# The Joy of Philosophy **URL:** **By** Tibor Machan **Published:** August 1, 1979 --- “Most technical or academic philosophical works are written strictly for fellow professionals, and this is a pity, especially in our times.” Aristotle for Everybody, by Mortimer J. Adler, Macmillan, 206 pp., $8.95. Public attention is rarely focused on the content of philosophical studies. Most technical or academic philosophical works are written strictly for fellow professionals, and this is a pity, especially in our times. It has left the proper philosophical concerns of ordinary human beings for pop thinkers to attend to. Popularizers tend not to be careful enough to develop sound philosophical positions, instead extrapolating the findings of other, narrower fields of study in an effort to reach philosophical understanding. Naive renditions of behaviorist psychology take what may be true about pigeons or rats and sell this as fundamental truth about human beings as well. Or popularized versions of findings about small-group behavior claim that all behavior in human groups conforms to the small-group example. Perhaps such pop thinking proliferates because in our day philosophy, the field that aims at general truth, has few practitioners concerned with general understanding. An exception is to be found in Mortimer J. Adler, chairman of Britannica’s Board of Editors, director of the Institute for Philosophical Research, and author of numerous works (e.g., _How To Read a Book_, _Philosopher at Large_) that aim to make philosophy accessible to an interested, reasonably educated public. Mortimer Adler has not succumbed to the temptation of trying to impress his fellow scholars. Unlike many academic philosophers, he has always taken the teaching of philosophy seriously. Aristotle for Everybody is somewhat misleadingly subtitled _Difficult Thought Made Easy_. If by “easy” we mean “requiring no effort,” then this work is not easy. It is nevertheless true that any conscientious reader who understands the English language will reap benefits from this marvelous book. I don’t mean by that simply what many reviewers do when they say such things about a book, namely, that they agree with all of it. Aristotle’s ideas are controversial and in some areas I think he is wrong. But Aristotle—unlike most contemporary philosophers who are guided mainly by a trend in philosophy that amounts to purely critical thinking—engaged in the important task of trying to answer inescapable questions. What most philosophers teach today is to question everything. So far, good enough. They stop there, however, leaving the impression that everything is necessarily doubtful, questionable, unreliable; that our minds are really incapable of coming to grips with the challenges of human living. Aristotle was a better teacher than those who leave this impression. He realized the ultimate silliness of this negativism—a silliness exhibited by the very idea. To proclaim that we cannot make sense of things is, after all, a very queer notion, since it inadvertently tries to make sense of things. Aristotle avoided this paradox by taking on the difficult task of going beyond the questioning stage and seeking understanding. Moreover, Aristotle, as Adler demonstrates in very clear language, managed to reach understanding on just those fronts where contemporary schools of philosophy—Existentialism, Anglo-American linguistic analysis, Oriental mysticism, neo-Marxism—make it appear that none can be reached. Consider the common idea that living for the present, never minding the future, is a very fine policy indeed. Aristotle found this to be an an impossible idea. As Adler notes, > Socrates, who was Plato’s teacher as Plato was Aristotle’s, said that an unexamined life is not worth living. Aristotle went further and said that an unplanned life is not worth examining, for an unplanned life is one in which we do not know what we are trying to do or why, and one in which we do not know where we are trying to get or how to get there. It is a jumble, a mess. It is certainly not worth examining closely. A brief review should not try to explain or even outline a fine book like _Aristotle for Everybody_. Let me just say that anyone with a bit of self-discipline and some desire for self-improvement will find this book rewarding. It takes some work, but it is not all that difficult to find reward—for example, in Adler’s clear explanation of the controversy about whether everything is changeable or static. Aristotle, with Adler’s help, makes sense out of the relationship between change and permanence. It would be equally rewarding to have on hand a plain discussion of that ancient controversy about the nature of moral goodness or, to put the problem another way, what it means to live one’s life well or commendably. As Adler explains, for Aristotle, > “The one right plan for achieving happiness or a good life is . . . a plan that involves us in seeking and acquiring all the things that are really good for us to have. . . . Since natural needs, based on our common human capacities and tendencies, are the same in all human beings, what is really good for any one person is really good for any other.” It may sound shocking to read this in an age when many think that what is right and good is purely arbitrary or just a matter of what you or I feel or wish. When we consider, however, that our age is not entirely comfortable with contemporary answers to the question of what is the human good (personal, social, political, aesthetic), then taking a closer look at this initially shocking view can make excellent sense. Another discussion in Adler’s book should be of particular interest to Americans. This is the fine section on happiness. The Declaration of Independence mentions each person’s inalienable right to pursue it, but the term “happiness” has acquired a meaning—under the influence of some 18th and 19th century philosophers—that makes a shambles of Jefferson’s idea. Now we tend to mean by “happiness” something like pleasure or satisfaction—“I am happy with this gift,” or “Are you unhappy with your present job?” But the inalienable right to pursue pleasure or satisfaction is not what the Founders had in mind. Instead, the term in our most important political document reflects their familiarity with ancient Greek philosophy. To wit, happiness for the Greeks is the good life, the life lived successfully by a being such as man, a rational, choosing being. This means that happiness comes from living a life suitable to the kind of beings we are, not from haphazard pursuits of pleasure or thrills. Yes, we have the right to pursue our happiness; this is not, however, some floating, ambiguous, pleasure-craving life but one carefully concerned with doing well at the task of living a human existence. This portion of Adler’s presentation of Aristotle’s ideas is worth emphasizing because America’s original political system has been under attack from all sorts of circles for stressing human happiness. Marxists, political elitists, and others who have interpreted happiness as if it meant momentary pleasure have managed to ride roughshod over the American political system by ridiculing it. But properly understood, the emphasis in that system on human happiness does not lend itself to ridicule. As Adler points out, “No one, if asked whether he wants happiness, would say, ‘No, I want misery instead.’ ” But this last cannot mean “No, I want a serious, nonfrivolous life instead,” which is what it would have to mean if happiness meant simply pleasure. Apart from some of the particular benefits to be reaped from reading _Aristotle for Everybody_, there is also the general joy to be had from coming to know a great thinker who has exerted considerable influence over Western civilization. Some think Aristotle is outmoded and useless. That is quite untrue—and Mortimer Adler’s book can demonstrate that clearly. It is a prejudice without foundation to believe that only the latest bit of pseudo-wisdom—coming from pop thinkers like Robert Ringer or Alvin Toffler or John Kenneth Galbraith—could impart valuable information. It stems from a view itself promulgated by some philosophers, namely, that the mere passage of time ushers in improvements in human thought and life. But to accept such a progressivist view can spell considerable loss to us. We will ignore the wisdom of an Aristotle, for example, by following its practical implications. I am afraid it accounts for the dismal state of intellectual affairs in which the name Aristotle brings to mind not a great Greek philosopher, but a recently departed wealthy Greek shipping magnate. Most college graduates have studied a bit of philosophy. The ones I meet recall it with horror. It is probably because they were not taught the subject matter in the manner of Mortimer Adler, patiently, respectfully, with reverence, and without the belief that obscurantism is or can convey the impression of profundity. Tibor R. Machan is a senior editor of _Reason_ magazine and educational programs director of the Reason Foundation. His latest book is _Human Rights and Human Liberties: A Radical Reconsideration of the American Political Tradition_.