There is a greater chance of being right in the opinion that happiness
consists in the reasonable life, instead of mere life, even though
united to sensation. Still even this theory must explain why happiness
should be the privilege of the reasonable animal. Should we add to
the idea of an animal the quality of being reasonable, because reason
is more sagacious, more skilful in discovering, and in procuring the
objects necessary to satisfy the first needs of nature? Would you
esteem reason just as highly if it were incapable of discovering,
or procuring these objects? If we value reason only for the objects
it aids us in getting, happiness might very well belong to the very
irrational beings, if they are, without reason, able to procure
themselves the things necessary to the satisfaction of the first
needs of their nature. In this case, reason will be nothing more than
an instrument. It will not be worth seeking out for itself, and its
perfection, in which virtue has been shown to consist, will be of
little importance. The opposite theory would be that reason does not
owe its value to its ability to procure for us objects necessary to
the satisfaction of the first needs of nature, but that it deserves
to be sought out for itself. But even here we would have to explain
its function, its nature, and set forth how it becomes perfect. If it
were to be improvable, it must not be defined as the contemplation
of sense-objects, for its perfection and essence (being) consist in
a different (and higher) function. It is not among the first needs
of nature, nor among the objects necessary to the satisfaction of its
needs; it has nothing to do with them, being far superior. Otherwise,
these philosophers would be hard pressed to explain its value. Until
they discover some nature far superior to the class of objects with
which they at present remain, they will have to remain where it suits
them to be, ignorant of what good living is, and both how to reach that
goal, and to what beings it is possible.