The significance of Aristotle for Western thought was the way he brought speculative philosophy into the realm of practical action. Aristotle wrote on physics, biology, astronomy, medicine, geography, aesthetics, ethics, government, psychology, poetry and theology. His conception of logic dominated Western thought until the late 19th century, with the introduction of mathematical logic.
For Aristotle, the Good in human life was that toward which all human actions and decisions aim. The Goods of primary interest to Aristotle were things good in themselves, complete without qualification. Examples include intelligence and honor. Such things are aimed at because of what they are rather than because of what they contribute to some other aim.
The highest Good for Aristotle is clearly happiness, which more than anything else is complete without qualification. Happiness depends on two things: (1) having enough money and (2) developing virtue. The supreme virtue for Aristotle is the understanding. The understanding is something that is active and pleasurable. It is also an expression of that in the human being which is fine, noble and magnanimous.
This highest Good, which is thus a combination of happiness and understanding, pleasure and activity, however, does not have a single form. It must be the sort of thing an individual can both pursue and possess. It cannot be an Idea common to all good things. Rather it is a Substance, intrinsic to the values and dispositions of an individual.
True vs. Good
There appears to be a massive confusion among some of us here between things that are Good and things that are True. This confusion appears especially salient with Joel and Jeff. Aristotle can help sort this confusion out. For Aristotle, things that are Good are individual, without any concrete element in common. Happiness for example is personal and even somewhat idiosyncratic. It has to do with personal pleasure. Truth, by way of contrast, is universal. It applies everywhere and always to everyone. It is a property of all true sentences, thoughts or propositions.
All of the fuss in the current discussion about people’s right not to accept a truth is probably a simple confusion of truth with goodness. Of course, no one is obligated to accept a universal claim about what is good. What makes me happy isn’t necessarily going to please you. But people are obligated to accept a universal claim about what is true. “The sky is blue” is as true for me, when it isn’t too cloudy or dark, as it is for you.
I'm not sure
I'm not sure that there is a confusion, Carl. I think it's more like a disagreement. Things that are very obvious to you are not so obvious to me. And while I think we can separate Truth and Happiness in all sorts of logical ways and forms, I don't see any such separation in terms of the intuiting experience. The Truth is Happiness. That is as meaningless as "God is Love", but it doesn't mean there aren't contexts in which it can be said.
You and I will disagree about what makes us happy, certainly. We will also disagree about what constitutes a cloudy day. All sorts of scientists can't even agree as to what water is. This isn't a problem to me. Agreeing that the sky is blue is a wonderful thing to do. It is also nice to agree that laughter can be fun and money earned. Whether or not your model of conversation is true can be debated a long time. But why debate it and who would wish to argue about whether you believe it is good and important. Not me! It's clear that you have very positive associations with your apprach, as Joel does with his, and Tom and me and......
I imagine that, over time, you will have the opportunity to share your enjoyment with groups of people who value it in a simliar manner. Who knows, they could be some of the folks you're meeting on this site. Like I said, for me it isn't primarily confusion that is being expressed in these discussions. Just different experiences and points of view. I don't think truth is Universal in the same way as you. That's not a big deal. But it is a big deal in the specified context of your conversational work, because your work depends upon logical agreement.
Jeff
p.s. but what I love about process models is this: even if I disagree completely with the theory behind a given process, the process itself can produce wonderful effects. That's why I'm unconcerned as to all the disagreements I have with your thoughts on epistemology and language. They make no difference in terms of what it might be like to sit in a group and say things that we all share as true. I do see it as an intriguing activity. I only became tense about it when I thought I was one giant "SHOULD". But I was applying the "should", you are simply sharing the process and the ideas behind it.