Talk:Nicomachean Ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.

Just a small point about the article's reference to the inscription at the Delphic Oracle in the section on the Golden Mean. You suggest that it says "nothing to excess" but I always thought it said "Know thyself". Which is correct? RS

Contents

[edit] To do list

  • pleasure, honor & reason as ways of achieving happiness (NEEDS WORK under the separate virtues.)
  • golden mean (NEEDS WORK in The Golden Mean: it seems to be getting long--perhaps some bits could be moved to specific virtues)
  • justice (NEEDS WORK in Justice)
  • a summary

WhiteC 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] To do, discussion

If you want some help, I can write something on the Nicomachean Ethics. Let me know - TM

Thanks for the offer, TM. If you want to add something to the existing introduction, go ahead. Or, if you want to start on a particular section, go ahead. Of course, if you are impatient, you could just start writing the article. If you want to write a large part yourself, I'll probably put in several additions to it. Let me know which bits you are working on, if you want to work together on this. I want to have some headings in there to give the article some structure, so it doesn't spend forever on one point and neglect others.
I am still thinking about sections/points that I want to make about the Nicomachean Ethics. The reason this is taking a while is that although I have read many summaries/commentaries of the NicEth, I hadn't actually read the entire thing before... I just started and it will take a few days more to finish, and then I will start putting these headings into the article and actually doing some writing on them. WhiteC 20:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I've added a few points to your plan, I don't know if you consider them relevant at all, let me know Tom M 01:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
They look good in general.. I agree that we need to put in a bit about friendship, since it is covered quite a bit in the NicEth. I assume a 'bovine' life means an unexamined one (not just physically lazy). I finished reading NicEth (finally), so now I feel ready to start writing. WhiteC 16:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Different sections are being put in now, or edited. I'm still using this list (thanks for helping, Tom) to do it, but I'm a pretty slow writer. I'm still not sure which sections will lead into which other ones. I suspect different bits will get reordered as they are completed. IF ANYONE WANTS TO WORK ON A SECTION FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN. WhiteC 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)


I had a note on this page. On the last section there is the quote, "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - 1094a (Book I, Ch. 1)." While this is an important quote, it is also logically shaky. I think there should be some sort of acknowledgement of this fact.

[edit] Bekker numbers

In the article, I added the bekker number for the quote you wrote in, so that people can find the quote if they have a copy of the Nicomachean Ethics. - Tom M

Actually that quote was in the stub when I started looking at it. Thanks for finding it; I added the book & chapter numbers. I also put in the source w/ the bekker numbers copied in from the Aristotle page.
Perhaps a small note in the article on what bekker numbers are as well. Not sure if that belongs here or under Aristotle, though.

I've just created a stub on Bekker numbers - I'd be interested to find out exactly why they're called 'Bekker', I've always assumed it was the name of the editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekker_numbers Tom M 01:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 'Discussion' section was added

I see someone added stuff (from the Aristotle article?) into a section called 'Discussion' in the article. That was a very confusing title, since I consider this to be the discussion section. Although the material is good, in my opinion it needed better organization; the subtitles weren't very helpful either. I made some minor modifications to it, but so far just in the section names. WhiteC 16:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was from Aristotle. It was removed from there and copied here. It needs work though. I like what you've done so far. Happy editing ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I was the one who moved it as part of the editing of Aristotle. I deliberately chose a poor title to get someone else, who knew more about the subject than I, to edit it :-) Thanks for doing so... I was out of my element. Alba 19:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
By the way, related to this move, I copied some content in the other direction. I copied the lead section of this article to Aristotle to serve as an introduction to the Ethics. Feel free to edit that as appropriate. Paul August ☎ 20:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of being human

In the section "The essence and function of being human", there is a quote attributed to Aristotle: "Now we take the human’s function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be the soul’s activity and actions that express reason. Hence the excellent man’s function is to do this finely and well. Each function is completed well when its completion expresses the proper virtue. Therefore the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue."

