user: What is the concept of a good life according to Socrates and Aristotle, and what are the components that contribute to it? Is a good life innate or learned, and can anyone achieve it?

assistant: One of the most tantalizing and theorized about topics is that of the meaning of life and how to live a “good” one. It is human nature to explain the unknown and create explanations for the way the world works; throughout history philosophers have come to their own conclusions on why some lives are good and others are not. Two key figures that lend insight in these respects are Socrates in Plato’s The Apology, and Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics. A seemingly simple concept quickly devolves into a confusing and complex web of components that only together in the right proportions lend each man or woman a full good life. In order to discuss the way in which we are to lead a good life we must first discuss the differing factors that contribute to the definition of good in the eyes of Socrates and Aristotle. What are the components of the concept of good? Is it innate or learned? Can it be purchased? Is it temporary or is it eternal? Does it apply to one’s self or a community as a whole? Does one conduct oneself to be good? How Is a good life given by the gods or earned by humans? And although there is no definitive answer to any of these questions, in both author’s texts living a good life comes down to the choices you make and how they compare to the definition of good you subscribe to. Socrates and Aristotle use words such as virtue, courage, happiness, and intelligence to describe their versions of the path you take to reach a good life, and all are important, but the main driver of a good life is one’s ability to find the proper equilibrium between
Dahlke 1
 each of their characteristics that lend towards the development of a commonly defined good life.
Theorizing on how to live a good life leads to the necessity of defining what a good life is and the components that make it up. Aristotle theorized in Nicomachean Ethics that the idea of virtue, or excellence, can be an overarching theme for the components that make up the highest “good”, the good that is an endpoint or product encompassing the entire life before it. And the development of virtue lies within a midpoint between too much and too little of any emotion, action or characteristic.
... it is in emotions and actions that excess, deficiency and the median are found. Thus we can experience fear confidence, desire, anger, pity and generally any kind of pleasure and pain either too much or too little, and in either case not properly. But to experience all this at the right time, towards the right objects, towards the right people, for the right reason, and in the right manner — that is the median and the best course, the course that is a mark of virtue. (Aristotle. Bk. 2, pg. 43)
And still, even with the most precise definition Aristotle or Socrates gives there is a great amount of ambiguity. While some characteristics or actions are classified as inherently good or bad Aristotle theorizes that simply over exercising the usage of one or two characteristics doesn’t mean you are a good person living a good life. But rather, he states that there is a median usage point between the extrema of never and always that contributes to virtue, and then a good life. Where that point is is still unknown, partly due to the infinite situational differences one person can have versus another person
Dahlke 2

 during their lifetime and partly due to the complexity and magnitude of the variables that contribute to the person as a whole. However, Aristotle goes into a few overarching descriptors of his definition of a virtuous man or woman to help define the median between the two extrema. For example, the median for pleasure and pain is self control, between fear and confidence is courage, and righteous falls between envy and spite.1 These examples shine a light on how to find the middle between two opposing qualities, but do not instruct on how we are to lead a good life. While definitively defining the idea of good is complex the framework of thought to use when faced with daily decisions Aristotle provides allows for the discussion on how to live a good life.
Creating a structured plan for how to live a good life brings about the question can anyone live a good life? Furthermore, are the segments that complete virtue innate or are they learned? Aristotle delves into two schools of thought, the first being that there are some characteristics that born with can impede or halt one’s quest for moral virtue, and secondly, that one develops these traits over time and through ritual habit. The latter, he describes in analogy, “Similarly, we become just by the practice of just actions, self-controlled by exercising self-control, and courageous by performing acts of courage.” (Aristotle. Bk. 2, pg. 34) In other words, one becomes virtuous by continually being virtuous. Therefore, one finds oneself in a good life when one habitually lives within the middle of all opposing qualities. While not everyone in a society will live a good life, everyone within a society can live a good life. At this point it is important to
1 Examples given in Book II Ch. 7 - Nicomachean Ethics
Dahlke 3
 
 refer back to the definition of what a good life is, it does not mean success, fame or wealth, but rather practicing the combination of elements that create virtue.
While some qualities like virtue are relatively undisputed as good, wealth is a heavily debated part of a good life. Both Aristotle and Socrates agree that wealth is not an indicator of a good life but their thought differs when it comes to the part money plays in the development of such a life. While Aristotle believes wealth is a necessity for aspects of a virtuous life, Socrates believes that wealth is only a byproduct of a good life. Aristotle does concede to saying that, “wealth is not the good which we are trying to find, for it is only useful, i.e., it is a means to something else.” (Aristotle. Bk. 1, pg. 9) Otherwise saying that while wealth is not the end goal and is meaningless when thinking of one’s worth, it is helpful in the creation of a good life. On the other hand, Socrates writes of wealth as something that does not create excellence and at times can even inhibit it’s development. In The Apology Socrates says to the jury, “Wealth does not bring about excellence, but excellence brings about wealth and all other public and private blessings for men.” (Plato. 30b) While this quote is taken out of the context of a defensive argument, it still holds Socrates’ beliefs on wealth. He, an impoverished man, does not find the same value in money as sophists like Aristotle, and while defending his choice to not charge a fee to the pupils that followed his philosophical thought like other sophists did, he said that he is here at the service to god. Both theories on wealth’s role in a good life are important to consider. Does wealth lead to corruption and poverty to a more sinful life? Wealth, similarly to fear, needs a median. As Aristotle describes fear, too little is being reckless, while too much is being cowardly. In wealth the same thought
Dahlke 4

 can be applied, too little creates extreme poverty which distracts from living a virtuous life and too much can create different distractions that lead to the same result.
Another contesting theory is that of the length in which “goodness” lasts. When defining a good life, it is important to think about when you can use good as a descriptor. If goodness in reference to one’s life lasts forever then the term is permanent and can be applied throughout one's life. If on the contrary, goodness comes and goes throughout life the term can only be used temporarily or in posterity noting one’s life as a whole. Socrates, after the announcement of his execution states, “a good man cannot be harmed either in life or death, and that his affairs are not neglected by the gods.” (Plato. 41 c-d) Lending the idea that a good man or woman living a good life is continuous and permanent, throughout life and death. However, Aristotle argues that since a good life is a sum of smaller goods, to use the term to describe someone's life, it must come at the end of their life, looking at it as a whole. After describing smaller goals and endpoints he goes further and says, “The highest good, on the other hand, must be something final” (Aristotle. Bk. 1 pg. 14) Stating that while there are different branches of a good life, virtuous behavior is not a constant and therefore you cannot give a description to their life as a whole until it’s end. Socrates’ arguments on the length of goodness are rather naive, seeing as people change over time, only with the entire information of their lives can one make a claim as to whether or not they had a good life.
In summary, the two different views on how we are to live a good life together provide insight and theory into the subject but neither provides a complete instruction on doing so. Socrates, as written down by Plato, describes his own life which he
Dahlke 5

considers to be a virtuous one and Aristotle provides a philosophical theory behind how to live in a virtuous way with the end goal of happiness or in other words a good life. The closest we can get to understanding how to live a good life is by understanding what makes up a good life, and even this is subjective. One person’s views on what a virtuous life means can differ greatly from the next depending on where they lived, their religious beliefs, or social status. These variances result in many different guides to and definitions of a good life. Within all the different viewpoints, a concept introduced in Nicomachean Ethics that can be widely accepted is that within someone’s life there is a median point between each of their emotions, actions and characteristics that create virtue and lead towards a good life.