------- VersaTerm-Link Mail Archive ------- X-Date: Wed, 23 Mar 94 19:18:34 EST X-User: "Lance Fletcher" X-Mbox: Mailbox [aristotle] ------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 11:06:35 -0600 Subject: NE: A new thread on the Ethics From: "Richard Diamond" Lance Fletcher wants to start a discussion of the Nicomachean Ethics, and I do as well. Since no one else has jumped at the job of "leader" I have been given the duty of pretending to lead the discussion. The discussion should lead itself anyway. Note that this new thread is meant to work in parallel with the Categories discussion, and not take away from it in any way. To distinguish the two, when posting about the Ethics one should preface the title with "NE:" and when posting about the Categories use "CAT:" (or something) as a preface. Here are some preliminary matters that might be helpful to some: THE TEXT I will be posting my own translation of the text (I have finished all of book I), however it surely has grammatical errors and ill phrases throughout. Please let me know when you find such things either on the list or off (diamond@acad.udallas.edu) even if you think a comma is out of place -- the more criticism the better. I give my own because I find the other translations (Apostle, Ross in the Oxford edition) imprecise and misleading. My favorite example of this is in the Oxford version of the Politics (Jowett): "Those who commit suicide will be deprived of their civil rights." Not only is that far from the Greek text, it is mangles the sense of the text into something quite ridiculous. _Anything_ not in the Greek text in my translation appears in brackets. Also, as the Bekker numbers are technically a hassle to implement in an ASCII version of the text, I give here instead the paragraph numbers from the Latin translation as found in St. Thomas' commentary on the Ethics. Use whichever is more convenient. Note of course that the paragraph #s makes looking things up in St. Thomas easier. An English translation of St. Thomas' Commentary is back in print for $35 (the book is huge) at 1-800-852-9962, but unfortunately the Latin is quite a bit harder to come by. IMPORTANT Keep in mind also that there are TWO different types of chapter references for the Ethics! Do not just post "Ethics I chapter 4" because chapter 4 in the Ross is chapter 2 in the Apostle. The Oxford Greek text distinguishes the differences by using roman numerals for the division that the Ross happens to use, and arabic numerals for the division Apostle happens to use. Cite always the Bekker or paragraph number so as not to confuse people. Richard Diamond diamond@acad.udallas.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 11:11:50 -0600 Subject: NE: The text, I.1(i) From: "Richard Diamond" Chapter 1 (i) 1094a1-18 (Lectio 1 of St. Thomas) 1. Every art and every inquiry, likewise [every] action and choice, seems to aim at some good. 2. Thus they have stated nobly that the good is that at which all things aim. 3. But there appears to be some difference among the ends: for some [ends] are activities and others are works apart from them. 4. Of these, some ends are apart from the actions, in these the works are by nature better than the activities. 5. Since there are many actions, arts, and sciences the ends also become many. For of the physician, it is health; of the shipbuilder, a ship; of the general, victory; and of the household manager, wealth. 6. All of which are under some one power, just as bridle- making and all other [arts] concerned with the tools of horsemen are under horsemanship, this [art] and every military action is under generalship in the same way that other [sciences] are under others. 7. But in all [sciences] the ends of all the architectonic ones are more choiceworthy than those under them; for the latter are pursued for the sake of the former. 8. It makes no difference whether the ends of the actions are the activities themselves or something else apart from them, just as in the aforesaid sciences. ------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 11:29:56 -0600 Subject: NE: Some questions I, 1(i) From: "Richard Diamond" >(1) Every art and every inquiry, likewise every action and choice seem to >aim at some good. >(2) Thus they have stated well that the good is that at which all things >aim. We notice in the first two paragraphs that Aristotle makes an argument: because every art, etc. seems to aim at a good, it is right to say all things aim at the good. If it is right to take this as an argument, it surely is oddly stated. Why does he put it in this form? I.e., why does he speak of "they" who speak well (he uses the plural verb with no explicit subject) and not say "this is what I think"? But aside from that, and before we can consider his conclusion, what do we think of his premise: every art & every inquiry (one pair), and every action & every choice (second pair) seem to aim at some good. Why "seem"? What's the significance of pairing art and inquiry (methodos) and action and choice? Finally, is the premise true, and if so, how so? An objection: surely we can think of men like Charles Manson who choose things as evil, not as good. I can think of an art like the art of poisoning someone (note Aristotle's term "art" means more than paintings) aims at an evil. Thus all arts & choices do not _seem_ to aim at some good, because some _seem_ to aim at some evil. Just some questions & objections to stir a bit of discussion. Richard Diamond diamond@acad.udallas.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 19 Mar 1994 19:48:00 +0000 Subject: re:NE:Some questions I, 1(i) From: "reg (r.m.) foulkes" Richard, Let me be the first to say thank-you for leading this Slow-Read of Nicomachean Ethics. It is greatly appreciated. I found it a pleasant surprise that the text we will be reviewing is your own translation. I personally do not know any Greek or Latin, but I am taking steps to learn. Can you suggest a version of NE that I might be able to order from some book store? Let's being with your translation... Richard: >(1) Every art and every inquiry, likewise every >action and choice seem to aim at some good. >(2) Thus they have stated well that the good is that >at which all things aim. (I hope this isn't a faux pas, if I compare your translation with W.D Ross's translation. I do not accept him as an expert and I am not intending to offend you. It's just that Ross's translation is the only one I have in my library.) In Ross's translation we have the following: 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 which all things aim. Richard: >We notice in the first two paragraphs that Aristotle >makes an argument:because every art, etc. seems to aim >at a good, it is right to say all things aim at the >good. >If it is right to take this as an argument, it surely >is oddly stated. Why does he put it in this form? >I.e., why does he speak of "they" who speak well (he >uses the plural verb with no explicit subject) and not >say "this is what I think"? Reg: Ross's choice of removing the they, still doesn't remove the problem. A they is implied. I take this to mean that Aristotle is referring to the population at large. Isn't this a generally accepted view or feeling about one's own action? That they are aimed at some good? Richard: >But aside from that, and before we can consider his >conclusion, what do we think of his premise: every >art & every inquiry (one pair), and every >action & every choice (second pair) seem to aim at >some good. Why "seem"? What's the significance of >pairing art and inquiry (methodos) and action and >choice? Reg: I don't know what to make of the pairs themselves, but the word "seems" in your translation and "is thought to" in Ross's is important.In fact "seems" is the crux of the sentence. The word "seems" allows for the possibility of confusion between appearance and reality. In this case, confusion of what appears to be good (your wishful thinking or actions according to your desires) with what is actually or really good for you. I would call this word "seems" as making the distinction between apparent goods and real goods. Your example is a case in point. Richard: >An objection: surely we can think of men like >Charles Manson who choose things as evil, not >as good. I can think of an art like the art >of poisoning someone (note Aristotle's term >"art" means more than paintings) aims at an >evil. Thus all arts & choices do not _seem_ >to aim at some good, because some _seem_ to >aim at some evil. Reg: Mason choose to do what he did because he thought it would give him some pleasure, or in our terms aimed some good. But we all know that what he did was evil. He mistook apparent good with a real good. In the art of poisoning, what is the target you are aiming at? Isn't it becoming the best at poisoning? So from a poisoner's point of view, being the best at poisoning is the "good" that any self respecting poisoner would strives for. But is this an apparent or a real good? Reg Foulkes riskit@bnr.ca or reg.foulkes@bnr.ca (613) 763-4131 ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 00:16:37 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: hello From: "Brumbaugh Matt" Hi! My name is Matt Brumbaugh and I am new to this list. I am currently unaware of what exactly this list is as the only messages I have receieved are other hellos. I am not in the NE as everybody else seems to be. Originally from Minnesota I now live in North Texas. Next year I will attend Rice University in Houston and probably major in economics and biology. I currently attended a early-admissions program for Math/Science students at the University of North Texas and seek every opportunity to meet people who are not totally fact oriented. I hope to gain a better understanding of Aristotle and Ethics from this list. Later Y'all mattb@jove.acs.unt.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 01:47:54 EST Subject: NE Reading From: gavaguy@aol.com Hello all, I have done a bit of Greek translation in Aristotle, including NE, but it's been several years. I'm interested in seeing how the discussion goes, and may be interested in contributing to the translation. ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 01:08:25 CST Subject: Re: NE Reading From: "carol poster" Lance: Is there any chance we could split off the Categories group into a seperate list from the NE group? I think we're seeing a couple of different focuses of interest -- some more in linguistics/logic/philosophy of language and some more involved in politics/ethics (I'd place myself in the former group, and you seem to be more in the latter). This is a wonderful study forum ... Thanks, Carol ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 02:40:49 -0500 Subject: Hello message From: "Erik Olson" I've been lurking on the Aristotle list for a little while, but I'll introduce myself. My interest in Aristotle and the Nichomachean Ethics is as a practitioner of the Objectivist Ethics (Ayn Rand), which acknowledges a great debt to Aristotle. I am an engineering student at Rensselaer (Troy, NY). One recent interest of mine was a paper on Aristotle and science in the Arab classical period, for which I read some of the Categories (one of Aristotle's more accepted works among Muslims.) I have read parts of the NE before and look forward to walking through the entire work. (I have also had one year of koine Greek.) Erik Olson ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 03:00:00 EST Subject: Re: NE Reading From: "Lance Fletcher" >Lance: > Is there any chance we could split off the Categories group into a >seperate list from the NE group? I think we're seeing a couple of different >focuses of interest -- some more in linguistics/logic/philosophy of >language and some more involved in politics/ethics (I'd place myself in the >former group, and you seem to be more in the latter). > This is a wonderful study forum ... > Thanks, > Carol Yes, Carol, that is entirely possible. It's really just a matter of making a judgement about when it's appropriate to do that. Earlier on I think I suggested, as a criterion for spinning off a discussion thread onto a separate list, that the thread show a certain level of sustained activity. I think I said 5 messages a day for 5 days. I think the Categories discussion has generally been below that level, but I suspect the NE discussion may prove more active. In any case, my criterion was quite arbitrary and is not at all fixed in my mind. My main consideration is that there is a certain amount of extra administrative work for me with each new list, so I don't want to create new lists frivolously. Here is what I propose: If you want a separate list for the categories, or a separate list for NE, please send me private e-mail, but don't post it to the list, because I don't want the list to be overloaded with ballot-messages. Lance Fletcher [lance@freelance.com] The Free Lance Academy (a Platonic BBS) 201-963-6019 for Internet access: gopher or anonymous ftp to: world.std.com /ftp/pub/freelance ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 19:09:57 +0800 Subject: another new subscriber From: "Benjamin C. Ostrov" Hello all, I have the office right next door to Peter Lo's. We both teach in the Department of Government and Public Administration at Chinese University of Hong Kong. One of the courses I teach is Classical Political Theory. The course covers political thought from Plato to Machiavelli. Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics and Politics figure prominently in the course. I hope to gain new insights into the thought of Aristotle from the discussion on this list. I have already found similar discussions on other lists to be very fruitful. For example, on the Sophia list there has been an on and off discussion for a while of eudaimoneia which has been quite insightful. Cheers, Ben Ostrov email address: bcostrov@cuhk.hk snail mail address: Department of Government and Public Administration United College Chinese University of Hong Kong Shatin, New Territories Hong Kong fax: (852)603-5229 ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 07:27:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: Hello From: PHIWILLI@ACS.EKU.EDU I'm a philosophy prof who just last year for the first time (in over 20 years!) had occasion to teach portions of NE in a freshman class. So I have a specially pedagogical motive for wanting to gain more insight into Ari's ethical thought. Frank Williams PHIWILLI@ACS.EKU.EDU Eastern Kentucky University ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 13:29:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: NE: The Text, I.1(i) From: YEAGER@wvsvax.wvnet.edu >Well, I guess I'll never learn if I don't jump in. I have the Ross translation on my machine (it's on the APA Gopher menu somewhere). That makes comparison easy. > >Discussion on I.1.(i) > >(1) "Seems" appears to be essential to me if we are talking about ethics. This is a matter of judgement. Our judgement can be wrong. > >(2) "They" implies "community" to me. My community has noted (1) above and concluded that the "good" is that for which things "actually do" aim. We may not perceive this correctly in all cases. > ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 12:48:45 -0600 Subject: NE: Ch. 1 (i) From: "Richard Diamond" For those equipped with Latin, here's the first two lines of the Ethics we are working on: 1. Omnis ars, et omnis doctrina, similiter autem et actus et electio, bonum quoddam appetere videntur. 