Aristotles Nicomachean Ethics???

[Menang]

Hey Aurelian/Philosophers

I've read through Nicomachean Ethics several times already, I still have trouble understanding specifics (I get the gist of what he's saying, but if I read a specific paragraph I get lost).

Can anyone maybe help with maybe outlining for me Aristotle's steps in setting his major arguments of Happiness being the ultimate good and virtue being achievable by practice?

[Ghost!]

Hey Aurelian/Philosophers

I've read through Nicomachean Ethics several times already, I still have trouble understanding specifics (I get the gist of what he's saying, but if I read a specific paragraph I get lost).

Can anyone maybe help with maybe outlining for me Aristotle's steps in setting his major arguments of Happiness being the ultimate good and virtue being achievable by practice?

Don't stress out to much yet Menang. Just read through and understand the basic concepts and worry about the little details and specifics once you start going through it at school.

[Menang]

Hey Aurelian/Philosophers

I've read through Nicomachean Ethics several times already, I still have trouble understanding specifics (I get the gist of what he's saying, but if I read a specific paragraph I get lost).

Can anyone maybe help with maybe outlining for me Aristotle's steps in setting his major arguments of Happiness being the ultimate good and virtue being achievable by practice?

Don't stress out to much yet Menang. Just read through and understand the basic concepts and worry about the little details and specifics once you start going through it at school.

Thanks, Ghost! I usually don't stress, but I kinda actually need to know this...

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

See? Holiday Homework. I think I get the first two questions OK, and I think I would be able handle Questions 4 and 5 but question 3 is throwing me. Since I can't understand what he's actually saying in a paragraph (just the gist of the entire book) I can't figure out how to break down his arguments into steps... :S

[Dr.Lecter]

What textbooks are you using?

[Menang]

What textbooks are you using?

No set textbook! 0_0
Not that I know of anyway...
My teacher just gives us photocopies of the VCAA set texts, and she gave us Nicomachean Ethics for the holidays.

[Ghost!]

Hey Aurelian/Philosophers

I've read through Nicomachean Ethics several times already, I still have trouble understanding specifics (I get the gist of what he's saying, but if I read a specific paragraph I get lost).

Can anyone maybe help with maybe outlining for me Aristotle's steps in setting his major arguments of Happiness being the ultimate good and virtue being achievable by practice?

Don't stress out to much yet Menang. Just read through and understand the basic concepts and worry about the little details and specifics once you start going through it at school.

Thanks, Ghost! I usually don't stress, but I kinda actually need to know this...

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

See? Holiday Homework. I think I get the first two questions OK, and I think I would be able handle Questions 4 and 5 but question 3 is throwing me. Since I can't understand what he's actually saying in a paragraph (just the gist of the entire book) I can't figure out how to break down his arguments into steps... :S

Ahhhh my bad sorry Menang, didn't realise you already had set work on Aristotle haha sorry!

[Menang]

Hey Aurelian/Philosophers

I've read through Nicomachean Ethics several times already, I still have trouble understanding specifics (I get the gist of what he's saying, but if I read a specific paragraph I get lost).

Can anyone maybe help with maybe outlining for me Aristotle's steps in setting his major arguments of Happiness being the ultimate good and virtue being achievable by practice?

Don't stress out to much yet Menang. Just read through and understand the basic concepts and worry about the little details and specifics once you start going through it at school.

Thanks, Ghost! I usually don't stress, but I kinda actually need to know this...

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

See? Holiday Homework. I think I get the first two questions OK, and I think I would be able handle Questions 4 and 5 but question 3 is throwing me. Since I can't understand what he's actually saying in a paragraph (just the gist of the entire book) I can't figure out how to break down his arguments into steps... :S

Ahhhh my bad sorry Menang, didn't realise you already had set work on Aristotle haha sorry!

hahaha yeah. I have set work for lit and philosophy, which is quite frustrating cause I usually work best during or after class discussions. This is leaving me really lost, having never done poetry (Keats homework for lit -_-) or philosophy ever before. :S

[Aurelian]

Damn, I almost wish I wrote notes last year just so it'd make it easier to help you guys... okay this is off the top of my head so apologies if I miss anything/skim over anything too loosely.

