thom space

“There is another possible and, in its consequences, real disadvantage to such adaptability; the other animals, tightly confined to the limits set by nature, are crippled almost exclusively by external factors; but man, in consequence of the freedom of choice granted to him through the variety of his gifts, can and very often does cripple and harm himself. All human activities are directed toward the end of a good and satisfactory life. But there are many subordinate aims that are sensible ends only as far as they serve a superior end.”

I don’t know how Aristotle can at once recognize the inherent freedom of persons and then at the same time not see how that limits the ability of them to ever have a being like an animal. He refers to the ability of people and their gifts. Wait I think the I most likely need to understand what he means by “gifts”. he thinks that people have “gifts” or rather that some people are born with more of a proclivity for doing one type of work than another type of work. He contrasts this with the state of animals. Animals he says are limited by there nature to preform specific tasks i.e. ants are divided at birth into Queens, Workers, drowns, etc… and because of this limited nature of animals they always preform their functions exclusively and without deviation. The way that he thinks of “gifts” in the context of people does not seem to mesh with his idea of perfection in people. It seems to me that because he recognizes that people are free and that they are not born with a specific purpose viz and ant but rather only “gifts” or inclinations toward a particular activity, that he should also recognize that because of that freedom people will never be “perfect” and have a specific being viz an ant.

I don’t understand Aristotle’s contradiction here. Oh well, Eventually I will.