Book 1 / Chapter 10
Paragraph 1 - The Happiness of the Living and the Effects on the Deceased
Explanation - Part By Part
"Must no one at all, then, be called happy while he lives; must we, as Solon says, see the end?"
Aristotle is here questioning whether it's even possible to call someone truly "happy" while they are still alive, given that life is full of uncertainties and misfortunes. He refers to the saying by Solon, an ancient Greek statesman, who is famously quoted as saying, "Count no man happy until his end," meaning that we can only judge a person's happiness after their life is complete—when we can see how things ultimately turned out for them. Aristotle is challenging this idea and pushing us to think critically: if life's ups and downs constantly affect our happiness, does that mean no one is truly happy until they've lived their complete life?
"Even if we are to lay down this doctrine, is it also the case that a man is happy when he is dead? Or is not this quite absurd, especially for us who say that happiness is an activity?"
Aristotle is questioning the idea that someone can only be judged truly happy after their death, which was a belief expressed by the philosopher and lawgiver Solon. He finds this idea strange because, for Aristotle, happiness (eudaimonia) is not just a static state or label—it’s an activity, something you actively do and live out during your lifetime. Saying that a person can only be happy once they’re dead seems absurd to Aristotle, as being happy involves engaging in virtuous actions and living life in a certain way, which obviously requires being alive.
"But if we do not call the dead man happy, and if Solon does not mean this, but that one can then safely call a man blessed as being at last beyond evils and misfortunes, this also affords matter for discussion;"
Here, Aristotle is focusing on the saying attributed to the wise lawgiver Solon: that we should only call a person truly "blessed" or "happy" after their life has ended. Aristotle does not interpret this to mean that a person becomes happy or blessed only after death itself. Instead, he thinks Solon might mean that once someone’s life is fully over, you can evaluate their life as a whole. At that point, they are safe from the possibility of future misfortunes or changes that could tarnish their previous happiness. In other words, calling someone "blessed" at this stage might mean their life is now fixed and immune to further harm. However, Aristotle finds this idea thought-provoking and wants to explore it further — he's raising questions about whether this view makes sense or has complications.
"for both evil and good are thought to exist for a dead man, as much as for one who is alive but not aware of them; e.g. honours and dishonours and the good or bad fortunes of children and in general of descendants."
Aristotle is grappling with the idea that things like honor, dishonor, and the fortunes or misfortunes of someone's descendants still seem to matter for a person even after they have passed away. For instance, a person can be honored or dishonored posthumously—through recognition, memorials, or disgrace—and the lives of their children and descendants might be seen as reflecting back on their legacy. Aristotle is questioning whether these events still hold meaning for the deceased and whether they can influence the happiness (or blessedness) we attribute to that person, even though the dead are no longer alive to be directly aware of such events.
This statement exposes a tension: while happiness is tied to activity (which a dead person cannot engage in), there's a lingering cultural and philosophical belief that someone's legacy—how they are remembered and what happens to their family—can impact judgments of their life as a whole.
"And this also presents a problem; for though a man has lived happily up to old age and has had a death worthy of his life, many reverses may befall his descendants- some of them may be good and attain the life they deserve, while with others the opposite may be the case;"
Here, Aristotle is highlighting a philosophical problem about happiness and its connection to the lives of one's descendants. He’s questioning whether a person's life, which was happy and fulfilling for them up until their death, can be affected retrospectively by the experiences of their descendants. For example, if a person lived a good, virtuous life and died with dignity, but afterward, their children or descendants face tragedies or failures, does that in some way tarnish or diminish the person's happiness? On the other hand, if their descendants thrive and live successful and virtuous lives, does that enhance the happiness of the deceased?
This raises a complex debate about the relationship between a person's happiness and what happens after their death. It challenges whether happiness is strictly tied to one’s own experiences and life, or if it can somehow extend beyond, influenced by events involving those they were closely connected to.
"and clearly too the degrees of relationship between them and their ancestors may vary indefinitely. It would be odd, then, if the dead man were to share in these changes and become at one time happy, at another wretched; while it would also be odd if the fortunes of the descendants did not for some time have some effect on the happiness of their ancestors."
Aristotle is grappling with the question of whether someone's happiness or overall well-being can be influenced after their death, particularly by the lives and circumstances of their descendants. He points out that family connections and relationships can vary greatly in closeness and significance. This raises a dilemma:
1. It seems strange to think that a deceased person could alternately become "happy" or "wretched" based on the changing fortunes of their descendants.
2. However, it also feels counterintuitive to say that the lives of descendants—especially in the period closely following the person's death—don’t affect, in some way, the happiness or legacy of the deceased.
Essentially, Aristotle is acknowledging the complexity of the relationship between a person’s life and what happens after their death. While a person who is alive actively participates in their happiness through their actions, this becomes ambiguous after death. Nevertheless, it’s not easy to dismiss the idea that the fate of one’s loved ones and legacy could still hold some significance, at least in the immediate aftermath.