 | GetTextbooks.com Compare Prices & Save up to 90% | | |
|
| Login | Sign up | Settings | New! iPhone App | My Wish List | My iBundle |
 | | The Nicomachean Ethics (Penguin Classics) by Aristotle, Hugh Tredennick (Editor), J. A. K. Thomson (Translator), Jonathan Barnes (Introduction) ISBN-10: 9780140449495 ISBN-10: 0-14-044949-3 ISBN-13: 9780140449495 ISBN-13: 978-0-14-044949-5 Paperback 2004-03-30 Penguin Classics Find Lowest Price |
Editorials | ||
Product Description Of Aristotle’s works, few have had as lasting an influence on subsequent Western thought as The Nicomachean Ethics. In it, he argues that happiness consists in "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue," defining "virtue" as both moral (courage, generosity, and justice) and intellectual (knowledge, wisdom, and insight). Aristotle also discusses the nature of practical reasoning, the different forms of friendship, and the relationship between individual virtue and the state. Featuring a lucid translation, a new introduction, updated suggestions for further reading, and a chronology of Aristotle’s life and works, this is the authoritative edition of a seminal intellectual masterpiece. | ||
Reviews | ||
Great Read, Great Translation "Is it, then, the Good that people love, or only what is good for them?" Ethics VIII. 2 The Nicomachean Ethics presents Aristotle's search for the Good which leads the reader through a detailed analysis of the virtues, justice, pleasure and friendship. The discussion is peppered with insighful observations and sayings and it even includes a short treatise on money and economics. Aristotle can be difficult to read, but this translation is friendly and the text flows well especially from Book V onwards. Hugh Tredennick's footnotes, glossary and appendices are an invaluable aid to understanding, though the introduction is more profitably read after the work. I would advocate forming your own view first and then challenging it against Barnes' stimulating essay. Aristotle advocates the 'mean' as a practical moral guide (except for wrongs like murder) and he discusses this along with his table of virtues and vices across several chapters. According to Aristotle, "men are bad in countless ways, but good in only one" II. 6, and his virtue ethics aims to help people to achieve the 'Good'. Though Aristotle repeatedly returns to the issue of pleasure and justice, this analysis was the weakest part of the book and his study of intention ultimately yields too much to the passions (c.f. Book V.6). Aristotle is certainly aware of the problems of hedonism and relativism but his solution of contemplation as happiness and the highest good can come across as too individualistic, elitist and lacking the required authority. I can only at most half agree with statements such as: "The study of pleasure and pain is the task of the political philosopher, because he is the master craftsman who decides the end which is the standard by which we call any given thing good or bad without qualification. VII. 6" This aside, Aristotle's work is highly innovative, thorough and rightly respected as one of the best ethical treatises of all time. Further Reading BEFORE: Aristotle for Everybody Great Introduction to Aristotle by his most passionate and articulate spokesman Mortimer Adler Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction Written by the author of the introduction Jonathan Barnes AFTER: The Politics (Penguin Classics) The natural follow on from the Ethics The Athenian Constitution (Penguin Classics) Aristotle's treatises applied to reality | ||
Headwaters of Virtue Ethics. A true Golden Oldie Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by J. A. K. Thomson (London, Penguin Classics, 2003) or Aristotle XIX, Nichomachean Ethics, translated by H. Rackham (Cambridge, Harvard University Press, Loeb Classical Library, 1934) I offer references to both a very modern, inexpensive, easily available edition, and to a scholarly edition with Greek and the English translation on facing pages. This is a testament to the importance of this ancient work. Among Greco-Roman philosophy, it is probably in the same league as Plato's Republic, since they arrive at the same main conclusion, albeit from very different routes. After I left the study of professional philosophy and went off to earn a living, something very odd happened back in academia. The philosophical theories dominated by Kant's Categorical Imperative, Hobbes' social contract', and John Stuart Mill's `greatest good for the greatest number' all seemed to be reawakened to the value of `virtue ethics', of which Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is the earliest, and still one of the best presentations. These theories from the first half of the 20th century all seemed to forget about the individual and concentrate on rules operating between people and `collective good'. There was some, but not much, talk of personal goods and virtues. The apotheosis of the 'modern' ethics, Kurt Baier's book The Moral Point of View, published in 1958 says nothing about virtues and only the thinnest section on 'Duties to Oneself'. But the tide started shifting in that very same year with the publication of G.E.M. Anscombe's journal article, `Modern Moral Philosophy', which questioned how well we really knew the meaning of psychological terms thrown around in the debates on moral theories. I also have a suspicion that virtues staged a comeback with the great interest in modern biomedical ethics, where the relative roles of patients and health care professionals are so dramatically skewed, that normal rules of behavior between equals simply don't work. And if you consult modern texts on Biomedical Ethics, it is precisely the Nicomachean Ethics which they cite as their inspiration. The less encouraging picture is that virtue ethics may be experiencing a comeback as a theory one can justify without any reference to the Judeo-Christian God. Aristotle may or may not have been devoted to the Olympian gods of Homer, Hesiod, and the playwrights, but I suspect he didn't take them too, too seriously, and he certainly did not even know of the Hebrew god. Thus, his ethical theories contain no divine underpinning, such as you find in Kant's ethics. The irony is that virtue ethics actually fits Christian theology better than an ethics based on moral rules (See this week's readings on Romans (Monday) and John (Wednesday). Aristotle's theory, on the face of it, seems very similar to recent Utilitarianism (greatest good for the greatest number), but Aristotle is far more concerned with the kind of happiness which develops out of intellectual pleasures. In fact, an important statement of Christian virtue, the sixth beatitude (Matthew 5:8, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.") is very close to