The Self-Actualization Dilemma
or Maslow vs. Aristotle
Writing helps us understand ourselves and the world around us. If my ideas resonate with you, let’s explore them together — schedule a call with me here.
Maslow and the pyramid he never drew
Maslow’s pyramid of needs is one of the most fetishized, romanticized concepts in psychology. This is despite the fact that none of Maslow’s published works included a visual representation of the hierarchy. The pyramidal diagram illustrating the Maslow needs hierarchy may have been created by a psychology textbook publisher as an illustrative device.
Maslow described human needs as ordered in a prepotent hierarchy: a pressing need must be mostly satisfied before someone would give their attention to the next highest need.
This now iconic pyramid frequently depicts the spectrum of human needs, both physical and psychological, as accompaniment to articles describing Maslow’s needs theory and may give the impression that the hierarchy of needs is a fixed and rigid sequence of progression. Yet, starting with the first publication of his theory in 1943, Maslow described human needs as being relatively fluid — with many needs being present in a person simultaneously. Late in life, Maslow came to conclude that self-actualization was not an automatic outcome of satisfying the other human needs. Maslow’s pyramid is a tool, and just like many others in psychology, it allows us to see the whole, it facilitates comprehension of the overarching idea. In doing so, it may appear to oversimplify or prescribe a set of fixed rules. Inherent in this simplification is the need to treat it with the mental flexibility it deserves.
Keeping this in mind, human needs as identified by Maslow can be categorized in the following:
· Basic or physiological needs, which appear at the bottom of the pyramid: food, water, sleep, excretion, shelter.
· The next level is safety needs: having a job or other monetary resources that can provide stability, living in a place where I feel safe and protected, or in other words, having the basic sense of predictability and stability.
P.S. This is easily relatable. How many times have you been in the position of putting aside creative pursuits, ideals, passion projects, art, because you needed to give priority to finding a job? That’s your need for safety kicking in.
These two steps are important to the physical survival of the person. Once individuals have basic nutrition, shelter and safety, and don’t have to constantly have to fear for their survival, they attempt to accomplish more. We move from physiological to psychological needs.
· The third level of need is “love and belonging:” when individuals have taken care of themselves physically, they are ready to share themselves with others, be it family, friends or romantic relationships.
· The fourth level is achieved when individuals feel comfortable with what they have accomplished. This is the “esteem” level, the need to be competent and recognized, such as through status and level of success.
· Finally, at the top of the pyramid, a need for self-actualization occurs when individuals reach a state of harmony and understanding because they are engaged in achieving their full potential. Once a person has reached the self-actualization state they focus on themselves and try to build their own image.
Maslow defined self-actualization as achieving the fullest use of one’s talents and interests — the need “to become everything that one is capable of becoming.”
Aristotele and reason as the highest virtue
Aristotle contended that what separates man from animal is rational capacity — arguing that a human’s unique function is to reason.
In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle uses the term eudaimonia to describe a positive and divine state of being that humanity is able to strive towards and possibly reach. As this would be considered the most positive state to be in, the word eudaimonia is often translated as ‘happiness.’
The debate on the actual translation of the term is still ongoing nowadays.
While the term happiness is used here for the sake of linguistical simplicity, we need to keep in mind that the meaning that we attach to it nowadays, especially in western cultures, was not necessarily comparable to the one philosophers attached to it in ancient Greece.
According to Aristotle, every living or human-made thing, including its parts, has a unique or characteristic function or activity that distinguishes it from all other things. The highest good of a thing consists of the good performance of its characteristic function, and the virtue or excellence of a thing consists of whatever traits or qualities enable it to perform that function well.
N.B. The term virtue comes from the Greek word Arete, which, in its most basic sense, refers to ‘excellence’ of any kind — especially a person or thing’s “full realization of potential or inherent function.” Virtue is meant not in the sense of acting in observance of moral norms (“moral virtue”), but rather the act of living up to one’s full potential.
The sense of virtue which Arete connotes would include saying something like “speed is a virtue in a horse,” or “height is a virtue in a basketball player.” Doing anything well requires virtue, and each characteristic activity (such as carpentry, flute playing, etc.) has its own set of virtues.
Aristotle believes that the characteristic function of human beings, that which distinguishes them from all other things — is their ability to reason. As such, he held that eudaimonia consists of philosophical or scientific contemplation in accordance with the intellectual virtues of (theoretical) wisdom and understanding.
The highest pursuits, in other worlds, is a stage where human beings can exercise in the highest form the virtue that distinguishes them from other things, that is, reason.
However, he also allowed that action in the political sphere, in accordance with (practical) wisdom and the moral virtues, such as justice and temperance, is eudaimon (“happy”) in a “secondary degree.”
This is not surprising: for Aristotle man is a political animal, and as such those who dedicate themselves to this activity respond to a typically human purpose, just like thinking.
If speculative happiness is considered ‘superior,’ it is because it is more self-sufficient, that is, less linked to external conditions: political projects can in fact be frustrated by objective conditions, but speculation, for Aristotle, is generally sufficient in itself.
