"The Magnanimous Philosopher"
by Ben Bussewitz
The man of ethical action, that is, the political man, and the man of ethical contemplation, that is, the philosophical man, are seen as two differing archetypes of virtuous lives that a person of reflection is capable of carrying out and achieving, according to Aristotle. The former of the two can be characterized as a life of “magnanimity,” a lifetime spent implementing good actions on a grand scale during which one does not consider the fruits of those actions, either to bring about honor or to elevate status or material wealth, but rather, in engendering meaningful, beneficial change and betterment in itself, he arrives at greater joy as a response to the good of acting according to virtue. The philosopher, on the other hand, can be seen as a person of “wonder,” as Aristotle maintains that philosophy begins in wonder and continues in wonder; in Ancient Athens, when the city-state had its festivals, we could see all types of people conglomerating together for different purposes: the players in the theater acted on stage, often to accomplish more success, the officials of the city, often to show that they are well-to-do and helping substantially with the order of the city-state, etc. And the philosopher would also head there, more selflessly though, immersing herself or himself in deep wonder and amazement and awe and all, without privileging or even paying mind to how the social opportunities there might spark a more successful life. The festivals in Ancient Greece were a great place for wondering. Ultimately, one wonders, where does wondering lead? What is the aim? What is the strategy and results of all this pondering? Socrates famously said: “The unexamined life is not worth living.” When we philosophize, which starts in wonder, continues in imagination, amps up in reflecting and introspection, and ultimately leads to synthesis and great understanding of life and wisdom— when we philosophize, we are heading toward “an examined life,” a life of meaning, value, truth, and love. The philosopher virtuously abides by a lifetime of enjoying the goodness and joyfulness inherent in attaining knowledge and wisdom and accompanying its accrual. Now, I have presented the two archetypal figures that Socrates states are the best kinds of lives. One can see that these two types of lives, the ethically-driven, magnanimous man who contributes widely to society and the contemplative man who is a philosopher, these are not mutually exclusive. To solve the seeming contradiction: one can both build upon, grow from and pursue the ways of being characteristic of each, and, in fact, perhaps “the magnanimous philosopher” is the best way to be, the politically-driven and successful man who also wonders and cherishes his or her values, meaning, ideas, spiritual insights, wisdom, and so on. This idea that putting together a philosopher and some type of charity-driven, kindness-laden politician or ruler is central in Plato’s The Republic, as Plato shines light on what it means to be a philosopher-king, and rule over the city wisely, beneficially, and for the good of the whole body-politic.
Aristotle purports that the magnanimous man—the virtuous political man— he responds in the proper way to doing good deeds, that he attains a wholesome and enjoyable emotional response for doing the right thing. This can be brought about by attaining the prudence of ethical action— seeing why a certain action opposed to another decision can be perceived as a good, proper way of acting in its terms of its ethics. Also, it can be brought about by quite regularly carrying out ethical behaviors, as this creates a sense of ease in committing to those actions and a greater happiness that results from acting for the benefit of other people as doing so becomes defined by a sense of habit. In both these senses—prudence of ethical action and a sense of habit accompanying these actions that aims toward a wholesome, meaningful goodness—knowledge, wisdom, and discipline are key. We can see from this analysis that the centerfold consideration for the way one acts who is the ethical-man, according to Aristotle, is based on selfless goodness, rather that driven by self-gain. This hearkens back to the most renowned Hindu literature, the Bhagavat Gita, when the Hindu god Krishna, who is considered to be the Preserver God, according to most practitioners of the Hindu faith, consoles a young warrior, Arjuna, and coaxes him along the insights for how best to act in his difficult, trying situation. The kingdom was divided and Arjuna had to fight against his own family in battle or surrender to an unjust cause. He was torn and did not know what to do. During this dialogue, Krishna maintains, “Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action; avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction!” Throughout the dialogue, indeed, Krishna, as is shown here, indicates to Arjuna not to get lost in what is “in it for him” or how the results of his actions spell good or bad consequences for him, but instead, focus on the selflessness of action. This understanding of being in an impossible situation in terms of how complex, grave, and earnest it is, yet searching for one’s higher moral-truth and being submissive to that which she or he holds sacred and carrying forth wisely and prudently and piously— the magnanimous man, as we see, does not attend to the fruits of the action, but embarks on the actions for the best of his co-citizens and according to his selfless mentality. In this interpretation of the magnanimous man, we see he is confronted with difficult decisions, which he acts upon with reason and kindness and benevolence, and moreover, in difficult situations, when the cards are even twisted against him, he is able to maintain good momentum forth in his goodness of ways and days. But to delve deeper into this archetype that Aristotle lays out of the political man driven by ethical action, one can see that the philosopher has a keen insight into and inclination for the abstract kinds of good that are characteristic and necessary for the magnanimous man, both in terms of choosing and acting on a decision while facing hard choices, and in terms of running across complex and convoluted and strange events and being able to fulfill the wisest course of action. Would we not all agree that the philosopher’s love and knack for wisdom would assist the magnanimous, ethical character according to his pedigree?
