Fear

What is fear?

Fear is when you go in, and then realize there’s no way out.

It’s the panic of feeling something, but seeing that there’s nothing there.

Fear is recognizing the danger, but having to do it anyways.

It’s the trepidation that comes when you make a mistake, or fall under pressure.

Fear is being at the mercy of uncontrollable circumstances, and having to let go.

It’s the dread of knowing something terrible is coming, and you’re powerless to stop it.

Fear is a virus that spreads through the body and snuffs out any courage or strength, sapping you of your joy.

It’s the pain that comes with being a human.

That is fear.

Friendship with God

Is friendship with God possible?

Still discussing the topic of friendship, Aristotle mentions that friendship is nearly impossible when one person is very distant from the other. Separation can cause even the closest people to grow apart. I’m sure that this was even more relevant in his time, where communication was by letter and not phone. Even with today’s technology, long-distance relationships often dissolve or grow cold. The human need for physical contact plays a big part in friendships But what about God? Aristotle says that a friendship with God is impossible due to the distance separating. At first glance, this assumption seems plausible; but Aristotle is missing one important part: God isn’t human. He’s omnipotent. He can fill the need for physical contact. He can let you feel His presence. And He has the capability to present Himself in the physical world, too. So not only is friendship with God possible, it’s better than a human friendship- people are flawed, but God is perfect.

Enmity

The feeling of enmity can be considered to be the opposite of friendship. Enmity is a state of animosity, and friendship is a state of mutual trust and affinity. The reason we feel enmity towards someone is also the opposite- we feel hostile toward someone who dislikes us, mistreated us, or wronged us (in other words, they don’t want to be your friend). The only attribute of enmity not opposite of friendship is how it happens. Enmity is usually sparked by quarrelsome words or spiteful actions, intended to hurt a specific person. Friendship isn’t purposeful- it happens naturally, not intentionally, and does not (usually) have a specific target. Unless a bond is desired to further a career or boost popularity, friendships aren’t sought after or forced. Enmity is intended, but friendship is natural.

You’ve Got a Friend in Me

Aristotle next takes on a topic that he has involved in many of his other discussions: friendship. As well as being beneficial, it’s said to be “most necessary with a view to living.” He says that without friends, no one would choose to live. Even the richest, most powerful men in the world need people to lean on- prosperity, success, and wealth mean nothing without friends to share with. Friends enrich our lives, guide and teach us, lift our spirits, and help us through struggles. They are always there when we need them. An isolated man, no matter how rich, is deemed poor if he is friendless; and the most destitute man is considered wealthy when he has friendships.

Calm(ness)

Calmness. This is the emotion that Aristotle discusses next. It is said to be the opposite of anger, almost a “lack of” passion, and is often accompanied by reverence. None of what Aristotle says about calmness is new to me, but his words generated a new thought in my head: why is the state of being calm called calmness? It’s a bit of a mouthful. Why couldn’t a different suffix be used, like -ence, -ful, -ous, or -ity? To me, calm-ful or calm-ous flow more smoothly than calm-ness. Out of the many suffixes meaning the condition, state, or quality of, why was the one of the least graceful ones chosen for this word? I find that the English language does this a lot, and is one of the least elegant languages I’ve heard, but I still love it and its unique quirkiness.

Repetition makes Habits

When I write about certain topics or specific books, I often quote well-known people or the author himself. Aristotle does the same thing in his Ethics, quoting people like Anaxandrides and Socrates. While discussing habits and self-control, Aristotle quoted a Greek philosopher, Evenus: “I say that habit’s but a long practice, friend, and this becomes men’s nature in the end.” I have seen this demonstrated in both my own life, and the lives of people around me. Do an action long enough, and it starts to happen so naturally that it becomes part of you. This can either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on what you make an effort to repeat. If you practice honesty, you will develop an honest nature; if you practice deception, you develop a deceptive nature. Make an effort daily to practice good habits and actions. It is much easier to make habits than to break them, so create good habits the first time.