Okay, now, to be honest, there really aren't many "argument arguments" in this book, but a lot of things get confused as such. For example, his opening page about happiness as our final end is more descriptive than syllogistically argumentative.

I'll just do a sort of outline, breaking the "argument arguments" into proper steps.

Bk I: Eudaimonia and telos

1. Our final end or "telos" is that towards which all activities aim. A final end must be sought in and of itself (ie not as a means to some further end). It also must be "self-sufficient" (ie dependent on no other thing). The final end for humans is eudaimonia, or flourishing.

2. Eudaimonia consists of two elements; living well and faring well.

3. In order to determine in what living well consists, Aristotle considers the unique function of man. He considers three things; nutrition & growth, sentience, and reason. Since our function is what is unique to man, it cannot be nutrition & growth (for this is posessed by plants), nor can it be mere sentience (animals have this). Thus, by exclusion, the unique function of man is *reason*. 'Living well' therefore consists in excellent performance of this function; i.e. "reasoning well".

Bk II: Moral Virtue

Aristotle believes that virtue is a state of character disposed to choose, with reference to reason, the "mean" in any given situation. The mean is the amount which is *beneficial* to you and the appropriate response. It lies between the vices of excess and deficit and is relative to context - ie it may differ from one person to another and situation to situation. An example of such a virtue would be courage, the mean lying between the excess of rashness and the deficit of cowardice.

Virtue is acquired through habituation. This is to say that repeated commission of virtuous acts lead to the formation of habits and develop a virtuous disposition. Perhaps even to begin with, such a person doesn't know why the act is virtuous or why they should do it; but over time they come to see this.

I find, personally, the analogy of a builder helps to illustrate this section. A builder is not necessarily automatically a good builder. A builder becomes a good builder by building things. Perhaps to begin with, they use plans and simply follow what the plans say. However, after they've built lots of things after years of experience, they no longer need the plans, and they come to be a good builder. That is to say that they tend to build well - just as a good man tends to choose the virtuous mean.

Hmmm what else is there...

Well, an act may be virtuous but not necessarily come from a virtuous disposition. For an action to be both virtuous and also be done in a virtuous way, the agent must a) have knowledge of what they're doing (ie do it on purpose) as well as knowing why they're doing it etc... b) choose it for its own sake not for the sake of anything else, and c) doing it from a fixed disposition (ie not just as a 'one off').

There's some stuff about pleasure that I ceebs talking about now, as well as some other stuff but yeahhh

if anyone has any specific questions just ask, it's difficult to help without narrow instruction

[Menang]

Damn, I almost wish I wrote notes last year just so it'd make it easier to help you guys... okay this is off the top of my head so apologies if I miss anything/skim over anything too loosely.

Okay, now, to be honest, there really aren't many "argument arguments" in this book, but a lot of things get confused as such. For example, his opening page about happiness as our final end is more descriptive than syllogistically argumentative.

I'll just do a sort of outline, breaking the "argument arguments" into proper steps.

Bk I: Eudaimonia and telos

1. Our final end or "telos" is that towards which all activities aim. A final end must be sought in and of itself (ie not as a means to some further end). It also must be "self-sufficient" (ie dependent on no other thing). The final end for humans is eudaimonia, or flourishing.

2. Eudaimonia consists of two elements; living well and faring well.

3. In order to determine in what living well consists, Aristotle considers the unique function of man. He considers three things; nutrition & growth, sentience, and reason. Since our function is what is unique to man, it cannot be nutrition & growth (for this is posessed by plants), nor can it be mere sentience (animals have this). Thus, by exclusion, the unique function of man is *reason*. 'Living well' therefore consists in excellent performance of this function; i.e. "reasoning well".

Bk II: Moral Virtue

Aristotle believes that virtue is a state of character disposed to choose, with reference to reason, the "mean" in any given situation. The mean is the amount which is *beneficial* to you and the appropriate response. It lies between the vices of excess and deficit and is relative to context - ie it may differ from one person to another and situation to situation. An example of such a virtue would be courage, the mean lying between the excess of rashness and the deficit of cowardice.