Aristotle's highest ideal of contemplation: "...if happiness consists in activity in accordance with virtue, it is reasonable that it should be activity in accordance with the highest virtue; and this will be the virtue of the best part of us....it is the activity of this part of us in accordance with the virtue proper to it that will constitute perfect happiness, and it has been stated already that the activity is the activity of contemplation, because the intellect is the highest faculty in us..." One of Aristotle's great contributions was in the addition of `intellectual' virtues such as prudence to the traditional `moral' virtues. While those who dwell on moral rules may be inclined to push them a bit too far, Aristotle calls on prudence to attend to the details of the situation. In reading Aristotle, I'm constantly impressed by the level of `common sense' he exhibits, as when he says that morality is all about doing and not purely an `intellectual exercise'. Just as one gets good at evaluating wines by tasting them and good at appreciating graphic art by looking at a lot of pictures, one improves one's virtue by consistently exercising your moral sensibilities. Intellectual virtues are developed by instruction, but moral virtues are the product of habit and practice, they are not `natural' abilities, present at birth, like the ability to see. The aim of legislation is to train citizens in right action. Just as the aim of the church is to train our young in the best virtues. | ||
Ok Book, Bad Translation The book was fine, but this translation was bad. I needed this book for class and ended 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 understand relative to the other translation. Make sure you take a look at what translation you need/want before you buy! | ||
Great begining essay to guide a person through the book I searched for the best edition of Nicomachean Ethics and wound up selecting this one (Penguin Classics tend to be very good). The beginning essay by Jonathan Barnes was wonderful and worth the price of the book. I felt like I was in an introductory philosophy course with a great instructor. I would highly recommend this edition of Nicomachean Ethics. | ||
Virtue Ethics Classic I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy. In early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore. It is a retrieval of Aristotle. It has very close parallels to the 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 "good" this is his phenomenology. What does "good" mean? He suggests good means "a desired end." Something desirable. Means towards these ends. Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good." In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good." Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money. Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself. Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money. "Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness." This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle. Eudemonia=happiness. Today we think 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." Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of." Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle. Can also mean fulfillment. Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation. What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth." EN isn't formula but a rough outline. Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it. When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit! You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle. Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife. He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates. The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good." In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits. Good qualities of a person who would act well. Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person. If you have good 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 "good like." In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason. For Aristotle these are not two separate entities. To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual. Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait. Socrates said same the thing. To be a human being can't be just individual trait. Aristotle says we deploy reason to discover virtues and happiness. Logos=reason, ordering, or arranging. Logos="organization of desire." Virtues are those characteristics that allow humans to achieve eudemonia, which allows this high level of life. Eudaimonia parsed is Eu="good, demon="sacred force" which is not in our control. Thus eudaimonia originally meaning is "blessing" or "good fortune" good happens to you but not planned or not by your effort. But, EN has to do with our own efforts. Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause. Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing. Happenstance is a matter of chance. Aristotle's many and the wise distinction. What is the aim of ethics or political science? Hoi Polloi=masses believe that the aim of living well and doing well is "happiness" such as wealth and honor and pleasure. Plato thinks it is a higher ideal. Plato believed that people were interested in wealth honor and pleasure, but he also believed in the "Universal, or pure good" which transcended the other "goods" in "pure good" is ultimate "good." Aristotle is saying that there is a variety of opinions of what "the good or happiness" is. Utilitarian vs. moral philosophy like Kant, who believed in universal principles. Utilitarian is greater good cost benefit analysis. Both have to do with reasoning what is right. Aristotle says that ethics is part of political science or society, we are social animals, and this is our nature. Social arrangements give shape to individuals. Aristotle says we must recognize the difference between arguments from principles and towards principles. He has Plato in mind here who thought that the "pure good" was the ultimate principle, and once you get that, you will argue from that you will argue from principle. Kant thought similarly with Plato. Kant says the universal principle of the categorical imperative is then a universal nation set and once you get that principle that will be your measure, and so you will think from the categorical imperative to find out what is good. Utilitarianism argues in the same way as Plato and Kant. The principle that brings happiness to the greatest number, once you get that principle that will be from which you will argue. Aristotle says difference between arguing from principles and towards them, the second one, arguing towards principles is what he prefers because that is phenomenology. You don't assume a principle ahead of time and then find a way to fashion