that define us,

which is why Aristotle
defined the human being

as a rational animal,

which is reflected in the
modern name for our species,

"Homo sapiens."

Thus, the forming of friendships
and social relations,

the controlling of our
appetites and emotions,

the cultivation of moral
and intellectual virtues,

and the observing of the cosmos

and our place in it

are the activities that,

because they correspond with our highest

and most unique capabilities,

give meaning to human life

and represent the flourishing
of our kind of living thing.

The things that are good for us

follow from this,

and thus can be determined

with the same degree of
objectivity that gardeners

and botanists can for plants,

and veterinarians and
zoologists can for animals.

These arts and sciences
can objectively determine

what is good and bad for
those kind of living things,

and so anthropology and
philosophy can determine

what is good and bad for
our kind of living thing.

In fact,

the very highest activity,

the one that Aristotle calls godlike,

is philosophy,

because this involves

the pure exercise of reason and thought,

just as the Gods constantly engage in,

according to Aristotle.

And philosophy engages
in reason and thought

not only in order to serve our
vegetative and animal needs,

but just for its own sake as well,

for the sake of living a human life.

For this reason, Aristotle
thought that doing philosophy

was the ultimate end of human existence.

In conclusion,

you should be happy that
you're watching this video,

because I have just shown
how you are now engaging

in the exercise of your highest

and most godlike capabilities.

Good work.