Ray Kroc

The segment in Leading Lives That Matter about three biological sketches is very interesting because it gives insight on three very different lives and journies. The first one I read was about Ray Kroc, founder of the fast food restaurant McDonalds. Now the actual story about his life is just what the main title suggests, a biography. It details the span of his life, how he came up with the idea, what McDonalds is like today, and so on. The interesting part however comes with the introduction to the three stories.

It says that Kroc was a typical "rags to riches" guy and asks the question if you would admire him more because of this. Do people admire these lives more than those who have been healthy their entire lives? Kroc did work his way up and became very successful. The story talks about his multiple jobs, many having nothing to do with his business, and how he finally got his break. I have never thought about this, but I do suppose that people admire the ones who fought for something rather than had it come naturally. However, don't the ones that have it come naturally also have to work hard at one point? In America, we love the underdog. We always want a story to fight for and come together about. Ray Kroc is your typical American story that has the nation cheering for him and not for someone like Paris Hilton.

Another story mentioned is about a young woman, Iris Chang, who was a Chinese-American writer and became interested in China's "Nanking Incident" after hearing about it. She wrote a vivid book on the mutilations and grieving stories that occured in Nanking in order to inform the public. Her work was considered to controversial and not credible, which caused Chang to be upset. Chang eventually killed herself perhaps feeling as though she had done too little. The question here after this story, is posed as asking is a life that is short-lived, yet self-sacrificial, more worthy than one that is long and 'comparatively undistinguished'?

In both cases for Kroc and Chang, there were qualities and benefits of their lives that made them better. It was fast food restaurants for Kroc and history for Chang. I believe that this has much to do with one's quality of living. If you can have a splendid life with the qualities that you work for or on then life will only be satisfying by the conclusions you find.

Endearing Devotions

I had to look up devotion, for I only knew the meaning in which someone is deeply committed to something. I found out that it can also mean a short religious service, which made more sense for the exercise.

If I were called upon to create a week-long devotion, I would likely use the theories and thoughts from Epictetus. For one, I found his work easier to comprehend than that of Aurelius. I happen to only look over the first two books of Aurelius and found myself relating more to Epictetus. This may be because Aurelius often speaks of what he has learned in a personal standpoint, which makes it harder to associate with a general lifestyle. The listing of Epictetus was easier to follow from the organization.

With that said, I thought that most of the points Epictetus made were valid to living a worthy lifestyle, but one really stood out to me. Number 13 which starts off by stating "if you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid with regard to external things." First, for a little background- this has always been one of my favorite quotes, and I feel like it defines parts of the way I live. I never knew that it was a renowned philosopher who said it because I picked it up from my favorite movie. Now that I know it was Epictetus who created the quote, it makes my decision easier to use this piece of The Enchiridion in my devotion.

Getting back to the concentration of the theme he presents, I think that it is not only important to accept eternal views, but it is also important to release some of your grasp on your natural conformed values. This is also among some of the topics that we have been discussing in class: Open your mind, go outside of your comfort zone, be curious, etc. And sometimes, it is important to understand that acting in these ways will not always be a societal status quo. People will stare and sometimes criticize, but like Epictetus said, you must be okay with that.

This would clearly be a modern version of the this theme that Epictetus presents, thus it may divert from his original perspective. On the issue of giving a title to the devotion, I don't know that I would have a specific name, but I would definitely attribute it to point 13. Not only am I content with his views on living happily, but I am ecstatic to finally know who said my favorite quote!

Friend or Foe?

Aristotle's view on friendship is detailed and consists of many more layers than I would ever attribute to the quality. According to him, friendship can be separated in three categories. To the simplest interpretation of these categories, I came upon the first as being friends of usefulness. These are the friendships that we acquire only because another one is useful to our own fufillment or success. For example, businessmen often have these types of relationships because it is their main priority to excel in the business world, thus need to have friends that can aid in their path.

The next relationship Aristotle describes is one of pleasure. Sometimes, we form friendships that fufill a pleasurable instinct in us. For example, we often have friends that are witty and make us laugh or ones that like to talk about the same things we do. These friends and ones of usefulness are temporary, according to Aristotle. Because our pleasures and needs tend to change over time, any friend of ours that falls under these categories will no longer be necessary in our lives.

The third relationship that is mentioned is the purest form of friendship. It is one of "reciprocated good". This type of friendship has both parties seeking good from the other and thus returning it as well. It is said that this will always be a long lasting relationship.

From a personal view, I can agree with Aristotle, but I would have to slightly mend his points to equal mine. I believe that a true friend needs to fufill all three qualities that he mentioned. Of course this would be in a perfect world, but I find that when my personal needs or likes change, those of my best friends do too. In order to be friends, I do not think that it is necessary to know every aspect of someone's life, but it usually happens that way anyways. The best of friends are made over long periods of time.

Enemy is a harsh word, but I do believe they exist. I do not believe, however, that one should condemn another just because his or her friend has. But as I said before, it may just happen that way with the best of friends. A good reason to have an enemy, or someone you respect less that a good friend, would be if they have disrespected you in a way that demoralizes or patronizes you. If a true characteristic of someone makes you feel uncomfortable or upset, there is no reason to give full respect.

The last piece that I want to talk about is the issue of friendships with authority. Is it possible to be friends with your boss? Your teacher? Your coach? Your mom? I think that friendship is not the appropriate term for relationships such as these. According to Aristotle, he believes that the "loving should itself be proportionate." The better person, or person of more authority, or more useful one should recieve more respect from the other. I agree with this, but I still feel that there can always be a very strong relationship between these two parties. Authoritative family members especially deserve the upmost respect and a child should be the one who is disciplined. I do not think that friends can occur within authority, only shifts in respect. However, I am open to the views of others as well.

If 'Virtuity' was a word, I would use it here.

Instead of getting right into emphasizing one of Aristotle's virtues, I would rather list them out first for my own sake to make sure I have comprehended them to the best of my ability...please assist me if there are other aspects to his virtues that I have missed or misrepresented.

Aristotle says we much act on that which our soul desires. The soul, thus, has five aspects in which it "has truth through affirmation and denial".

I. Technical Expertise: "productive disposition accompanied by true rational prescription"- One must produce something or bring it about by practce and theory. We must intially focus on the production of a project rather than the final outcome, and we must use reasonable processes otherwise it will be a false representation of the soul's desire.

II. Systematic Knowledge: "It is eternal and without qualification. It is teachable an capable of being learned." This is the knowledge that is by demonstration- knowledge that is already known.

III. Wisdom: "a disposition accompanied by rational prescription, true, in the sphere of human goods, relating to action." Wisdom is a kind of excellence. It cannot be touched or forgotten. It is not action or deliberation, but pure action relating to human good.

IV. Intellectual Accomplishment: "It is a combination of systematic knowledge and intelligence." :I need more time with this one:

V. Intelligence: I believe that intelligence is simply the object of all the other's starting points.


I cannot declare which one of Aristotle's virtues are most valid or even relatable, for I do not know if I can describe them well enough at this point. With more discussion and review, I believe I may be able to contribute more to the virtues.