I agree with the explanation that is given that things should not be done in excess, but that they should be done in moderation. I also agree with the idea that Aristotle starts with, that everything that a person does has an aim toward an end. I like this idea although not exactly how he seems to understand it. I do not believe there is a final end to everything that exists, as things end, there are new things that begin. The ideas he has about self-sufficiency I find interesting. People can have this without being isolated, no one should ever be completely isolated, there will always be family or friends. Points that I disagree on are some of Aristotle are his theories. The first one is the statement; "...for legislators make the citizens good by forming habits in them...". Men and women were here before the legislators were formed, it was the men and women with good actions and virtues that created these legislators, not the legislators that created the men and women. The next thing is why can't a slave share in happiness? And that the slave does not have a share in human life? If the life of a slave is fullfilled and complete, and he/she has a spouse and children, and take care of them and is a good person, then why at the end of his/her life can't itbe determined that he/she was happy? Is the wealth the only thing that would be stopping this from happening? All of the needs of the slave are met, unless the slave is in wanting, then he/she should be considered to possibly have a happy life. For the last point I would like to ask; 'why must this idea of happiness be aplied to any god?' Aristotle is taking human qualities and human rules and appling them to non-human forms. I would thing the gods would have their own rules that would apply to them as being non-human, and their rules would not apply to us.

-- Anonymous, February 29, 2000