The philosopher is a lover of beautiful things. As one that wonders, the philosopher falls upon great ideas, and extends and works with these ideas to come to even greater ones. These beautiful things that the philosopher loves, such as beauty in itself, goodness in itself, and love in itself, he is able to discern through active, thoughtful contemplation, during which he thinks about what it is these ideas, objects, and actions entail and takes hold of such meaning. During his trial in the city-state of Athens in which he was accused of corrupting the youth and insulting the Greek pantheon of gods and goddesses, Socrates, in his defense, showed he was wiser than his fellow citizens. In The Trial and Death of Socrates, Plato depicts Socrates as stating:
“For my aim is to persuade you all, young and old alike, not to think about your lives or your properties, but first and foremost to care about your inner self. I tell you that wealth does not make you good within, but that from inner goodness comes wealth and every other benefit to man.”
During the trial, Socrates argues that Athenian citizens take up refuge from the hardships in life by their social status, wealth, reputation, but, as he says, these are all fleeting and investing in them, he continues on to indicate, is indicative of an “unexamined life.” Socrates extorts the Athenians to “care about [their] inner self,” and in this way, Socrates shows that he is “wealthy” on the inside, as “goodness” translates to more inner-beauty, more inner-knowledge, a greater ethical-drive. With the knowledge of such beautiful things one can carry out beautiful means and beautiful ends. In this way, armed with this kind knowledge and wisdom, both the philosopher and the virtuous political man, the “magnanimous” man, are able better to hone their action and to be insightfully and intuitively discerning about how they carry out that action.
There is a tension here in that Aristotle claims both that the magnanimous man leads the best life and that ‘he does not take to wondering’— as we can see that the philosopher tends to take to wondering, and as we can see that Aristotle is a philosopher, totally in control of his own fate, his own torch-bearer; and furthermore we can see that Aristotle considers the act of philosophy to be a good in itself and to have a sense of purpose, and due the fact that in another passage in Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle names the contemplative life as the greatest life. How can we reconcile this tension? Philosophy—it is indisputable—begins in wonder, but perhaps the great philosopher can find fulfillment in the objects, the ideas, that result from such wondering, and no longer “take” to wondering, no longer be distracted and diverted to his motley ruminations, and rather, feel fulfillment in what his wondering has already brought him to possess, the great knowledge and wisdom he has at his disposal to continue to contemplate, share while conversing or writing, and use to guide his other various, actions—and just at particular times, in his leisure, continue to endlessly wonder. When one finds the meaning of life, the Persian carpet or the purple pen, one has sufficiently wondered for wondering to have taken hold of holding him steady in happiness and fulfillment, all her or his days. It is the Ultimate Good that sows a seed in us, within our very human nature, to discern the Ultimate Good and to act in accordance with the Ultimate Good, which is the ultimate end goal of all philosophy that begins in wonder and responds according to wonder—the Ultimate Good being God, and the ultimate good being deep and wise knowledge of God along with the response to this knowledge that brings about an reconstruction of the self internally and in how one behaves. With this deep and wise knowledge of God seated within the constituent self, the great philosopher is able to attain fulfillment by the joyful tree his virtuous wonder and the Pure Spirit has tended to and cultivated, with fruits to share and harvest that will bring about life-changing spirit and attitude and love. With this at hand, the philosopher can become “the magnanimous philosopher” by imbuing much greater goodness in both his contemplation and actions, by means of his deep, wise knowledge and love for God, bringing his contemplation and actions to greater, more beautiful means for greater, more beautiful ends.
Everyone has a basic understanding that they want to be a good person, whether that is in carrying out good, virtuous actions, or it is in a more self-interested idea of attaining power, or the more innocuous pursuit of achieving ‘happiness,’ which might be conceived of according to the concept of attaining the ‘good life.’ The concept of ‘good life’ which she or he comes to might be in response to various environmental stimuli and responses along with the person’s personal analysis, value-judgements, and conclusions, insightful or myopic, superficial or wise, based on such. Understanding of the ‘good life’ might also be in line with Immanuel Kant’s idea of the a priori element of reason, giving light to what he calls the Categorical Imperative, which can then guide noble action and experience. Whatever the case may be, it is clear that wise, deep knowledge of the good and of God can bring about actions that are more prudent, wise, and thoughtful. Therefore, the basic dispositions 1) of a philosophic mind and personhood and 2) to not attend to the fruits of action, but rather, to attend to joy engendered by implementing noble ideals— requisite to the ability to carry out the extent of the beauty, goodness, and love, both in means and in ends, that the “magnanimous philosopher” is capable of bringing about.
No comments:
Post a Comment