What do you think?
Rate this book
Ética a Nicómano
La Ética nicomáquea se trata de uno de los primeros tratados conservados sobre ética y moral de la filosofía occidental,es el más completo de la ética aristotélica.
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 351
8690 people are currently reading
133035 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,335 books5,597 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,359 reviews
April 19, 2025
When I was young I had an idée fixe - an obsession.
Oh, it’s easy to be like that if you were brought up in 1950’s Mainstream Christianity, or later, if - like Cherilyn’s Dad in the amazing new Chasing Eden - you were influenced at some point or another, by a fundamentalist splinter group.
Then you might have had the idée fixe of a retributive God - a PUNISHING God.
And, though my choice was always mainstream theology, when my life went into a tailspin it was ALL BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA. Because we ALL seemed back then to be tarred with its brush!
Now, I just had to escape all that. So, in 1985, I sought relief in reading and meditation... Certainly, over time that clarified my thought.
Maybe too much, for I was then faced with a bustling plethora of variegated POV’s! So I started to pay more attention to the simple directness of the ancient classics, and it became the confusing plethora’s originary panacea.
And eventually I reread the great philosophers who made Christianity, ALONG with the Bible, the forces that gave Christianity its intellectual chutzpah - Plato and Aristotle.
Things became clear AND easy.
Now, Aristotle said Good can come in any package. And any human being.
Because, like Plato and Socrates, he was an Essentialist. And EVERY form of Good is Essentially (ie Intrinsically) Good. He saw it ALL... as Good like anything or anybody. Any Human Being.
What does it mean for everyone to be Good in the Modern World? For we’re NOT essentially good. Modern Science, and subsequently, the constant news feeds - who, of course, seem to promote guys like Richard Dawkins, or hype them (which is the same thing) - have warped it all outta shape. It’s all, at Best, a “Mixture of Frailties” (as the great novelist Robertson Davies said).
In Modern Physics, for example, the ‘official?’ version is that we humans are basically and randomly set adrift in a meaningless world, because, it says, it sees the big picture through the lens of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We’re without hope. So our sources, like the news media, pooh-pooh Hope.
Isn’t THAT a much smaller and more incomplete picture? For to a Transcendent First Mover, such conflictual behaviour is background noise.
But ALL OUR sources make it sound like it is EXACTLY as the news wags suggest.
Well, this is where Aristotle comes in.
He sees EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY as Essentially Good, even in spite of his incomplete (given his time, though nevertheless tough-minded like our own) scientific picture.
My grandmother used to say “be good and you’ll be happy.” Aristotle would have agreed. Goodness IS the way to Happiness - a larger container for life’s ordinary social joy. Mere pleasure imposes limits to joy: it implies a beginning and a NECESSARY end. An end which can be sudden.
And, I’m sure, Aristotle would see it in the same way today. For he would STILL see the big picture, Modern Science transcended.
For he sees it in much the same way as Job saw it when God spoke to Job from the Whirlwind! Where does Job find happiness? Nowhere. But all that miraculously changed...
Now, Job, as we know, had had all Hell and High Water thrown at him.
It BROKE him.
He was FINISHED -
CAPUT.
And in the same way - despite the repeated ‘consolations‘ his friends tried to feed him - Job remained unrelentingly Broken. And so he had to be, because he had run out of get-up-and go.
But God - in the whirlwind of Job’s emotional collapse - SPOKE to him.
And Life was suddenly GOOD again for Job. Because he now saw the BIG PICTURE. A larger container.
All his life, Job had been following carrots of pleasure hanging from a stick - money, family, possessions - and when they were gone, he needed to see his previous life had been too LITTLE. He needed a Bigger Container.
“C’mon now!” you say.
“How could you even HEAR someone in a storm - even saying for the sake of argument that God CAN speak in the First Place? Gimme a break....”
Well, what would Aristotle say? What did JOB See and Hear?
Aristotle, if he were here, would say...
“When you say Life is Good, you mean it’s INTRINSICALLY good. It’s Essence is good, from the point of view of our Intelligence. And, naturally, the Supreme Being also sees Life and all Beings as intrinsically Good. And ALL the time.”
Job doesn’t see Life as Morally or Aesthetically or Emotively Good. But he now knows, looking at it as God sees it, it’s INTRINSICALLY good.
So Job does now INDEED see Life is Good. And ALL PEOPLE are likewise. Flawed - often deeply - but Good.
You see, because as kids we read the Old - retributive - Testament AND the New - Loving - Testament, we were subconsciously conflictual.
And we JUDGED automatically.
But if everyone’s LOVED, there are no bad people.
Only flawed, BROKEN people.
As well as, thank Heaven, those who are becoming WHOLE again!
BECAUSE of the Right Attitude.
Oh, it’s easy to be like that if you were brought up in 1950’s Mainstream Christianity, or later, if - like Cherilyn’s Dad in the amazing new Chasing Eden - you were influenced at some point or another, by a fundamentalist splinter group.
Then you might have had the idée fixe of a retributive God - a PUNISHING God.
And, though my choice was always mainstream theology, when my life went into a tailspin it was ALL BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA. Because we ALL seemed back then to be tarred with its brush!
Now, I just had to escape all that. So, in 1985, I sought relief in reading and meditation... Certainly, over time that clarified my thought.
Maybe too much, for I was then faced with a bustling plethora of variegated POV’s! So I started to pay more attention to the simple directness of the ancient classics, and it became the confusing plethora’s originary panacea.
And eventually I reread the great philosophers who made Christianity, ALONG with the Bible, the forces that gave Christianity its intellectual chutzpah - Plato and Aristotle.
Things became clear AND easy.
Now, Aristotle said Good can come in any package. And any human being.
Because, like Plato and Socrates, he was an Essentialist. And EVERY form of Good is Essentially (ie Intrinsically) Good. He saw it ALL... as Good like anything or anybody. Any Human Being.
What does it mean for everyone to be Good in the Modern World? For we’re NOT essentially good. Modern Science, and subsequently, the constant news feeds - who, of course, seem to promote guys like Richard Dawkins, or hype them (which is the same thing) - have warped it all outta shape. It’s all, at Best, a “Mixture of Frailties” (as the great novelist Robertson Davies said).
In Modern Physics, for example, the ‘official?’ version is that we humans are basically and randomly set adrift in a meaningless world, because, it says, it sees the big picture through the lens of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We’re without hope. So our sources, like the news media, pooh-pooh Hope.
Isn’t THAT a much smaller and more incomplete picture? For to a Transcendent First Mover, such conflictual behaviour is background noise.
But ALL OUR sources make it sound like it is EXACTLY as the news wags suggest.
Well, this is where Aristotle comes in.
He sees EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY as Essentially Good, even in spite of his incomplete (given his time, though nevertheless tough-minded like our own) scientific picture.
My grandmother used to say “be good and you’ll be happy.” Aristotle would have agreed. Goodness IS the way to Happiness - a larger container for life’s ordinary social joy. Mere pleasure imposes limits to joy: it implies a beginning and a NECESSARY end. An end which can be sudden.
And, I’m sure, Aristotle would see it in the same way today. For he would STILL see the big picture, Modern Science transcended.
For he sees it in much the same way as Job saw it when God spoke to Job from the Whirlwind! Where does Job find happiness? Nowhere. But all that miraculously changed...
Now, Job, as we know, had had all Hell and High Water thrown at him.
It BROKE him.
He was FINISHED -
CAPUT.
And in the same way - despite the repeated ‘consolations‘ his friends tried to feed him - Job remained unrelentingly Broken. And so he had to be, because he had run out of get-up-and go.
But God - in the whirlwind of Job’s emotional collapse - SPOKE to him.
And Life was suddenly GOOD again for Job. Because he now saw the BIG PICTURE. A larger container.
All his life, Job had been following carrots of pleasure hanging from a stick - money, family, possessions - and when they were gone, he needed to see his previous life had been too LITTLE. He needed a Bigger Container.
“C’mon now!” you say.
“How could you even HEAR someone in a storm - even saying for the sake of argument that God CAN speak in the First Place? Gimme a break....”
Well, what would Aristotle say? What did JOB See and Hear?
Aristotle, if he were here, would say...
“When you say Life is Good, you mean it’s INTRINSICALLY good. It’s Essence is good, from the point of view of our Intelligence. And, naturally, the Supreme Being also sees Life and all Beings as intrinsically Good. And ALL the time.”
Job doesn’t see Life as Morally or Aesthetically or Emotively Good. But he now knows, looking at it as God sees it, it’s INTRINSICALLY good.
So Job does now INDEED see Life is Good. And ALL PEOPLE are likewise. Flawed - often deeply - but Good.
You see, because as kids we read the Old - retributive - Testament AND the New - Loving - Testament, we were subconsciously conflictual.
And we JUDGED automatically.
But if everyone’s LOVED, there are no bad people.
Only flawed, BROKEN people.
As well as, thank Heaven, those who are becoming WHOLE again!
BECAUSE of the Right Attitude.
August 12, 2024
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle postulates the highest human good is eudaimonia or what is loosely translated into English as happiness. And a substantial component in the path to such human happiness is acting with the appropriate virtues over the course of an entire lifetime. The details of these Aristotelean teachings form the Nicomachean Ethics, one of the most influential works in the entire history of Western Civilization.
As a way of sharing but a small example of Aristotle’s extensive philosophy outlined in these pages, I will focus on Book IV Chapter 8 where the eminent Greek philosopher addresses the virtue of being witty, sensitive to others, discerning and perceptive, particularly when we are at our leisure. Here are six Aristotle quotes and my brief accompanying comments:
“Since life includes rest as well as activity, and in this is included leisure and amusement, there seems here also to be a kind of intercourse which is tasteful; there is such a thing as saying- and again listening to- what one should and as one should.”
Aristotle’s focus on time spent outside of work, what we nowadays refer to as ‘leisure time’, makes this section of his ethical teachings particularly relevant for us today, most especially since we are bombarded by a nonstop barrage of advertisements, store signs, billboards, Muzak, etc. etc., some subtle, many not so subtle.
“The kind of people one is speaking to or listening to will also make a difference.”
Very important who we associate with both at work and outside of work. Aristotle is optimistic that we can actively participate in society and exercise discrimination as we develop wisdom to speak as we should and listen as we should. In contrast, another Greek philosopher, Epicurus, was not so optimistic on this point. Epicurus judged conventional society as blind and dumb, particularly as it pertains to men and women expounding values regarding such things as riches and fame and what constitutes our true human needs. The answer for Epicurus: withdraw into a separate community with like-minded friends and philosophers.
“Regarding people’s views on humor there is both an excess and a deficiency as compared with the mean. Those who carry humor to excess are thought to be vulgar buffoons, striving after humor at all costs, and aiming rather at raising a laugh than at saying what is becoming and at avoiding pain to the object of their fun while those who can neither make a joke themselves nor put up with those who do are thought to be boorish and unpolished.”
Sounds like Aristotle attended the same junior high school and high school as I did. Again, he is optimistic that someone who aspires to philosophic excellence, virtue and the mean (maintaining a middle position between two extremes) can live among buffoons and boors without being pulled down to their level. The question I would pose to Aristotle: What happens when we live in an entire society dominated by vulgar buffoon and uptight boors, where the buffoons and boors set the standards for what it means to be human? Particularly, what happens to the development of children and young adults?
“But those who joke in a tasteful way are called ready-witted, which implies a sort of readiness to turn this way and that; for such sallies are thought to be movements of the character, and as bodies are discriminated by their movements, so too are characters.”
I had an opportunity to see the Dalai Lama speak. You will be hard pressed to find someone with a more lively sense of humor. If you haven’t seen him speak, you can check out YouTube.
“The ridiculous side of things is not far to seek, however, and most people delight more than they should in amusement and in jestingly and so even buffoons are called ready-witted because they are found attractive; but that they differ from the ready-witted man, and to no small extent, is clear from what has been said.”
Ha! So Aristotle sees, in fact, how buffoonery can easily lapse into the social norm. Thus our challenge is how to retain our integrity when surrounded by slobs and buffoons.
“To the middle state belongs also tact; it is the mark of a tactful man to say and listen to such things as befit a good and well-bred man; for there are some things that it befits such a man to say and to hear by way of jest, and the well-bred man's jesting differs from that of a vulgar man, and the joking of an educated man from that of an uneducated.”
Aristotle’s overarching observation on how the wisdom of the middle way between two extremes applies here – not good acting at either extreme, being a boor or being a buffoon. Unfortunately, speaking and otherwise communicating in a buffoonish or boorish way is in no way restricted to the uneducated or dull – I’ve witnessed numerous instances of buffoonery and boorishness among the highly educated and intellectually astute.
The entire Nicomachean Ethics is available online: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nic...
May 16, 2021
I’m a bit annoyed – I wrote up my review to this last night and thought I’d posted it, but it seems to have gone to god…not happy about that (amusingly enough). This is my reconstruction of last night’s review.
There is a story that is almost certainly apocryphal about a French woman (in the version I know, this is Madame De Gaulle) who is in England towards the end of her husband’s career and is asked at some sort of official function what she wants most from life. She answers, ‘a penis’ – which, unsurprisingly, brings a near complete silence over the room, something see seems completely confused by. Charles De Gaulle then says to his wife, ‘I think they pronounce it ‘appiness’, darling’
Aristotle is writing about how to live a good life – pretty much what ‘ethics’ means – and his answer is that a good life is a happy life. Well, sort of. Actually, the Greek word that is translated as ‘happiness’ here (not unlike Madame De Gaulle’s mis-pronunciation) doesn’t necessarily mean what we would normally take ‘happiness’ to mean. Eudaimonia is made up of two words meaning ‘good’ and ‘soul’, but can also be translated as meaning ‘human flourishing’. Now, if you asked me how I was going and I said, ‘I’m flourishing’, that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘I’m happy’. It is not that the two ideas are a million miles apart, but even Roget would be unlikely to slam them together in his little book of synonyms.