Virtue is acquired through habituation. This is to say that repeated commission of virtuous acts lead to the formation of habits and develop a virtuous disposition. Perhaps even to begin with, such a person doesn't know why the act is virtuous or why they should do it; but over time they come to see this.

I find, personally, the analogy of a builder helps to illustrate this section. A builder is not necessarily automatically a good builder. A builder becomes a good builder by building things. Perhaps to begin with, they use plans and simply follow what the plans say. However, after they've built lots of things after years of experience, they no longer need the plans, and they come to be a good builder. That is to say that they tend to build well - just as a good man tends to choose the virtuous mean.

Hmmm what else is there...

Well, an act may be virtuous but not necessarily come from a virtuous disposition. For an action to be both virtuous and also be done in a virtuous way, the agent must a) have knowledge of what they're doing (ie do it on purpose) as well as knowing why they're doing it etc... b) choose it for its own sake not for the sake of anything else, and c) doing it from a fixed disposition (ie not just as a 'one off').

There's some stuff about pleasure that I ceebs talking about now, as well as some other stuff but yeahhh

if anyone has any specific questions just ask, it's difficult to help without narrow instruction

That's amazing, thanks Aurelian. Just one thing though, can you clarify or maybe rephrase what you mean by "Aristotle believes that virtue is a state of character disposed to choose, with reference to reason, the "mean" in any given situation."? I'm still getting used to the way philosophers write! 0_0

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

Could you maybe explain some counter arguments of to Aristotle's Ethics as well, too?

+1 You're a massive lifesaver.

[Aurelian]

That's amazing, thanks Aurelian. Just one thing though, can you clarify or maybe rephrase what you mean by "Aristotle believes that virtue is a state of character disposed to choose, with reference to reason, the "mean" in any given situation."? I'm still getting used to the way philosophers write! 0_0

Hmmm. Let's see how I can rephrase (bear in mind what I've said there is probably *the* best phrasing of A's definition of virtue though). Basically, virtue is a state of character. This means that, rather than being a measure of what they do, it's a measure of who they are. Who one is, I think it is easily agreed, has a tendency to precede what one does. For example, the optimist will likely say optimistic things. Virtue is a specific state of character though, in that it is the one where the given person has a tendency to "choose the mean" in any given activity. The mean is the yada yada. This "choosing", additionally, is done in a rational way (given the function argument).

Sooooo for example, the courageous man tends to do courageous things. Ie, he is disposed (or "has a tendency") to select the mean of courage in any given action where the sphere of fear and confidence is involved.

Hmmm... I'm not sure if that cleared anything up at all lmao. Make sure to say if it didn't!

Basically, dispositions are just tendencies to do something. The disposition of greed with regards to food for example lends itself to the tendency of eating more than one needs. Make sense...?

Could you maybe explain some counter arguments of to Aristotle's Ethics as well, too?

In good time, I will. I actually made a list of all these, funnily enough, because there were just so many. However, I firmly believe that evaluations should - at least to begin with - be thought of on one's own upon thinking about the text critically. As a result, additionally, evaluation/counter-arguments should only be considered after the text is thoroughly understood.

Go about evaluation in philosophy (and indeed life!) by asking yourself some of the following questions when thinking about the text;

1. What assumptions are being made here? Are these assumptions true? What would follow for the rest of the argument if these assumptions were shown to be incorrect? (Thus "challenging assumptions" is a form of evaluation).

2. What are the implications of this argument if correct? Does it lead to any self-defeating or inconsistent/contradictory results? This type of evaluation is often called "reductio ad absurdum" - where one draws out the proposed theories to reach absurd consequences which are still within the realms of the theory.

3. Are there any imbedded contradictions in the arguments/ideas themselves? Pretty obvious what this type of evaluation is all about.

4. Is the argument complete? Does it appear to be missing anything, or overlooking anything?

These are just 4 ways of approaching evaluation. But yes, try and think about it vigorously yourself. Don't sit at a desk and do it, of course, perhaps even go for a walk. Woooo lol


That said, if you're really struggling, I'll help out with evaluations more specifically.

