17 ms·
Nicomachean Ethics
- ketzo 7y agoI took a “History of Philosophy” class as a GE my freshman year of college. It’s pretty astounding, when you start tracing it back, how much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics come from, like, four or five Greek guys.
- gliese1337 7y agoFrom works written down by four or five Greek guys, or by other guys who cited those Greek guys as the source. The fact that our surviving records all happen to funnel through those guys is not proof that it all originated with those guys. It is highly likely that they were both building on an extensive unrecorded philosophical tradition, and participating in a broader contemporary cultural conversation whose other participants have merely not been lucky enough to have their names recorded by history.
- danaos 7y agoCounterpoint: Aristotle's life is widely documented, having been born in the small ancient city of Stagira, and famously taught Alexander the Great.
- mod50ack 7y agoWe know. And Aristotle was certainly a star of his era. But we also know that Aristotle didn't come up with this all from nothing; he was engaging in a number of disputes with other philosophers of the time. You can see this reflected in his work, where he often gives accounts of what his opponents' theories are as well before offering his rebuttal. In fact, the work of Aristotle is one of the better sources we have for views of philosophers whose writings are largely lost.
- pyuser583 7y agoWhich ironic, because his actual works are almost entirely lost.
- achillesheels 7y agoSocrates, Plato, and Aristotle unoriginal? Enlightenment Europe is similarly the work done by a handful of geniuses participating in an intellectual culture. We can patently see their originality - what makes you so sure the Greeks did not have the same?
- gliese1337 7y agoNothing. I am not saying they weren't geniuses. I am merely pointing out that there is insufficient evidence for a definite conclusion either way. Cf. Shakespeare. Yes, he was a genius, but not nearly so much of a genius as many people often claim, because a lot of people confuse "Shakespeare is our earliest surviving recorded source for a lot of features of the English language" for "Shakespeare single-handedly invented half of the English language", which is absurd. And the great minds of the European Enlightenment may also have been genuinely great... but they are also nearly all rich men with patrons and leisure time, and the means to preserve their thoughts in writing. Our view on their history is much clearer than our view of the ancient Greeks, but there's still no telling exactly how much influence there was from their surrounding unrecorded culture, or how many important ideas would've been independently proposed by others if others had the same access to publication and historical preservation.
- achillesheels 7y agoThere is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers which have moved and influence world history. So I'm befuddled how you don't see sufficient evidence, nor what constitutes such sufficiency for genius? I highly recommend you read Arthur Schopenhauer's essay On Philosophy at the Universities: https://archive.org/stream/23341891SchopenhauerParergaAndParalipomenaV2/23341915-Schopenhauer-Parerga-and-Paralipomena-V-1 https://archive.org/stream/23341891SchopenhauerParergaAndPar... It is a persuasive essay that, no matter the resources, genuine philosophers or geniuses pursue the truth for its very sake. I concur that historically this has been the art of the aristocracy, but so what? Hypothetical or "unrewarded genius" doesn't amount to much in world history. Results do. And such fruit is actually the result of a cohesive organization of a society, ie genius is the goal of civilization proper. Plato and Descartes both had to have their trash picked up by somebody in order for them to impact us today.
- dntbnmpls 7y agoAncient Greece is considered the cradle of european civilization for a reason. But I wouldn't go so far as to say much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics comes from them. Certainly, we borrowed a lot of words and ancient greece laid the foundations for modern society but most of what we have today doesn't come from ancient greece. Ancient greece contributed to architecture but I wouldn't say most of our architecture today comes from ancient greece. Ancient greece didn't have skyscrapers. The greeks gave us the foundations of mathematics but most mathematics we have today do not come from the greeks. This goes for ethics ( we don't force people to take hemlock ), literature, politics ( don't own slaves ), aesthetics, etc. If anything, the thinkers of the enlightenment probably influenced modern society the most. But of course, they themselves were influenced by the ancient greeks, romans, etc.