This does seem to reflect Aristotle's opinions pretty well, but I can't find the quote in the NicEth--not in Book I, Ch 7 anyway, which is where I would expect it to be. Does anyone know where it comes from? If we can't find it in a week, I'll replace it. WhiteC 20:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at 1098a 5-10. Terence Irwin's 1999 translation gives ""We must take [a human being's special function to be] life as activity, since this seems to be called life more fully. We have found, then, that the human function is activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason". Paul August ☎ 21:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I think the quoted passage is from: Nichomachean Ethics, translated by Terence Unwin Irwin (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985), and it should probably be cited and mentioned in the references section. Paul August ☎ 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)
Many thanks. I will add that reference to the article, and the citations. As far as quotes in general... (see next section) WhiteC 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, both the 1985 and the 1999 texts were translations by Terence Irwin. I've fixed the reference in the article. Paul August ☎ 02:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The first para (of this section), some preliminary sentences to explain the quote better--feel free to comment, or give suggestions for developing this idea...

People have the ability to reason, which makes us different from animals, and so good or virtuous people should use this reasoning ability well. <need an explicit definition of virtue/arete or a link to it somewhere too, perhaps in a section before this one> WhiteC 02:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes from the Nicomachean Ethics

Can someone more versed in Aristotle help me out here? Obviously it helps if any new quotes have some reference to where they came from (any reference is better than none), but ideally...

What is the appropriate method for referring to a quote? The Bekker number is precise, and I want to keep the book and chapter numbers in so that people unfamiliar with Bekker numbers will have a better idea where to look. Should each quote mention the translation too (if we know it), or is it enough to just list different translations at the bottom of the article? WhiteC 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll put in as much info as possible with each quote. As a sidenote, I will also eventually add references to where each subject is discussed in the NicEth (Book, Ch) somewhere in each section. WhiteC 04:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I changed a couple of quotes to better reflect the version I have in front of -- some of what was cited seems to move a little far away from the Aristotelian text itself (e.g. the removal of the conditional from the citation of 1.7/1098a14-15). Could someone maybe point me to where, more precisely, 3.2 says "choice or purpose implies calculation and reasoning" -- I don't doubt its there, I just couldn't find anything similar in two translations (and am loathe to pick through the Greek myself without a Bekker number... it just takes a while). Even though you're last comments are old, I think the style you suggest i.e. (Book, Ch.) is good, but supplemented with (approximate) Bekker numbers (since this is the traditional method of citing Aristotle, and is helpful for those who may read the text in a foreign languge (and also helps to compare translations quicker). Ig0774 07:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted bits that might be useful

I cut this out of the Essence and function of being human. I'm pasting it in here in case it comes in useful in some other part of the article. "Only through man's ability to recognize and accept his own attributes and limitations can any one man excel. The measure of a man is not to be found according to the abilities useful to peers or a particular society/culture; rather, one could argue that a man can only be excellent when the internal activity is fully understood. Aristotle’s virtue cannot be achieved through habit; a person cannot just be virtuous for one day, for to be such would imply an internal contradiction between natural thoughts and the urge to conform one's natural pattern to one determined by others." WhiteC 04:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotle's Father also called Nicomachus

Aristotle's father and his son were both called Nicomachus. The article states that "The Nicomachean Ethics were either edited by or named after Aristotle's son." A later paragraph states that this is only a supposition, since the work itself does not contain any reference to a Nicomachus.

I removed the comment that the works may refer to Aristotle's father rather than his son, because it seems unlikely and I have seen no historical arguments to support this view. The NicEth was based upon lectures given by Aristotle at the Lyceum (Aristotle's academy where he taught). Aristotle's son was head of the Lyceum while the NicEth were being compiled, so other members of the Lyceum may have dedicated the work to him if he was not an editor himself. Aristotle himself did not compile these lectures, and did not refer to his father in any of his philosophical works (as far as I know). WhiteC 09:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have added some of this information into the article, since this keeps cropping up via edits. Enquiring minds want to know! WhiteC 05:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Good work

Thumbs up to WhiteC for his good work on this article :). Thue | talk 19:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good to know I have readers, thanks. :) WhiteC 06:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excellent Article!

I just wanted to leave a brief note here saying that I was surprised to come across such an extensive, well-written article on the Nicomachean Ethics. The people on this page have done excellent work. --Todeswalzer|Talk 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ordering by Book, Chapter

Many thanks for putting this in, Arcadian. Particularly the links the Perseus project.

