How Aristotle Helped Me Understand Elizabeth Goudge

As mentioned in a previous post, I'm reading through Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics this year, and have found it to be surprisingly accessible. In Book Ten, he addresses the subject of pleasure and asks if pleasure is the "Chief Good." After all, everyone, from the most irrational to the most rational, seeks it. But just because everyone wants it, does that make it the best thing for us? Some are even inclined to call it one of the "least" goods because we can so easily become enslaved to it. So where does Arisotle land on this issue?

Back in Book One, he proposed that the highest good is actually "the working of the soul." And he continues that emphasis in Book Ten with a discussion about what brings true happiness. And (surprise!) it's not a life of unending pleasure. He proposes that the values of our pleasures rise and fall with the activity with which they are joined. Pleasure is therefore a necessary element in the best life, but it is not the principal ingredient.The value of life depends upon the nature and worth of the activity with which our pleasures are connected.

In contrast to hedonism (a relentless pursuit of pleasure), he advocates for eudaimonia (the ability to live well, to flourish), which includes virtuous activity in accordance with reason.

What does all this have to do with Elizabeth Goudge? I've been thinking a lot about her novels and of how often they lack the feel-good, happily-ever-after endings that most readers crave. Many times her characters set aside their personal desires and pleasures to do the hard thing. They shore up their souls to live a deeper, truer life. So the endings are always happy in the Aristotelian sense.

My next post will cover my favorite Goudge titles in case you are wondering where to start.

P.S. I read this book in bite-sized chunks (15 minutes a day, 4 times a week) and it took nine months. I took copious notes so that the ideas would have a better chance of "sticking" in my brain. I'm grateful for my dear husband who patiently listened to my ruminations over many an early morning breakfast. 

Blessings,

Aristotle on Friendship

I've been slowly making my way through Nichomachean Ethics this year. Much of it has been surprisingly straightforward and not as intimidating as I expected. Some of it, like the section on justice, has required a little extra research for better understanding. The chapters on friendship, however, have been as clear as a blue summer sky. I find them especially fascinating in the light of the gospel message to "love one's enemies," which Aristotle sees as an impossibility.

Some of the questions Aristotle asks are: Can a good man really be friends with a bad man? Can you be a friend to yourself? What are the obligation of an "unequal" friendship such as between a king and his subjects or between parents and children?

He lists three types of friendship: (1) utilitarian, (2) pleasurable, and (3) "perfect". The first involves two people who each have something to offer the other. The second involves two friends who enjoy doing the same things together, but the third includes two people who have a deep commitment to one another no matter what.

Aristotle says that the first two types are easily dissolved.  A man may cease to be useful to his friend if he can no longer offer a particular service to him. Or a man may no longer want to be friends with someone who still pursues adolescent pleasures into adulthood because they naturally will grow apart as their sources of pleasure change. But true friends, to Aristotle, are those who are virtuous, who do not make friends just because the other person has something to offer them. They live for the mutual benefit of one another and it takes much more than a change in circumstances to separate them. In fact, the only thing that will dissolve the relationship, according to Aristotle, is if one of them ceases to be good. 

Of course, all of this had me thinking about marriage and how easily couples divorce these days because of the first two kinds of friendship. "This person no longer is pleasing to me" or "This person no longer serves my interests" are frequent grounds for separation. Healthy relationships require the third kind of friendship in which each partner desires what is best for the other and will do all in their power to be faithful, true and kind to the other person even when (or especially when) the other no longer seems useful or beautiful. 

I expected to be bored silly with this book, but spending 15 minutes a day in it has given me much food for thought. 

Blessings,