Aristotle & Hume - Term Paper Example

Philosophy - Aristotle & Hume Hume argues that reason cannot combat a passion. How do you think Aristotle would respond? How would you continue this conversation? Introduction Hume is a philosopher who interpreted passion and reason in a distinctive manner than other philosophers. He believes that passion is an innate feeling and reason has no real connection with it. Hume considers that passion is a moralistic feeling and has no bond with reasoning. He argues that passion as a strong human feeling arises out of lustful nature in person. Passion is a feeling which has no boundaries, if aroused naturally and authentically in an individual. Hume understands the concepts and elements of life as he is a deep thinker and has contemplated on life and human psychology in various ways. Here the intention is to comprehend the statement of Hume and interpret it with one of the greatest Greek philosophers the world has seen, Aristotle. The view of Aristotle is distinctive and unique and can be contradictory or resembling to that of Hume. The attempt here is to argumentatively interpret the statement by Hume and convey how Aristotle would converse regarding this issue. Passion being a natural feeling cannot be influenced or affected by other qualities or personality traits of human being. People can analyze the feeling and reciprocate on it in varied ways, but it really depends on the philosophical perspective and reasoning ability of a philosopher. Here the perspective and argumentative stand of Hume and Aristotle would bring about more of depth to the thinking ability and philosophical values of both. Arguments Passion is natural and contradictory to reasoning Aristotle, as an intellectual thinker and philosopher, connects virtue to feelings. Passion is an aggressive and intense feeling of human being. Aristotle was of the opinion that with intellectual thinking intellectual virtues like wisdom, reasoning and intellectual skills are connected; on the other hand, moralistic virtues are related to one of the component of soul where feelings reside. If a person holds a pure soul, then he would be morally ideal and realistically passionate. Passion is attached to soul; it is a feeling arising from the inner most depth of a human soul and heart. A person who possesses high intelligence needs not necessarily have a passionate soul or heart. According to Morgan, “[f]or when the beings are of different kinds, the parts of the soul naturally suited are of different kinds, since the parts possess knowledge by being somehow similar appropriate” (Morgan 307). It is normally observed that a person with intelligence and a high reasoning ability focuses more on analytical facts and gives importance to brain faculty rather than desire. Here we can understand that Hume’s ideology and Aristotle’s perspective match in a positive manner. Aristotle would totally agree with Hume and would proclaim that passion in no way can be combatted by reasoning. Reasoning is a quality of physical body whereas passion is both spiritual and physical and can surpass reason in all manners. Aristotle would postulate the fact that passion, as a strong feeling, could change a man’s thinking and reasoning ability to a great extent. Aristotle would further suggest that a man who is passionately evoked cannot be tethered by reasoning or intelligence as he is completely surrendered to the soul. A soul is the ultimate powerhouse of a human being, and when enslaved to soul, no intelligence can rule the mental status of a person. Reason is an egoistic value and passion a natural feeling Aristotle, being a soul lover, would comment to Hume that soul is the universal energy, and nothing in the world which is related to ego can fight with it. Passion is the essence of a soul, and a man, being a soul enriched being, can be overwhelmingly overtaken by passion. Reasoning is a component of soul, but it is not a moralistic virtue even though it is a virtue. Aristotle would continue that all virtues are not idealistic, and passion, due to its pure nature, cannot be let down by reason. Reason is a virtue, and passion is not a virtue but a strong and natural feeling. Feelings are greatly powerful, and intellect cannot control mind in many ways. Hume would agree with Aristotle and confess that reason is relevant to situations and circumstances. Aristotle would agree with him and comment that passion being an innate feeling is not victimized or influenced by circumstances, but it flows in effortlessly. For this, Hume would comment that passion is unconditional and cannot be subjected to force or intimidation. He would further suggest that reason, being a virtue, can be praised or blamed, but passion cannot be blamed as it is an irresistible and uncontrollable feeling which is not purposeful. So Aristotle would support him by claiming that passion is natural, and reason is an egoistic tendency of human character. Being passionate is more soulful than being reason conscious Aristotle would confess that being passionate is deeply soulful as compared to being reasonable because passion is a feeling which emanates from the inner most core of a human being. He would explain that passion is not necessarily goodness as its effect on humans can change according to circumstances. Aristotle would state that passion, being a true feeling, can encourage a person to be happier and satisfied in life. Reason, being a faculty, has less power and influence on mind than passion. So Hume would suggest that reason is a “slave of passion” as it has the power to distort the reasoning ability of a person. This is a real justifiable fact as passion is a feeling which is deeply rooted in the mind rather than reason, which is more of intellectual element. Aristotle would say that passion is something which can motivate a person in a good and bad way, but reasoning can make people do mostly justifiable act. However, passion is natural feeling which, when slightly diverted with the support of moral thinking, can only bring prosperity to human being. Passion is compatible to the heart whereas reasoning is practiced for a beneficial outcome. Something practiced with purpose is less soulful and, hence, less strong in nature. For the every same reason, the passion cannot be beaten by the reason faculty. Regarding this, Hume would reply that passion, being a natural feeling, is not related to justice, whereas reason is justifying and hence artificial. So it could be said that passion is soulful, and reason is conscious and deliberate. Passion is more motivating than reason Hume would continue with the conversation that the deep connection of the feeling of passion with soul would make it more connected to will and hence make it more motivating than reason. Hume would comment that passion, being a feeling, desire or emotion, has more authenticity and can motivate a person to do vice or virtue. According to Morgan, “[t]hough by itself moves nothing: what moves us is goal directed thought concerned with action” (Morgan 308). He would say that passion is stronger than reasoning as the latter is conditional conflicts with the will less. For this Aristotle would say that passion, being a desire, can strongly force a person to perform an action, and a man can hardly stop his passion, as he can control his reasoning ability. He would argue that, being passionate, a man can become an insane person, and reasoning can only make a person choose the good or the bad. It is very true that passion is more motivating than reasoning because of the impression and other mixture of emotions it brings about in person. Passion is a driving force in person and can uncontrollably change the thinking faculty and capacity of a person. The power of passion cannot be undermined by a person as it is more natural and has a power many times stronger than the will power and determination. As reasoning is more focused, it has less influence on a character and the faculty of a person, and for the very same reason, passion cannot be combatted by reason. On this matter, Aristotle and Hume both agree. Conclusion Hume is a philosopher not greater than Aristotle, but when it came to the subject of passion and reason, we can find that their opinion and thinking match. Hume is a thinker who changed the perspective of world, even by altering the position of God in the eyes of people. He gave a distinctive perspective about moralistic virtues and vice and made people believe that things are not as they appear in front of their eyes. Here, he attempts to convey to Aristotle that he agrees with the idea that passion is more subtle and strong and cannot move reasoning, but it is the other way around. Aristotle, on the other hand, is not of a different opinion and agrees with Hume by giving an agreeable opinion on the strength of passion over reason. Here we can find that passion, being deeply rooted in the soul and mind, is more real and forceful and has the capacity to make a man perform things which he would not do under the control of reason. Both the philosophers rightly understand that passion is unbeatable by reason, and man, as a lustful being, is more enslaved by passion than reason. Passion in no way can be combatted by reason as the intellectual power or faculty of a person is meager in comparison to the intense feeling of passion. This feeling of passion makes person insane whereas reason makes a person more sane and productive. This fact itself very well asserts that passion cannot be combatted by reason. Work Cited Morgan, Michaell L. Classic of Moral And Political Theory. 5thth ed. Indiana: Hackett Publishing, 2011. Print Read More