Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics???

[mel_77777]

So i started reading Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics over the holidays and i have a couple of questions i need to answer on this text, just as an introduction.
BUT i am having so much trouble trying to understand it given the way it's been written!!!

Does anyone know any books or websites that could help?
Thanks

[Menang]

I'm supposed to read this too! (For holiday homework).

I haven't started yet () but yeah, I'd also be interested.

[Tobias Funke]

Um, which translation do you have? the one I did last year was fairly easy to read,  but mind you, start with Gorgias, it makes it more chronological, in terms of having to study it and the time both were written.

and unfortunately I can't find a way to log into my school portal, because my teacher kept a written summary of each section

I'll see if i can find it around, I probably printed it enough

[Aurelian]

Come exam time, you'll in fact be thankful for the systematic nature of how it's written, even if you aren't now.

I don't know any websites or books that would aid you in reading this text, but I do know me, which is probably better than a wesbite/book (arrogance ftw ). At least at first, I would in fact advise against looking on the internet or whatever to help you here as it will probably only serve to confuse you (the only exception being if you find an actual summary in dot points of Book I and II).

Very broadly speaking Aristotle moves along like this;

Book I: HAPPINESS
- Investigates our final end; finds that end to be happiness
- Investigates the nature of happiness; excludes pleasure, honour and wealth
- Contemplates the 'function' (this can be a very confusing concept to the first time Aristotle reader) of humans in order to ascertain the nature of our final end.

Book II: VIRTUE
- (Moral) virtue is acquired through habituation and falls under the category of practical reasoning.
- The doctrine of the mean; a definition of (moral) virtue

Obviously that's a fairly broad and scanty outline of Aristotle, leaving out heaps of the particular things, and it probably isn't actually at all useful on the whole.. but I'm not too sure on how to help.

I honestly believe you'll find that even if on your first or second attempt Aristotle (or any philosophers in the course for that matter) makes utterly zero sense, once you reread him a couple of times he will be much clearer.

[Menang]

Come exam time, you'll in fact be thankful for the systematic nature of how it's written, even if you aren't now.

I don't know any websites or books that would aid you in reading this text, but I do know me, which is probably better than a wesbite/book (arrogance ftw ). At least at first, I would in fact advise against looking on the internet or whatever to help you here as it will probably only serve to confuse you (the only exception being if you find an actual summary in dot points of Book I and II).

Very broadly speaking Aristotle moves along like this;

Book I: HAPPINESS
- Investigates our final end; finds that end to be happiness
- Investigates the nature of happiness; excludes pleasure, honour and wealth
- Contemplates the 'function' (this can be a very confusing concept to the first time Aristotle reader) of humans in order to ascertain the nature of our final end.

Book II: VIRTUE
- (Moral) virtue is acquired through habituation and falls under the category of practical reasoning.
- The doctrine of the mean; a definition of (moral) virtue

Obviously that's a fairly broad and scanty outline of Aristotle, leaving out heaps of the particular things, and it probably isn't actually at all useful on the whole.. but I'm not too sure on how to help.

I honestly believe you'll find that even if on your first or second attempt Aristotle (or any philosophers in the course for that matter) makes utterly zero sense, once you reread him a couple of times he will be much clearer.

+1
You are awesome.

[mel_77777]

Um, which translation do you have? the one I did last year was fairly easy to read,  but mind you, start with Gorgias, it makes it more chronological, in terms of having to study it and the time both were written.

and unfortunately I can't find a way to log into my school portal, because my teacher kept a written summary of each section

I'll see if i can find it around, I probably printed it enough

> Mine is translated by David Ross.
And our teacher has made us start with Nicomachean Ethics, and he's getting us to answer a heap of questions over the holiday break as well, tough task considering i'm having difficulty understanding!

[Aurelian]

> Mine is translated by David Ross.
And our teacher has made us start with Nicomachean Ethics, and he's getting us to answer a heap of questions over the holiday break as well, tough task considering i'm having difficulty understanding!

Try the J. A. K. Thomson translation; Penguin Classics ISBN 978-0-14-044949-5. You might find it a little clearer. The Ross translation is the VCE one though, so it should remain the ultimate authority.

[Tobias Funke]

I remember reading 1.1 and failing to answer a question to explain the hierarchy of the goods of whatever.

