The Nature of the Good Life
For many centuries, the inquiry into the best way to live has remained a central pursuit
within philosophical thought, engaging some of the brightest minds across cultures and eras.
Philosophers have endeavored to articulate what constitutes a "good" life, beginning with Aristotle's
ancient concept of eudaimonia, which he describes as a flourishing existence achieved through the
cultivation of virtue and rational activity. This idea posits that true happiness is not merely a fleeting
sensation but rather a sustained state of being that arises from fulfilling one's potential and living in
accordance with reason.
Extending from these ancient roots, contemporary philosopher Susan Wolf offers a modern
interpretation of the notion of meaning in life, arguing for a synthesis of personal passion and
objective worth. In her essay "Meaning in Life," Wolf challenges the often misleading dichotomy
between self-interest and moral responsibility. She asserts that authentic meaning is derived when
one's deepest affections and commitments align with values that extend beyond the self—values
that hold significance in a broader societal context.
Conversely, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics delves into the quest for the ultimate human
good, which he identifies as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. This exploration
emphasizes the importance of ethical behavior and moral excellence as essential components of a
well-lived life. Aristotle proposes that virtues—such as courage, temperance, and justice—are not
merely traits we cultivate, but crucial elements that enable us to engage meaningfully with
ourselves and others.
Together, the perspectives of Wolf and Aristotle illuminate two distinct yet complementary
dimensions of a well-examined life: the existential importance of individual purpose and the moral
excellence necessary for a harmonious existence within a community. Their philosophical inquiries
reflect the timeless quest for understanding how to live fulfilling and meaningful lives, urging us to
consider both personal aspirations and our obligations to the greater good.
Aristotle’s Conception of the Chief Good
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at
some good," according to Aristotle's opening statement in The Nicomachean Ethics (Book I, 1).
However, opinions on what that good is differ. He points out that, depending on their needs and
circumstances, the general public associates the good with pleasure, wealth, or honor. The sensuous
are drawn to pleasure, the practical to wealth, and the ambitious to honor. However, because they
rely on outside factors and fail to satisfy the rational core of human nature, these goods are flawed.
According to Aristotle, the ultimate good must be sought after for its own sake—a goal as opposed
to a means.
Happiness, according to Aristotle, cannot be equated with material success or sensual
pleasure, as these are unstable and easily lost. True happiness must be self-sufficient and complete,
"lacking in nothing," and it resides in the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (Aristotle
62). Each being's good lies in the excellent performance of its function (ergon). For human beings,
whose distinctive function is rational activity, the good life consists of exercising reason well
, throughout a complete life. Therefore, happiness is not a fleeting emotion, but a sustained activity
guided by moral and intellectual virtue.
Aristotle distinguishes between two types of virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is
developed through habit (ethos), while intellectual virtue comes from education and introspection.
He asserts, "we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, and brave by
doing brave acts" (Aristotle 64). Virtue is cultivated through consistent practice until one’s character
is infused with moral behavior. This process of habituation demonstrates Aristotle's practical
realism: moral excellence is developed through disciplined action rather than being innate.
Aristotle’s ethics is fundamentally rooted in the Doctrine of the Mean, which posits that
virtue exists between the extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, courage is considered the
intermediate position between rashness and cowardice, while liberality lies between prodigality and
stinginess, and good temper is found between irascibility and apathy (Aristotle 66–67). A virtuous
individual is capable of recognizing the appropriate feeling and action that are suitable for the right
person, in the right measure, at the right moment, with the right motives, and executed in the right
manner.
Achieving this mean is a challenging endeavor; Aristotle suggests that one should avoid the
extreme that is most opposed to virtue, be cautious of the distortions caused by pleasure, and engage
in ongoing self-correction towards moderation. Thus, ethical living necessitates continuous
reflection and deliberate practice (Aristotle 67–68).
In Aristotle’s view, the good life is characterized by a commitment to virtue, moderation,
and rational governance. While adversity and suffering may be inherently undesirable, they play a
crucial role in shaping moral character by testing and strengthening it. Ultimately, the good life is
not only enjoyable but also logical, moral, and represents an achievement of excellence aligned with
human nature.
Susan Wolf’s Conception of Meaning in Life
Susan Wolf addresses a significant yet interconnected question: What gives life meaning?
While Aristotle focuses on moral virtue and intellectual purpose, Wolf challenges the false
dichotomy between egoism and moralism that is prevalent in both intellectual and popular thought
in her article "Meaning in Life." Conventional views suggest that human motivation is entirely
driven by either impersonal moral obligation or self-interest. However, Wolf argues that this
framework is inadequate because it overlooks the "reasons of love," which are crucial for
understanding life's true meaning. Many of our most important actions—such as caring for a friend,
raising a child, or creating music—are not purely motivated by moral obligation or self-interest;
they stem from our affections and our interactions with things we inherently value. As Wolf states,
“The reasons and motives omitted by these models are some of the most important and central ones
in our lives. They are the reasons and motives that engage us in the activities that make our lives
worth living” (Wolf 97).
Wolf's central claim is that meaningfulness is a third dimension of worth, distinct from both
happiness and morality. Meaning emerges when a person dedicates their life to pursuits that are
considered worthy by the outside world. A life can be moral but unfulfilling or joyful but ultimately
unimportant. As she notes, "When subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness," meaning is
created (Wolf 99). This synthesis of subjective engagement and objective value is the foundation of
For many centuries, the inquiry into the best way to live has remained a central pursuit
within philosophical thought, engaging some of the brightest minds across cultures and eras.