This is a remarkably practical book – not so much in that it tells you exactly how to behave at all times and in all circumstances, it isn’t practical in that sense, but rather that it sets about giving you tools to help make a rational judgement about how you ought to behave given various circumstances.
It does this by discussing Aristotle’s ‘doctrine of the mean’. Aristotle says that every virtue falls between two extremes which are excesses of qualities that also go to make up that virtue. So, if you think of courage, for example, it falls between cowardice and foolhardiness. In one case you have an exaggerated regard for your own life (despite being seen as a coward and the likely humiliation that will bring) and in the other you are too prepared to throw your life away and therefore not giving your life its proper value. Now, the point is that Aristotle isn’t saying all that much here about how you might behave in a given situation, but rather giving you guiding lines to watch out for – his point is that if you are called upon to be brave there may be times when it is rational to behave in ways that might otherwise look foolhardy, and at other times in ways that might look cowardly – but a wise and happy person would do so on the basis of a rational assessment of where the mean lies given the time, place and circumstance – and knowing there are extremes you need to avoid is useful here.
There are bits of this that I found much more annoying this time around than I did when I read it years ago (30 years ago, now – yuck… how did that happen?). In fact, I can’t quite tell if Aristotle has become more reactionary over the years or if I’ve become more progressive – but it’s one or the other.
For instance, I found a lot of his discussions about women particularly annoying this time around. Take this as a case in point from Book VIII, “Sometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; their rule is thus not in accordance with virtue, but due to wealth and power” (page 157). People will tell you that one of the problems with Aristotle and Plato is the fact that they could never conceive of a society in which there were no slaves – but one of the advantages of Plato is that he did think women could, and probably should, be educated. Aristotle clearly does not – but the point I would really like to make is that he notices when women rule due to their wealth and power, but not when men do the same. Given so many more men rule at all and so many of them rule due to the access their position gives them – it seems an odd thing for someone like Aristotle not to notice.
Because this is quite a practical ethics, he spends a lot of time talking about the sorts of things people ought to have in their lives to make them happy – and this is why so much of the book is devoted to friendship. I won’t go over his arguments for the various types of friends one might have, but do want to talk about love and lovers. I think I could mount a case for saying that Aristotle is arguing against having a lover. Not that he is advocating a life of celibacy or even of abstinence, but rather that lovers come in what I like to think of as pairs (after McCullers or Somerset Maugham – who both said that there are lovers and the beloved and of the two everyone wants to be the lover, rather than the beloved) – and that since being either the lover or a beloved is basically irrational, given we fall in love by lightning strike as much as anything else, it might stop just as quickly as it all started, and then a lover who doesn’t love any more leaves a beloved who is no longer beloved – not the basis for a lasting relationship. The point being that friendship is based more rationally on mutual benefits and mutual care – if it was me, I’d pick the latter over the former (friendship over love) every time – if these things allowed for choices like that, that is.
Now, I want to end by quoting a longer bit from Book X (page 200).
“Some think we become good by nature, some by habit, and others by teaching. Nature's contribution is clearly not in our power, but it can be found in those who are truly fortunate as the result of some divine dispensation. Argument and teaching, presumably, are not powerful in every case, but the soul of the student must be prepared beforehand in its habits, with a view to its enjoying and hating in a noble way, like soil that is to nourish seed. For if someone were to live by his feelings he would not listen to an argument to dissuade him, nor could he even understand it. How can we persuade a person in a state like this to change his ways? And, in general, feelings seem to yield not to argument but to force. There must, therefore, somehow be a pre-existing character with some affinity for virtue through its fondness for what is noble and dislike of what is disgraceful.
“But if one has not been reared under the right laws it is difficult to obtain from one's earliest years the correct upbringing for virtue, because the masses, especially the young, do not find it pleasant to live temperately and with endurance. For this reason, their upbringing and pursuits should be regulated by laws, because they will not find them painful once they have become accustomed to them.”
I find this really interesting for a whole range of reasons. Okay, so, he starts off by saying that nature is the main thing to ensure that one is capable of learning – but it is interesting that this alone is not enough. Nature is essential, but left on its own will not get you very far. The other is teaching, but teaching too may not help unless you have been prepared to hear the lesson – something Gramsci talks about at some length saying working class children need to be given discipline (that they are unfamiliar with) if they are to have any hope of succeeding in education. What is stressed here is the development of habits and dispositions and that these are what allows the other two (nature and teaching) to be given any chance of success.
Aristotle is keen to stress that he is talking about virtues – but again, the Greek word here (arête) doesn’t just mean morally good behaviours, but rather something closer to the excellences that we associate with different kinds of behaviours – so that a fisherman has virtues too, not in the sense of being morally upright, but rather, at knowing what is good for a fisherman to do and be.
A lot of this reminded me of Pascal’s Pensées. There is a bit in that where Pascal says that happiness really isn’t related to the outcome, but more to the process. That is, that you won’t make a hunter happy by giving him a couple of rabbits at the start of the day and saying to him, ‘now you don’t have to go out hunting today, relax, enjoy yourself’. Rather, even a mangy rabbit caught through the effort of the hunt will be worth more to the hunter than a dozen plump ones handed over without effort at the start of the day. Not always true, of course, but I’m exaggerating to make the point. In a lot of ways that is Aristotle’s ethics – find out what you are meant to do and do that as best you can and that will make you happy – or good souled – or flourishing – one of those.
There is a story that is almost certainly apocryphal about a French woman (in the version I know, this is Madame De Gaulle) who is in England towards the end of her husband’s career and is asked at some sort of official function what she wants most from life. She answers, ‘a penis’ – which, unsurprisingly, brings a near complete silence over the room, something see seems completely confused by. Charles De Gaulle then says to his wife, ‘I think they pronounce it ‘appiness’, darling’
Aristotle is writing about how to live a good life – pretty much what ‘ethics’ means – and his answer is that a good life is a happy life. Well, sort of. Actually, the Greek word that is translated as ‘happiness’ here (not unlike Madame De Gaulle’s mis-pronunciation) doesn’t necessarily mean what we would normally take ‘happiness’ to mean. Eudaimonia is made up of two words meaning ‘good’ and ‘soul’, but can also be translated as meaning ‘human flourishing’. Now, if you asked me how I was going and I said, ‘I’m flourishing’, that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘I’m happy’. It is not that the two ideas are a million miles apart, but even Roget would be unlikely to slam them together in his little book of synonyms.
This is a remarkably practical book – not so much in that it tells you exactly how to behave at all times and in all circumstances, it isn’t practical in that sense, but rather that it sets about giving you tools to help make a rational judgement about how you ought to behave given various circumstances.
It does this by discussing Aristotle’s ‘doctrine of the mean’. Aristotle says that every virtue falls between two extremes which are excesses of qualities that also go to make up that virtue. So, if you think of courage, for example, it falls between cowardice and foolhardiness. In one case you have an exaggerated regard for your own life (despite being seen as a coward and the likely humiliation that will bring) and in the other you are too prepared to throw your life away and therefore not giving your life its proper value. Now, the point is that Aristotle isn’t saying all that much here about how you might behave in a given situation, but rather giving you guiding lines to watch out for – his point is that if you are called upon to be brave there may be times when it is rational to behave in ways that might otherwise look foolhardy, and at other times in ways that might look cowardly – but a wise and happy person would do so on the basis of a rational assessment of where the mean lies given the time, place and circumstance – and knowing there are extremes you need to avoid is useful here.
There are bits of this that I found much more annoying this time around than I did when I read it years ago (30 years ago, now – yuck… how did that happen?). In fact, I can’t quite tell if Aristotle has become more reactionary over the years or if I’ve become more progressive – but it’s one or the other.
For instance, I found a lot of his discussions about women particularly annoying this time around. Take this as a case in point from Book VIII, “Sometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; their rule is thus not in accordance with virtue, but due to wealth and power” (page 157). People will tell you that one of the problems with Aristotle and Plato is the fact that they could never conceive of a society in which there were no slaves – but one of the advantages of Plato is that he did think women could, and probably should, be educated. Aristotle clearly does not – but the point I would really like to make is that he notices when women rule due to their wealth and power, but not when men do the same. Given so many more men rule at all and so many of them rule due to the access their position gives them – it seems an odd thing for someone like Aristotle not to notice.
Because this is quite a practical ethics, he spends a lot of time talking about the sorts of things people ought to have in their lives to make them happy – and this is why so much of the book is devoted to friendship. I won’t go over his arguments for the various types of friends one might have, but do want to talk about love and lovers. I think I could mount a case for saying that Aristotle is arguing against having a lover. Not that he is advocating a life of celibacy or even of abstinence, but rather that lovers come in what I like to think of as pairs (after McCullers or Somerset Maugham – who both said that there are lovers and the beloved and of the two everyone wants to be the lover, rather than the beloved) – and that since being either the lover or a beloved is basically irrational, given we fall in love by lightning strike as much as anything else, it might stop just as quickly as it all started, and then a lover who doesn’t love any more leaves a beloved who is no longer beloved – not the basis for a lasting relationship. The point being that friendship is based more rationally on mutual benefits and mutual care – if it was me, I’d pick the latter over the former (friendship over love) every time – if these things allowed for choices like that, that is.
Now, I want to end by quoting a longer bit from Book X (page 200).
“Some think we become good by nature, some by habit, and others by teaching. Nature's contribution is clearly not in our power, but it can be found in those who are truly fortunate as the result of some divine dispensation. Argument and teaching, presumably, are not powerful in every case, but the soul of the student must be prepared beforehand in its habits, with a view to its enjoying and hating in a noble way, like soil that is to nourish seed. For if someone were to live by his feelings he would not listen to an argument to dissuade him, nor could he even understand it. How can we persuade a person in a state like this to change his ways? And, in general, feelings seem to yield not to argument but to force. There must, therefore, somehow be a pre-existing character with some affinity for virtue through its fondness for what is noble and dislike of what is disgraceful.
“But if one has not been reared under the right laws it is difficult to obtain from one's earliest years the correct upbringing for virtue, because the masses, especially the young, do not find it pleasant to live temperately and with endurance. For this reason, their upbringing and pursuits should be regulated by laws, because they will not find them painful once they have become accustomed to them.”
I find this really interesting for a whole range of reasons. Okay, so, he starts off by saying that nature is the main thing to ensure that one is capable of learning – but it is interesting that this alone is not enough. Nature is essential, but left on its own will not get you very far. The other is teaching, but teaching too may not help unless you have been prepared to hear the lesson – something Gramsci talks about at some length saying working class children need to be given discipline (that they are unfamiliar with) if they are to have any hope of succeeding in education. What is stressed here is the development of habits and dispositions and that these are what allows the other two (nature and teaching) to be given any chance of success.
Aristotle is keen to stress that he is talking about virtues – but again, the Greek word here (arête) doesn’t just mean morally good behaviours, but rather something closer to the excellences that we associate with different kinds of behaviours – so that a fisherman has virtues too, not in the sense of being morally upright, but rather, at knowing what is good for a fisherman to do and be.
A lot of this reminded me of Pascal’s Pensées. There is a bit in that where Pascal says that happiness really isn’t related to the outcome, but more to the process. That is, that you won’t make a hunter happy by giving him a couple of rabbits at the start of the day and saying to him, ‘now you don’t have to go out hunting today, relax, enjoy yourself’. Rather, even a mangy rabbit caught through the effort of the hunt will be worth more to the hunter than a dozen plump ones handed over without effort at the start of the day. Not always true, of course, but I’m exaggerating to make the point. In a lot of ways that is Aristotle’s ethics – find out what you are meant to do and do that as best you can and that will make you happy – or good souled – or flourishing – one of those.
January 1, 2026
Oscar Wilde was right about this book.
3.5⭐
Nicomachean Ethics is not a book meant to be read for pleasure in the classical sense. It is a text that demands patience, attention, and a willingness to pause and reflect. Aristotle does not offer easy answers or universal recipes for happiness. Instead, he draws the reader into a slow and methodical exploration of what it truly means to live well.
The central concept of the work is eudaimonia, happiness understood as a fulfilled human life rather than a momentary feeling of pleasure. For Aristotle, happiness is not an emotion but the result of a way of living. It does not come from external circumstances but is built through our actions and through the habits that shape our character. This view stands in sharp contrast to modern ideas of happiness as a personal feeling or instant satisfaction.
Especially important is the idea of virtue as habit. A person is not born good or bad but becomes so through the repetition of actions. Aristotle rejects extremes and defends the famous golden mean. Courage lies between cowardice and recklessness, generosity between stinginess and wastefulness. This does not mean mediocrity, but a conscious balance achieved through reason and experience.
Reason occupies a central place in Aristotle’s ethics. What distinguishes humans from other beings is precisely their capacity to think and to make conscious decisions. Moral choice is not a matter of impulse or emotion, but of judgment. In this sense, a virtuous life is an intellectual effort, a constant dialogue between desire and reason.
His understanding of friendship is also noteworthy, as Aristotle places it almost on the same level as moral virtue. True friendship, according to him, is possible only between virtuous people and is based not on utility or pleasure, but on mutual recognition of character. This is one of the most human and warm sections of the book, showing that morality is not an isolated individual act, but something realized through relationships with others.
Of course, Nicomachean Ethics is not without problems when viewed from a modern perspective. Aristotle accepts social hierarchies, justifies slavery, and excludes entire groups of people from full moral life. This limits the universality of his ethics, but does not render its core ideas meaningless. On the contrary, these limitations remind us that every philosophy is a product of its time.
In the end, Nicomachean Ethics is a book about responsibility. It does not promise happiness, but shows that it is the result of choices, discipline, and perseverance. Aristotle does not tell us what to think, but how to think about our lives. And that is precisely why, despite the centuries, this text continues to be not just a philosophical work, but a guide to a meaningful life.
Pre_read:
I want to use some of Aristotle’s ideas in my future books, so I’d like to become more familiar with them.