[Menang]

Hey Aurelian/other Philosophy kids.

I've been working on a chapter-by-chapter summary of Book 1 (am yet to start on Book 2). No evaluations or anything, just breaking down his arguments and reasoning in each chapter of the book.

I've attached it here. I know it's quite long, but if anyone could take a look at it and check if I've made any serious errors in the reasonings/arguments or if I've left out anything major, I'd be totally grateful.

Also, other philosophy kids can have a look as well, if it's useful to you.

[Aurelian]

wow... those notes are... colourful! lololol

I skimmed over them and I can't see anything that's downright 'wrong' (I could be pedantic but ceebs)

one thing though is that they're too fluffy and you focus a lot on unimportant stuff

I have a challenge: rewrite those notes as 1/3 of their current size

also ease back on the quotes - quotes can hide misunderstanding often. It's far better to always put things in your own words, because then you can be sure you've understood it.

[Menang]

wow... those notes are... colourful! lololol

I skimmed over them and I can't see anything that's downright 'wrong' (I could be pedantic but ceebs)

one thing though is that they're too fluffy and you focus a lot on unimportant stuff

I have a challenge: rewrite those notes as 1/3 of their current size

also ease back on the quotes - quotes can hide misunderstanding often. It's far better to always put things in your own words, because then you can be sure you've understood it.

Thanks Aurelian.

I wasn't sure which stuff is more important. Which stuff did I focus on that you would deem unimportant?

Is it wrong to say that from that entire summary the self-sufficiency argument and the function argument would be most important?

[Aurelian]

wow... those notes are... colourful! lololol

I skimmed over them and I can't see anything that's downright 'wrong' (I could be pedantic but ceebs)

one thing though is that they're too fluffy and you focus a lot on unimportant stuff

I have a challenge: rewrite those notes as 1/3 of their current size

also ease back on the quotes - quotes can hide misunderstanding often. It's far better to always put things in your own words, because then you can be sure you've understood it.

Thanks Aurelian.

I wasn't sure which stuff is more important. Which stuff did I focus on that you would deem unimportant?

Is it wrong to say that from that entire summary the self-sufficiency argument and the function argument would be most important?

Function argument is the most important thing in Book I, yes. I don't recall there being a self-sufficiency 'argument' as such though... It's more just given as a criterion for our final good.

What you really need to learn to do in VCE Philo is learn how to compact everything really really tight so that you say lots of stuff in not many words. Just reading over your function argument part in what you attached there, it's a bit airy fairy and doesn't get quick and straight to the point. If you feel like it, whenever you have time do a little exercise for me to help me illustrate this; answer the question "Analyse and evaluate Aristotle's function argument" in under 250 words, then post your response here or PM it to me (this goes for any other philosophers who want help too)...

[Menang]

wow... those notes are... colourful! lololol

I skimmed over them and I can't see anything that's downright 'wrong' (I could be pedantic but ceebs)

one thing though is that they're too fluffy and you focus a lot on unimportant stuff

I have a challenge: rewrite those notes as 1/3 of their current size

also ease back on the quotes - quotes can hide misunderstanding often. It's far better to always put things in your own words, because then you can be sure you've understood it.

Thanks Aurelian.

I wasn't sure which stuff is more important. Which stuff did I focus on that you would deem unimportant?

Is it wrong to say that from that entire summary the self-sufficiency argument and the function argument would be most important?

Function argument is the most important thing in Book I, yes. I don't recall there being a self-sufficiency 'argument' as such though... It's more just given as a criterion for our final good.

What you really need to learn to do in VCE Philo is learn how to compact everything really really tight so that you say lots of stuff in not many words. Just reading over your function argument part in what you attached there, it's a bit airy fairy and doesn't get quick and straight to the point. If you feel like it, whenever you have time do a little exercise for me to help me illustrate this; answer the question "Analyse and evaluate Aristotle's function argument" in under 250 words, then post your response here or PM it to me (this goes for any other philosophers who want help too)...

Eeek that's intimidating! 0_0

We haven't done any evaluation yet but I'll give it a go. I'll post it here when I'm done.

Thanks for all the help!