Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics
Where to buy Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics books online?
Product Description
A lucid and useful translation of one of Aristotle’s primary works. Designed for courses in undergraduate philosophy, as well as for the all-purpose reader interested in the major works of western civilization. For anyone seriously interested in Aristotle s philosophy, Sachs s translations are indispensable.
Buy Cheap Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Online
Related posts:
The ethics are appealing, but extremely tough to sift through. This book, evidently, is a compilation of Aristotle’s notes from one of his students. It is a very slow read.
Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is one of the greatest philosophy books ever writen dealing with this issue. This is incredible considering the fact that these are just address notes taken by a student of his, which Aristotle did not get to edit.
As a Christian, I reflect that it is incredible to see just how close Aristotle got to being right. Anyone reading Aristotle’s work can see clearly that God has written a moral law code on all men’s hearts. Should it surprise us then to see Aristotle emphasizing nearly the same morals that Judaism at the time emphasized, and Christianiy does? It is not hard to see why Aquinas and the schoolmen were so fascinated by him and based their theology around his systems.
As close as Aristotle gets, but, he is still off. His essential end for which all is done is happiness (by this he does not mean pleasure). As a Christian, I would have to disagree. I judge the untimate end for our actions and lifestyle is to bring glory to God and fulfill His purpose for us. Aristotle got the means mostly right, but he finished up with the incorrect end.
Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5
The first thing that a reader must know is that The Nicomacean Ethics is a series of address notes. This accounts, in part at least, for the dry quality of the writing. It’s wasn’t really meant to be a polished piece. yet, Aristotle puts his argument together well. He goes into fantastic details in defining his terms. He also builds his opinion upon each additional (a kind of constant construction of logic). Since many modern philosophers (well loved and otherwise) work with the thought of ethics, this particular writing may seem a bit like common sense.
The basic thought is that the actions that a person takes are directed at a excellent (or goal). That goal ineveitably is happiness (read happiness as fullfillment in life). It doesn’t really matter whether the individual has a right sense of what right happiness is, he/she will work toward what is perceived as happiness. To Aristotle happiness is the contemplative life, as well as following the golden mean. The golden mean is the middle point, or virtue, that sits between the excess and ascetism. Thus, to Aristotle a person should neither drink, or eat, too much, nor should he/she drink, or eat too small. What is this mean, you might question. Well, it differs in regards to the individual. That is, what might be just right for an average man (let say in terms of food) may be too small for an athlete. So, this really isn’t a very effective universal measure of virtue and vice.
From this set up, Aristotle extends this thought into different catagories (money, personal interaction, drinking, etc). Later, he goes on to define justice, and how the just person should act. He also goes through the qualifiers, and disqualifiers, of just acts –and justice, in all-purpose. Personally, I felt that this was the weakest section of his argument. It seemed dotted with oversights, and exceptions. He, but, seemed to recover in the later books which concerned the roles of freindships, which he breaks down into three kinds.
I reflect that this book is usefull in evaluating your own life. Many of the thoughts contained within it are thought provoking. But, I reflect Aristotle is too vague (despite the fact that Aristotle states that you can’t expect exact answers out of a philosopher) to be of any practical use. His thought of the mean seems so arbitrary that it bends to individual perception. For instance, a man/woman who loans a friend a large sum of money may find his action to be one of simple generosity. But, another , who holds onto money more tightly might see this lender as a foolish spendthrift. This thought works only on an individual basis (or based on individual perceptions) This seems like a weak basis for a code of ethics.
One of the fantastic stregths of this edition is the introduction, which does an brilliant job of explaining the terms that Aristotle uses throughout the work. It also give a all-purpose overview of the work. I would recomend this to anyone who’s interested in moral philosophy, or simply very ancient philosophy.
Reader’s Rating: 3 / 5
The book was fine, but this translation was terrible. I needed this book for class and finished up having to photocopy parts of another person’s book because this translation uses completely different words for certain concepts within the book. This book was a bit harder to know relative to the additional translation. Make sure you take a look at what translation you need/want before you buy!