- throw0101a 7y ago> It’s pretty astounding It's not astounding at all: the (Catholic) Church very much absorbed quite a lot of Aristotle's meta-physics. He was simply called "The Philosopher" in many writings. And given that "Western values" are basically Christian values: * https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-making-western-mind-tom-holland-review https://www.theguardian.com/books/2019/nov/21/dominion-makin... * https://historyforatheists.com/2020/01/tom-holland-dominion/ https://historyforatheists.com/2020/01/tom-holland-dominion/ it's no surprise then that you can draw a straight line from the Ancient Greeks to the modern day.
- HPsquared 7y agoThat's what I call a high "impact factor"!
- Scapeghost 7y ago> how much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics come from, like, four or five Greek guys. I always wondered what the world would have been like if these people got fervent followers and governed nations/cultures instead of the religious "prophets"
- lisardo 7y agoI read this book during law school. The conclusions are nice, but the book writing is obtuse.
- soufron 7y agoOr maybe you were too young ;) And maybe such complex problems don't come with very clear solutions. Re-read it :D
- guerrilla 7y agoAristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. A lot of these books are thought to just be lecture notes and things like that pieced together. Compare that to something like Plato's and it's a big difference. I imagine nobody will ever beat Kant in the terrible writing department though.
- philipov 7y agoMany writers are terrible by accident, but Kant elevated it to an artform.
- toxicFork 7y agoNow I want to really read his writings
- popara 7y agoTake first Critique, and read it as if a software engineer wrote his ideas now some software might be architected in order order to work as it is working right now: that is the point of Transcendental Argument.
- laichzeit0 7y agoAs I understand, he left penning down his philosophical thoughts till a rather late age and wrote the Critique of Pure Reason at a point where he was worried he wouldn’t remember it all and consequently it was done under a lot of haste.
- hkt 7y agoThis book is the foundation of my worldview. The message I took away from it is that there is a skill of being good at being a person, and that goodness in terms of what we now consider to be ethics will follow from that. Worthy of note in particular is eudaimonia as a concept, especially the debate between whether it is happiness or goodness. I read it (somewhat loosely) as being the process by which a person's behaviours engender virtuous cycles in their communities and themselves. It's been a long time since I read it but I'd recommend it to anyone. Maybe I'll revisit it before lockdown is out.
- mbrock 7y agoHave you also read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" from 1981? As I understand it basically revived Aristotelian virtue ethics as a viable philosophical theory, indeed by thoroughly criticizing modern (post-Enlightenment) justifications of morality. It's probably my favorite book of modern philosophy.
- hkt 7y agoI have not, but that sounds awesome. Recommending in turn "natural goodness" by Philippa Foot, also a revival of virtue ethics.
- VSerge 7y agoThanks for the recommendations. I would in return suggest Braintrust by Patricia Churchland. It looks at how morality and ethics arise from the needs of social animals such as ourselves to exist within a group that won't tear itself apart, and at the neurochemistry of it. The material is very accessible, and if the writing can be a bit stuffy at times, the points are solid and well worth the read.
- alangibson 7y agoI read HN because it's the only place on the Internet where a link to a Wikipedia page on Nicomachean Ethics could hit the #1 position.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoI read HN because not just that happens, but also the comments will usually provide several other insights or links of equal value!
- amelius 7y agoPerhaps this is an idea for a bookmarklet: for any Wikipedia article, click on the bookmarklet and get the HN comments related to it.
- alexpetralia 7y agoOr any URL more generally. I'd use this.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoThere was something like this in the past, I think it even was nice enough to check URLs client-side to preserve privacy.
- symplee 7y agoYou might be able to use https://hn.algolia.com/ https://hn.algolia.com/ which searches every comment/submission from HN. Just paste in a wikipedia link to see if it has already been submitted, then click to the comment section.
- dredmorbius 6y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/bookmarklet.html https://news.ycombinator.com/bookmarklet.html (Linked at the bottom of every HN page.)
- koziserek 7y ago
- pfortuny 7y agoThis is one of the books that, until yo do read it, you think (because that is the “folklore wisdom”) will be a huge bore. Then it blows your mind, and you start to understand freedom.
- sweetdreamerit 7y agoAristotle is difficult to read, for a number of reasons. The main one in my opinion is that it is so dense of inestimable content that I am overwhelmed at every paragraph.