3.5⭐
Nicomachean Ethics is not a book meant to be read for pleasure in the classical sense. It is a text that demands patience, attention, and a willingness to pause and reflect. Aristotle does not offer easy answers or universal recipes for happiness. Instead, he draws the reader into a slow and methodical exploration of what it truly means to live well.
The central concept of the work is eudaimonia, happiness understood as a fulfilled human life rather than a momentary feeling of pleasure. For Aristotle, happiness is not an emotion but the result of a way of living. It does not come from external circumstances but is built through our actions and through the habits that shape our character. This view stands in sharp contrast to modern ideas of happiness as a personal feeling or instant satisfaction.
Especially important is the idea of virtue as habit. A person is not born good or bad but becomes so through the repetition of actions. Aristotle rejects extremes and defends the famous golden mean. Courage lies between cowardice and recklessness, generosity between stinginess and wastefulness. This does not mean mediocrity, but a conscious balance achieved through reason and experience.
Reason occupies a central place in Aristotle’s ethics. What distinguishes humans from other beings is precisely their capacity to think and to make conscious decisions. Moral choice is not a matter of impulse or emotion, but of judgment. In this sense, a virtuous life is an intellectual effort, a constant dialogue between desire and reason.
His understanding of friendship is also noteworthy, as Aristotle places it almost on the same level as moral virtue. True friendship, according to him, is possible only between virtuous people and is based not on utility or pleasure, but on mutual recognition of character. This is one of the most human and warm sections of the book, showing that morality is not an isolated individual act, but something realized through relationships with others.
Of course, Nicomachean Ethics is not without problems when viewed from a modern perspective. Aristotle accepts social hierarchies, justifies slavery, and excludes entire groups of people from full moral life. This limits the universality of his ethics, but does not render its core ideas meaningless. On the contrary, these limitations remind us that every philosophy is a product of its time.
In the end, Nicomachean Ethics is a book about responsibility. It does not promise happiness, but shows that it is the result of choices, discipline, and perseverance. Aristotle does not tell us what to think, but how to think about our lives. And that is precisely why, despite the centuries, this text continues to be not just a philosophical work, but a guide to a meaningful life.
Pre_read:
I want to use some of Aristotle’s ideas in my future books, so I’d like to become more familiar with them.
November 30, 2025
Happiness is the activity of a rational soul in accordance with virtue, declares Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. Activity means living. Rational soul means a human being. And virtue means human excellence. So happiness means a human living excellently.
How does one live excellently? One learns to be good at these things called "virtues". In fact, one cultivates habits that contribute to virtuous living. Aristotle discusses many virtues, but four are primary: courage, temperance, justice and practical wisdom.
Courage is how we deal with pain and disappointment. Courage is an example of the "golden mean". Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness.
Temperance is how we deal with pleasure. Temperance is the mean between gluttony and abstinence.
Justice is how we deal with human relationships. Essentially, it means to give every person their due, which will be defined by their relationship to you.
Practical wisdom is the knowledge to understand how to discern the moderate path or the mean and how to moderate passions in order to think clearly and make good decisions.
But my favorite thing about the Ethics is that Aristotle devotes many pages to a discussion of friendship, which is fundamental to happiness. Some scholars argue that Aristotle's discussion of friendship comes from a separate book. That is, when scrolls with the Ethics were first discovered, early scholars mistakenly mixed two books together. Perhaps, this is true. But it is heartening to read about happiness and find that much of the discussion has to do with being a good friend.
One more thing about this great book. It is difficult to read. I am told that this is due to the fact that it was compiled from notes of Aristotle's students and was not written by Aristotle. That is, these are notes of his lectures.
They read like it.
My way of dealing with the impenetrability was to lean on secondary sources. In particular, I listened to lectures from the Teaching Company as I re-read the Ethics a few years ago. That made all the difference. The Nichomachean Ethics is arguably the most important work on ethics in western culture. But you might not be able read it on your own without constantly fogging out. So figure out a way to get through it with patience and attention. You will be rewarded for your effort.
How does one live excellently? One learns to be good at these things called "virtues". In fact, one cultivates habits that contribute to virtuous living. Aristotle discusses many virtues, but four are primary: courage, temperance, justice and practical wisdom.
Courage is how we deal with pain and disappointment. Courage is an example of the "golden mean". Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness.
Temperance is how we deal with pleasure. Temperance is the mean between gluttony and abstinence.
Justice is how we deal with human relationships. Essentially, it means to give every person their due, which will be defined by their relationship to you.
Practical wisdom is the knowledge to understand how to discern the moderate path or the mean and how to moderate passions in order to think clearly and make good decisions.
But my favorite thing about the Ethics is that Aristotle devotes many pages to a discussion of friendship, which is fundamental to happiness. Some scholars argue that Aristotle's discussion of friendship comes from a separate book. That is, when scrolls with the Ethics were first discovered, early scholars mistakenly mixed two books together. Perhaps, this is true. But it is heartening to read about happiness and find that much of the discussion has to do with being a good friend.
One more thing about this great book. It is difficult to read. I am told that this is due to the fact that it was compiled from notes of Aristotle's students and was not written by Aristotle. That is, these are notes of his lectures.
They read like it.
My way of dealing with the impenetrability was to lean on secondary sources. In particular, I listened to lectures from the Teaching Company as I re-read the Ethics a few years ago. That made all the difference. The Nichomachean Ethics is arguably the most important work on ethics in western culture. But you might not be able read it on your own without constantly fogging out. So figure out a way to get through it with patience and attention. You will be rewarded for your effort.
February 23, 2023
O carte fundamentală. Am ales doar una dintre problemele discutate de Stagirit, fericirea.
Dacă omul vrea să atingă fericirea trebuie să-i urmeze pe zei. Numai zeul e fericit şi asta întrucît existenţa divinității se rezumă la purul exerciţiu contemplativ. A filosofa înseamnă a încerca să devii asemănător zeului, după cum a spus și Platon, în dialogul Theaitetos.
Aristotel a preluat ideea şi a dezvoltat-o în Etica nicomahică (dar şi în Protreptikos): omul e îndemnat să-l imite pe zeu, pe cît îi stă în putinţă, prin virtute şi contemplaţie. În acest mod, omul ajunge să se „imortalizeze” [athanatizein e termenul folosit de Aristotel]. Ierarhia fiinţelor şi a scopurilor şi faptul că dintre toate activităţile omului cea mai nobilă şi „profitabilă” este contemplarea [= theoria] rezultă din următorul fragment [cartea X, VII: 1177a-1178a):
„Această activitate [conformă cu virtutea şi aducătoare de fericire: eudaimonia] este contemplativă… [Şi] afirmaţia noastră pare să concorde atît cu cele spuse anterior, cît şi cu adevărul. Ea [contemplaţia, teoria] este activitatea cea mai elevată, pentru că intelectul [= nous] este ceea ce avem mai elevat în noi, iar dintre obiectele cognoscibile, cele ale intelectului sînt cele mai înalte… În sfîrşit, credem cu toţii că fericirea [= eudaimonia] trebuie să fie contopită cu plăcerea; or, toată lumea este de acord că cea mai plăcută dintre activităţile conforme cu virtutea este filosofia. În orice caz, este un fapt recunoscut că studiul filosofiei oferă plăceri de o admirabilă puritate…” (pp.253-254).
Am făcut unele adăugiri pentru a ușura lectura acestui text dificil.
Dacă omul vrea să atingă fericirea trebuie să-i urmeze pe zei. Numai zeul e fericit şi asta întrucît existenţa divinității se rezumă la purul exerciţiu contemplativ. A filosofa înseamnă a încerca să devii asemănător zeului, după cum a spus și Platon, în dialogul Theaitetos.
Aristotel a preluat ideea şi a dezvoltat-o în Etica nicomahică (dar şi în Protreptikos): omul e îndemnat să-l imite pe zeu, pe cît îi stă în putinţă, prin virtute şi contemplaţie. În acest mod, omul ajunge să se „imortalizeze” [athanatizein e termenul folosit de Aristotel]. Ierarhia fiinţelor şi a scopurilor şi faptul că dintre toate activităţile omului cea mai nobilă şi „profitabilă” este contemplarea [= theoria] rezultă din următorul fragment [cartea X, VII: 1177a-1178a):
„Această activitate [conformă cu virtutea şi aducătoare de fericire: eudaimonia] este contemplativă… [Şi] afirmaţia noastră pare să concorde atît cu cele spuse anterior, cît şi cu adevărul. Ea [contemplaţia, teoria] este activitatea cea mai elevată, pentru că intelectul [= nous] este ceea ce avem mai elevat în noi, iar dintre obiectele cognoscibile, cele ale intelectului sînt cele mai înalte… În sfîrşit, credem cu toţii că fericirea [= eudaimonia] trebuie să fie contopită cu plăcerea; or, toată lumea este de acord că cea mai plăcută dintre activităţile conforme cu virtutea este filosofia. În orice caz, este un fapt recunoscut că studiul filosofiei oferă plăceri de o admirabilă puritate…” (pp.253-254).
Am făcut unele adăugiri pentru a ușura lectura acestui text dificil.
March 3, 2022
Nicomachean Ethics (349 BCE) deals with assessing and defining the finest behavior of humans toward themselves, others, and their surroundings. Aristotle seeks to distinguish and construct an ideal person using selected character traits known as virtues. These virtues are both intellectual and moral (intellectual ranking above moral) and are best attained through the act of repetitiveness and from an adequate role model. Achieving these virtuous principles will guide one to do the right thing, hence, become a better person.
Yet, how do we know what is good or bad and how can we assess what is right or wrong? Since virtues are the building blocks of goodness, Aristotle claims that they are found between the two extreme vices. A midpoint between the deficiency and excess of a particular virtue. For instance, courage is the midpoint between its deficiency, which is cowardliness, and its excess, which is recklessness. Thus, reaching the highest pinnacle of good, will require a person of moderate behavior.
But what's in it for us? Why should one live an ethical life and be good? Well, in order to reach the ultimate goal, life's most meaningful purpose, the utmost reward. No, not necessarily eternal bliss in the hereafter, but primarily to attain happiness in this lifetime. Besides the virtues, having a few good friends, enjoying some permissible pleasures, and having good fortuity will make happiness more achievable.
For those of you, like myself, who wondered why the book is titled "Nicomachean" Ethics. For starters, the term was never mentioned in the book, but, apparently, Aristotle dedicated the book to his father and or son that were both named Nicomachus, hence, Nicomachean.
Yet, how do we know what is good or bad and how can we assess what is right or wrong? Since virtues are the building blocks of goodness, Aristotle claims that they are found between the two extreme vices. A midpoint between the deficiency and excess of a particular virtue. For instance, courage is the midpoint between its deficiency, which is cowardliness, and its excess, which is recklessness. Thus, reaching the highest pinnacle of good, will require a person of moderate behavior.
But what's in it for us? Why should one live an ethical life and be good? Well, in order to reach the ultimate goal, life's most meaningful purpose, the utmost reward. No, not necessarily eternal bliss in the hereafter, but primarily to attain happiness in this lifetime. Besides the virtues, having a few good friends, enjoying some permissible pleasures, and having good fortuity will make happiness more achievable.
For those of you, like myself, who wondered why the book is titled "Nicomachean" Ethics. For starters, the term was never mentioned in the book, but, apparently, Aristotle dedicated the book to his father and or son that were both named Nicomachus, hence, Nicomachean.
March 12, 2019
This re-read was perhaps a slight bit superfluous. I remembered reading it way back in high school - on my own - just because I was that kind of geek.
Get the foundations read, kid! Know what the whole line of thought is all about! Use it later to trounce your fellow debaters!
Yeah, whatever. Logic and an examined life have since then been more of an end rather than a means.
Case in point: This is about examining Happiness. It does so in a fairly exhaustive but not exhausting way. Aristotle just lays down the foundations, brings up the various opinions people usually hold about WHAT happiness entails, and then tries to pare away the flawed answers.
Usually, a normal adventure tale is never about the end destination. End destinations are usually a let-down. The effort to get there is usually a lot more satisfying.
Same for Aristotle. It turns out I remembered the first journey perfectly. And it brought me happiness. :)
Get the foundations read, kid! Know what the whole line of thought is all about! Use it later to trounce your fellow debaters!
Yeah, whatever. Logic and an examined life have since then been more of an end rather than a means.
Case in point: This is about examining Happiness. It does so in a fairly exhaustive but not exhausting way. Aristotle just lays down the foundations, brings up the various opinions people usually hold about WHAT happiness entails, and then tries to pare away the flawed answers.
Usually, a normal adventure tale is never about the end destination. End destinations are usually a let-down. The effort to get there is usually a lot more satisfying.
Same for Aristotle. It turns out I remembered the first journey perfectly. And it brought me happiness. :)
September 13, 2022
Veo el valor, veo el aporte, veo todo el pensamiento aristotélico que ha servido como influencia para Occidente pero aún así, a mí esto me ha hecho más mal que bien sinceramente. Objetivamente merece más nota, pero subjetivamente me ha parecido un ladrillo para su corta extensión.
September 27, 2024
Everyday we make a choice as to how we will interact with others; but often that choice is not predicated on reciprocation...WE want to be treated in a certian way; but WE often do not see the need to treat OTHERS in that same way. Aristotle looks at this dilemma and forces us to step back and get perspective - should be required reading for all politicians and CEOs.
October 25, 2015
The Nicomachean Ethics is one of the greatest works of Aristotle, the famous philosopher who was really much more of a scientist than a philosopher. This is the book where he indulges in the discussion of happiness, virtue, ethics, politics, and really anything else describing the way in which human beings functioned together in the society of a Greek city-state of early Antiquity.
