A UNIVERSAL BUY-IN

PHOTO BY JEFF DUNHAM / UNSPLASH

TEXT BY WOLFFIAN PUPILLAGE

Aristotle’s Philosophy of “Good”

​

As of July 2019, there are 2.4 billion Facebook users in the world, all of whose activities are motivated by one goal: to procure (or dispense) the iconic thumbs-up, a universal language of “good.” (Almost universal: there are a minority of cultures that assign derogatory meanings to the thumbs-up.) The ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, might just have received a scientific validation for his 2,300-year-old thesis: “Every skill and inquiry, every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and so the good is that at which everything aims.” (Aristotle, c. 340BC) Whether it is Aristotle’s philosophy “from below,” Plato’s philosophy “from above,” or Christian Wolff ’s philosophy “from within,” good is the principle that draws all things toward “itself,” and sets the whole world into motion. In all that we do, whether ordinarily or in some more significant endeavors, we invest ourselves into eliciting—either from others or self—a “good.” “Good job!” “Good man.” “Good taste.” “Good move.” “Good play!”

Good is also a basic value we place on everything. “This book is good.” “That salad is good.” “My daughter is good.” “Ronaldo is good.” “The weather is good.” “Life is good.”

Good is the basic instinct and bias by which all things are judged, valued, and “liked.” When a person is presented with options—be it to choose a political party or a spouse or a lawn mower—or whether to support or alienate or sabotage someone—she will choose, consciously or otherwise, that which she deems “good.” Even a deliberate act of no-good, such as an act of terror, must only be advanced from, and campaigned as, some “good.”

Good is subjective, and therefore relative. What is “good” for one may not be “good” for the other. A widow beseeching funds for a sick child on Facebook may be a “good” for some, and a “not-good” for others. A relentless scientist who posts endless theories is “liked” by some, and “unliked” by others. We have nuanced  perspectives of “good”; depending on whether one perceives reality predominantly through her sentiments or reason, or with the instinct. With sentiments, what is beautiful (that is, that which arouses good feelings) is “good”; through reason, what is true is “good”; and with instinct, what is good is “good.” A person of (predominant) sentiment is drawn toward the poignant “beauty” of the widow, whilst a person of (predominant) reason is cautious about its truth. The latter is drawn, instead, toward the certainty and authenticity in science; whilst the former may find scientific theories “lengthy” and “a bore,” that is, lacking in “beauty” and affect. The person of (predominant) instinct may entirely dismiss both the widow’s story and the sciences as an “utter waste of time,” inclining, instead, to “like” the death-defying stunts of a car racer; which, for the person of reason may be “unnecessary” and “foolish,” and the person of sentiments, “too much to bear.”

​

​

Good, Beautiful, and True

​

Facebook might do well to add another icon to its thumbs-up (for what is valued as “good”) and heart (for what is valued as “beautiful”): what about an eye or a light bulb for what is valued as “true”? This is because the trinity of good, beauty, and truth has by and large been regarded, especially by scholars who descend from the Platonistic tradition, as the ultimate ideals in human societies. To be sure, Plato did not canonize a trio of ultimate ideals, but they are each regarded as transcendental “forms” or “ideas” throughout his writings. The specific grouping, according to Victor Cousin, appeared only in the 18th century writings of one Johann Ulrich König; but, as Cousin observed (italics my own): “Philosophy, in all times, turns upon the fundamental ideas of the true, the beautiful, and the good.” (Martin, 2017) The trio continue to exist through contemporary philosophers such as Peter Kreeft (a Christian), and, more recently, Rebecca Goldstein (an atheist), who called them the “Sublime Braid.” (Goldstein, 2014)

​

Humans are wired to good, beautiful, and true (in spite of our tendencies also for what is bad, ugly [mean], and false.) They are what we buy in to, basically, when we buy anything at all. We buy a good car, a good book, a good stock; not a bad one. We buy an attractive car, an attractive book, an attractive house; not an awful one. We buy true quality, real performance, genuine brands; we simply do not buy in to “a pack of lies” (if we can help it). Good, beauty, and truth are also what we sell, when we sell anything at all. Even when we are up to no good, we know only too well to invoke on the “sublime trio” to elicit a buy-in; they are the Sublime Authority through which everything is judged, and valued. They are IDEALS that we cannot not turn to, consciously or otherwise, to create value.

​

_____

Aristotle. 2014 (340 BC). Nichomachean Ethics. Translated by Roger Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3.

​

Martin, John Levi. 2017. “The Birth of the True, the Good, and the Beautiful: Toward an Investigation of the Structures of Social Thought.” Current Perspectives in Social Theory 35. Bradford: Emerald. 3–56.

​

Goldstein, Rebecca. 2014. Plato in the Googleplex: Why Philosophy Won’t Go Away. New York: Vintage.