- andrew_ 7y agoMy suggestion, based on what worked for me, is to use a highlighter. Highlight things that are both interesting and confusing. At the end of a chapter, review. I found the passages I highlighted because they were confusing ended up being truly interesting.
- pfortuny 7y agoYes, very hard because it is like my lecture notes: good for an educated person, bad for a student. However, I always make the decision: better getting the gist of it and if, possible, reread later on than stopping too much the first time. Of course, it goes with personalities, I know. I have read the Ethics. Tried the metaphysics and simply could not, though.
- coffeeling 6y agoTrying to get through the Ethics without taking notes is just self-sabotage and a fool's errand to begin with. It's really just work.
- glial 7y agoI had the same experience. I read it in 2007, and have been thinking about it ever since. One of my top 5 books ever, maybe to 3.
- aestetix 7y agoAs an aside, I strongly recommend reading Thucydides. Once you know the story of the Peloponnesian War, everything that Socrates and Aristotle talked about will have a much deeper meaning.
- ninjamayo 7y agoYeah Thucydides is a must read, especially some of the speeches.
- pyuser583 7y agoYes! Socrates and Aristotle both sound very anti-democratic. Thucydides explains why.
- salmo 7y agoReading Russel’s post WWII take on The Republic in A History of Western Philosophy is as close to taking a great class in college as I got after I was no longer in that setting. So many of those eye opening moments that make you reevaluate what you felt like you understand.
- dredmorbius 6y agoQuibble: HoWP was written and published during WWII. Excellent, though.
- barce 7y agoIn different senses. Socrates prefers philosopher kings. Aristotle, a mixed polity, e.g. a government with checks and balances.
- DanielLihaciu 7y agoOf course Socrates we should let you philosopher rule the world
- 7y ago
- Luc 7y agoAny recommendations on which edition or translation to get? Thanks in advance!
- andrew_ 7y agoI thought the "Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics (Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy) 2nd Edition" revision was quite good. Can be found on Amazon.
- dcre 7y agoThis newer one from University of Chicago Press is really nice. https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Nicomachean-Ethics-Aristotle/dp/0226026752/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1587761415&sr=8-4 https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Nicomachean-Ethics-Aristot...
- JamesG124 7y agoAnyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of performative erudition?
- TimSchumann 7y agoI’d have a witty retort to this, but I can’t find the relevant XKCD.
- jpxw 7y agoI’ll take “performative” erudition over a lack of any erudition at all.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- bJGVygG7MQVF8c 7y agoHa! That rings true ^_^ Although it has to be said: Takes one to know one, New Yorker. Contemptuousness toward amateurs might be justified though.
- vharuck 7y agoI'd much rather "performative erudition" than "performative idiocy" (a.k.a. trolling), because the latter makes visiting idiots feel they're in good company[0]. [0] Paraphrased (surprisingly to me) from a Hacker News user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082
- themodelplumber 7y agoFunny in its way. I was thinking about this a while back. IMO HN as a community is mostly introverted (subjective/qualitative) and structure-biased, so open-ended discussions on "erudite" topics which may not be direct specialties of commenters will encourage a sort of performing or even bluffing effect, out of community-identity stress. At that time I think I concluded that the least-pressured conversations, and likely most positive and upbeat, would be those on topics like retro computing. Such a topic is close to the HN tech-user specialty, close to the heart because of its strong integration with personal past experiences, and mostly made up of "known" or "closed-ended" topics. So, far from a performance or bluff, you get some pretty passionate tales from direct experience, and erudition be damned. Not sure if that's a rule, but so far it matches my personal perceptions of what makes a really good discussion here, vs. one that's...less like that.