2. Ideo bene enunciaverunt, bonum quod omnia appetunt. Reg writes in response to the opening post, and Aristotle's line 2: > A they is implied. I take this to mean that > Aristotle is referring to the population at large. Isn't > this a generally accepted view or feeling about one's own > action? That they are aimed at some good? It seems to me that the "they" does not refer to the general populace (especially their feelings) because most people don't "enunciate" anything. I think rather that Aristotle is referring to the statements of philosophers. Philosophers enunciate things. Aristotle brings us to ask here which philosophers he is speaking of. Is it true that most people think people desire some good? Actually, I think most people view evil men like Manson as desiring evil for the sake of evil. Plato (perhaps who Aristotle is referring to) offers in his dialogues the distinction between real and apparent good that Reg brings up to solve that part of the difficulty. So, to paraphrase Aristotle's conclusion, "Thus, those philosophers who said 'all things desire some good' were right." Again, why does he say this instead of just "therefore, all things desire the good." What does the above addition about the philosophers add? (I think everyone on the list knows Aristotle is not known for his superfluous use of words -- he must have a purpose for saying things the way that he does.) > Mason choose to do what he did because he thought > it would give him some pleasure, or in our terms > aimed some good. Yet, does not Charles Manson _appear_ or _seem_ to choose some evil? Let us stick closely to the text. In our terms, yes, he might have aimed at a good, but if Aristotle were speaking from "our perspective" then he could have just said, "All things _do_ aim at a good which might be apparent, or might be a real one." > Can you suggest a version of NE that I might be able to order from > some book store? I think the Apostle is over all the best published version of the Ethics that I am aware of. A paper copy runs around $15 and hardcover somewhere around $30. The Ross I believe is available via gopher. Aristotle's _Politics_ is in much better shape. There is a excellent translation by Carnes Lord published by the University of Chicago, and an unpublished, superb translation by Laurence Berns at St. John's. Keep in mind that the translation I offer here is only a draft, and I'm quite interested in working the bugs out of it. Use the Ross if it helps, and be sure to point out anything that seems wrong or odd. Richard Diamond diamond@acad.udallas.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 13:16 CST Subject: which audience From: TI0MAC1@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU I had always thought, and still do, I guess, that Aristotle recognized three potential audiences: the masses (hoi poloi), the gentlemen, and the philosophers. And, the _Nicomachean Ethics_, in general, is aimed at the gentlemen and not the philosophers. Clearly, he believed that the philosophical life was a superior life But, the _Ethics_ is aimed at the gentlemen. I think. Charles Manson. He may have perceived the "good" incorrectly. In fact, he DID perceive it incorrectly. Then the question becomes was this perception based on true knowledge or false opinion. And, then the question is whether or not the action was voluntary or involuntary and thus, blameworthy. Just thinking....... Margaret ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 14:44:44 -0600 (CST) Subject: Introduction From: "Richard Lee" I am new to the Aristotle low reading list. I joined because I heard that you are starting to discuss NE. I teach (among other things) a course here at the University of Arkansas on ethical theory from Plato through (about) Mill. We read a bit of NE in that. I'm also scheduled to teach a colloquium (for honors undergraduate students) on "happiness." I'll be using selections from Aristotle among the readings. But I'm also interest in practical reason. So I have several grounds for my interest in NE. (And I wrote this message because Lance suggested we introduce ourselves.) -- Dr. Richard Lee rlee@comp.uark.edu Department of Philosophy Old Main 318 rlee@uafsysb.BITNET University of Arkansas phone: 501-575-5826 Fayetteville, AR 72701 ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 15:53:18 -0500 Subject: New person intro (NE) From: "Nikolai Vishnevsky" Hello! My name is Nikolai Vishnevsky. I am not a philosopher, neither I have taken philosophy classes, which means that I'll primarily be a lurker here. I like to believe that I'm fairly well read and one of the subjects that I enjoy reading is philosophy. Sometimes I phantasize about going back to school, and _learn_ stuff I'm interested in learning (I'm 39.) These lists may help to satisfy some of these wishes. My Internet address does not give much of a clue about where I'm writing from. Many people assume I'm in Russia. No, I'm writing from Takoma Park, Maryland, which is a within the beltway suburb of Washington, D.C. All the best, Nikolai ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 15:04:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: NE From: "Brumbaugh Matt" > Somebody noted that their interest in the NE stemmed from an > interest in (or embrace of?) Rand's "Objectivism". Can't say I know > Rand inside and out - but I seem to remember that she noted Aristotles > view that ethics is inexact as some kind of fault and/or bassackwardness. > That, and a few other things, indicate to me that (aside from some > superficial elements) Rand's ethics is not compatible with Aristotle. > Perhaps the superficiality is mine, but I wait to be convinced otherwise. > As a reader of Ayn Rand and partial subscriber to her teachings I can defend her in the following way: Rand greatly faulted Plato for much of his work. On the topic of Aristotle she writes the following: "The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy -- but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison. You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of Atlas Shrugged." Those three titles are : Non-Contradiction Either-Or A is A Based on this you are free to form your own opinions on Rand and Aristotle. Matt Brumbaugh mattb@jove.acs.unt.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 17:27:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: another new subscriber From: "Leon Golden" I teach Greek Language and Literature and have a special interest in Aristotle's *Poetics* (now being discussed by the poet-l discussion group) and classical literary theory. I have a special interest in those sections of the *NE* which have a relevance to the interpretation of the *Poetics*. Leon Golden __________ Leon Golden Department of Classics Florida State University e-mail: lgolden@mailer.fsu.edu fax: 904-644-4073 Telephone: 904-644-0314 ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 18:57:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: another new subscriber From: "Robert Moskal" Hi, I'm also new to the NE group. I'm a doctoral student in philsosophy at the New School for Social Research in NYC. My particular interest is in the development in our tradition of the notion of the subject and the social. Aristotle is interesting to me because of his immense influence, espeially in the way he makes the move from the physics and the metaphysics to the ethics and the politics. Robert Moskal Brooklyn, USA ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 21:39:27 -0230 (NDT) Subject: Another New Subscriber From: "Michael Shute" In response to the request for some personal information, I am a professor of religious studies at Memorial University in St. John's Newfoundland Canada. I teach ethics and sometimes the philosophy of religion. I am very interested in the work of a Canadain philosopher Bernard Lonergan who has been profoundly influenced by Aristotle. A slow read through the NE is a good idea and it is a fine thing to be able to have others doing this at the same time. I first read the NE about twenty years ago. It is one of the great works on ethics. Like Lance I find Aquinas'commentaries a great way to read Aristotle. I look foward to the discussion and hope at some point to make a contribution. Mike Shute ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 94 20:38:39 EST Subject: New Reader From: fairwj@rpi.edu I am James Fairweather and I study mechanical engineering at RPI in Troy, N.Y. I have never studied philosophy formally. I have read only two philosophy texts: Kant's Prolog to a Metaphysics and Sartre's Being and Nothingness. I understood almost nothing in these works. I am still trying though. I hope that I can follow the discussions and get a better understanding of the text through them. I am not sure what I am trying to understand with philosophy, but that probably isn't so important. Really Slow Reading in Troy James Fairweather fairwj@rpi.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 18:02:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who Am I? From: "felija00" Dear Others, I am a special education teacher in San Francisco. I teach 6th graders. I am interested in this reading because I want to think about something besides my students. Our society owes so much to Aristotle and the ways he has been read that I want to read him with others and see where it leads. Morality is a topic that my students butcher regularly. Sometimes I get lost with them. "I'll just get a gun and take care of him" is a common solution that they do not think needs to be justified or rationalized. When I read the great thinkers, it is like taking a refreshing but challenging hike. So let us join together and find out where Aristotle can lead us. I want to look at the ethics. Will it lead to better people? Sincerely from, Jim R Feliciano felica00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 21:03:54 -0500 (EST) Subject: NE: I,1 From: EPHESUS@delphi.com Many thanks for getting things started! As a history teacher in a small high school, I have found again and again that the Greeks speak a profound language to adolescents. Since I cannot claim to have penetrated the nuances of Greek philosophy to any significant extent, I am eager to learn from--and with--others. Back to sentence two: "Thus they have stated well that the good is that at which all things aim." I, too, have the feeling that Aristotle is simply referring to the common opinion of philosophers of his age. But what does he (they) mean? Surely there were plenty of "bad" things being done in those less than perfect years. Let me approach the sentence from a slightly different direction. Perhaps he is simply saying this: 1. Every activity, whether an art (The word here is _techne_, I believe) or an investigation of something or a choice we make, surely is done out of some purpose we have in mind. 2. Everything we do with such a purpose has an end which we deem to be desirable. 3. Let us simply call such a desirable end "the good". Perhaps it was quite inconceivable to Aristotle (and other Greeks) that we would purposely act toward an end which would not be (to us) desirable. In short, could Aristotle not simply be restating a common definition? If so, is it possible that his purpose here is not so much to say what is "good" but rather to say: "My concern here is to look at those things at which we aim, those things we set out with purpose to accomplish." In this case, I am assuming that he is referring to "_a_ good" rather than "_the_ good". Does this conform to Aristotle's intention? If so, the next two sentences take on special significance. Perhaps it is here that his argument really begins: "But there appears to be some difference among the ends..." I am also using a translation from Martin Ostwald (_Library of Liberal Arts_, 1962), who occasionally includes a Greek word with the text, along with some commentary on its meaning. While I suspect that no one here wants to spend too much time on translation problems, it would be helpful to know some of the Greek words Aristotle is using. Again, many thanks for inaugurating what I think will be a most interesting slow reading. And to Nikolai Vishnevsky: I question whether it is true that, as you say, you are not a philosopher. Please reassess this statement--and join in on the discussions. Karl Fredrickson Green Meadow Waldorf School Rockland County, New York ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 18:14:27 -0800 (PST) Subject: Who Am I? From: "felija00" Dear Other Readers, If this is a duplicate posting I apologize. I am a 6th grade special education teacher in San Francisco. I get tired of dealing with 6th grade problems and I want to think. I want to spend some time dealing with thinking that has touched our society in ways that are hard to judge. When I read good "stuff" I feel like I have taken a long refreshing and challenging hike with the writer. The morality of my students (or the lack of morality) sometimes leaves me shaking my head. I want to deal with some clear thinking. At least some thinking that can be handled and judged and used. So let us begin our journey and find out where Aristotle can lead us after all this time and with our collective baggage. I stop rambling now. Sincerely from, Jim R. Feliciano felija00@dons.ac.usfca.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 23:25:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: RE NE 1.(1) From: PHIWILLI@EKU.ACS.EKU.EDU My thought is that, as several have suggested, the real/apparent good distinction lies in the background of the "seems". Perhaps the main point of the 1st sentence is to indicate the general teleological approach that Ari is going to take. Everything aims at the good, so the main problem of ethics is to spell out what the (true) good is. That done, it will be obvious that the way to live is to aim for it, to orient our lives toward obtaining it. Which is pretty much the route he takes. Frank Williams PHIWILLI@ACS.EKU.EDU Eastern Kentucky University ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 23:26:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Into From: "Adrian Hawkins" Hello. I am a new subscriber to the group. I decided to join when the discussion of NE came into play. I'm not much for translation, as I know nothing about the language. So most of the time, I will just lurk and read messages, responding only when I understand what is being said, and if it strikes interest. I hope to learn more about NE, through a second, slower, reading. Adrian Hawkins University of Dallas hawkinea.chem.udallas.