What follows is some changes I will probably put in, which are relatively minor (compared to getting the order in in the 1st place), but feel free to yell if you disagree with any of them. I'm not sure whether books 2 thru 6 (various types of virtue) each merit individual sections--I think there should be an overview of virtue in general, and then perhaps subsections under that. Book 2 is moral virtue only. Book 10 should be divided into pleasure, then politics. Book 7 should be divided into evil, then pleasure (which Aristotle inconveniently put into 2 separate areas of the Ethics). WhiteC 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. And thank you for all the hard work you've put into this page. While I'm here, I had a couple more thoughts, but I wanted to run them past you guys before proceeding. First, I think the quotes section should be either at the bottom, or in its own WikiQuote page. (I know most of the Aristotle quotes are under one big WikiQuote page, but for other authors like Jane Austen each book has its own quote page, and that seems a little cleaner.) Second, I wonder if the Three Ethical Treatises section should either go to the Aristotle page, or into its own new article. --Arcadian 13:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • I moved the quotes down to the bottom. I think the Three Ethical Treatises section belongs here, rather than somewhere else--the Eudemian Ethics only has a stub, and the Magnus Moralia doesn't have an article at all. Most discussions of Aristotle's ethics center on the Nicomachean Ethics, and briefly talk about the other works, so I feel fairly happy with the way it is here. Perhaps a copy or summary of it could go off to the main Aristotle page, though. WhiteC 03:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] stuff added from the Eudaimonia article

The eudaimonia article had, as a part of it, a list of bullet points which summarized how to achieve eudaimonia according to Aristotle's ethics. I copied in some of the arguments from it.

Note that some parts were not directly related to eudaimonia, and were more related to Aristotle's ethical arguments generally. Some parts have gone into "The essence and function of being human", others into "Eudaimonia" (which was split off from the former section which was getting quite long), and other parts have gone into different sections of the article (such as intellectual virtue).

WhiteC 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aristotelian ethics

I moved the general information to a new article on Aristotelian ethics. It makes more sense to have this be a subset of that, a more general topic that includes Aristotle's other works and ideas on ethics. Uriah923 05:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree (now that I've had time to look at it) that this presents the appropriate levels of detail more clearly. I copied some of the information about the name 'Nicomachean Ethics' back across into a new Naming section. I put Aristotelian ethics into the See Also section, but I think that the intro here should be tweaked so that it is obvious that Aristotelian ethics is now the place to go for a general summary. WhiteC 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
I added a little blurb in the first paragraph. I think that helps some, but if you want to edit further, go for it. Uriah923 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Disagreement about Eudaimonia

In regards to the previous paragraph, Aristotle actually defines Eudamonia (Happiness) as "an activity of the soul, in accordance with virtue, and if there are many virtues, with the highest and most complete virtue." (Nichomachean Ethics I.7) Therefore, happiness is by definition living in accordance with the virtues. Luck has no bearing on happiness whatsoever. If you are researching on the Nichomachean Ethics, go somewhere else, this is NOT a good resource. Most of the above information is incorrect. Krizaz 01:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous paragraphs' reference to luck is at least implied by the text in the Nicomachean Ethics. I'm sorry I didn't put the reference in the paragraph. I will look it up and get back to you as soon as I can.
While I appreciate the fact that you didn't delete the paragraph you disagreed with, I don't think that placing personal opinions (even if they turn out to be correct) or user names directly into the article is a good idea. But I'll be happy to see them here. WhiteC 15:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
I do thank you for finding that definition in I.7 though. I appreciate your finding that, and agree that I should have put more emphasis on the central role of virtue in this paragraph of the article.
OK, found it in Nicomachean Ethics, I.9 ... "And of the remaining goods [other than happiness itself], some must be present as necessary conditions, while others are useful aids and useful instruments to happiness." Later (also in I.9 at the end)... "For our circumstances are liable to many changes and to all sorts of chances, and it is possible that he who is now most prosperous will in his old age meet with great disasters, as is told of Priam in the tales of Troy; and a man who is thus used by fortune and comes to a miserable end cannot be called happy." So, fortune is a precondition for happiness. I will put a refence to I.9 in the article, along with your bit from I.7
Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation of these lines, though. And if there are any other parts you think are dubious, or that may need better references/citations, please tell me. I'll make the change in a couple of days, assuming no disagreement. WhiteC 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Now I look closer, your quote is cited in the previous section (The essence and function of being human). WhiteC 12:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick thought on my edit: I deleted the word luck. The Greek word used is τυχή which is not precisely the same as luck, since it refers more specifically to a fortunate birth (i.e. being born to well-off, noble parents — and, thus, on the right side of fate). Maybe I'm nitpicking too much, though, so feel free to revert it. Ig0774 07:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I had assumed luck and fortune were synonyms, but was probably a bit too hasty. WhiteC 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Very minor tidbit, I changed the parenthesized (e.g. we desire food because we want to be healthy) to (e.g. we desire money because we want to buy other things). I think the money example illustrates most clearly that what one would want for the sake of something else. Heath of the body has a much closer affiliation with ultimate happiness, and by some could be viewed as something to be desired for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.219.140 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive knowledge seeking?