- skat20phys 7y agoIt's been awhile since I've read this. Rereading about it now, it seems like a conceptual mess. I also have this sense, hard to put into words, that it is written from a perspective of socioeconomic privilege and implicitly assumes a certain freedom, or has as its focus certain concerns that reflect that. It comes across to me now as narrow-minded and lacking in understanding of the broader human condition and diversity of challenges affecting persons. Put another way, it seems to be written as if advising royalty or the wealthy is the implied goal, ignoring the broader experiences of mankind, which seems to me in turn ironically a moral failure. Maybe related to this, it seems to presume a certain set of things that I see as actually being fundamental societal and philosophical questions, such as free will and personal agency and all that encompasses. Failure to attain well-being in a broad sense is a failure of the individual to practice free will, under The Ethics, and not of society to foster or intervene in a way so as to facilitate individual improvements in well-being. The sort of paradigm being asserted in The Ethics provides no way out to address the question of "how do I improve the lot of my fellow persons?" or to develop virtues in others. If someone rejects the notion of free will, either in itself or as a meta-phenomenon (that is, as something that can be manipulated itself), The Ethics seems misguided at best and pernicious at worst. Virtue ethics also seem naive to me often, in that there's often little self-awareness of its limitations. For example, what if two virtues conflict? How do you resolve this? How do you interpret a behavior vis-a-vis its outcome in the presence of fundamental uncertainty?
- dr_dshiv 7y agoIt would be helpful if, in your critique, you could share what precisely you are critiquing. Otherwise it seems very dismissive.
- skat20phys 7y agoIt's difficult to go through everything with specific examples, because that would be an essay onto itself. But, for example, in Book 3 (via the Rackham translation; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1 http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%...): "If then whereas we wish for our end, the means to our end are matters of deliberation and choice, it follows that actions dealing with these means are done by choice, and voluntary. But the activities in which the virtues are exercised deal with means. Therefore virtue also depends on ourselves. And so also does vice. For where we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting, and where we are able to say No we are also able to say Yes; if therefore we are responsible for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also responsible for not doing it when not to do it is wrong, and if we are responsible for rightly not doing a thing, we are also responsible for wrongly doing it. But if it is in our power to do and to refrain from doing right and wrong, and if, as we saw,1 being good or bad is doing right or wrong, it consequently depends on us whether we are virtuous or vicious." These types of passages assume or assert (1) free will, (2) the notion of responsibility for behavior as a consequence of this, and (3) a schema that is framed in terms of broad evaluative personal characteristics rather than specific decisions. If you believe that the notion of free will is specious, even partially in significant cases of vice, the entire Ethics starts to become questionable. To be even more specific: what if you believe that society (if not now due to scientific-technical limitations, then some day) has a moral obligation to address criminal wrongdoing by means of neurobehavioral intervention, to treat criminal predisposition as a disease? Is relying on an Aristotlian view of ethics as personal responsibility then unethical because it elevates an erroneous assumption of free will above the societal consequences of reducing suffering from criminal behavior? This is taken out of context to some extent, as Aristotle also discusses free will, voluntary vs. nonvoluntary actions etc. But I'd argue that those discussions are kind of beside the point, and amount to logical loopholes of sorts in that they amount to something like "I'm not talking about cases where there isn't free will." But what if that is the main issue at some level? The discussion of virtue ethics in general, to be contrasted with deontological or consequentialist ethical reasoning, for example, is a whole other topic, about which books have been written.
- dr_dshiv 7y agoI still like the clarity of Plato, where harmony is the basis of health, happiness, wellbeing, virtue, justice and the good. He describes harmony in the individual, in society and in the cosmos. For instance, when there is harmony in the parts of the soul (reason, appetite and passion) a person is virtuous and happy. Obviously much more can be said -- especially considering that harmony is found in the tension of opposing forces -- but that's a remarkably enduring approach
- DanielLihaciu 7y agoFriedrich N, the philosopher heavily criticized Plato, also Plato's Republic was brain-food for Stalin, Hitler etc. it is a great work nonetheless
- dr_dshiv 7y agoWhat was Nietzsche's critiques? Or where can I find them?
- jpxw 7y agoUnderstanding the concept of “eudaimonia”, discussed in this work, is something that has genuinely improved my life.
- DanTheManPR 7y agoEudaimonia dramatically improved my late game economy in Alpha Centauri.
- antman 7y agoI would like to suggest "History of Philosophy without any gaps" podcast website which explains in a rather complete way Philosophy in layman's terms. Everything is neatly organized (just check the top menu). Also it includes non western philosophy such as Avicenna's writings, its importance and relation to Aristotle's work. Here is ths relevant episode on Aristotelian ethics: https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotle-ethics https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotle-ethics
- mdrachuk 7y agoAlso check out Philosophize This for a great philosophy podcast. https://philosophizethis.org https://philosophizethis.org
- hliyan 7y agoThis is an amazing resource, thank you! I wish they had episodes on more recent thinkers such as Kant...
