Aristotle argues that man’s ultimate good is happiness. In his argument he analyses man’s endeavors and with an open mind arrived at the conclusion that the ultimate goal of a man is to attain a level of happiness. Rene Descartes believes that there is a greater force that defines the way things are. In his argument he affirm that nothing can come from nothing and thus a belief that God exists. Jean Sartre’s argument is captivating. He believes that human beings pay for their actions. He denies the existence of external force that influences the actions of mankind. Although his denial of the existence of God is controversial, the fact that human beings should take full responsibility of their actions is an argument worth its discourse. From the above arguments, it is the assertion of the argument that God exists and He has given a freedom to human beings, who are in pursuit of personal happiness and should be responsible for their actions.
The Aristotelian definition of humanity as a vessel in a bid to achieve happiness is real life and relevant in the contemporary society. The reason for discussing the relevance and application of this belief is dictated by the societal dynamics that has made men distant from each other (Bowler & Michael 119). Certainly, a socio-economical and political arena stands out conspicuously as the area where man engages to seek happiness and property acquisition. The criterion of this analysis is how such idea appears real and often seen in the day-to-day life.
The pursuit of happiness has an ease of application and is strongly tied to the modern systems of governance, where personal interest supersedes the bigger communal interest. In his critical review Aristotle intelligently coined the term ‘eudaimonia’, which means happiness, as the main goal of man’s existence. With the background knowledge, when the focus is brought closer, the overwhelming hustle and bustle of man throughout the history explains the reason people would work hard in jobs and commerce to make good fortune. When enough money has been accumulated and basic needs met, a man embarks on an adventure of partying with friends and family in order to feel accomplished.
Today people visit a variety of entertainment clubs; celebrities engage in varied activities to remain relevant. Nothing seems to please a man than happiness; it is the actual custom observed across the globe. In other words, any activity planned, pursued or implemented by man is to achieve this greatest goal of remaining happy. Several factors that contribute to this happiness apart from lavish life include family, friends and the societal. All this interlaces to create a microclimate of complete happiness. Aristotle explains that for happiness to be achieved all things that bring displeasure should be avoided and pleasurable activities pursued. This affirmation is true as a man strives to remain healthy, avoid disease and accidents and work to create wealth and prosperity that translates to the hospitable and comfort life. Again, more often children from the tender age are encouraged to attend school because it is an avenue to the developing a career and earning the formal employment. Further, senior academicians still pursue education to the highest level so as to achieve a sense of self-fulfillment and happiness.
Rene Descartes’s argument on the presence of a stronger being that controls universe sounds convincing, relevant and easy to relate to the real life. It is a compelling school of thought because so many mysteries occur, and no man activity has been able to unmask. The criteria of substantiality, which offer a significant convincing power are critical because of the issues to do with supernatural power. Any idea given should be sound and not merely a religious doctrine or belief. In developing the idea, Descartes takes a neutral ground unlike the ancient philosophers who naively dismissed God’s existence without a systematic line of ideas. His idea is convincing because of two factors: one is the systematic approach that Descartes takes in meditation three. He points out that all religious doctrines put aside the existence of the human race and the thought that people in ancient time evolved with the existence of a supreme being were the facts one would not wash away. Two, he looked at how man was helpless to the natural calamities.
The suggestion is convincing, looking at the acts the man cannot explain nor stop death and the order, in which forces in nature work intricately to sustain life. Most notable is the fact that man cannot create a lie, science and philosophy have not been able to solve all problems affecting man. Examination of all these facts explains why it is convincing to recognize the fact that there is a powerful external force beyond combined man’s effort. The environment and its occupants cannot even explain their origin, although theories exist and not a single one has been convincing.
Furthermore, Descartes’s idea is well-researched, well-meditated. In his analysis he discovered three levels of beliefs that might obscure the existence of a benevolent being. He highlights fictional ideas, which he termed as a worldly deviation from truth (Rorty 112). In real life, there exist fictitious ideas, innate ideas that come from outside, and adventitious ideas he created, which he gave an example as a dream. In all these Descartes uses the point to point approach to unmask the objectivity of God’s existence. It, therefore, developed his idea from deep personal conviction and not from hypothetical framework.
Notably that Descartes was neither a monk, nor a priest; his idea of God’s existence in meditation three purely came from his deliberate logic of studying the multiplicity of ideas. He focused on the early works of Socrates and saw no wisdom in taking blanket of a belief in the inexistence of God.
The convincing power in this belief is derived from his organization and freedom of adventure he undertook before giving this concept. No other philosophical thinker elaborated hierarchy of beings into basic human body, which are imperfect to God, a perfect being. The angels and the human spirit form the interface; in light of this demystification the suggestion was well thought and sounds convincing.
Lastly, the suggestion by Jean Sartre depicts the ease of execution in reality. There is no doubt that every man’s action has a consequence that a man is the solely responsible. Several scenarios inform the decision to discuss this great idea from the ease of execution in real life. First is a crime and criminal justice system, and jurist makes how people who indulge in crime and related offense personal accountable. Although Sartre appears to oppose Descartes in existence of God, but on the morality and consequence of undesired behaviors both philosophers appear to conglomerate on the fact that the decision to action is personal but if the action compromises system of set norms, a person is held responsible.
No doubt, Sartre’s conception of the idea was to dispute the fact that other forces determine man’s action and so does the consequence channeled elsewhere. It is misleading to comfort ones guilty mind and wish the consequence of the action, but certain accountability of character and good faith should define humanity. Although Sartre is known for his existentialism theory, he also helped to shape the morality and beliefs on the consequences of human behavior (Sartre & Wade 213).
Another applicable reality in Sartre assertion is the aspect of autonomy and independence. True to his point each person is autonomous, has the right to do what one see fit, but the underlying fact is that total responsibility rests on the executor. Application of this suggestion is perhaps clear, and that is the reason of supporting this discourse. No point in time under the formal judicial mechanism has the father jailed for the son’s crime. It is likely to sound obvious and perhaps silly, but the bottom line of the matter is existence of the independent entity that is a body different from any other.
Sartre borrowed from Franz Adler, who wrote that man chooses and by doing so he makes himself under the judgment of existing practice. The emphasis of Sartre’s work is independence of existence and the fact that no one will be accountable for a friend or family member’s actions. It is one of those aspects that influenced writing of first laws and regulations in ancient Greek and Roman Empires. The motive was to encourage personal responsibility and upholding of morals. No matter how ancient the suggestion of the argument is, it remains very relevant and its application in real life is a reality.
Aristotle, Descartes and Jean Sartre’s arguments on the areas of pursuit of a common good, which is happiness, the undoubted existence of a Supreme Being, and man’s responsibility for his actions are of sound logic. The interface of these three convictions of important spheres of life defines the role of humanity in shaping the environment it lives in, appreciates individual contribution and humble in recognition of powerful forces. The philosophers argue from serious factual analysis; no generalization of the concept applies, and the inference by Rene Descartes is well choreographed together with critical analyses of nature powers that dictate the conclusion of the argument. As much as philosophical concepts and thought framework exists the ultimate relevance and reliability test determines its application and acceptance.