everything around you into that principle. You start with appearances and work your way towards some principle. Begin with what is known to us or evident to us and then build the idea of what "happiness" is. This is his phenomenology. Some people will say getting pleasure will bring you happiness, he will say well let's examine that and we will see. This is why we must be raised properly, it is the absolute starting point, without this proper rearing, ethics is futile. Thus, EN is a refinement of already functioning patterns, for him child rearing and education of the young is the absolute starting point. Aristotle says without good background people won't learn the virtues, we must rear children in a good way. There is no one way to have a single principle in ethics or unify all instances of "the good," thus, Plato is wrong in trying to find "the good." Aristotle continues his critique of Plato and Socrates. No absolute universal term must survey different instances. Eudemonia is a climax word gathering all the features of "living well." Eudemonia is a guideword that gathers all the "ends." Ergon="function." One could say function is "its work," achieving something. Function means work, its activity. EN is how to order human life. Important function of human soul is in accordance with reasoning. Function and logos is the peculiar work of a human. Humans have set of capacities. Logos and reason is organization of desires. Logos thus means organizing and gathering capacities. Ordering skills and capacities as in learning a musical instrument. Activity comes in a lot with eudemonia we are truly happy when we are functioning well. Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good. Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working. Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends! Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation. In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia. Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs. A long interesting list. It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness. Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, 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. They are the marks of events of health on an organism. Whenever a soul is being fulfilled, it is accompanied by the feeling of pleasure for Aristotle. Pleasure of sex as an example, it insures our reproductive continuance. Thus, on a higher level, like in humans there must be some truth to this as well. Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature. It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle. These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher 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 good. 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." Phronçsis has a special meaning especially in contrast of Episteme= "scientific knowledge" where you are able to deduce reliable conclusions by way of following general principles. For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate 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 understand 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 complete 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 important for Aristotle. Hexis= "state," "having possession." Theoria= "study." The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good." Orthos logos= "correct reasoning," or "arranging." EN is not exact answer but an outline. General and particular cases are inexact. Orthos logos is connected to Phronçsis. Aristotle's "mean" is not the mathematical middle. It is more of a balance of the extremes. Orthos logos= "successful ordering." 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. Relevant emotion or capacity. Such as fear and pain. 3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities. Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency. 4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies. Such as courage as the "mean." No formal 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." For Aristotle unlike the Christians, pride is a virtue. For example: 1. I did something that merits attention. 2. Self regard. 3. mean between, boastful vice and humility as deficiency. 4. Pride. A fully developed virtuous person has cultivated themselves through experience and habit so they act effortlessly in living virtuously. The word decision for Aristotle is a sophisticated adult taking an action, not a knee jerk reaction or child making a choice. Decisions refine people to act in a more sophisticated way. Idea of making a decision is a circumstance about making a choice between several options and picking one to act on, thus we bring it into being; it is not always necessarily the clear choice. Famous Aristotle quote- "We deliberate not about ends, but what about promotes ends." His example is the physician that does not deliberate about whether or not to heal his patient this is his function. He will have deliberated about becoming a physician or not. Many challenge Aristotle's idea on this. Justice living well can only happen in a political society. Justice is a virtue that is not a individual trait, it is in relation to other people. Justice is other regarding not just self-regarding. 1. Virtue of justice. 2. Lawfulness. This is political society, abide by the laws. 3. Fairness, or distributive justice. There are many goods in life, so the question is who gets what. Virtue of justice is above the other two. A person must have character traits above just abiding by the law to be considered virtuous. Five virtues of the soul. These five virtues of thought all have to do with truth. 1. Epistçmç= "Scientific knowledge" 2. Technç= "craft" 3. Phronçsis = "Intelligence" really "Intellectual virtue that ethics is concerned with." 4. Nous= "understanding" (really the minds capacity to have insight into universals). 5. Sophia= "Wisdom." Aristotle says from a technical standpoint, Sophia is a combination of Epistçmç and nous. Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will. Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis. Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated. Aristotle does not think 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 strength. 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 without regret of his bad actions. 5. What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"? Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term. Ethical weakness is not a full vice either. This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue." No one can knowingly do the wrong thing. Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires. Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, 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 those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by. | ||