- ExtremisAndy 7y agoYes! A few years back I was asked to teach a philosophy class (having done no philosophy in many years... go figure!) and this podcast was instrumental in helping me to review the basics and form in my mind a solid overview of the history of major philosophical ideas and insights. It really helped me feel more prepared to teach the course. Highly recommended!
- 7y ago
- danielam 7y agoN.b. CUP has made an upcoming Elements book, “Aquinas’ Ethics”, available for free[0] until mid-May. (Aquinas draws a great deal from the Nicomachean Ethics.) [0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/aquinass-ethics/6E12E058585683A44571D91568CEDBC1 https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/aquinass-ethics/6E12...
- austincheney 7y agoIt’s been a very long time since i read this. The two things that really stuck with me (personal opinion): 1. Utility There are three levels of utility. Things whose use is only in service of something else are least valued. Things whose use is direct and not in service of something else are of highest value. Things whose use is of both something else and it’s own direct utility are of medium value. As an example a code library is less valuable to the end user than the application it supports. John Stuart Mill’s father founded the philosophy of Utilitarianism based upon Nicomachean Ethics. 2. Directness of Intent Be clear about what you want and why you want it then pursue that objective without distraction. If your primary intent is pleasure then pursue the pleasure first without shame or manipulation. There are books in the set written to subjectively describe such pursuits in terms of base virtues, such as happiness. This is perhaps more about honesty to the self than honesty to others. I suppose if you cannot keep from lying to yourself you will be challenged to communicate honestly at all. It also considers motivation as an economic quantity that can be measured, predicted, and compared when considering the balance of multiple agents acting in concert.
- TeMPOraL 7y agoPoint 2. reminds me of some old Eliezer's posts, like "Purchase Fuzzies and Utilons Separately"[0]. It argues that if you're clear and honest about your intent, you'll be more efficient. Using an example of helping others, if you seek both the "warm fuzzy feeling" and actual effect on the world, then the best approach would be to get them separately - e.g. buy the feeling cheaply (e.g. do something directly for someone in your community, maybe help an old lady cross the street or something), and then dump the rest of the money into a maximally effective (in terms of $/impact) cause/charity. -- [0] - https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oLjmwRF https://www.lesswrong.com/s/pvim9PZJ6qHRTMqD3/p/3p3CYauiX8oL...
- josinalvo 7y agoMy personal solution is to not buy utilions at all. Fuzzies are good. They are useful. They connect me to people around me, and bring gratitude. Fuzzies are the reason I have a moral feeling at all. And utilions are just a virus, that infects my moral system, trying to highjack it, so that it becomes useless to me. So that I do charity without getting gratitude and potencial help in the future. Purchase "moral usefulness" and "moral useless abstraction" separately, and try to purchase of the latter as little as possible :)
- llcoolv 7y agoGreat submission! I found the examples on the cardinal virtues very useful.
- zw123456 7y agoA nice canonical compendium of philosophical theories https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#a https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#a
- yboris 7y agoFor those interested in a grand overview of history of philosophy (the ideas themselves and the people behind them), this is a worth-reading classic: A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...
- pmoriarty 7y agoJust bear in mind that Russell was very biased in favor of Analytic philosophy, so you're not going to get much from him on the Continentals. Like many other Analytics, he seriously misreads Nietzsche, and he doesn't even mention Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, or Foucault. I like Russell, though. He's clear and eloquent, writing well on the subjects he does appreciate and understand.
- karatestomp 7y agoRussell is up front about his biases and limitations in that book, at least. IIRC he divides most chapters into his best effort to describe a philosopher or movement's positions or ideas, then an analysis of how those have held up since (this is incredibly helpful and absent in a lot of texts that try to be dryly objective and not even report any more-or-less consensus passing-of-judgement by philosophy as a field) and, to varying extents, his own takes on them. The funniest one I recall is Bergson, near the end of the book, which he prefaces with (loosely paraphrasing) "Look, this whole thing seems like total bullshit to me, and I've never read any description of it that doesn't seem like total bullshit, so when I try to describe it and it seems like bullshit that's just the best I can do. Sorry."
