But what is The Good Life?

I present the following ideas of the Good Life, with a semi-Aristotelian basis. Humans are able to rationalize. This is what separates humans from other animals and forms of life. As a result of this, other animals and forms of life are unable to achieve their own personal “Good life” through reasoning, because they lack the skills to reason, in the way humans do. It is because humans are able to reason, that humans are able to discuss such ideas, like the Good Life. Without reasoning, and without thinking in general, how are humans supposed to grasp the idea of “The Good Life”? Is it therefore fair to assume that in the pursuit to acquire the Good Life, one must use his/her ability to reason, to rationalize?

Unlike envisioning a new color, or a new animal (that is not a hybrid of animals perceivable to humans), The Good Life, is a concept that humans are able to grasp (to an extent). Reductio Ad Absurdum aside, it is entirely possible for the human consciousness to build an idea of what the Goof Life is, and to live out these ideas, in pursuit of an individual “Good Life” that will vary from person to person.

The Good Life is defined; in the Aristotelian sense, as “a term for the life that one would like to live, or for happiness, associated (as eudaimonia) with the work of Aristotle and his teaching on ethics.” [1]

I propose a guide to living the good life, a guide that encompasses what I believe are the essentials to living a good life.

1.       Each individual has their own personal maxims on what encompasses the good life.

2.       So long the belief can be logically attained by means of deduction and not values that the belief can lead to a succession of a good life. That is to say, that the belief must be a factual statement, as opposed to a value statement. Only then can the beliefs lead to living a “good life”.
For example:

P1. The good life is defined as a “philosophical term for the life that one would like to live”.
P2. People declared medically dead lack the ability to want, or to live for that matter.
Con. One cannot achieve the good life while one is dead.

This is opposed to a value statement, for example;

P1. There are many poor people in the world.
P2. The wealthy nations have the financial means to end world poverty.
Con. Therefore, the wealthy nations should end world poverty.

3.       As a result of this, it is indeed difficult to find a maxim that will actually lead one to a good life.

4.       Following these maxims will ultimately lead to a good life.

5.       There are only two states of the good life, one that is a good life, and one that isn’t a good life.
This is because “the good life” is purely subjective, and it would be fallacious to argue that one’s life is better than another, because the standards are not the same.

6.       The good life is an activity, not an achievement in the material sense. One does not own a good life, one lives a good life.

7.       In achievement of the Good Life, an individual cannot interfere with the achievement of the Good Life for another. Such activities will not lead one to the good life.

---

[1] In Nicomachaen Ethics Book II, Aristotle reaches the conclusion that he who performs his function well can choose his mean, and consequentially, may live out the Good Life [Eudaimonia] as an activity.