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Sun, 20 Mar 1994 23:03:33 -0700 (MST) Subject: Intro From: "Thomas Olson" Hello. My name is Tom Olson. I read Aristotle, among others, in the great books program at St. John's College (SF) about six years ago. Currently I am pursuing graduate work in library and information science, and working in a public library here in Phoenix. I've been on the plato list for a while, reading his Philebus, (on the nature and place of pleasure in our lives) and think there might be places where NE and the Philebus intersect, or point to a similar end. This I mean on a very general level, regarding simple and primary questions such as "what constitutes a happy life?" I doubt that Plato's and Aristotle's answers are so dissimilar, but their methods of conclusion certainly seem to be so. In school I read these authors one after the other, and much too quickly. This is a wonderful opportunity to take a closer view. Tom t_olson@libre.com ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 02:12:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NE: I,1 From: "Robert Moskal" On Sun, 20 Mar 1994 EPHESUS@delphi.com wrote: > Let me approach the sentence from a slightly different direction. Perhaps he > is simply saying this: > 1. Every activity, whether an art (The word here is _techne_, I > believe) or an investigation of something or a choice we make, surely is > done out of some purpose we have in mind. > 2. Everything we do with such a purpose has an end which we deem to be > desirable. > 3. Let us simply call such a desirable end "the good". > Perhaps it was quite inconceivable to Aristotle (and other Greeks) that we > would purposely act toward an end which would not be (to us) desirable. Yes, and lets call attention to the fact that already at the beginning of the ethics Aristotle posits a homology (or at least prepares the way for a homology) between the relation between an action and its end and matter and the form which every matter is potentially. Perhaps this is rushing things but I think its important to point out straight away that Heidegger will later make much of this homology to criticize Aristotle for reducing doing to making (though we will see later on that Aristotle explicitly says that this is not the case). I'm bringing up the point now so that the theme stays in the back of everyone's mind as we go forward in the reading. Bye Robert Moskal Brooklyn, USA ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 01:20:36 CST Subject: Re: homOnuma & sunOnuma From: "carol poster" first sentence of Categories: (Loeb text) HomOnyma legetai hOn onoma monon koinon, ho de kata tounoma logos tEs ousias heteros, hoion zOon ho te anthrOpos kai to gegpammenon. Just to keep track of where the discussion is: are we now at 1a20: tOn ontOn ta men kath' hypo keimenou tinos legetai ... Carol Poster c594460@mizzou1.missouri.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 08:35:11 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: Intro From: "Richard C. Taylor" <6297TAYLORR@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Greetings. I'm Richard Taylor at MArquette University where I've been for over a decade teaching ancient and medieval (latin, greek, arabic) philosophy and various problems in phil courses on the grad and undergrad levels. Most of my research and publication is on Islamic philosophical materials and notions in relation to Greek (/Syriac?) sources and in relation to their influence on the Latin West after translation from Arabic. Currently I'm teaching a grad course on Islamic phil here at Marquette. I am very interested in ancient and medieval philosophical psychology and have taught grad courses on A's DE ANIMA and also on its influence and interpretation my medieval thinkers in Islam and the Latin West. Research includes work on the Latin and Arabic LIBER DE CAUSIS and also work on a translation of Averroes' LONG COMMENTARY ON THE DE ANIMA OF ARISTOTLE. I'm pretty busy trying to meet various deadlines (aren't we all) so I may be a rather passive observer in the Aristotle EN discussions. This seems to be enough of an introduction. Let me ask a question. IS there someone who can direct me toward any other philosophical reading groups on internet? I'd like to get a look at what is going on concerning Plato. Thanks much. Regards, Richard C. Taylor Philosophy, Marquette University "6297taylorr@vms.csd.mu.edu" ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 07:54:37 -0800 Subject: NE: "they" From: "CRAIG WALTON" Hi! My name is Craig Walton, I have been lurking on the Categories discussion and will continue to do so, whether we split into two lists or not. I teach in ethics and the history of philosophy, am currently doing a seminar on the art of judgment in Aristotle, Montaigne, Kant and Mark Johnson's new book. Concerning "they": I cannot recall right now who said that Aristotle has three audiences in mind, etc.; but two other considerations come to mind as to why he starts NE the way he does: first, in his ORGANON he provides two sorts of syllogism, depending on what kind of subject-matter one is studying. If the subject-matter is about things that cannot be other than they are, we use the rational syllogism; if the subject-matter is about things that can be other than they are, things subject to contingency, then we use the dialectical syllogism. The first kind starts with an apodictic major premise, a proposition which is universally and necessarily the case; in the second kind, we are best advised to start with the most well-received or one of the well-received views, - though he does not end with these starting points. Second, just around the corner in our slow reading comes NE I/3, 1094b12-1095a12, in which Aristotle invokes just this distinction -- he says a well-educated person requires only and no more than that precision appropriate to the subject matter. In math and algebra we expect precision -- it would be uneducated to be satisfied with a bank statement saying, at the bottom, 'you have some money left over'. They should be able to do better than that. But also, in ethics (as well as in poetics, politics, rhetoric, economics and other studies of things which change by nature), we look, not for precision (for it would be false, here), but for the most well-founded guidance we can obtain without losing track of what it is we are studying. So, Aristotle starts NE, as he does a number of works (even the Metaphysics) with considering what the conventional wisdom, or people in general who agree on an opinion, as the appropriate starting points. There is more to this issue, of course. I look forward to listening, and, if able, to adding something once in a while. Thank you all for making this happen! Craig Walton Institute for Ethics and Policy Studies, Univ. of Nevada-Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV 89154-5049 fax 702-895-4673 phone 702-895-3463 e-mail ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 12:04:46 est Subject: Something left over From: "John Ransom" Craig Walton writes: > In math and algebra, we expect precision -- it would be uneducated > to be satisfied with a bank statement saying, at the bottom, > 'you have some money left over'. They should be able to do better > than that. I can't speak for others on this list, but personally I would be very satisfied to see 'you have some money left over' at the bottom of my bank statement. ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 14:56:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: NE From: "Dirk t.D. Held" I have just joined the Nicomachean Ethics list. I am a professor of classics with a focus on ancient philosophy. I teach a variety of courses in classics and ancient philosophy, including one on Greek and Roman ethics. I am interested in exploring several aspects of Aristotle's ethics, perhaps here with a focus on how he uses the *endoxa* of his fellow Greeks as the starting point of his ethical theory. Dirk t.D. Held, Classics, Connecticut College (dthel@conncoll.edu) ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 21:16:00 +0000 Subject: re:NE: Ch. 1 (i) From: "reg (r.m.) foulkes" In message "NE: Ch. 1 (i)", you write: >Reg writes in response to the opening post, and Aristotle's line 2: > >> A they is implied. I take this to mean that >> Aristotle is referring to the population at large. Isn't >> this a generally accepted view or feeling about one's own >> action? That they are aimed at some good? > >It seems to me that the "they" does not refer to the general populace >(especially their feelings) because most people don't "enunciate" >anything. I think rather that Aristotle is referring to the statements of >philosophers. Philosophers enunciate things. Aristotle brings us to ask >here which philosophers he is speaking of. Is it true that most people >think people desire some good? Actually, I think most people view evil >men like Manson as desiring evil for the sake of evil. Plato (perhaps who >Aristotle is referring to) offers in his dialogues the distinction between >real and apparent good that Reg brings up to solve that part of the >difficulty. > >So, to paraphrase Aristotle's conclusion, "Thus, those philosophers who >said 'all things desire some good' were right." Again, why does he say >this instead of just "therefore, all things desire the good." What does >the above addition about the philosophers add? (I think everyone on the >list knows Aristotle is not known for his superfluous use of words -- he >must have a purpose for saying things the way that he does.) Since you put it that way, could "they" refer to Plato&Socrates? Reg Foulkes riskit@bnr.ca or reg.foulkes@bnr.ca (613) 763-4131 De gustibus non disputandum est-- ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 94 18:13 EST Subject: yours truly From: "Larry.Hauser" <21798LAH@msu.edu> New to the list. I'm a philosopher of mind "without portfolio" (PhD Michigan State University, 1993) and an Aristotle buff ever since taking my first graduate philosophy course (Aristotle I) with Hal Walsh at MSU. I'm especially interested in parts of NE touching on the philosophy of mind and action theory. I've enjoyed all your comments I've read so far and look forward to participating. ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 18:47:59 -0600 Subject: Greetings ... From: "J. Guy Stalnaker" I study music theory (PhD) at Univ. Wisconsin-Madison where I am also taking a minor in philosophy (main interest in philosophy of language). I know very little about Aristotle's work, but his name keeps popping up in texts and seminar lectures. I thought this slow reading list would provide me a structured but flexible way of getting insight into his work from what appears to be a pool of subscribers of rather high quality. As I've never read a word Aristotle has written, I'll probably shy away from open comments to list members for a while, though given my nature, I'll be unable to maintain my silence for terribly long. Guy S. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- J. Guy Stalnaker A convention in itself arbitrary may acquire prestige through being long jstalnak@students.wisc.edu observed. P. F. Strawson -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 21:35:04 -0500 (EST) Subject: Introduction From: "Gerhard Werner" Having read the credentials of some of the recent subsribers to the list, I feel somewhat out of place, and can only justify my joining with my deep interest in learning more about NE. I am a Physician, now retired from my academic career but stil working at a VA Hospital. Aristotle became important to me whan I started grappling with the concept of Phronesis which, I believe, has great significance for the practice of Medicine. (Parenthetically: some years ago, I submitted a paper to a very prestigious Medical Journal in which I used the word : it was promptly rejected for the use of such unknown vocabulary). >From whatever little I know about and of NE, I consider it one of the greatest pieces of writing ever produced. So: I plan to sit quietly in the corner and listen, at least until I feel comfortable enough to raise my Voice. Gerhard Werner ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 21:44:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: NE: Translation From: "BROWN PHILIP H" Someone asked for a translation of the NE. Last year I took a course in Aristotle in which we read the Penguin paperback edition translated by J.A.K. Thompson, revised by Hugh Tredennick. I don't know how this translation stacks up against the rest, but the book has an excellent introduction and bibliography by Jonathan Barnes. It costs $6. Phil Brown ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 19:24:15 -0800 (PST) Subject: Introduction From: "Andrianna Cronick" I am an undergraduate Philosophy major at Willamette University in Salem, Oregon. My interest in NE stems from a History of Ancient Phil course I took a semester ago. At the time I did not find it very interesting (at least in comparison to Plato's Republic), however I recognize Aristotle's importance within philosophy and am gratefull for the opportunity to give the NE another try. I don't anticipate having much to say at least initially. :) Andria ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 22:46:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: Intro From: "Daniel K Crane" Hello all, I'm a grad student in philosophy at Pitt. I'll be doing my prospectus (and, presuming the prospectus is accepted, my dissertation) on responsibility and character, with emphasis on *akrasia* (incontinence, knowing but involuntary wrongdoing). So I'll become especially alert when we get to III.1 and III.5! I also have strong interests in medical ethics, and am doing a separate MA in that field. I'm curious just which prestigious medical journal rejected Gerhard Werner's article merely for mentioning *phronesis*! I'm looking forward to the discussions and getting to know all of you! 8-) -- Daniel dkcst2+@pitt.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 23:32:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: introduction From: "Richard E Heft" Hello Everybody, Another new kid on the block! I am neither student, teacher, nor philosopher, however, I have, and have always had, a great deal of interest in these subjects. Unfortunately, except for two short years as a member of a Great Books group there has been little opportunity to discuss such topics. After all the flame, fury, and fanaticism that clutters up so many otherwise worthwhile newsgroups, the chance to participate here, par- ticularly in the format of `slow reading', couldn't be passed up. With no formal training in philosophy---I was a business major---and with only spasmodic, unorganized reading in the subject, I feel like a crow trying to fly with the hawks. At first glance this may seem like quite a handicap but when you think about it for a while, you realize that I stand to gain a great deal more from these activities than the rest of you. For this I thank you all in advance :-). With respect to my goals, I am not so much concerned with Aristotle's set of morals and ethics as I am with my own. It is my hope though that with concerted study of his ideas and a chance to compare and contrast my conclusions with those of others better informed, my own opinions whatever they might become will be much better conceived and much more confidently held than ever before. In an age and culture where ethical and moral quandries appear with ever increasing frequency, such a gain would be no small advantage. Dick Heft ------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 21 Mar 1994 23:51:18 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: NE: Translation From: "Richard Lee" On Mon, 21 Mar 1994, BROWN PHILIP H wrote: > Someone asked for a translation of the NE. Last year I took a course > in Aristotle in which we read the Penguin