Philosophers have endeavored to articulate what constitutes a "good" life, beginning with Aristotle's
ancient concept of eudaimonia, which he describes as a flourishing existence achieved through the
cultivation of virtue and rational activity. This idea posits that true happiness is not merely a fleeting
sensation but rather a sustained state of being that arises from fulfilling one's potential and living in
accordance with reason.
Extending from these ancient roots, contemporary philosopher Susan Wolf offers a modern
interpretation of the notion of meaning in life, arguing for a synthesis of personal passion and
objective worth. In her essay "Meaning in Life," Wolf challenges the often misleading dichotomy
between self-interest and moral responsibility. She asserts that authentic meaning is derived when
one's deepest affections and commitments align with values that extend beyond the self—values
that hold significance in a broader societal context.
Conversely, Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics delves into the quest for the ultimate human
good, which he identifies as an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue. This exploration
emphasizes the importance of ethical behavior and moral excellence as essential components of a
well-lived life. Aristotle proposes that virtues—such as courage, temperance, and justice—are not
merely traits we cultivate, but crucial elements that enable us to engage meaningfully with
ourselves and others.
Together, the perspectives of Wolf and Aristotle illuminate two distinct yet complementary
dimensions of a well-examined life: the existential importance of individual purpose and the moral
excellence necessary for a harmonious existence within a community. Their philosophical inquiries
reflect the timeless quest for understanding how to live fulfilling and meaningful lives, urging us to
consider both personal aspirations and our obligations to the greater good.
Aristotle’s Conception of the Chief Good
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at
some good," according to Aristotle's opening statement in The Nicomachean Ethics (Book I, 1).
However, opinions on what that good is differ. He points out that, depending on their needs and
circumstances, the general public associates the good with pleasure, wealth, or honor. The sensuous
are drawn to pleasure, the practical to wealth, and the ambitious to honor. However, because they
rely on outside factors and fail to satisfy the rational core of human nature, these goods are flawed.
According to Aristotle, the ultimate good must be sought after for its own sake—a goal as opposed
to a means.
Happiness, according to Aristotle, cannot be equated with material success or sensual
pleasure, as these are unstable and easily lost. True happiness must be self-sufficient and complete,
"lacking in nothing," and it resides in the activity of the soul in accordance with virtue (Aristotle
62). Each being's good lies in the excellent performance of its function (ergon). For human beings,
whose distinctive function is rational activity, the good life consists of exercising reason well
, throughout a complete life. Therefore, happiness is not a fleeting emotion, but a sustained activity
guided by moral and intellectual virtue.
Aristotle distinguishes between two types of virtue: moral and intellectual. Moral virtue is
developed through habit (ethos), while intellectual virtue comes from education and introspection.
He asserts, "we become just by doing just acts, temperate by doing temperate acts, and brave by
doing brave acts" (Aristotle 64). Virtue is cultivated through consistent practice until one’s character
is infused with moral behavior. This process of habituation demonstrates Aristotle's practical
realism: moral excellence is developed through disciplined action rather than being innate.
Aristotle’s ethics is fundamentally rooted in the Doctrine of the Mean, which posits that
virtue exists between the extremes of excess and deficiency. For example, courage is considered the
intermediate position between rashness and cowardice, while liberality lies between prodigality and
stinginess, and good temper is found between irascibility and apathy (Aristotle 66–67). A virtuous
individual is capable of recognizing the appropriate feeling and action that are suitable for the right
person, in the right measure, at the right moment, with the right motives, and executed in the right
manner.
Achieving this mean is a challenging endeavor; Aristotle suggests that one should avoid the
extreme that is most opposed to virtue, be cautious of the distortions caused by pleasure, and engage
in ongoing self-correction towards moderation. Thus, ethical living necessitates continuous
reflection and deliberate practice (Aristotle 67–68).
In Aristotle’s view, the good life is characterized by a commitment to virtue, moderation,
and rational governance. While adversity and suffering may be inherently undesirable, they play a
crucial role in shaping moral character by testing and strengthening it. Ultimately, the good life is
not only enjoyable but also logical, moral, and represents an achievement of excellence aligned with
human nature.
Susan Wolf’s Conception of Meaning in Life
Susan Wolf addresses a significant yet interconnected question: What gives life meaning?
While Aristotle focuses on moral virtue and intellectual purpose, Wolf challenges the false
dichotomy between egoism and moralism that is prevalent in both intellectual and popular thought
in her article "Meaning in Life." Conventional views suggest that human motivation is entirely
driven by either impersonal moral obligation or self-interest. However, Wolf argues that this
framework is inadequate because it overlooks the "reasons of love," which are crucial for
understanding life's true meaning. Many of our most important actions—such as caring for a friend,
raising a child, or creating music—are not purely motivated by moral obligation or self-interest;
they stem from our affections and our interactions with things we inherently value. As Wolf states,
“The reasons and motives omitted by these models are some of the most important and central ones
in our lives. They are the reasons and motives that engage us in the activities that make our lives
worth living” (Wolf 97).
Wolf's central claim is that meaningfulness is a third dimension of worth, distinct from both
happiness and morality. Meaning emerges when a person dedicates their life to pursuits that are
considered worthy by the outside world. A life can be moral but unfulfilling or joyful but ultimately
unimportant. As she notes, "When subjective attraction meets objective attractiveness," meaning is
created (Wolf 99). This synthesis of subjective engagement and objective value is the foundation of