Especially in the field of politics, this work excels, and Aristotle puts forth a particularly interesting theory on the forms of government. According to him, there are really only three different forms of government, but each of them comes with a corresponding corrupt deviation. The finest form of government, he says, is the monarchy, the rule of one. But its corresponding deviation, which is tyranny, is the worst form of government, and the line between the two is thin and sinuous. Likewise, the second finest form of government is the aristocracy, the rule of the best. And aristocracy in its corrupted form is oligarchy, the second worst form of government. Lastly, the third finest form of government is timocracy, the rule of property-owners, which was strikingly similar to the political system already existing in Aristotle's Athens. But the corrupt form of timocracy, he says, is democracy, a system in which society has deviated into a constant squabble where everyone seeks to advance their own interests rather than the interests of the state. The conclusion seems to be that as long as long as the rulers of the state are just and competent, it is better the fewer they are. But if the rulers are unjust and incompetent, the opposite is true. To those as interested in political theory as I am, I would recommend just reading Book VIII, and skipping all the rest.
The most interesting thing about the book, however, is that the writing is absolutely terrible. Not the language, mind you, but the style in which the book is written. What is truly incredible is that the writing here is exactly how an average academic writer today would write his or her books. On one hand, that made this book ridiculously boring to read. On the other, it was really interesting because it proves how much modern academics owe to the legacy of Aristotle. And that they should find another source of inspiration, since for instance Plato was a far better writer than his most famous pupil.
I would recommend this book only to those particularly interested in philosophical, political and ethical theory, and even then I would suggest just opening the book and reading the parts that sound interesting to you instead of attempting the dreary business of reading it as a whole.
Especially in the field of politics, this work excels, and Aristotle puts forth a particularly interesting theory on the forms of government. According to him, there are really only three different forms of government, but each of them comes with a corresponding corrupt deviation. The finest form of government, he says, is the monarchy, the rule of one. But its corresponding deviation, which is tyranny, is the worst form of government, and the line between the two is thin and sinuous. Likewise, the second finest form of government is the aristocracy, the rule of the best. And aristocracy in its corrupted form is oligarchy, the second worst form of government. Lastly, the third finest form of government is timocracy, the rule of property-owners, which was strikingly similar to the political system already existing in Aristotle's Athens. But the corrupt form of timocracy, he says, is democracy, a system in which society has deviated into a constant squabble where everyone seeks to advance their own interests rather than the interests of the state. The conclusion seems to be that as long as long as the rulers of the state are just and competent, it is better the fewer they are. But if the rulers are unjust and incompetent, the opposite is true. To those as interested in political theory as I am, I would recommend just reading Book VIII, and skipping all the rest.
The most interesting thing about the book, however, is that the writing is absolutely terrible. Not the language, mind you, but the style in which the book is written. What is truly incredible is that the writing here is exactly how an average academic writer today would write his or her books. On one hand, that made this book ridiculously boring to read. On the other, it was really interesting because it proves how much modern academics owe to the legacy of Aristotle. And that they should find another source of inspiration, since for instance Plato was a far better writer than his most famous pupil.
I would recommend this book only to those particularly interested in philosophical, political and ethical theory, and even then I would suggest just opening the book and reading the parts that sound interesting to you instead of attempting the dreary business of reading it as a whole.
August 11, 2023
I was so impressed with how down-to-earth and practical this book was. Aristotle begins pragmatically by breaking down a simple question (well not in these exact words, but in essence), what is the purpose of man? Or, What is the characteristic function of man? Everything in the world works according to it's function and everything seemingly fulfills it's function. You can't change the characteristic function of a rock to go upward instead of down no matter how many times you throw it into the air. The rock will not change. It just sits there doing it’s thing, being extremely rock-like. Aristotle didn’t know about the universal law of gravity, but you get the picture. What is that for man? What is man made for? What is man's function? According to our nature? Aristotle posits the idea that our function is to be virtuous. The ideal form of a man will be the man that is most virtuous, and the pursuit of a virtuous life is equated by Aristotle to the good life. Because it is what we are made to do. How do we know that the epicurean pursuit of happiness is not equated to the ultimate good? Because we also value temperance and self control as "good". If pleasure=happiness=good there would be no need for temperance. Yet we do value both temperance and the experience of pleasure as good! So, it seems that the virtuous good is in a sort of balancing act.
So how do we know what the virtuous good is? Well, according to Aristotle it is not so easily expressed as this or that specifically because it is found as a mean between two vices—one of excess and one of deficiency. So that in almost anything there is a balance where the virtue lies between two kinds of vices. For example the overindulgence of food is on the extreme end of excess what we call gluttony, yet the one who starves themselves for one reason or another would also be in a vice of deficiency, maybe even to the point of self harm, so that we find the truly virtuous man to be the mean between the two extremes. This example can be extrapolated to almost anything. Anger, action, sexual pleasure, thinking, talking, being a tough-guy, etc. Another example given by Aristotle is that of a courageous man. The excess vice being rashness, and the deficient vice that of cowardice, so that true virtue lies between the two extremes, i.e. courage. He extrapolates this idea with several more examples, pride, ambition, friendliness, truthfulness, etc. He even brings this idea into the realm of the arts and talks a bit about comedy, so that there is is the extreme comic who tries to always get a laugh in at the expense of anything and everything, versus the sort of guy who's a complete bore and can't take a joke even when it is executed wittily and at the precise time, and once again we find the virtuous man in the middle.
I have to say, I really love this way of looking at virtue as a sort of mean on a scale between vices, so that the truly virtuous man is one who we could call 'well-adjusted.' I think this also makes a lot of sense why some people would think differently about what virtue looks like, as if morality was relative, when it is not. If someone naturally finds themselves on one of the extreme sides of the scale they will interpret the truly virtuous as the extreme on the other side. For example, if we look at courage again, if I am naturally on the rash side acting before thinking always and basically being dumb in the name of courageous virtue when the truly virtuous man weighs out the situation before acting, I will likely call him a coward. Likewise if I am naturally a coward, and the virtuous man acts in confidence and is truly courageous, I would be apt to call him rash. Yet, true virtue is a mean between vices, despite what we think about it. The well-adjusted man is, according to Aristotle, the most virtuous.
Following this, Aristotle begins to speak about continence and incontinence. Which, as far as I can understand is that there are basically four types of people and only one of them is completely lost with no hope of redemption.
There is the virtuous man, the continent man, the incontinent man, and the irredeemable.
The virtuous man is someone who knows that something is wrong for him, DOESN'T desire to do it based on his knowledge, and does not do it.
The continent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, but lets his wisdom guide him, and does not do it.
The Incontinent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, and against his better judgement DOES it.
And the irredeemable man is someone who thinks that the wrong thing is right, DOES desire to do the thing, and does it according to his judgement and wishes.
He is considered irredeemable because his judgement is wrong, and in order to seek repentance from doing an evil act one would need to judge the thing as wrong to begin with. So this man will never be able to repent.
As a reformed protestant this break down was pretty eye-opening for me. I loved this way of thinking about the moral categories of sin, and I think this is similar to the Christian view of sin. The only truly virtuous man was Christ, the perfect man, the exemplar of virtue, the second Adam who was not corrupted by sin, but perfect in all ways. And Christians dealing with the battle of incontinence in their sin and straddling the line between continence and incontinence, and those who believe that evil is good are irredeemable not because their sins are graver, but because they see no need in repentance, because they find evil to be good, and they see no need for Jesus. Yet, the Christian would argue that if God opens this man's eyes to see his evil he then is granted the option to repent.
Following this, Aristotle speaks on friendship, and once again Aristotle is refreshingly pragmatic. He looks at all kinds of friendship, and differentiates between different types of friendships, including the relationships between people who are alike, or different, joyous, or sad, friends who are there for a sort of economic agreement where both receive an equal amount of benefit from the friendship, etc. He differentiates between these friendships and the friendship a lover shares with his or her spouse, or a father to his son, or a son to his father, or a brother to his brother, etc. And he explores what the best version of all of these friendships is. What the virtuous man should look for and find in a friendship. How many friends is too many? etc etc. He truly leaves no stones unturned.
He then looks at the parallels between different friendships and different government systems claiming that each government system is based on a different type of friendship. A timocracy is based on a brotherhood type of friendship in it's honor based ruling, where-as a democracy is based on a more economical type of friendship where the focus is equality, and the monarchy a sort of patriarchal friendship and so on and so forth. I found this part to be truly insightful, and it is the part of this book that I'm most excited to revisit, because he seems to be riffing on Plato's four types of government at the end of The Republic and the how they revolve endlessly from one to the next, yet Aristotle has a different idea about which governments evolve into others, and as far as I could tell (already wanting to re-read this part to clarify) Aristotle seems to be saying that all of these governments are flawed because they function within the framework of only one type of friendship, yet humans are diverse and different, so we need several types of relationships within a government to function correctly. There needs to be "mothers" and "fathers" and "sons" and "daughters" and "friendships on an equal standing" all together. A democracy fails because there is only one type of friendship, that between equals that is purely economical in nature. Yet, we don't respect the people who are authorities above us because we don't believe in authority we hammer everyone down to fit into the same hole, yet it is a fabrication created by the government that tells us that we are all equal when we are not. Likewise in the other forms of government they lack the full spectrum of human relations so that in the end they always fail. That is, if I understood him correctly.
Yet I think his point here, and in the whole book in general is once again unrelentingly pragmatic, wouldn't the perfect governance (just like virtue itself) be a sort of balancing act just like friendship in that it is concerned solely with the good, with the virtuous and by pursuing virtue all parties are benefitted and happy because of the good. One that promotes the self (not in a capitalist/materialist sense but in the sense that virtue is the ultimate good for the self, worth a million times more than material possessions) and by doing so promotes everyone else. One that pursues the happiness and the good of all people by the virtuous pursuit of each individual. It is not black or white. This or that. It is more of a mean between this, this, and that.
So how do we know what the virtuous good is? Well, according to Aristotle it is not so easily expressed as this or that specifically because it is found as a mean between two vices—one of excess and one of deficiency. So that in almost anything there is a balance where the virtue lies between two kinds of vices. For example the overindulgence of food is on the extreme end of excess what we call gluttony, yet the one who starves themselves for one reason or another would also be in a vice of deficiency, maybe even to the point of self harm, so that we find the truly virtuous man to be the mean between the two extremes. This example can be extrapolated to almost anything. Anger, action, sexual pleasure, thinking, talking, being a tough-guy, etc. Another example given by Aristotle is that of a courageous man. The excess vice being rashness, and the deficient vice that of cowardice, so that true virtue lies between the two extremes, i.e. courage. He extrapolates this idea with several more examples, pride, ambition, friendliness, truthfulness, etc. He even brings this idea into the realm of the arts and talks a bit about comedy, so that there is is the extreme comic who tries to always get a laugh in at the expense of anything and everything, versus the sort of guy who's a complete bore and can't take a joke even when it is executed wittily and at the precise time, and once again we find the virtuous man in the middle.
I have to say, I really love this way of looking at virtue as a sort of mean on a scale between vices, so that the truly virtuous man is one who we could call 'well-adjusted.' I think this also makes a lot of sense why some people would think differently about what virtue looks like, as if morality was relative, when it is not. If someone naturally finds themselves on one of the extreme sides of the scale they will interpret the truly virtuous as the extreme on the other side. For example, if we look at courage again, if I am naturally on the rash side acting before thinking always and basically being dumb in the name of courageous virtue when the truly virtuous man weighs out the situation before acting, I will likely call him a coward. Likewise if I am naturally a coward, and the virtuous man acts in confidence and is truly courageous, I would be apt to call him rash. Yet, true virtue is a mean between vices, despite what we think about it. The well-adjusted man is, according to Aristotle, the most virtuous.
Following this, Aristotle begins to speak about continence and incontinence. Which, as far as I can understand is that there are basically four types of people and only one of them is completely lost with no hope of redemption.
There is the virtuous man, the continent man, the incontinent man, and the irredeemable.
The virtuous man is someone who knows that something is wrong for him, DOESN'T desire to do it based on his knowledge, and does not do it.
The continent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, but lets his wisdom guide him, and does not do it.
The Incontinent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, and against his better judgement DOES it.
And the irredeemable man is someone who thinks that the wrong thing is right, DOES desire to do the thing, and does it according to his judgement and wishes.
He is considered irredeemable because his judgement is wrong, and in order to seek repentance from doing an evil act one would need to judge the thing as wrong to begin with. So this man will never be able to repent.
As a reformed protestant this break down was pretty eye-opening for me. I loved this way of thinking about the moral categories of sin, and I think this is similar to the Christian view of sin. The only truly virtuous man was Christ, the perfect man, the exemplar of virtue, the second Adam who was not corrupted by sin, but perfect in all ways. And Christians dealing with the battle of incontinence in their sin and straddling the line between continence and incontinence, and those who believe that evil is good are irredeemable not because their sins are graver, but because they see no need in repentance, because they find evil to be good, and they see no need for Jesus. Yet, the Christian would argue that if God opens this man's eyes to see his evil he then is granted the option to repent.
Following this, Aristotle speaks on friendship, and once again Aristotle is refreshingly pragmatic. He looks at all kinds of friendship, and differentiates between different types of friendships, including the relationships between people who are alike, or different, joyous, or sad, friends who are there for a sort of economic agreement where both receive an equal amount of benefit from the friendship, etc. He differentiates between these friendships and the friendship a lover shares with his or her spouse, or a father to his son, or a son to his father, or a brother to his brother, etc. And he explores what the best version of all of these friendships is. What the virtuous man should look for and find in a friendship. How many friends is too many? etc etc. He truly leaves no stones unturned.
He then looks at the parallels between different friendships and different government systems claiming that each government system is based on a different type of friendship. A timocracy is based on a brotherhood type of friendship in it's honor based ruling, where-as a democracy is based on a more economical type of friendship where the focus is equality, and the monarchy a sort of patriarchal friendship and so on and so forth. I found this part to be truly insightful, and it is the part of this book that I'm most excited to revisit, because he seems to be riffing on Plato's four types of government at the end of The Republic and the how they revolve endlessly from one to the next, yet Aristotle has a different idea about which governments evolve into others, and as far as I could tell (already wanting to re-read this part to clarify) Aristotle seems to be saying that all of these governments are flawed because they function within the framework of only one type of friendship, yet humans are diverse and different, so we need several types of relationships within a government to function correctly. There needs to be "mothers" and "fathers" and "sons" and "daughters" and "friendships on an equal standing" all together. A democracy fails because there is only one type of friendship, that between equals that is purely economical in nature. Yet, we don't respect the people who are authorities above us because we don't believe in authority we hammer everyone down to fit into the same hole, yet it is a fabrication created by the government that tells us that we are all equal when we are not. Likewise in the other forms of government they lack the full spectrum of human relations so that in the end they always fail. That is, if I understood him correctly.