- pmoriarty 7y agoYeah, that dismissive, condescending view of Bergson is par for the course of many Analytic's attitudes towards Continentals (though Bergson himself was not part of the Continental tradition). Sure, such condescension may be the best that Russell can muster, but I'm not sure you'd get a charitable reading of Bergson (or any other philosopher Russell didn't like) from someone so hostile and unappreciative of him. Russell did take Nietzsche more seriously, but to me it seems Nietzsche just went over Russell's head. Russell is best at reading other philosophers who, like himself, are clear, easy to understand, and relatively conventional.
- andrew_ 7y agoI bought the paperback of this book a few years ago, and I make a point to read it at least once a year. Every time I do, I find something new. Continually amazed that humans were so insightful so long ago.
- Jun8 7y agoYears ago a good friend had this quote hung up on the wall by her desk: "ἔστι ... ὁ φίλος ἄλλος αὐτός" (A friend is another self), which I loved: you experience the world through loved ones too, and expand your consciousness (on a related note see Hofstadter's Strange Loop on his thoughts about having a version of his deceased wife's consciousness "running" in his brain). Later I learned that it came from the Nicomachean Ethics (https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-nicomachean_ethics/1926/pb_LCL073.535.xml https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-nicomachean_ethi...) and is much deeper that I thought. Bonus quote from Antisthenes: "τῷ σοφῷ ξένον οὐδὲν" (The wise person is foreign to nothing). One interesting thing about this one is that Ancient Greek had two words fro nothing: ouden and meden.
- crazygringo 7y agoTo help put this into context for others here. It's interesting to note that Aristotle's "virtue ethics" -- based primarily on this work -- have come "back into fashion" over the past few decades, after being largely ignored by philosophers for centuries as having any contemporary relevance. (I.e. you studied it for the historical value mainly, but it had zero connection otherwise to contemporary analytic philosophy.) The two main strands of philosophical thought over the past few centuries have been deontology (best exemplified by Kant) which is that you follow specific moral rules ("don't kill", "don't lie", "keep a promise") no matter what, and utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill) which is "the greatest good for the greatest number" (divert the trolley to kill one person instead of five). They both obviously have truth to them but are also deeply incompatible with each other. Aristotle's "virtue ethics" says instead that what is most important is one's character, and that a virtuous character comes from a balance of temperaments. For example, you shouldn't get angry all the time, but you also shouldn't be cowardly all the time. Good character means knowing the right times to take bold angry action, but also knowing the right times to stay back out of fear -- and that honing good judgment is the key to knowing when. Sometimes it means breaking a promise, sometimes it means sacrificing a greater good for another principle, and there isn't always an obviously right answer. Thus the idea of "good judgment that can't be reduced to strict rules" is now seen as an equally viable alternative to deontology and utilitarianism. Perhaps because it seems particularly relevant in an age of relativism. Also perhaps particularly telling, in the TV show The Good Place which recently ended, and where every episode is about a different philosophical dilemma, when the creater Mike Schur was asked about which philosophical system was closest to his own beliefs, he replied that it would have to be Aristotle's virtue ethics. I personally found reading Nicomachean Ethics a fascinating experience, because it was written pre-Christianity, so the complete and utter lack of notions of "good and evil" is revelatory. We're so used to thinking in such terms in much of the world, it's refreshing to see a totally different worldview. In case anyone is curious for a modern treatment of Aristotelian thought, Martha Nussbaum's book Upheaveals of Thought played a big part in "rehabilitating" Aristotle in contemporary philosophy. It has parallels to the vein of "emotional intelligence" that became popular a few years earlier.
- lordleft 7y agoFor additional context, other Socratic schools like Stoicism are also virtue-ethical schools. For folks who are looking for a very specific rule to a life situation, virtue ethics can feel too ambiguous, but for someone like myself, who believes that life is extremely contextual and there can be a lot of legitimate variation in responding to something, Virtue Ethics is wonderfully nuanced and flexible. I for one really appreciate the renewed attention to ethics in recent decades from philosophers. It's a reorientation to one of the oldest purposes of philosophy -- to teach us how to live well.