Anger

Aristotle has shown how the emotions people feel play a huge part in how they respond to rhetorical arguments. To illuminate this matter further, he begins to lay out some common emotions felt during a speech. The first of these is anger. Anger is described as “An impulse, accompanied by pain, to a conspicuous revenge for a conspicuous slight directed without justification towards what concerns oneself or towards what concerns one’s friends.” This unjustified impulse is often felt toward an individual who does an injustice towards another. Anger is often expressed through forms of retaliation, such as: revenge (inflicting pain on that person), contempt (feeling disdain for that person), spite (impeding that man’s wishes), or insolence (shaming the person). To recap, Aristotle asks three points- in what frame of mind people are angry, with what people they are angry, and under what condition they become angry- and gives answers: 1) the frame of mind is one in which any pain is being felt, 2) we get angry when we are laughed at, mocked, or jeered at, and 3) we become angry at our rivals, those who we admire, those who we wish admired us, those we feel reverence for, and those who feel reverence for us.

Blatant Statements

I’ve noticed that throughout his writings, Aristotle makes a lot of statements that are absolutes, with no in-between. His opinion about being strong-headed is a good example: “Now the people who are strong-headed are the opinionated, the ignorant, and the boorish.” He clearly states that headstrong people are not only opinionated, but ignorant and boorish. I know for a fact that I am a very strong-headed person, even stubborn at times, with my own opinions and ideas. However, I’m pretty sure that I am neither ignorant nor boorish. I am a very well-mannered, respectful, and educated individual, and have been told that I am courteous, polite, and intelligent. Obviously, Aristotle’s black-and-white statement about headstrong people doesn’t apply to everyone, as well as many of his other statements about characteristics. I find that he uses a lot of them, and it irks me somewhat. When writing, you have to be careful about using blatant statements, because they don’t always apply across the board.

Book II: Emotions

At the start of Book II in Aristotle’s Rhetoric, he reviews what we discussed in Book I: the materials and methods to use when supporting or opposing a political measure, when giving an accolade or censure, and when defending and prosecuting in court. Some of the blogs I wrote on these topics include The Proper Means of Persuasion, The Improper Means of Persuasion, Virtues, and Crime. Aristotle starts to outline what he’ll talk about in Book II when he said, “But since rhetoric exists to affect the giving of decisions… the orator must not only try to make the argument of his speech demonstrative and worthy of belief; he must also make his own character look right and put his hearers, who are to decide, into the right frame of mind.” The bold italicized words are mentioned another two times in the next few sentences: from what I gather, this is an important topic to be developed further later. The character and reputation of a man greatly influence people’s emotions and how they react to arguments given. For example, an audience that is happy and feels friendly toward an orator is more likely to accept what the orator is saying;  an audience that is angry and feels hostile toward an orator is not very likely to accept what he is saying. Emotions are described as “all those feelings that so change men as to affect their judgements, and that are also attended by pain or pleasure.” Seeing as they play a very big part in the judgements about an argument, emotions are the main topic of Book II.

Self-indulgent vs. Unrestrained

When you look at the words self-indulgent and unrestrained, one could easily substitute as a synonym for the other. But not in the way that Aristotle uses them: he says that these character flaws are very similar yet slightly different. They are both said to be weak-willed, have a lack of discipline, and have a problem controlling actions. However, the unrestrained man is not able to control his actions, and the self-indulgent man is able to control his actions but chooses not to. Aristotle says that lack of restraint is fixable, but self-indulgence isn’t;  the unrestrained man is likely to repent and make an effort to change his ways, but the self-indulgent man won’t repent or change his ways. The first character flaw is thought to be a temporary sickness, but the latter is considered to be a permanent disease. These two faults have many differences, but they share this one similarity: they are both undesirable and blameworthy. Self-restraint, the opposite of these faults, is the trait to be sought after.