The idea that there are two kinds of happiness, or eudaimonia in Aristotle is, not surprisingly, also a topic of debate, as indicated by this example.
Others, like Bryan Reece, argue instead that “having and reliably manifesting practical wisdom is necessary for having and reliably manifesting theoretical wisdom: only the continual, reliable exercise of practical wisdom, in activities that express such virtues as self-control and justice, makes it behaviorally feasible for embodied, socially situated, choice-making beings like us to develop and exercise theoretical wisdom. This means that a life of theoretical contemplation, in Aristotle’s strict sense, cannot be successfully lived without the level of virtuous public engagement that practical wisdom dictates in each circumstance.”
Finally, despite the self-sufficiency of the theoretical life, Aristotle has enough common sense to also realize the fact that to devote oneself to intellectual speculation, to the philosophical life, there is a need for some minimum external conditions to be present: don’t be destitute and have some minimum riches to allow you not to spend most of your day toiling in the fields, don’t have family worries, and having good friends.
Putting the two together
Maslow never claimed to be an Aristotelian, nor is the purpose of this essay to make a comparison between Maslow and Aristotle.
Nevertheless, it is not difficult to draw a parallel between their ideas.
The minimum external conditions needed to pursue a life of contemplation in Aristotle are very similar to the basic conditions of safety, love and belonging in Maslow’s pyramid.
And could the practical wisdom in Aristotle be to theoretical wisdom what self-esteem in Maslow is to self-actualization? That is, two intermediary steps before achieving the highest state a man could aspire to?
This too, is a topic of hot debate and differing view, and it is not my intention to try to draw a definitive conclusion here.
In my opinion, the similitude is drawn because they look at the same concept, that is, the nature of man and what he pursues, not necessarily from a different angle, but rather with more than 2000 years of cultural and societal change* between them.
*(I was about to use the term ‘evolution’ in place of ‘cultural and societal change,’ but then it dawned on me that today’s society, with its brutality, is not necessarily more evolved.)
Whatever way you want to frame it, they both look at man as a creature who has the final goal to overcome its finiteness.
The first steps of the pyramid and Aristotle’s basic conditions for happiness are essentially the same thing, that is, fulfilling man’s survival instinct.
Once the basic needs have been satisfied, then rises the belief among men that they can overcome their animalistic nature, that through the pursuit of reason they can overcome their body, figuratively speaking.
If we zoom out from Maslow pyramid and consider what we have discussed in Aristotle in terms of basic needs and practical and theoretical wisdom, we can easily group them into two main groups:
Survival: the basic animalistic needs.
Transcendental: the will of man to overcome his animalistic nature and go beyond his finiteness.
Conclusion and further questions
Two final thoughts.
1.
What does it mean to self-actualize? Maslow mentions that it is a state where men focus on themselves and try to ‘build their own image.’
What does ‘build their own image’ mean?
What is this ‘image’ Maslow talks about?
I have written extensively about this topic.
To me, the final goal of every human being is to become their self- projection, the image of themselves in the future in which they have achieved their highest aspirations.
I wake up every morning in my warm bed, go to the bathroom where I could poop and take a shower.
I live in a country where I don’t have to fear for my safety when I walk in the streets at any time of the day.
I feel loved by my partner.
I earn a stable paycheck. I should be promoted in a couple of months. I like my job. I feel respected.
Yet, I am not in harmony with myself, because I know I have not realized my full potential. My self- projection doesn’t stop with me earning a good salary and having a prestigious title. My self-projection only cares about it to the extent that it can allow me to have the stability to reach higher pursuits, be them in the arts or in writing essays etc.
I’m not self-actualized, to use Maslow’s terms; or I have not fully expressed the function that is proper according to my virtue, in Aristotle’s.
2.
It is my opinion that the general dissatisfaction among men derives from the fact that they are simply not fine with ‘enough:’ just like animals don’t know how to control themselves when eating, and are never replete, so men always tend towards something higher, something beyond themselves, in the vein attempt to arrive to the meaning of things.
Men strive towards self-actualization.
Men try to escape their animalistic condition.
They find themselves lost when they don’t find it, or what they find is the staggering simplicity of all there is.
— — —
My girlfriend sits next to me as she reads this essay before I publish it. One of her comments would make it for a good follow-up discussion on the topic. Thank you Hayley.
“And maybe self-actualization isn’t actually an escape from our own human condition, maybe it is an acceptance of our finiteness, the acquiescence of our ticking body clock and a coming to terms with: yes, my existence is temporary, but this is what I have to say about it, about my purpose, about what it means to be human. And knowing that what I have to claim and express about myself is a lifetime of worthiness and fulfilment, more than what I could’ve ever gained in a life that lasted for eternity.”
These reflections are just the beginning of a much larger conversation. If you’re interested in exploring these ideas further, I’d love to hear your thoughts — schedule a call with me here.