Yet I think his point here, and in the whole book in general is once again unrelentingly pragmatic, wouldn't the perfect governance (just like virtue itself) be a sort of balancing act just like friendship in that it is concerned solely with the good, with the virtuous and by pursuing virtue all parties are benefitted and happy because of the good. One that promotes the self (not in a capitalist/materialist sense but in the sense that virtue is the ultimate good for the self, worth a million times more than material possessions) and by doing so promotes everyone else. One that pursues the happiness and the good of all people by the virtuous pursuit of each individual. It is not black or white. This or that. It is more of a mean between this, this, and that.
August 17, 2017
دوستانِ گرانقدر، متأسفانه بارها دیده ام که عده ای بیسواد و نادان، یا به عمد و یا از روی بیسوادی، نوشته های <ارسطو> را همچون دیگر فلاسفه، یا تحریف کرده اند و یا سانسور نموده اند و حتی به قولِ خودشان ترجمه های عجیب و غریبی انجام داده اند که نمیدانم آن جملات را از کجایشان درآورده اند .. لذا تصمیم گرفتم تا در مورد این کتاب که ارسطو در آن به موضوعِ مهم <اخلاق> پرداخته است، تا جایی که ریویو خسته کننده نشود، برایتان بنویسم... در مورد کتابهای دیگر فلسفی نیز، این کار را خواهم کرد و پیش از این نیز اینکار را انجام داده ام
در زیر به برخی ��ز مهمترین نظرات و عقاید ارسطو در این کتاب پرداخته و خلاصه ای از آنچه دریافتم را برای شما خردگرایان مینویسم
--------------------------------------
عزیزانم، به طورِ کلی ارسطو در این کتاب اصرار دارد که بگوید: اخلاق برایِ این است که بتوانیم هدفِ زندگی را کشف کنیم.. باید به دنبالِ خوبی ها و نیکی ها باشیم تا به خوشبختی برسیم... پس هدفِ اصلیِ این زندگی رسیدن به خوشبختی میباشد و برایِ کسبِ خوشبختی باید دارایِ برتری و دانایی و افزونی باشیم و بَس
رسیدن به برتری و دانایی، تنها به واسطهٔ بهره بردن از خرد و عقل، ایجاد میشود
انسان برایِ آنکه بتواند به بهترین شکلِ ممکن از خرد بهره برده و ژرف اندیش باشد، باید در اجتماعی زندگی کند که از همه نظر برایِ زندگی کردنِ انسانی مناسب بوده و از موهومات و بیخردی ها، پاک باشد و آزادانه بیاندیشد
این اجتماع و محیطِ زندگیِ مناسب را تنها حکومتی شایسته میتواند برایِ انسانها ایجاد کند... هر انسانِ خردمندی این را میداند که
بدونِ تردید حکومت هایِ دینی و مذهبی، تواناییِ ایجادِ چنین محیطی را برایِ انسانها ندارند، چراکه آنها از اندیشیدنِ انسانها در هراس هستند
*********************
ارسطو در این کتاب توضیحاتی در موردِ غرور و همچنین فروتنی میدهد، امّا روش بیان آن میتواند جالب توجه باشد.... ارسطو در بحثِ مربوط به خوبی ها، از "فرا اندیشی" سخن میگوید و "فرا اندیشی" را یک نوع خوبی به حساب می آورد و میگوید: انسانِ "فرا اندیش" کسی است که گمان میکند، شایستهٔ چیزهای بزرگ است و در واقع همینطور است.. او شایستگی چیزهایِ بزرگ را دارد ... حال این شایستگی چه میباشد!! ارسطو میگوید: انسانِ "فرا اندیش"، شایستهٔ دریافتِ تمامیِ <دارایی هایِ بیرونی> میباشد.. بالاترین <دارایی هایِ بیرونی>، آبرو و اعتبار است.... پس یک انسانِ "فرا اندیش"، شایستهٔ این است که از آبرو و اعتبارِ بسیار زیادی برخوردار باشد.. لذا انسانی که "فرا اندیش" است، میتواند تمامی خوبی هایِ اخلاقی را یکجا داشته باشد... ارسطو میگوید: "فرا اندیشی"، تاجِ شاهانهٔ همهٔ خوبی هاست.... انسانِ "فرا اندیش" این حق را دارد که زیردست داشته باشد، چراکه او تمامِ خوبی ها را دارد و میتواند پندارِ نیک و درستی از دیگران و زیردستانِ خود داشته باشد
اینجاست که متوجه میشویم این اندیشه های ارسطو چگونه میتواند شاگردِ دوازده ساله اش، <اسکندرِ مقدونی> را تبدیل به موجودی کند که تصور میکند میتواند بر تمامِ این کرهٔ خاکی حکومت کرده و همه را تبدیل به زیر دستِ خویش سازد و هرکجا برود با خود غارت و ویرانی و کشتار را به ارمغان بیاورد و خود را یک "فرا اندیش" بداند
و امّا در مقابلِ این "فرا اندیش" که از دیدگاه ارسطو دارایِ تمامی خوبی هاست و میتواند فرمانروایی کند، انسانی قرار دارد به نامِ "فرو اندیش" ... شخصِ "فرو اندیش" کسی است که خود را دستِ کم میگیرد، لذا شایستگیِ کمتر و ارزشِ کمتری دارد... و حتی اگر ارزشِ راستینِ او بالا باشد، بازهم او یک "فرو اندیش" است .... مشخص است که ارسطو میانهٔ خوبی با فروتنی ندارد و فروتن را لایقِ تمامیِ خوبی ها و ارزش ها نمیداند
نکته ای که بسیار جالب است، این است که ارسطو میگوید: خوشبختی، پیشکش و هدیه ای است که به "فرا اندیشان" ارزانی گشته است ... از آنجا که دارا بودن و ثروتمند بودن و آبرومندی، از خصوصیاتِ اشراف زادگان است، اشراف زادگان میتوانند "فرا اندیش" باشند، لذا اشراف زادگان شایستهٔ این سربلندی هستند که به آنها به صورتِ خوشبختی، ارزانی گشته است
**********************
ارسطو میگوید: کشمکش و نبرد، میانِ انسان و دیدگاهِ او، از زندگی خوب نشأت میگیرد
در وجود یک انسانِ پرهیزگار، هم خرد وجود دارد و هم شهوت.. اما هرکدام بجا و بخوبی استفاده میشوند... پس میتوان گفت: در وجودِ یک انسانِ پرهیزگار، هرچیزی با آوایِ خرد، در هماهنگیِ کامل میباشد
ارسطو بر این باور است که سرچشمهٔ تمامیِ ناهماهنگی ها و ناهمسانی ها در زندگیِ انسان ها، این است که از کودکی به انسان ها تلقین شده است که زیاد خواه نباشند و همچنین کم ارزش خواه باشند... که این موضوع ناهمسانی هایِ چشمگیری را به وجود آورده است،.. در این میان انسانی میتواند به خوبی ها و نیکی ها، نزدیک شود که از خرد، بهره میبرد و میتواند از دیدگاهِ اخلاقی بهتر عمل کند
**********************
ارسطو میگوید: بسیاری از کنش ها و کردارهایِ یک انسانِ اخلاق گرا، برای سودرسانی به دوستان و سرزمین و میهنش انجام میشود و اگر نیاز باشد، جانش را در این راه فدا خواهد کرد
انسانِ اخلاق گرا، اگر بداند دوستش بیشتر به سود میرسد، حاضر است تا مال و ثروت خود را ببخشد.. زیرا بدین صورت، دوستِ او دارا میشود و خودش نیز به تصورش با شرافت باقی خواهد ماند... او شریف بودن را خوبتر از دارا بودن، میبیند
انسانِ اخلاق گرا، این تصور را دارد که چنانچه با شرافت بمیرد، خوبی و روشنیِ بزرگی را برای خویش برگزیده است
***********************
ارسطو معتقد است که اگر شخصی همه چیزش را فدایِ خوشی هایِ جنسی کند، دیگر زندگی اش مناسبِ زندگیِ یک انسان نیست، بلکه آن زندگی مناسبِ چهارپایان است... ارسطو در اظهارِ نظری عجیب میگوید: حتی یک برده نیز میتواند از خوشی های جنسی و لذت جنسی بهره مند شود، امّا هیچکس نمیتواند ادعا کند که یک برده، سهمی از شادی دارد
در این اظهارِ نظر، ارسطو برده را پایین تر از انسان میداند و آنرا در ردیفِ چهارپایان، قرار میدهد
***********************
عزیزانِ من، ارسطو کتابش را اینگونه آغاز میکند که: به نظر میرسد که هر هنر و یا هر دانشِ کاربردی و هر بررسی سازماندهی شده و هر کنش و گزینشی، به سویِ برخی خوبی ها نشانه رفته اند
ارسطو میخواهد بگوید که: برخی رفتارها و کنش ها، به خودیِ خود، خوب و نیک هستند.. یعنی برخی از رفتارها خوب هستند، حتی اگر هیچ پیامدی نداشته باشند... ارسطو مثالی که در انتهایِ کتاب برایِ سخنِ آغازینِ کتابش می آورد، این است که ژرف اندیشی نمونه ای از رفتارهایی است که به خودیِ خود، خوب هستند و ژرف اندیشیدن را ارزشمندترین کنش و کردارِ انسانی میداند و میگوید: کنش و کردارِ ایزدی که نیکبختیِ آن بر تمامیِ کنش هایِ دیگر برتری دارد، ژرف اندیشی میباشد و کردار و کنش انسانی که نزدیکترین خویشاوندی را با آن دارد، بایستی بزرگترین دلیلِ خوشنودی باشد... لذا ارسطو بالاترین ستایش در مقابلِ ایزد و یا ایزدان را کردار و کنشِ فیلسوفانه و دانشمندانه و خردمندانه، برمیگزیند.... یعنی هرچه را که می آموزیم، در آن به صورتِ عمیقی بیاندیشیم، که همان ژرف اندیشی میباشد
--------------------------------------------
شاید بخاطر بیان همین عقاید بوده است که عده ای بیخرد و متعصب، ارسطو را کافر نام نهادند و او را محکوم به مرگ کردند و ارسطو مجبور شد تا به جزیرهٔ اوبوآ بگریزد
سپاسگزارم که این ریویو را تا پایان خواندید و امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ شناختِ این کتاب و بخشی از اندیشه هایِ ارسطو، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
در زیر به برخی ��ز مهمترین نظرات و عقاید ارسطو در این کتاب پرداخته و خلاصه ای از آنچه دریافتم را برای شما خردگرایان مینویسم
--------------------------------------
عزیزانم، به طورِ کلی ارسطو در این کتاب اصرار دارد که بگوید: اخلاق برایِ این است که بتوانیم هدفِ زندگی را کشف کنیم.. باید به دنبالِ خوبی ها و نیکی ها باشیم تا به خوشبختی برسیم... پس هدفِ اصلیِ این زندگی رسیدن به خوشبختی میباشد و برایِ کسبِ خوشبختی باید دارایِ برتری و دانایی و افزونی باشیم و بَس
رسیدن به برتری و دانایی، تنها به واسطهٔ بهره بردن از خرد و عقل، ایجاد میشود
انسان برایِ آنکه بتواند به بهترین شکلِ ممکن از خرد بهره برده و ژرف اندیش باشد، باید در اجتماعی زندگی کند که از همه نظر برایِ زندگی کردنِ انسانی مناسب بوده و از موهومات و بیخردی ها، پاک باشد و آزادانه بیاندیشد
این اجتماع و محیطِ زندگیِ مناسب را تنها حکومتی شایسته میتواند برایِ انسانها ایجاد کند... هر انسانِ خردمندی این را میداند که
بدونِ تردید حکومت هایِ دینی و مذهبی، تواناییِ ایجادِ چنین محیطی را برایِ انسانها ندارند، چراکه آنها از اندیشیدنِ انسانها در هراس هستند
*********************
ارسطو در این کتاب توضیحاتی در موردِ غرور و همچنین فروتنی میدهد، امّا روش بیان آن میتواند جالب توجه باشد.... ارسطو در بحثِ مربوط به خوبی ها، از "فرا اندیشی" سخن میگوید و "فرا اندیشی" را یک نوع خوبی به حساب می آورد و میگوید: انسانِ "فرا اندیش" کسی است که گمان میکند، شایستهٔ چیزهای بزرگ است و در واقع همینطور است.. او شایستگی چیزهایِ بزرگ را دارد ... حال این شایستگی چه میباشد!! ارسطو میگوید: انسانِ "فرا اندیش"، شایستهٔ دریافتِ تمامیِ <دارایی هایِ بیرونی> میباشد.. بالاترین <دارایی هایِ بیرونی>، آبرو و اعتبار است.... پس یک انسانِ "فرا اندیش"، شایستهٔ این است که از آبرو و اعتبارِ بسیار زیادی برخوردار باشد.. لذا انسانی که "فرا اندیش" است، میتواند تمامی خوبی هایِ اخلاقی را یکجا داشته باشد... ارسطو میگوید: "فرا اندیشی"، تاجِ شاهانهٔ همهٔ خوبی هاست.... انسانِ "فرا اندیش" این حق را دارد که زیردست داشته باشد، چراکه او تمامِ خوبی ها را دارد و میتواند پندارِ نیک و درستی از دیگران و زیردستانِ خود داشته باشد
اینجاست که متوجه میشویم این اندیشه های ارسطو چگونه میتواند شاگردِ دوازده ساله اش، <اسکندرِ مقدونی> را تبدیل به موجودی کند که تصور میکند میتواند بر تمامِ این کرهٔ خاکی حکومت کرده و همه را تبدیل به زیر دستِ خویش سازد و هرکجا برود با خود غارت و ویرانی و کشتار را به ارمغان بیاورد و خود را یک "فرا اندیش" بداند
و امّا در مقابلِ این "فرا اندیش" که از دیدگاه ارسطو دارایِ تمامی خوبی هاست و میتواند فرمانروایی کند، انسانی قرار دارد به نامِ "فرو اندیش" ... شخصِ "فرو اندیش" کسی است که خود را دستِ کم میگیرد، لذا شایستگیِ کمتر و ارزشِ کمتری دارد... و حتی اگر ارزشِ راستینِ او بالا باشد، بازهم او یک "فرو اندیش" است .... مشخص است که ارسطو میانهٔ خوبی با فروتنی ندارد و فروتن را لایقِ تمامیِ خوبی ها و ارزش ها نمیداند
نکته ای که بسیار جالب است، این است که ارسطو میگوید: خوشبختی، پیشکش و هدیه ای است که به "فرا اندیشان" ارزانی گشته است ... از آنجا که دارا بودن و ثروتمند بودن و آبرومندی، از خصوصیاتِ اشراف زادگان است، اشراف زادگان میتوانند "فرا اندیش" باشند، لذا اشراف زادگان شایستهٔ این سربلندی هستند که به آنها به صورتِ خوشبختی، ارزانی گشته است
**********************
ارسطو میگوید: کشمکش و نبرد، میانِ انسان و دیدگاهِ او، از زندگی خوب نشأت میگیرد
در وجود یک انسانِ پرهیزگار، هم خرد وجود دارد و هم شهوت.. اما هرکدام بجا و بخوبی استفاده میشوند... پس میتوان گفت: در وجودِ یک انسانِ پرهیزگار، هرچیزی با آوایِ خرد، در هماهنگیِ کامل میباشد
ارسطو بر این باور است که سرچشمهٔ تمامیِ ناهماهنگی ها و ناهمسانی ها در زندگیِ انسان ها، این است که از کودکی به انسان ها تلقین شده است که زیاد خواه نباشند و همچنین کم ارزش خواه باشند... که این موضوع ناهمسانی هایِ چشمگیری را به وجود آورده است،.. در این میان انسانی میتواند به خوبی ها و نیکی ها، نزدیک شود که از خرد، بهره میبرد و میتواند از دیدگاهِ اخلاقی بهتر عمل کند
**********************
ارسطو میگوید: بسیاری از کنش ها و کردارهایِ یک انسانِ اخلاق گرا، برای سودرسانی به دوستان و سرزمین و میهنش انجام میشود و اگر نیاز باشد، جانش را در این راه فدا خواهد کرد
انسانِ اخلاق گرا، اگر بداند دوستش بیشتر به سود میرسد، حاضر است تا مال و ثروت خود را ببخشد.. زیرا بدین صورت، دوستِ او دارا میشود و خودش نیز به تصورش با شرافت باقی خواهد ماند... او شریف بودن را خوبتر از دارا بودن، میبیند
انسانِ اخلاق گرا، این تصور را دارد که چنانچه با شرافت بمیرد، خوبی و روشنیِ بزرگی را برای خویش برگزیده است
***********************
ارسطو معتقد است که اگر شخصی همه چیزش را فدایِ خوشی هایِ جنسی کند، دیگر زندگی اش مناسبِ زندگیِ یک انسان نیست، بلکه آن زندگی مناسبِ چهارپایان است... ارسطو در اظهارِ نظری عجیب میگوید: حتی یک برده نیز میتواند از خوشی های جنسی و لذت جنسی بهره مند شود، امّا هیچکس نمیتواند ادعا کند که یک برده، سهمی از شادی دارد
در این اظهارِ نظر، ارسطو برده را پایین تر از انسان میداند و آنرا در ردیفِ چهارپایان، قرار میدهد
***********************
عزیزانِ من، ارسطو کتابش را اینگونه آغاز میکند که: به نظر میرسد که هر هنر و یا هر دانشِ کاربردی و هر بررسی سازماندهی شده و هر کنش و گزینشی، به سویِ برخی خوبی ها نشانه رفته اند