Reader’s Rating: 1 / 5
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I reflect Aristotle’s ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In the early 1960’s virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the very ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970’s called Communitarianism.
For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state. Area of inquirery for EN is “excellent” this is his phenomenology. What does “excellent” mean? He suggests excellent means “a desired end.” Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is excellent, so one can buy food to eat because “eating is excellent.” In moral philosophy honor between “intrinsic excellent” vs. “instrumental excellent.” Instrumental excellent towards a desire is “instrumental excellent” like money. Thus, money is an “instrumental excellent” for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental excellent means because it further produces a excellent, “intrinsic excellent” is a excellent for itself, “for the sake of” an object like money. “Intrinsic excellent” for him is “Eudemonia=happiness.” This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we reflect of happiness as a feeling. It is not a feeling for Aristotle. Best translation for eudaimonia is “flourishing” or “living well.” It is an active term and way of living for him thus, “excellence.” Essential “intrinsic excellent” of “for the sake of.” Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Thought of scenery was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like “wealth is excellent but some people are ruined by wealth.” EN isn’t formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the scenery of theme won’t allow it. When you become a “excellent person” you don’t reflect it out, you just do it out of habit!
You can have ethics lacking religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn’t judge in the universal excellent for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, “thinking about the excellent.” In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Excellent qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between kindly acts and a kindly person. If you have excellent character, you don’t need to follow rules. Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning “excellence” high level of functioning, a peak. Like a musical virtuoso. Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the “excellent like.” In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do as a replacement for of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.
To be excellent is how we live with additional people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can’t be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. Vital concept for Aristotle, excellent upbringing for children is paramount if you don’t have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is “excellent chance” a child can’t choose their upbringing. Fluke is a matter of chance.
Pleasure cannot be an essential excellent. Part of the “excellent life” involves external goods like money, one can’t attain “excellent life” if one is poor and permanently effective. Socrates said material goods don’t matter, then he permanently mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle’s Speechifying, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-capability, etc., is vital, thus, if you are not theme to additional, competing needs. A long appealing list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is excellent; but, it is part of a package of goods. Pleasure is a condition of the soul. In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human scenery. It must be delightful to seek knowledge and additional virtues and if it is not there is something incorrect according to Aristotle. These are the privileged pleasures and so you may have to place off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining “privileged pleasures.”
Phronçsis= “intelligence,” really better to say “practical wisdom.” The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the excellent. As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do. Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom. The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of “goods.” For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you run in either deduction or induction, you don’t go thru “steps” to arrive at the conclusion. Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics. Only if you know what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept. My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.
What are the virtues? Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves. Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are. The virtues are capacities of a person to act well. All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis. There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated. Basic issue is to find the “mean” between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.
Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually. “We reach our perfect perfection through habit.” Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them. Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey. Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp. Learning by doing is vital for Aristotle. Hexis= “state,” “having possession.” Theoria= “study.” The thought is not to know what virtue is but to become “excellent.” Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean. Each virtue involves four basic points.
1. Action or circumstance. Such as risk of losing one’s life.
2. Significant emotion or capacity. Such as dread and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of dread, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a “mean” between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the “mean.”
No proper rule or “mean” it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well. For example–one should eat 3,000 calories a day. Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in. It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle’s qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience. Some things are not able to have a “mean” like murder and adultery because these are not “goods.”
Akrasia= “incontinence” really “weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates thought of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more intricate. Aristotle does not reflect you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.
The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:
1. Virtue. Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical might. Continence. We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness. This is akrasia incontinence. Happens in real life.
4. Vice. The person acts lacking regret of his terrible actions.
What does Aristotle mean by “fully virtuous”? Ethical might is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates thought that “Knowledge equals virtue.” No one can knowingly do the incorrect thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are incorrect, Socrates denies this. Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees. The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4. A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.
I recommend Aristotle’s works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and persons interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most vital philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
Reader’s Rating: 5 / 5