paperback edition translated > by J.A.K. Thompson, revised by Hugh Tredennick. I don't know how this > translation stacks up against the rest, but the book has an excellent > introduction and bibliography by Jonathan Barnes. It costs $6. When I took a seminar on Aristotle's Ethics from J.O. Urmson I believe he said almost any translation would do but to stay away from the Penguin edition. [Sad, since that is inexpensive and it was the edition I had read in college and had been so impressed with.] He didn't tell us in any detail what his objections were to the Thompson translation. Perhaps they were too numerous to mention. Perhaps it is too loose. (Thompson, if I remember correctly, puts some text in footnotes and generally tries to make the work more accessible, perhaps at the cost of accuracy.) Urmson ordered the Ostwald translation for us. He's since gone on to revise the Ross translation. That revision appears in the Barnes edition of the works of Aristotle. For lots of notes look at Terry Irwin's translation, published by Hackett (and so not too expensive). That said, when I ask my students to buy a book so that we can look a bit at what Aristotle says about happiness I may well end up ordering the Penguin edition because of price (it is now at $8.95). -- Dr. Richard Lee rlee@comp.uark.edu Department of Philosophy Old Main 318 rlee@uafsysb.BITNET University of Arkansas phone: 501-575-5826 Fayetteville, AR 72701 ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 9:13:56 +200 Subject: From: "Ian Jennings" Hello everyone Another introduction: I'm a postgraduate student (within a few months of submitting my MA dissertation at the University of Cape Town - topic the concept of autonomy with reference to Harry Frankfurt, Susan Wolf, Richard Double etc) and also fortunate enough to have just begun a temporary lectureship at the University of Natal in Pietermaritzburg. I certainly don't want to find any connections with my MA in the Aristotle slow reading, as I'm now at the point where I want to finish it up regardless of whether it is comprehensive or accurate enough! I suspect, though, that Aristotle's comments on akrasia will have some bearing - which I will ignore. I'm interested in Aristotle because I'm primarily interested in ethics and political philosophy, while not being very attracted to utilitarianism or Kant. Unfortunately Aristotle is not widely taught in South Africa, and my only opportunity for reading the NE was during a small section of an undergraduate course some years back, which I now barely remember. This seems to me to be a major gap in my philosophical competence. Looking forward to the reading! Best wishes to all Ian ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 02:24:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: intorduction From: "Michael McShane" my name is michael mcshane, and i am a graduate student in ancient philosophy at the university of pennsylvania. (also a graduate of st. john's college-- '88.) i am interested in many topics in aristotle, but especially his account of friendship and moral responsibility. i plan to write a dissertation on the meaning of wholeness in various platonic dialogues. m ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 06:57:22 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: NE: Translation From: "Richard C. Taylor" <6297TAYLORR@vmsf.csd.mu.edu> Irwin's translation works well for undergrads but (1) it is highly interpretive via its extrapolations and dominating outline accompanying the translation in italics throughout; and (2) non-traditional rendering of certain key terms, e.g. "intelligence" for PHRONESIS. R. Taylor, Marquette U ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 08:51:18 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: your mail From: "Leslie Goldstein" On Thu, 17 Mar 1994, schwarze steven jon wrote: > rhetoric and ethics. Presently I'm trying to get a paper going on A's > concept of moral responsibility. Not quite sure where it's headed--right now > it's just at the "map it out" stage. If there are any especially great > secondary sources that address A's notions of free will/agency/ > > Thanks, > sjs > > Steve Schwarze > Dept. of Communication Studies > University of Iowa > Iowa City, IA 52240 ********* Martha Nussbaun has a terrific book that deals with this Q. I forget the title except that it has "Luck" in it. She deals with Plato, Aristotle,and the tragedians. I think it might be "Luck and the Fragility of Goodness" --Leslie Goldstein> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:12:51 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NE: Some questions I, 1(i) From: "Leslie Goldstein" On Sat, 19 Mar 1994, Richard Diamond wrote: > > > > An objection: surely we can think of men like Charles Manson who choose > things as evil, not as good. I can think of an art like the art of > poisoning someone (note Aristotle's term "art" means more than paintings) > aims at an evil. Thus all arts & choices do not _seem_ to aim at some > good, because some _seem_ to aim at some evil. > ******* I disagree. Even Charles Manson is covered. He chose that which others view as evil because he found it choiceworthy --i.e. good. Perhaps he felt it showed courage to defy conventions about goodness, or that it in some way distinguished him as above ordinary mortals. In knowingly choosing the act Manson was implicitly and inevitably saying "For me this is good." Or to put it another way, ahead of time, Manson did not believe he would regret his choice--that meant in his eyes his choice was good. (again, though he knew, and perhaps even relished the idea, that others would find it evil) Leslie Goldstein ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:19:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: John Kirby From: "Leslie Goldstein" On Sun, 20 Mar 1994 KIRBY@VM.CC.PURDUE.EDU wrote: > > XAIPEIN > > **** are we using r for rho or capital P? Just curious. Leslie Goldstein ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:32:50 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: Intro From: "KEVIN MURRAY" I've joined the slow reading list for Nicomachean Ethics principally because of the influence of the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. Much of his theory depends upon an understanding of _habitus_ as the structured ground of agency. His own elusive explications of this concept forced me to search for its precendents. This led me to the concept of _hexis_ (character) in Aristotle. My first reading of NE was very useful in my doctoral work on life construction. Being now a freelance writer and curator in the crafts, I am particularly interested in the concept of _phronesis_. As I judge from some of the messages so far, I would not be the only one willing to travel where Aristotle meets Heidegger. Kevin Murray kmurray@pitvax.xx.rmit.edu.au Dept Visual Communication R.M.I.T. Australia || ||| ||||||| || | ||| || | ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:40:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NE From: "Leslie Goldstein" On Sun, 20 Mar 1994 BENTLECC@ctrvax.Vanderbilt.Edu wrote: > Somebody noted that their interest in the NE stemmed from an > interest in (or embrace of?) Rand's "Objectivism". Can't say I know ... > That, and a few other things, indicate to me that (aside from some > superficial elements) Rand's ethics is not compatible with Aristotle. > Perhaps the superficiality is mine, but I wait to be convinced otherwise. > xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > I agree that their ethics are mutually incompatible but I also think it would be a big mistake and a deviation from the rules