ارسطو میخواهد بگوید که: برخی رفتارها و کنش ها، به خودیِ خود، خوب و نیک هستند.. یعنی برخی از رفتارها خوب هستند، حتی اگر هیچ پیامدی نداشته باشند... ارسطو مثالی که در انتهایِ کتاب برایِ سخنِ آغازینِ کتابش می آورد، این است که ژرف اندیشی نمونه ای از رفتارهایی است که به خودیِ خود، خوب هستند و ژرف اندیشیدن را ارزشمندترین کنش و کردارِ انسانی میداند و میگوید: کنش و کردارِ ایزدی که نیکبختیِ آن بر تمامیِ کنش هایِ دیگر برتری دارد، ژرف اندیشی میباشد و کردار و کنش انسانی که نزدیکترین خویشاوندی را با آن دارد، بایستی بزرگترین دلیلِ خوشنودی باشد... لذا ارسطو بالاترین ستایش در مقابلِ ایزد و یا ایزدان را کردار و کنشِ فیلسوفانه و دانشمندانه و خردمندانه، برمیگزیند.... یعنی هرچه را که می آموزیم، در آن به صورتِ عمیقی بیاندیشیم، که همان ژرف اندیشی میباشد
--------------------------------------------
شاید بخاطر بیان همین عقاید بوده است که عده ای بیخرد و متعصب، ارسطو را کافر نام نهادند و او را محکوم به مرگ کردند و ارسطو مجبور شد تا به جزیرهٔ اوبوآ بگریزد
سپاسگزارم که این ریویو را تا پایان خواندید و امیدوارم این ریویو در جهتِ شناختِ این کتاب و بخشی از اندیشه هایِ ارسطو، مفید بوده باشه
<پیروز باشید و ایرانی>
July 1, 2021
Nicomachean Ethics ~ Aristotle
First Impression of Aristotle
I first read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in college over twenty years ago. My first experience with Aristotle was reading from a scientific work of his that was perhaps only twelve pages long. Twelve pages, I thought, what a break! Normally our readings were much longer. I could take it easy this week, I thought. Big mistake! Twelve pages of Aristotle meant twelve hours of intense study to work out what he was saying as best I could, and in some spots to confess defeat and at least mark where my questions were. This is a common first experience with Aristotle, but one gets faster as one gets to know him.
Aristotle, or Plato?
In those early college days where students were far more interested in reading books and understanding what their authors were saying, and were not interested in cancelling anything, a frequent question among the studentry, used to better get to know another was Whom do you prefer, Plato or Aristotle? How could anyone prefer Aristotle, I thought. The writing is awful––his defenders must apologize for it (the sloppy organization, the frequent repetitions, the extreme concision and the use of pronouns that makes it tough sometimes to keep track of antecedents) on the grounds that his books were meant merely to be his own personal lecture notes, and had no literary pretensions. Plato, on the other hand wrote so beautifully, and he crafts such artful dialogues, which reflect the nature of philosophical objects in the structure of his dramatic framework. Plato, one of the fathers of Greek prose style, not only writes beautiful prose, but places his art at the service of conveying philosophical truth.
In short, I was in love with Plato, because I was a lover of beauty, and the whole experience of reading Plato, of sitting in a dramatic scene to listen to the interesting conversations of Socrates and his friends or foils, was much more entertaining. The lovers of Aristotle, on the other hand, were not insensitive to beauty, but rather discovered beauty in the straightforwardness of Aristotle, who states how things are, and even states that though Plato is his friend, a greater friend is truth. This was the beauty that lies in the clarity and directness of truth stated and explained. Plato on the other hand forces the reader patiently to sit through the meandering course of a discussion in pursuit of truth, which at least leads to a better understanding of the questions. Aristotle, however, has already figured things out, and explains them directly to the reader. That is not to say that his material is for that reason easy. No, the reader must still figure out what Aristotle means. Plato, on the other hand, is more entertaining. The effort to understand either of them pays off well in the joyful experience of acquired understanding, but Plato can be enjoyable even if one has understood little, while Aristotle will never be enjoyable without the success in figuring him out. Put another way, I believe that Plato rejoices in the means to the end, and Aristotle only in the end achieved.
In my later, more mature years I thought that I had come to love Aristotle more than Plato. Perhaps, because I had been reading Aquinas, I had come to enjoy more of the hard philosophical stuff. Aquinas understood Aristotle well, and his use of Aristotle would mean that Aristotle should become much more influential on the future philosophical history of the west than Plato.
It is perhaps best to reflect that no matter how one feels about the two, Plato and Aristotle have been depicted by Raphael as the central focus of his School of Athens fresco, because the two of them, together with their teacher Socrates, reclining on the steps below them, are the foundation upon which the rest of western philosophy is built. So, why should one read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics?
For whom is this book written?
Aristotle has written his Ethics with a practical end in mind. It is designed with the purpose of helping his audience to become better persons. If this were not possible it would all be a waste of time. That being said, it is not a book for those who do not like to read, think, deliberate, or use their intellect. If you are willing to do these things and you want to know how to discover happiness, and learn how you may live a good life, then this is a book for you. Perhaps the most beautiful part of the book involves friendship.
Some concepts covered in The Nicomachean Ethics
What is virtue, can it be taught? With words such as these Plato’s Meno had begun. By the end of that dialogue, we had come to understand perhaps that an example of virtue might be given, which others may learn to follow, but we still weren’t very sure what virtue was. In the Protagoras we also come to wonder why, though Pericles is such a great and virtuous man, his sons are worthless louts.
In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle actually defines and explains virtue. Virtue is a state of the soul. The soul, like Plato’s model of the soul, has three parts, but they are not the same three. There is a vegetative / nutritive part of the soul which is involved with absorption of nutrients necessary for life. That part of the soul does what it needs to do automatically, and there is no more need to elaborate upon it. The two remaining parts are the part with reason, and the part without reason, which involves appetite and desire. This last part without reason, still participates in reason, however, in that it is able to listen to reason and is open to persuasion.
Aristotle considers why people act. Every action is undertaken with a view to the pursuit of some perceived good. The final aim of all action is happiness. There are, however, many complications, e.g. distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are considered to be such either when the cause of the action is external, or when it is owing to ignorance. There is then a distinction between an action performed in ignorance, and through ignorance. I’m wandering about on the terrain here, merely to give you an idea of some of the complexity you will encounter, but now back to virtue.
Aristotle describes virtue as a mean existing between two extremes, one of deficiency, and another of excess. This is perhaps easiest to see with the examples of courage and temperance. Courage is defined as the mean existing between cowardice (a deficiency of courage) and rashness (in appearance, an excess of courage). A human being, however, can not actually have more of the quality of courage than what exists at that mean point. For any departure from the mean, either in the direction of deficiency or excess, is less of courage, so that the means are actual superlative states of the virtues in question (temperance, courage, generosity, and so forth). It is necessary to mention that my example here relates to that part of the soul “without reason,” which has its respective virtues relating to appetite, desire, and the experience of the human being in relation to pain and pleasure. There are other virtues belonging properly to the part of the soul “with reason” and these are the intellectual virtues. All of them are essential to leading a good and happy life.
So, Aristotle says that virtue is a mean, but he also defines virtue as a state of the soul. What state your soul is in with respect to courage is observed by others with the sudden emergence of an unexpected danger, for there will be no time to deliberate at that moment about what to do. When the wild beast emerges from the edge of the forest and attacks your family picnic, do you turn and run or stand to fight to defend the young and old? So, what if you lack courage? What if as a result of poor training, poor education, and bad experience, you have never developed courage? How can you improve? The short answer is by performing courageous acts, and slow habituation. One trains oneself in virtuous action. Well, I fear I should make a bad job of it were I to attempt to summarize the 200 pages of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, but there is much more of interest: the idea of the great-souled man, justice, both distributive and corrective, reciprocity and the rôle of money (a unit of convertibility between disparate things), the difference between self-control and temperance, friendship, and happiness, "an activity of the soul in accordance with reason.”
But is it all true, supposing I actually took the time to figure it out?
I believe it is, though I’m not sure about the vegetative soul. The system of Aristotle’s moral ethics is practical but perhaps, like the laws of Physics, it breaks down at a quantum level and is no longer viable. For example, if an ethical courageous act, involves a deliberate choice to risk everything for the attainment of an end, then cowardice is no longer admissible, and there can be no question of rashness. There are no longer extremes, there is only the courageous ethical act. If this is so, it means that there is not really a sliding scale upon which to place cowardice, courage, and rashness, as though they each represented different quantities of the same quality. In other words, when virtue the mean is discovered, the extremes vanish. We have here something analogous to the set of laws in physics that are true for velocities lower than C, the speed of light, where discovering the mean is equivalent to surpassing C. If the analogy works, there may be more to discover, refinements or revisions to be made, but for practical purposes, given human experience––we don’t have experience of the speed of light either––the system works, and working through the treatise will make you more aware of all these things and set you on the path towards "an active life of the soul in accordance with reason.”
I recommend patience in reading, working it out, and digesting it slowly. Don’t attempt to read it in only three weeks, as I had to for a recent seminar, but plan instead for a long, slow, deliberate read. It will be best to have interested friends with whom you can discuss it as you go, for friends are essential to the happy life. 🙂
See also:
Plato’s Republic
First Impression of Aristotle
I first read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics in college over twenty years ago. My first experience with Aristotle was reading from a scientific work of his that was perhaps only twelve pages long. Twelve pages, I thought, what a break! Normally our readings were much longer. I could take it easy this week, I thought. Big mistake! Twelve pages of Aristotle meant twelve hours of intense study to work out what he was saying as best I could, and in some spots to confess defeat and at least mark where my questions were. This is a common first experience with Aristotle, but one gets faster as one gets to know him.
