The first question I have is about chapter fifteen. I didn’t really understand what Aristotle meant by good birth. I know Aristotle stated that it “must be distinguished from nobility”, but I still wasn’t 100% sure what being well-born means. Does this mean you come from good genes or that your ancestors were exceptional/well known? Do people value this quality today?
In chapter sixteen, Aristotle mentions the saying of Simonides. In response to whether it is better to grow rich or wise, Simonides answers rich because “I see the wise men spending their days at the rich men’s doors.” I am curious as to what Aristotle’s answer would be to this question. Personally, I disagree with Simonides’ answer as I do not think that would be the fate of wise men. Wise men may not be born with money, but they have the potential to earn a great deal of money using their wisdom. However, I do agree with Aristotle that “the type of character produced by wealth is that of a prosperous fool.” After reading this chapter, lottery winners automatically came to my mind. They are a perfect example of newly-enriched people that do not know how to handle a great deal of money. As a result, they usually end up worse off then they were before they won the lottery.
I feel like Aristotle may have in fact meant something specific when he talked about the type of character produced by wealth. It seems to me as if he is primarily making light of those born into wealth or who come across it suddenly; most anyone who actually earned their wealth over time tends to be not only rich, but wise, as they likely would not have been able to accumulate their riches otherwise.
ReplyDeleteThe good-birth discussion was all over the place for me too. What I have reconciled it to mean is that a person who is "well-born" comes from a respected family who is wealthy in both social status and money. The child would therefore be born into a good station and have the potential to do anything.
ReplyDeleteLater on in the passage, at least in my book, the translation got in my way. After defining what it meant to be well-born, he says: "...where the stock is good, exceptional men are produced for a while, and then decadence sets in" (bkIIch15). I think this is a different use of the word "good" than the above use in "good-birth". This "good" I think refers to how virtuous a man is and how he can further his family status. As the quote above implies, "good-stock" (as opposed to "good-birth") comes in a bell curve, with virtuous men being born in a family and those men raising the value of the family fortune/political clout/ etc. and then eventually the kids of those virtuous men become of a lesser-stock, and become content. This idea is based upon the idea that a man should expand upon his inheritance.
So the two terms are convoluted, since a person can be both of a good-birth and good-stock, or one or the other, or neither. Hope that helps.