of the slow reading list to get off onto a tangent about the ethics of Ayn Rand. I move that we stick to Atistotle, as a big enough job for one listserv. LFG ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 09:50:08 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NE: Ch. 1 (i) From: "Leslie Goldstein" On Sun, 20 Mar 1994, Richard Diamond wrote: > > > > So, to paraphrase Aristotle's conclusion, "Thus, those philosophers who > said 'all things desire some good' were right." Again, why does he say > this instead of just "therefore, all things desire the good." What does >****** I think the answer to this one is obvious--Aristotle disagrees with Plato's claim that there is a unified thing, "THE good." One does not have to guess at this. He does so explicitly and at some length. --Leslie ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 94 11:59:05 EST Subject: greetings From: "David Lawrence" Greetings, Well, from the looks of things so far I hope there is room for another new subscriber. My name is Dave Lawrence and I am a graduate student in the Department of Communication at The Ohio State University. My interests in Aristotle's NE derive from course work in classical rhetorical theory, communication ethics, and various essays by Martha Nussbaum. More specifically, I'm interested in the relationship between rhetoric/argumentation and ethics. Thus, what better place to begin than NE. Dave Lawrence dlawrenc@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 11:00:48 -0600 Subject: NE: Housekeeping matters... From: "Richard Diamond" Some housekeeping matters need to be taken care of due to the large influx of new listmembers (Lance Fletcher told me 50 new members a couple days ago, that must be up to at least 75 now). When people sign on new, they do not see the old messages, so a few matters of protocol need to be repeated. First, welcome to you all. Some people have expressed some hesitation about posting. Don't fear. A discussion of the Nicomachean Ethics is uniquely suited as an introduction to Aristotle (there are some exceptions to this, but on the whole it's true). You don't need to know Greek to participate -- I am offering a sacrificial translation so we all have something common to use (or not use, if that's the preference). The only authority in this discussion will be experience and the text of Aristotle. Credentials are checked at the door for this discussion. If you can verify what you want to say against both experience and Aristotle's text, post it. Everyone who has signed up for this discussion has access to both these things! So if you post and you're wrong, you will learn why. If you are right, the rest of us will learn. In that way, nobody loses. Loss only occurs with a) not posting a good thought, or b) posting something without good thought. Now, for matters of protocol: 1. Please remember to put "NE:" in the title of any post about the Ethics so as to distinguish it from posts about the Categories. 2. Do not under any circumstances give a single chapter reference to something in the Ethics. There are two traditions regarding chapter divisions, and if you say, "Ethics I, 3" you will confuse half of the readers. Of course, chapter 1 coincides in both traditions, so it doesn't matter at the moment. Instead, use Bekker numbers, text numbers, or give the chapter references from both traditions. 3. Try to avoid quoting entire posts if you can avoid doing so. It makes things difficult for busy people with slow modems. Enjoy. Richard Diamond diamond@acad.udallas.edu appended is the text of chapter one for those who missed it: Chapter 1 (i) 1094a1-18 (Lectio 1 of St. Thomas) 1. Every art and every inquiry, likewise [every] action and choice, seems to aim at some good. 2. Thus they have stated nobly that the good is that at which all things aim. 3. But there appears to be some difference among the ends: for some [ends] are activities and others are works apart from them. 4. Of these, some ends are apart from the actions, in these the works are by nature better than the activities. 5. Since there are many actions, arts, and sciences the ends also become many. For of the physician, it is health; of the shipbuilder, a ship; of the general, victory; and of the household manager, wealth. 6. All of which are under some one power, just as bridle- making and all other [arts] concerned with the tools of horsemen are under horsemanship, this [art] and every military action is under generalship in the same way that other [sciences] are under others. 7. But in all [sciences] the ends of all the architectonic ones are more choiceworthy than those under them; for the latter are pursued for the sake of the former. 8. It makes no difference whether the ends of the actions are the activities themselves or something else apart from them, just as in the aforesaid sciences. ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 12:13:31 -0500 (EST) Subject: Re: NE: Some questions I, 1(i) From: "BROWN PHILIP H" > >(1) Every art and every inquiry, likewise every action and choice seem to > >aim at some good. > >(2) Thus they have stated well that the good is that at which all things > >aim. > > We notice in the first two paragraphs that Aristotle makes an argument: > because every art, etc. seems to aim at a good, it is right to say all > things aim at the good. > Aristotle's opening argument has been criticized on the ground that from the premise that everything we do aims at some good it does not follow that everything we do aims ultimately at a single good -- namely, the Good, which turns out to be eudaimonia. But I seem to remember reading at least one commentator who took it as almost a commonplace that everything we do we do because we think it will make us happy (bearing in mind that our own happiness is intertwined with others' happiness). I'm not sure Aristotle's argument, as worded, holds up as a piece of logic, but I don't think this necessarily invalidates his claim that our actions aim at a single overarching good, our eudaimonia. Phil ------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 1994 11:20:41 -0600 (CST) Subject: Re: NE: Ch. 1 (i) From: "Richard Diamond" Leslie Goldstein writes: > I think the answer to this one is obvious--Aristotle disagrees > with Plato's claim that there is a unified thing, "THE good." > One does not have to guess at this. He does so explicitly > and at some length. I meant to say "some good" and certainly not "THE" good in the Platonic sense. My intent was to discover why Aristotle would proceed by referring to what philosophers think (or what everyone thinks, if that's the case) and not just say, "this is the way it is." Craig Walton suggests an answer. The subject matter of Ethics is not always something that cannot be otherwise. That is, when matters of Ethics are contingent, strict demonstration is not appropriate. Hence, he refers to the opinions of philosophers and common men instead of laying things out demonstratively -- at least to begin with. As for whether in text 2 of Aristotle: "2. Thus they have stated nobly that the good is that at which all things aim." the "they" refers to philosophers or common men, I think I would say that because Aristotle does not throw in "all" (a very small word to throw in!) he is not referring to all men. To repeat, all men do not "state" or "enunciate" things (enunciate is a better though more awkward way to render the Greek word). It is the case that Plato in his dialogues makes this very enunciation as well, and does not seem to be the case that all men speak in such a way. Hence, I take his "they" as referring to a smaller group of men. Richard Diamond diamond@acad.udallas.edu