Aristotle, or Plato?
In those early college days where students were far more interested in reading books and understanding what their authors were saying, and were not interested in cancelling anything, a frequent question among the studentry, used to better get to know another was Whom do you prefer, Plato or Aristotle? How could anyone prefer Aristotle, I thought. The writing is awful––his defenders must apologize for it (the sloppy organization, the frequent repetitions, the extreme concision and the use of pronouns that makes it tough sometimes to keep track of antecedents) on the grounds that his books were meant merely to be his own personal lecture notes, and had no literary pretensions. Plato, on the other hand wrote so beautifully, and he crafts such artful dialogues, which reflect the nature of philosophical objects in the structure of his dramatic framework. Plato, one of the fathers of Greek prose style, not only writes beautiful prose, but places his art at the service of conveying philosophical truth.
In short, I was in love with Plato, because I was a lover of beauty, and the whole experience of reading Plato, of sitting in a dramatic scene to listen to the interesting conversations of Socrates and his friends or foils, was much more entertaining. The lovers of Aristotle, on the other hand, were not insensitive to beauty, but rather discovered beauty in the straightforwardness of Aristotle, who states how things are, and even states that though Plato is his friend, a greater friend is truth. This was the beauty that lies in the clarity and directness of truth stated and explained. Plato on the other hand forces the reader patiently to sit through the meandering course of a discussion in pursuit of truth, which at least leads to a better understanding of the questions. Aristotle, however, has already figured things out, and explains them directly to the reader. That is not to say that his material is for that reason easy. No, the reader must still figure out what Aristotle means. Plato, on the other hand, is more entertaining. The effort to understand either of them pays off well in the joyful experience of acquired understanding, but Plato can be enjoyable even if one has understood little, while Aristotle will never be enjoyable without the success in figuring him out. Put another way, I believe that Plato rejoices in the means to the end, and Aristotle only in the end achieved.
In my later, more mature years I thought that I had come to love Aristotle more than Plato. Perhaps, because I had been reading Aquinas, I had come to enjoy more of the hard philosophical stuff. Aquinas understood Aristotle well, and his use of Aristotle would mean that Aristotle should become much more influential on the future philosophical history of the west than Plato.
It is perhaps best to reflect that no matter how one feels about the two, Plato and Aristotle have been depicted by Raphael as the central focus of his School of Athens fresco, because the two of them, together with their teacher Socrates, reclining on the steps below them, are the foundation upon which the rest of western philosophy is built. So, why should one read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics?
For whom is this book written?
Aristotle has written his Ethics with a practical end in mind. It is designed with the purpose of helping his audience to become better persons. If this were not possible it would all be a waste of time. That being said, it is not a book for those who do not like to read, think, deliberate, or use their intellect. If you are willing to do these things and you want to know how to discover happiness, and learn how you may live a good life, then this is a book for you. Perhaps the most beautiful part of the book involves friendship.
Some concepts covered in The Nicomachean Ethics
What is virtue, can it be taught? With words such as these Plato’s Meno had begun. By the end of that dialogue, we had come to understand perhaps that an example of virtue might be given, which others may learn to follow, but we still weren’t very sure what virtue was. In the Protagoras we also come to wonder why, though Pericles is such a great and virtuous man, his sons are worthless louts.
In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle actually defines and explains virtue. Virtue is a state of the soul. The soul, like Plato’s model of the soul, has three parts, but they are not the same three. There is a vegetative / nutritive part of the soul which is involved with absorption of nutrients necessary for life. That part of the soul does what it needs to do automatically, and there is no more need to elaborate upon it. The two remaining parts are the part with reason, and the part without reason, which involves appetite and desire. This last part without reason, still participates in reason, however, in that it is able to listen to reason and is open to persuasion.
Aristotle considers why people act. Every action is undertaken with a view to the pursuit of some perceived good. The final aim of all action is happiness. There are, however, many complications, e.g. distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are considered to be such either when the cause of the action is external, or when it is owing to ignorance. There is then a distinction between an action performed in ignorance, and through ignorance. I’m wandering about on the terrain here, merely to give you an idea of some of the complexity you will encounter, but now back to virtue.
Aristotle describes virtue as a mean existing between two extremes, one of deficiency, and another of excess. This is perhaps easiest to see with the examples of courage and temperance. Courage is defined as the mean existing between cowardice (a deficiency of courage) and rashness (in appearance, an excess of courage). A human being, however, can not actually have more of the quality of courage than what exists at that mean point. For any departure from the mean, either in the direction of deficiency or excess, is less of courage, so that the means are actual superlative states of the virtues in question (temperance, courage, generosity, and so forth). It is necessary to mention that my example here relates to that part of the soul “without reason,” which has its respective virtues relating to appetite, desire, and the experience of the human being in relation to pain and pleasure. There are other virtues belonging properly to the part of the soul “with reason” and these are the intellectual virtues. All of them are essential to leading a good and happy life.
So, Aristotle says that virtue is a mean, but he also defines virtue as a state of the soul. What state your soul is in with respect to courage is observed by others with the sudden emergence of an unexpected danger, for there will be no time to deliberate at that moment about what to do. When the wild beast emerges from the edge of the forest and attacks your family picnic, do you turn and run or stand to fight to defend the young and old? So, what if you lack courage? What if as a result of poor training, poor education, and bad experience, you have never developed courage? How can you improve? The short answer is by performing courageous acts, and slow habituation. One trains oneself in virtuous action. Well, I fear I should make a bad job of it were I to attempt to summarize the 200 pages of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, but there is much more of interest: the idea of the great-souled man, justice, both distributive and corrective, reciprocity and the rôle of money (a unit of convertibility between disparate things), the difference between self-control and temperance, friendship, and happiness, "an activity of the soul in accordance with reason.”
But is it all true, supposing I actually took the time to figure it out?
I believe it is, though I’m not sure about the vegetative soul. The system of Aristotle’s moral ethics is practical but perhaps, like the laws of Physics, it breaks down at a quantum level and is no longer viable. For example, if an ethical courageous act, involves a deliberate choice to risk everything for the attainment of an end, then cowardice is no longer admissible, and there can be no question of rashness. There are no longer extremes, there is only the courageous ethical act. If this is so, it means that there is not really a sliding scale upon which to place cowardice, courage, and rashness, as though they each represented different quantities of the same quality. In other words, when virtue the mean is discovered, the extremes vanish. We have here something analogous to the set of laws in physics that are true for velocities lower than C, the speed of light, where discovering the mean is equivalent to surpassing C. If the analogy works, there may be more to discover, refinements or revisions to be made, but for practical purposes, given human experience––we don’t have experience of the speed of light either––the system works, and working through the treatise will make you more aware of all these things and set you on the path towards "an active life of the soul in accordance with reason.”
I recommend patience in reading, working it out, and digesting it slowly. Don’t attempt to read it in only three weeks, as I had to for a recent seminar, but plan instead for a long, slow, deliberate read. It will be best to have interested friends with whom you can discuss it as you go, for friends are essential to the happy life. 🙂
See also:
Plato’s Republic
October 8, 2008
Aristotle doesn't satisfy your whole soul, just the logical side, but here he is quite thorough. The Nicomachean Ethics is his most important study of personal morality and the ends of human life. He does little more than search for and examine the "good." He examines the virtue and vices of man in all his faculties. He believes that the unexamined life is a life not worth living; happiness is the contemplation of the good and the carrying out of virtue with solid acts. Among this book's most outstanding features are Aristotle's insistence that there are no known absolute moral standards and that any ethical theory must be based in part on an understanding of psychology and firmly grounded in the realities of human nature and daily life. Though the over 100 chapters (divided into ten books) flow and build upon each other, you can benefit from reading just one of them. One of my favorite philosophical reads, I cannot say enough for the depth of insight Aristotle has into living the "good" life.
November 21, 2019
November 20, 2019 - 5 stars
Aiiiiiii, look at me re-reading books in the same year. Definitely did not expect to be go back to this one so soon but glad I did. Context does amazing things for your understanding. Read this one as part of class instead of just 'cause and gained so much more out of it.
January 31st, 2019 Review - 4 stars
Dry but thought-provoking. Obviously, it is hard to rate someone like Aristotle. For the way it shaped Western thought, Ethics easily deserves 5 stars. Yet it also proved a dense and frequently uninteresting read, so in fairness to myself as an educated reader, I'm rating based on my personal understanding and appreciation. 4 stars it gets.
Aiiiiiii, look at me re-reading books in the same year. Definitely did not expect to be go back to this one so soon but glad I did. Context does amazing things for your understanding. Read this one as part of class instead of just 'cause and gained so much more out of it.
January 31st, 2019 Review - 4 stars
Dry but thought-provoking. Obviously, it is hard to rate someone like Aristotle. For the way it shaped Western thought, Ethics easily deserves 5 stars. Yet it also proved a dense and frequently uninteresting read, so in fairness to myself as an educated reader, I'm rating based on my personal understanding and appreciation. 4 stars it gets.
June 2, 2023
Such an impressive book that it's honestly hard to do it justice. The philosophical distinctions that Aristotle introduces here -- the three types of friendship, hexis as the key to understanding moral action, the vice/virtue distinction, the spoudaios, etc. etc. -- are impressive enough on their own that any one of them could be the basis of an entire philosophical school in any century.
But when you realize that Aristotle was literally the first writer in the Greek tradition to deeply consider any of these issues, his achievement becomes all the more difficult to comprehend; imagine being not only the inventor of a philosophical topic (ethics did not exist as a clearly demarcated field of study even in Plato), but also such a brilliant thinker that you're still deeply influential on all Western ethical thought, thousands of years later? (And that you also, incidentally, wrote 452 other works, basically invented natural science, etc. etc.)
But when you realize that Aristotle was literally the first writer in the Greek tradition to deeply consider any of these issues, his achievement becomes all the more difficult to comprehend; imagine being not only the inventor of a philosophical topic (ethics did not exist as a clearly demarcated field of study even in Plato), but also such a brilliant thinker that you're still deeply influential on all Western ethical thought, thousands of years later? (And that you also, incidentally, wrote 452 other works, basically invented natural science, etc. etc.)
December 30, 2023
8.5/10.
An excellent book on how to live life well. The best section is on friendship, which really shined a light on my failed and successful friendships and why successful ones are so rare.
An excellent book on how to live life well. The best section is on friendship, which really shined a light on my failed and successful friendships and why successful ones are so rare.
November 26, 2017
I'm way too dumb for this
December 24, 2011
Aristotle vs. Plato
Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.
Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding Plato’s abstractions (from species to genus, from the individual instances to the common patterns, i.e. Idea or Form). This is the cause of the majority of his attacks against Plato, as “piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.” How very noble of him!
I don't know whether the Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum charged their students fees. If not, there were no financial incentives in disparaging their rival. If it was purely intellectual rivalry, using straw man is often a sign of an inferior intellect or character. Since both Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellect was the best part of man or the true man, to attack and destroy another's ideas would be equivalent to murder (or Freudian parricide).
However, it could also be true that Aristotle was formulating his own philosophy through engagement with Plato's ideas, and intellectual competitions and debates help facilitate the development of sound ideas. Since this is the first book by Aristotle that I've read, it's very likely that I'm not giving him his due here. It may take some time to switch from Plato to Aristotle's way of thinking.
A Champion of Mediocrity
Aristotle's definitions of good, virtue and happiness are unsatisfactory to me. Good is "that at which all things aim". All people aim at happiness (or pleasure), therefore happiness is the supreme good. But, what exactly is happiness or pleasure? How can one hit his aim if he can't discern what he is aiming at? If virtue is "the mean between deficiency and excess", what is the difference between virtue and mediocrity?
"Pleasure perfects activity not as the formed state that issues in that activity perfects it, by being immanent in it, but as a sort of supervening [culminating] perfection, like the bloom that graces the flower of youth." How can a fleeting thing that lacks permanence be the object of a lifelong pursuit?
In the end, Aristotle agrees with Plato, perhaps begrudgingly as it was dictated by reason, that happiness is contemplation of the divine, which is pleasant, self-sufficient and continuous. He insists on making a distinction between activity and state, but in this instance the distinction is unclear to me.
An Acute Observer of Human Nature
There are a few things I do appreciate in this book. Aristotle's joie de vivre (his delight in learning, being alive and active), his insights into human nature, his clear and penetrating psychological portrayal of various character traits and the dynamic relationships or transactions between human beings. He also introduced me to Pythagorean's fascinating mathematical representation of equality, A:B = B:C and A-M = M -C.
Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.
Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding Plato’s abstractions (from species to genus, from the individual instances to the common patterns, i.e. Idea or Form). This is the cause of the majority of his attacks against Plato, as “piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.” How very noble of him!
I don't know whether the Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum charged their students fees. If not, there were no financial incentives in disparaging their rival. If it was purely intellectual rivalry, using straw man is often a sign of an inferior intellect or character. Since both Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellect was the best part of man or the true man, to attack and destroy another's ideas would be equivalent to murder (or Freudian parricide).
However, it could also be true that Aristotle was formulating his own philosophy through engagement with Plato's ideas, and intellectual competitions and debates help facilitate the development of sound ideas. Since this is the first book by Aristotle that I've read, it's very likely that I'm not giving him his due here. It may take some time to switch from Plato to Aristotle's way of thinking.
A Champion of Mediocrity
Aristotle's definitions of good, virtue and happiness are unsatisfactory to me. Good is "that at which all things aim". All people aim at happiness (or pleasure), therefore happiness is the supreme good. But, what exactly is happiness or pleasure? How can one hit his aim if he can't discern what he is aiming at? If virtue is "the mean between deficiency and excess", what is the difference between virtue and mediocrity?
"Pleasure perfects activity not as the formed state that issues in that activity perfects it, by being immanent in it, but as a sort of supervening [culminating] perfection, like the bloom that graces the flower of youth." How can a fleeting thing that lacks permanence be the object of a lifelong pursuit?