Since it is an editorial comment, added by IP 69.69.80.89, I've removed the following text from the article and copied it here for discussion:

[I find the following questionable: A person who seeks honor through knowledge must find the mean between ignorance and seeking knowledge to excess.] According to Aristotle, "not every action nor every passion admits a mean." Theft and unjust actions are always bad, as temperance and courage are always good. In light of that, I would suggest that seeking knowledge is never excessive; what is there to praise about the mean between ignorance and wisdom?

I think there may be some merit the the anon's argument, but I am not an expert on the Ethics. Did Aristotle write that wisdom was the mean between ignorance and excessive knowledge seeking? Can the claimed Aristotelian quote: "not every action nor every passion admits a mean." be sourced?

Paul August ☎ 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact in the NicEth, Bekker# 1107a, toward the end of Bk2, Ch6. Aristotle argues that bad things are easy to do, while hitting the golden mean is like hitting a target which can be missed in many ways. He goes on to say (at the start of Bk2, Ch7) "But it is not enough to make these general statements: we must go on and apply them to particulars... It is with particulars that conduct is concerned."
Prudence, or practical wisdom, is attained through experience according to Aristotle--which may show things like the golden mean between foolhardiness and cowardice is (virtuous) courage. Wisdom/sophia is how to be an expert at something requiring knowledge, and Aristotle (in Bk6, Ch7) doesn't describe it using the golden mean.
24.164.251.118 (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (WhiteC, looking back at this long after he forgot his password. It has improved, particularly the built in references.)

[edit] Machiavelli comparison

I have an issue with the following:

"The excellent archer will find the mean between the two extremes when trying to hit the target, and he will not aim with force in excess like Machiavelli states to do in his book The Prince, “Let him act like the clever archers who, designing to hit the mark which yet appears too far distant, and knowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim much higher than the mark, not to reach by their strength or arrow to so great a height, but to be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish to reach.” A follower of Aristotle will seek to find the mean in every action whether it deals with pleasure, honor, or expression of reason because they will understand that virtue is a mean. In order to seek the good they must also use reason as a guide to seek the virtue/mean."

The author of this paragraph misinterprets Machiavelli. Machiavelli does not suggest an excess of force, like using a cannon to knock down a straw hut. This particular passage reflects Machiavelli's beliefs that we often fall short of our aims, just as an archer falls short of a distant target. Machiavelli suggest that to correct for this tendency by aiming to use excessive force, as this will result in moderate and appropriate force.

Also, the rest of the paragraph is redundant in light of the rest of the article, and the example of the archer is not particularly illustrative.


24.17.211.229 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Peter Comerford

[edit] The two accounts of pleasure

I think it should be mentionned that the two accounts of pleasure found in EN is an argument that parts of EE (Ethics to Eudem) were copied within EN. Richard Bodeus, for example, in the latest French edition of EN (GF Flammarion) argues for this opinion.

[edit] Golden Mean

Can the epithet 'golden' be dropped from references to 'the mean' in this article? It suggests that Aristotle invented/used such a terminology where he does not - 'golden' is a later addition to the concept. 82.32.198.119 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)