The Aim of Man

                As I read Aristotle’s “Aim of Man”, I realized that it was hard for me to grasp the concept the author was trying to get across to the reader. I don’t believe it was his fault, but the idea of his work, in general. “Goodness” and “happiness” are such broad notions and their definitions can vary between people and their opinions. Aristotle does not directly define ‘good’ as anything, however, he does state that “every action and ‘purposive choice’ appears to aim at some good; hence the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim” (Aristotle 691). The philosopher continues on to talk about how “if … there is one end and aim of all our actions, this will be the realizable good” (695). At this point, I immediately thought of Gandhi and his idea of “the means justifies the ends”. What Aristotle is trying to say, or in my opinion at least, is that the end result will always be, in a sense, “good”, since the reason that anything is done is for the sake of obtaining this “goodness”.

               Aristotle relates happiness with good by stating that it is the highest good. He discusses the types of happiness (pleasure, honor, health, wealth, knowledge, etc…) and the controversies between these types. Happiness is something that is chosen for its own sake, never for the sake of something else. Aristotle argues that even though some may find happiness in those different types of happiness, they are often chosen for their own sake. I understand that they are often mixed up and I believe that in today’s society, the types of happiness, especially wealth, is frequently associated with happiness. Aristotle argues again that it is “merely useful as a means to something else” (695).

The Man With a Dream

Martin Luther King, Jr. is a renowned civil rights activist. Although I have never read any of his speeches before, I knew beforehand his "Letter from Birmingham Jail" should and would be a powerful one; after all, he was able to change a world with his words. As I read his letter to the fathers of Birmingham, the first thing that came to mind was his manner of speaking. King's writing was very formal and well-spoken, complete with a strong active voice. King was very polite to the fathers, as well. As he concluded his letter, he asked for forgiveness if he stepped over a line. Although his time period and audience does not quite pertain to me, personally, his writing was able to affect me. Martin Luther King uses profound expressions that make me think, such as, “injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and, “whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly” (213). Many of his, as well as the SCLC’s, “non-violent direct action programs” (213) were very passive-aggressive, which were able to affect both white and black communities and fix the black communities’ “injustices”. King explains to the fathers that these programs “[seek] to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue” (215), and they worked. At some point, many of the various civil rights group of that time were able to make the white people worked up enough to a point where something had to be done.

King’s approach to the problems the black community had was very successful and in turn made him a strong leader. His “plan of attack”, in my opinion, would be in a separate category if it was to be compared to Lao-Tzu and Machiavelli’s approach. Martin Luther King was able to help others find peace without being too passive and without any method of war or use of arms. In his “I have a dream” speech, King had also included that “we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force”, which made me think of Mahatma Gandhi. Just like Gandhi, King changed the world, if not part of it, through words and, if not, just a little bit of “Satyagraha”

Gandhi & His Views

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, also known as Mahatma Gandhi, is a prominent figure in both Indian and global history and has become an icon of peace and pacifism. Preaching beliefs of non-violence, he led the movement for India’s independence against the British Occupation and is acknowledged as one of the many figureheads of civil rights and freedom throughout history. His early years contained much of the influence that would shape him later in life, though he remained pious and astute in his beliefs. Gandhi spent many years in a vastly different culture from his Indian roots when he moved to England to study law. In spite of the change of environment he maintained the vow to be free of meat, promiscuity, the consumption of alcohol. The years he spent in London were few and of less importance compared to the many years that would follow, where he would fight, or rather not fight, for civil rights; first in South Africa and then in India’s struggle for independence.

In Mahatma Gandhi's "Satyagraha”, Gandhi is able to supports his beliefs just as Machiavelli does in "The Qualities of a Prince", making his views more realistic than that of Lao-Tzu’s. Gandhi introduces his work by defining the meaning of the title as “holding on to truth, hence truth-force… love-force… soul-force” (6). I believe that his ideas revolve around perspectives as he states, “For what appears to be truth to the one may appear to be error to the other…” (6). Gandhi gives the example of an armed thief who steals from a household; one may react differently to this thief. One may act upon brute force or out of kindness. In any case, the end result is to get the thief out of the house, which brings Gandhi to his point: “Somehow or other, we have to gain our end” (11). 

Personally, I agree with the means Gandhi wishes to obtain peace. It is not as idealistic as Lao-Tzu's nor as harsh as Machiavelli's ideas. Gandhi's beliefs, such as patience being "self-suffering" (6), is somewhat connected to the truth of life, which then lead me to believe that Gandhi's way of non-violence is much more applicable to the "real" world, especially in contemporary times.

Governing the People as a Prince or a Master?

There are many sides to an argument, depending on one's perspective. Lao Tzu and Machiavelli's thoughts on how one should act as a leader of his or her people were quite conflicted, but there were some instances where their ideas were in harmony. As I first began the reading for Tao-te Ching, I knew I would enjoy it right away. Lao Tzu had an eloquent and relaxing style of writing that was pleasing to my eyes. However, although Machiavelli's points were interesting and provoked much deep thought, his writing style was very straightforward and fierce.

Lao Tzu's ideas were very passive. He stated:

Throw away holiness and wisdom, and people will be a hundred times happier.
Throw away morality and justice, and people will do the right thing.
Throw away industry and profit, and there won’t be any thieves.
If these three aren’t enough, just stay at the center of the circle and let all things take their course. (p.25)

I find Lao Tzu's notions applicable for what I would call an ideal world. As much as I would like to believe in such a world, I don't think it would be possible after all the cruelty and abuse I have seen in the "real" world. How can people find such peace and contentment when in the corner of one's eye, there is war and hatred brewing? Lao Tzu's paradoxical Master is stated to let things find their own way since the universe cannot be tamed, but I believe that in a lot of cases, things need a little push or else nothing will get done; peace will not be found and abuse will not be stopped.

Machiavelli's ideas, on the other hand, were very powerful. I would prefer Lao Tzu's ideals rather than Machiavelli's belief of securing power by direct and effective means. Machiavelli suggests that the governing figure should be manipulative, pretending to be faithful or endearing or etc. He also states that it is better to be feared than to be loved, because "fear is held together by a dread of punishment which will never abandon you." (p.46) I feel that Machiavell's way is the most realistic and most adequate way of leading one's people.