In the end, Aristotle agrees with Plato, perhaps begrudgingly as it was dictated by reason, that happiness is contemplation of the divine, which is pleasant, self-sufficient and continuous. He insists on making a distinction between activity and state, but in this instance the distinction is unclear to me.
An Acute Observer of Human Nature
There are a few things I do appreciate in this book. Aristotle's joie de vivre (his delight in learning, being alive and active), his insights into human nature, his clear and penetrating psychological portrayal of various character traits and the dynamic relationships or transactions between human beings. He also introduced me to Pythagorean's fascinating mathematical representation of equality, A:B = B:C and A-M = M -C.
July 24, 2017
"One lesson of our age is that barbarism persists under the surface, and that the virtues of civilized life are less deeply rooted than used to be supposed. The world is not too richly endowed with examples of perseverance and subtlety in analysis, of moderation and sanity in the study of human affairs. It will be a great loss if the thinker who, above all others, displays these qualities, is ever totally forgotten."
D.J. Allan, author of The Philosophy of Aristotle, (Oxford 1952) about Aristotle (384 BC - 323 BC)
D.J. Allan, author of The Philosophy of Aristotle, (Oxford 1952) about Aristotle (384 BC - 323 BC)
November 30, 2020
تقریبا از ابتدای اردیبهشت امسال شروعش کردم و با مجموعه صوتی متن خوانی این کتاب با حضور خانم دکتر الهام کندری که چند سال پیش در یکی از پژوهشکده های علوم انسانی اصفهان برگزار شده بود پیش آمدم اما در نیمه راه مجبور شدم پیش رفتن با فایلهای صوتی را متوقف کنم. بعد دیگر خواندنم خیلی شلخته شد و لازم میدانم دو قسمت از کتاب را حتما در آینده باز مرور کنم. تقریبا کل کتاب را به خاطر همین دو بخش خواندم که برای خودم خیلی سوال برانگیز بوده و هست:
درباره نیکبختی
درباره پرهیزگاری
به ذکر این نکته اکتفا میکنم که با خواندن این کتاب اول گمان میکنید مسائل اخلاق از زمان ارسطو تا حالا تغییری نکرده اند بعد پی میبرید که واقعا نهایت اعتدال و نکته سنجی ارسطو باعث شده نگاه بشر امروز کماکان به نگاه او نزدیک باشد. کتابی که کلیسا هم آن را قرن ها گرامی داشته و جای تعجب ندارد اگر بگوییم هنوز هم در جهانی نسبتا ارسطویی زندگی میکنیم
درباره نیکبختی
درباره پرهیزگاری
به ذکر این نکته اکتفا میکنم که با خواندن این کتاب اول گمان میکنید مسائل اخلاق از زمان ارسطو تا حالا تغییری نکرده اند بعد پی میبرید که واقعا نهایت اعتدال و نکته سنجی ارسطو باعث شده نگاه بشر امروز کماکان به نگاه او نزدیک باشد. کتابی که کلیسا هم آن را قرن ها گرامی داشته و جای تعجب ندارد اگر بگوییم هنوز هم در جهانی نسبتا ارسطویی زندگی میکنیم
May 19, 2025
Seguramente, el mejor libro para empezar a leer filosofía como tal. La filosofía de Aristóteles mola porque se pueden adaptar sus ideas de hace chorrocientos años a la actualidad.
Básicamente, la ética es filosofía sobre lo que se considera vivir bien (resumido muy mal y a pelo). Aristóteles dice que la vida buena pasa por la contemplación, por encontrar el punto medio de las cosas (ni pasar hambre ni comer como un cerdo) y por predicar con el ejemplo (si dices que hay que ser buen amigo, se el primero en serlo).
Básicamente, la ética es filosofía sobre lo que se considera vivir bien (resumido muy mal y a pelo). Aristóteles dice que la vida buena pasa por la contemplación, por encontrar el punto medio de las cosas (ni pasar hambre ni comer como un cerdo) y por predicar con el ejemplo (si dices que hay que ser buen amigo, se el primero en serlo).
September 24, 2018
It is rare that a philosophical book about ethics can be so investigation-based and have so much common sense in it.
December 31, 2021
Kakva knjiga. Nakon 30-ak strana imao sam osećaj da sam ih pročitao nekoliko.
Erika vrline u centru (odsad se u svakoj situaciji pitam "Šta bi uradio Aristotel?"), ali koliko toga je ovde. Sreća (zapravo eudamonia, što i nije baš samo sreća), intelektualne i prirodne vrline (i mane kao suviše ili premalo toga), slobodna volja, krajnosti i umerenost, pravda kao dvosmislen pojam, jednakost, šest moralnih stanja i samokontrola, prijateljstvo (iz koristoljublja, zbog uživanja i zbog vrline), ljubav prema sebi, uživanje i vrednost razonode...
Napisano pre dva i po milenija. Ista vrednost i dandanas.
Erika vrline u centru (odsad se u svakoj situaciji pitam "Šta bi uradio Aristotel?"), ali koliko toga je ovde. Sreća (zapravo eudamonia, što i nije baš samo sreća), intelektualne i prirodne vrline (i mane kao suviše ili premalo toga), slobodna volja, krajnosti i umerenost, pravda kao dvosmislen pojam, jednakost, šest moralnih stanja i samokontrola, prijateljstvo (iz koristoljublja, zbog uživanja i zbog vrline), ljubav prema sebi, uživanje i vrednost razonode...
Napisano pre dva i po milenija. Ista vrednost i dandanas.
September 21, 2011
I think society would have progressed much faster if it weren't for guys like Aristotle being looked up to as much. He was extremely arrogant, and was obviously very good at expressing his ideas. Too bad his ideas weren't always backed by scientific reasoning, and should have been challenged.
I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and bitch-slap him.
I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and bitch-slap him.
September 24, 2024
9/2024: Are the Nicomachean Ethics worth reading twice per year? If not, I don't know what is. Read the Republic for an infinite smorgasbord of philosophical topics, but read the Ethics to know, from the highest perspective of the City of Man, what a human being is for and why we ought to care about education. I still like the Beresford translation a lot for all its quirks, but Ross and Jowett also have their merits. I do recommend steering away from the 2010 Bartlett/Collins, which is just horribly dry in its attempt to be as literal as possible. Sure, it might be a fine scholar's translation, but if you want to read Aristotle, you have to overcome the barrier of tedium, and so I primarily value readability as long as the concepts and idioms are conveyed adequately. You can always have annotations and appendices to explain some of the more ambiguous/complex terms and passages.
3/2024: Just reread the text for a class, in the newest translation by Adam Beresford (Penguin, 2020). I'll never get tired of immersing myself in Aristotle. Though I was really hesitant going into this highly informal translation which tries to make the work come across as the series of conversational lecture transcriptions that they supposedly are, I actually mostly liked it. If you're familiar with the classic Ross translation, it's quite fun to recognize all the familiar terms presented in totally fresh fashion. The informality doesn't always hit the mark, but to be honest, it does solve the problem of "dry discursiveness" that I mentioned in my original review and gives the closest taste we'll ever get to hearing Aristotle address a crowd of students in the Athenian square. Beresford even imagines some passages as responses to questions asked during the lecture. I'd still rather read a more conventional translation, but this is a valid and often helpful approach. Though there's some really robust supporting material, including a great essay on the meaning of ευδαιμονια and δικαιοσυνη, I didn't appreciate how Beresford seems to view Aristotle as an Enlightenment precursor who wants us to "do ethics without God". This is just plainly wrong based on Book X, even if he could be accurately classified as a deist in more modern terms.
Original review (11/2020): It is a shame that the extant works of Aristotle are so dry and discursive because his philosophy is so much more applicable to the layman than even the most enticing, alluring forms of Truth in the elegantly-conceived dialogues of Plato. In all fairness, these lecture notes (for that is what they are) are just as elegantly-conceived in their own way, with a perfectly natural progression of arguments even if there are lots of somewhat head-scratching side digressions, as if Aristotle can’t wait to tell us everything that’s swimming through his mind. The content needs no elaboration from me; it is simply eternal. Read one chapter a night and discover, ponder, revel in what it means to be human.
3/2024: Just reread the text for a class, in the newest translation by Adam Beresford (Penguin, 2020). I'll never get tired of immersing myself in Aristotle. Though I was really hesitant going into this highly informal translation which tries to make the work come across as the series of conversational lecture transcriptions that they supposedly are, I actually mostly liked it. If you're familiar with the classic Ross translation, it's quite fun to recognize all the familiar terms presented in totally fresh fashion. The informality doesn't always hit the mark, but to be honest, it does solve the problem of "dry discursiveness" that I mentioned in my original review and gives the closest taste we'll ever get to hearing Aristotle address a crowd of students in the Athenian square. Beresford even imagines some passages as responses to questions asked during the lecture. I'd still rather read a more conventional translation, but this is a valid and often helpful approach. Though there's some really robust supporting material, including a great essay on the meaning of ευδαιμονια and δικαιοσυνη, I didn't appreciate how Beresford seems to view Aristotle as an Enlightenment precursor who wants us to "do ethics without God". This is just plainly wrong based on Book X, even if he could be accurately classified as a deist in more modern terms.
Original review (11/2020): It is a shame that the extant works of Aristotle are so dry and discursive because his philosophy is so much more applicable to the layman than even the most enticing, alluring forms of Truth in the elegantly-conceived dialogues of Plato. In all fairness, these lecture notes (for that is what they are) are just as elegantly-conceived in their own way, with a perfectly natural progression of arguments even if there are lots of somewhat head-scratching side digressions, as if Aristotle can’t wait to tell us everything that’s swimming through his mind. The content needs no elaboration from me; it is simply eternal. Read one chapter a night and discover, ponder, revel in what it means to be human.
April 18, 2025
Две причини човек да прочете "Никомахова Етика":
1) За да може, когато му се препоръча каквато и да е self help литература, да каже "Не, благодаря, чел съм оригинала."
2) Когато има монархически виждания за управлението да може да каже "Кой съм аз, да споря с Аристотел?"
...
3) Да се хвали, че е чел Аристотел.
Съвсем сериозно, Аристотел е коренът на западната цивилизация, четенето на неговите трудове понякога изглежда очевидно, особено Нихомахова Етика -- "бъди добър човек, не прекалявай и т.н.", защото за има-няма две хилядолетия е фундаментална част от културата ни, независимо дали си французин, англичанин, българин, сърбин или западнобългарин. Това, че изглежда очевидно, увеличава нуждата да се чете и да се разбира, забий глава в небето на 'прогреса', забрави, че стоиш върху раменете на великани, и ще видиш колко лесно ще паднеш от така приятната ни висота. Алтернативно, ще отвори очите ти, че някои хора активно искат да подкопаят цялата основа на цивилизацията ни, за да я заменят с всякаква модерна глупост, била тя феминизъм/макрсизъм/прогресивизъм или най-опасно и необяснимо -- ислямизъм. Когато не знаеш кой е Аристотел и защо е толкова важен за съществуването ти, когато някой ти каже "абе, тези искат да го ексхумират и изхвърлят в морето" може и да не забележиш, че следващият ще си ти.
1) За да може, когато му се препоръча каквато и да е self help литература, да каже "Не, благодаря, чел съм оригинала."
2) Когато има монархически виждания за управлението да може да каже "Кой съм аз, да споря с Аристотел?"
...
3) Да се хвали, че е чел Аристотел.
Съвсем сериозно, Аристотел е коренът на западната цивилизация, четенето на неговите трудове понякога изглежда очевидно, особено Нихомахова Етика -- "бъди добър човек, не прекалявай и т.н.", защото за има-няма две хилядолетия е фундаментална част от културата ни, независимо дали си французин, англичанин, българин, сърбин или западнобългарин. Това, че изглежда очевидно, увеличава нуждата да се чете и да се разбира, забий глава в небето на 'прогреса', забрави, че стоиш върху раменете на великани, и ще видиш колко лесно ще паднеш от така приятната ни висота. Алтернативно, ще отвори очите ти, че някои хора активно искат да подкопаят цялата основа на цивилизацията ни, за да я заменят с всякаква модерна глупост, била тя феминизъм/макрсизъм/прогресивизъм или най-опасно и необяснимо -- ислямизъм. Когато не знаеш кой е Аристотел и защо е толкова важен за съществуването ти, когато някой ти каже "абе, тези искат да го ексхумират и изхвърлят в морето" може и да не забележиш, че следващият ще си ти.
October 29, 2024
The landmark text of virtue ethics. Aristotle's central argument is brilliant in its straightforwardness. To determine whether some thing is a good specimen of its type, we first have to ask what its purpose is. So to say what a good human life consists in, we have to figure out the purpose of a human life. And we can figure out what the purpose of any living being is by investigating its characteristic traits. The trait most characteristic of human beings is reason. It follows that to live a good or flourishing human life is to cultivate the kind of character that will allow us to do what is rational. I think there's a lot that goes wrong with Aristotle's account. As plausible as it might be as a guide for everyday living, its teleological underpinnings obviously fail, so we need something else to explain what makes the virtues good. Nonetheless, there's a lot to appreciate here. And there's no denying that the Nicomachean Ethics is a colossal achievement in the history of human thought.
October 17, 2012
ابرز ما جاء فى الكتاب نظرية الوسط الأخلاقى لأرسطو، الذى أطلق عليه الوسط العادل القائم على تجنب الإفراط والتفريط، فإذا كانت خصائص الفضيلة هى التوسط، فإن خصائص الرذيلة هى الإفراط أو التفريط، ينطبق هذا على الأخلاق والسلوك والعادات، بل وعلى الجمال الحسى، ففضيلة كل شيء فى تحقيق الإعتدال، فالشجاعة متوسطة بين الخوف والتقحم، والسخاء وسط بين التبذير والتقتير، وقل مثل هذا فى الحلم والحياء وغير هذه من الأخلاق والإنفعالات والسلوك.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,359 reviews