- Aaronstotle 7y agoAlways glad to see philosophy on HN, I have fond memories learning about NE during my ethics class at Cal. We spent the most amount of time on this, and then slowly went on towards other ethic systems.
- barce 7y agoHow did this end up on the front page? Hacker News has always struck me as anti-philosophical and anti-literature. This was one of the book that I read on my own after reading Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind." My reading of the book was tinged with melancholy, for if virtue is a skill necessary for happiness, and if only a few can master a skill, then only a few can be happy. I was 17 at the time and thought, "What an awful world that would give happiness to so few!"
- Yajirobe 7y agoMen from first world countries like to philosophize about ancient Greeks and stoics. That is because some of this philosophy helps them deal with their white-collar jobs and helps establish some meaning in their lives, that's my guess.
- DanielLihaciu 7y agoFor those new to philosophy I recommend starting with Plato, Then reading his Republic especially chapter XI , then read some Descartes, Hume, Kant and then read Aristotle who is simply know as The Philosopher
- javert 7y agoI would recommend that people start with something they are interested in.
- menexenus 7y agoAristotle's Ethics is indeed a foundational text. To simplify things greatly, there is basically only one alternative to it: Nietzsche. As Alasdair MacIntyre explains (the erstwhile Marxist, now Catholic, who helped revive virtue ethics with his book After Virtue), "the underlying structure of [Nietzsche's] argument is as follows: if there is nothing to morality but expressions of will, my morality can only be what my will creates. There can be no place for such fictions as natural rights, utility, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I myself must now bring into existence 'new tables of what is good'" (AV 114). Nietzsche is commonly misread as a nihilist, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Nietzsche recognizes clearly that is precisely the installation of fictional moralities that is the source of nihilism, not the denial of those fictions. (This is also something that Heidegger sees clearly, e.g, in "The Letter on Humanism.") At the end of the day, then, the question is this: Do you believe in some kind of "objective" morality that governs human life, gives meaning to our existence, and so forth? If so, then Aristotle's Ethics is by far the most cogent articulation of that view. However, if you believe that morality is just conventional, historically contingent, and a product of our "wills," then Nietzsche helps us see that clearest. To admit the latter view is not to succumb to nihilism; it is rather to free us to truly pursue the activities of greatness. Ultimately, MacIntyre (inter alia) thinks that we have to choose. For an example of someone who, by contrast, tries to reconcile Aristotle and Nieztsche, see Hannah Arendt.
- neerajsi 7y agoI'm clearly not as deep as you in the reading of Aristotle (though I did read Nietzsche's BGE a long time ago). However, I'd point out the distinction from an ethics course I took between 'descriptive' ethics and 'normative' ethics. Both can coexist and they serve useful purposes. The ethics of a group is the rule set agreed to by the group, including how to deal with deviations that naturally arise. This is more of a descriptive, evolutionary phenomenon. Normative ethics is more a proposal of an ideal or future ruleset, which needs to both appeal to those with the power to follow and enforce the rules, and to also ensure the preservation and stability of the rules and the people who follow them.
- wahern 7y agoFrom an evolutionary perspective there are some objective morals, the most obvious being incest (simple genetics) and cold-blooded murder (mix of genetics and whatever dynamics give rise to human altruism, which is at the root of our specie's survival fitness). Unfortunately, the universe defies simple, categorical distinctions. Kant's categorical imperative superficially comes closest to capturing the above examples, but not really, because Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche, all seem to side-step the question of free will, at least as it relates to the meaning of morality. Free will itself of course also defies simple distinctions. The problem in all these explorations of morality is that the number of implied assumptions is enormous, and it's the character of those assumptions which matters far more than the effectively trite observations about human behavior these philosophers often make.
- sealthedeal 7y agoMy favorite course in college. An entire semester dedicated to Nicomachaen Ethics. Helped me think so much about what "happiness" truly is, and what type of a "virtuous" life one should lead to achieve maximum happiness.
- JangoSteve 7y agoWell don't leave us hanging. What's the answer?
- aesyondu 7y agoEat when hungry, sleep when tired
- sealthedeal 6y agoI can tell you that a “political” life is one that doesn’t lead to happiness.