Did you do much criticism of Ethics Aurelian?

[Aurelian]

I probably did the most criticism of Ethics than any other text. It has a substantial number of problems.

[Menang]

Um, which translation do you have? the one I did last year was fairly easy to read,  but mind you, start with Gorgias, it makes it more chronological, in terms of having to study it and the time both were written.

and unfortunately I can't find a way to log into my school portal, because my teacher kept a written summary of each section

I'll see if i can find it around, I probably printed it enough

> Mine is translated by David Ross.
And our teacher has made us start with Nicomachean Ethics, and he's getting us to answer a heap of questions over the holiday break as well, tough task considering i'm having difficulty understanding!

Hmmm, do you happen to be able to post the questions up here?
I find that sometimes set questions (may) guides me to a clearer understanding of a text (hehe if it asks about something, that something is probably important ).

I just finished reading through Book 1, it's tough!
Re-reading it slowly now, but I have to do a summary of Book 1 and 2 for holiday homework following the structure of:

1. What is its main contention? (claim)
2. What are the major supporting claims?
3. Outline the steps of the major arguments.
4. List key quotes
5. Suggest 1 or 2 counter arguments and how Aristotle would defend against them.

Hahaha I'm thinking this is way over my head atm, but I'll see how I go after re-reading. :S

[Tobias Funke]

Having not done this in a while, i'll try my best

1. As all activity aims at some good, there must be a chief good which all things aim for. Aristotle concludes it is happiness (although it begs the question, why there can not be a variety of chief goods). So from that point he seeks to find a clearer account of what happiness is

I think if I was reminded more of the content I'd be able to answer more, but really, I've forgotten a lot

Whenever you do the soul though, my teacher provided a fairly decent analogy/explanation of the three aspects; imagine a person using a hose (the faculties), the hose itself is what keeps the water (passions) together, and it is up to you where you want to shoot the water (character).

[mel_77777]

'We must not expect more precision than the subject-matter admits of. The student should hav reached years of discretion'

Anyone have an idea as to what this means?

Im understanding it as, we must not be precise when discussing Good as there are fluctuations in what is Good and what is deemed Good for one man may not be deemed Good for another, so as such we must discuss roughly and in outline.

Please let me know if i am way off the mark haha.

[Tobias Funke]

Yeah basically you're right.

I think later he says something which makes what he's aiming to say much easier to understand

goes along the lines of 'it would be foolish to expect probable reasoning from a mathematician as it would be to expect demonstrative proofs from a political scientist?'

[mel_77777]

Yeah basically you're right.

I think later he says something which makes what he's aiming to say much easier to understand

goes along the lines of 'it would be foolish to expect probable reasoning from a mathematician as it would be to expect demonstrative proofs from a political scientist?'

Thanks yeahh... 'it is foolish to accept probabal reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetician demonstrative proofs', that quote does kinda help.

Wondering whether this sounds about right, though this is only referring to dicussion within the first 20 pages of the text.
Im still very unsure about this text

Happiness, or Eudemonia, is central to Aristotle’s conception of the good life. This happiness that Aristotle speaks of ‘is the highest of all goods achievable by action’ and what it is that constitutes for happiness appears to differ; man identifies happiness ‘with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor’ and there is an admiration of ‘those who proclaim some great thing that is above ones comprehension’. What must be emphasised is the fact that happiness is made of these numerous other subordinate ends and happiness is always pursued as an end and never a means to an end; it is not a state but an activity, it is a constant motion.

[Aurelian]

Wondering whether this sounds about right, though this is only referring to dicussion within the first 20 pages of the text.
Im still very unsure about this text

Happiness, or Eudemonia, is central to Aristotle’s conception of the good life. This happiness that Aristotle speaks of ‘is the highest of all goods achievable by action’ and what it is that constitutes for happiness appears to differ; man identifies happiness ‘with health when he is ill, with wealth when he is poor’ and there is an admiration of ‘those who proclaim some great thing that is above ones comprehension’. What must be emphasised is the fact that happiness is made of these numerous other subordinate ends and happiness is always pursued as an end and never a means to an end; it is not a state but an activity, it is a constant motion.

I couldn't be bothered reading this properly but just one thing; don't use the phrase "happiness" when talking about Aristotle. Use only eudaimonia or flourishing.