Melanie Ziems
Due September 24, 2008
Paper #1
Aristotle’s Question of Human Function
Word Count: 536
Thesis: In this paper, I plan to explore Aristotle’s classic question of the human function: does the carpenter have a function but the human have none?
Introduction: The question of human function is infinite. In the time of Homer, man was recognized as “good” or “bad” by how well he performed his function – generally, his occupation. However, as humanity grew to encompass much more than a career as their defining factors, the question of their quality began to grow much further past the boundaries of their “nine-to-five”.
Reflection: So, then, what are we defined by? Are we defined by anything outside of our occupational function? Aristotle questioned this with the classic question of the carpenter versus the human. Take that for example: In the workplace, a carpenter is judged by the quality of his work, the efficiency of his time, the amount of money he is able to make in a given day. As with any job, however, there comes a time in the day when the job ends and is met with the rest of life: family, friends, social obligations, a home, etc. Parents are often found to say that their function is as a mother or father. They judge themselves (and are presumably judged by others) based on their relationship with a child, the amount of care they give them, or the child’s general well-being. To an extent, is being a parent just another job?
It is becoming more and more clear that, to this day, we are judged by how well we perform our job functions. However, do not be mistaken in assuming a “job”, in this sense, is only one which provides a paycheck. Humans are bestowed with many “roles” in their life. For example, a young woman may have the roles of a student in the morning, a receptionist in the afternoon, a girlfriend in the evenings, a roommate, a daughter, a sister, a cousin, a best friend. She is judged by her grades, her paycheck, her relationships – all results of how well of a job she is able to do in each of her many roles. It has become tripe and cliché to assert that following the path to one’s happiness is the best way to judge them, because it is such an obscure final goal that involves much transcendence in the process. Yet, in our western society, it becomes to easy to reject the idea of judging anyone – much less based on something as trivial as who they are to someone else (as opposed to who they are to themselves). It is natural to determine if one is “good” or not by their performance of their many “jobs”, and, beyond that, it is not nearly as detrimental as preached in grade school. In the same was as no two people are able to see the same object from the exact same point of view, no two individuals are able to see the insights of another human – only how that person portrays themselves to others. In that sense, judging someone’s worth by their functionality is probably a pretty good bet.
