Decency is the title of chapter ten of book five in my translation (Terence Irwin 3rd edition). The statement about decency being superior to justice is found near line 10.
Book six chapter 11 line 20 starts off describing a state called consideration which is the ‘correct judgement of a decent person’
In book five Aristotle writes about the difference between the just and the decent and implies (or even says) that decency is superior to justice.
Again, in book six, we are again presented with the concept of the decent individual and the differences between the consideration and prudence.
Do we need to talk more about the ‘decent’ individual? In the book on justice, justice seemed to be the realm of the legislator while decency seemed to be more personal.
How does this distinction apply to wisdom and prudence?
Decency is the title of chapter ten of book five in my translation (Terence Irwin 3rd edition). The statement about decency being superior to justice is found near line 10.
Book six chapter 11 line 20 starts off describing a state called consideration which is the ‘correct judgement of a decent person’
On science: a key difference between the present and anything before a few hundred years ago, such as the works of Aristotle, is the discovery of uncertainty, forming the new fields of probability and statistics. So science today is the narrowing down of the truth of a proposition from possible to likely to an approximation of certainty. I think it is fair to state that millions of skilled professionals in the U.S. today devote a large part of their time to hypothesis testing--to statistical research.
Excellent Beatles reference- one of my favorites! Not much to add with this one, other than I agree with your post and some other comments that it took some time to get accustomed to the way terms like science are used in the book.
Also, I don't have the time at present, but at some point I feel like I really want to get pencil and paper and diagram out Aristotle's system of the soul, its parts, how they grasp truth, etc., and try to get a sense of the whole model. It's clearly well thought out, which means there is likely value in simply trying to figure it out, regardless of its accuracy.
Another challenging book, but I feel like I got there in the end (after reading and re-re-reviewing).
I also did find myself thumbing back to the glossary a few times to check my understanding of “science” and “intellect” in their intended context.
Whenever I see a statement (be it from Aristotle, Plato, or whoever) along the lines of “there are 5 things by which the soul attains truth…” I feel a tug at the back of my mind. I suppose the tendency these days is to resist this kind of neat classification. Or maybe it’s my own natural skepticism. Either way, I have to resist the assumption that someone else, probably someone smarter than me, could make an equally well-reasoned list of four things, or six things, or different things altogether.
That said, I also recognize that this is just my initial gut reaction, and that clarification awaits me in the following paragraphs and pages. I feel like I am still able to meet Aristotle where he lives — at least with whatever meager success I can claim.
Thank you for your comments on this chapter. For some reason, unknown to me, this chapter was harder for me to follow along with. My main takeaway when I finished reading it was that prudence seems good, I should strive to be prudent. Your article helped fill in some of the missing links in my understanding of a few small sections. Thanks :)
Decency is the title of chapter ten of book five in my translation (Terence Irwin 3rd edition). The statement about decency being superior to justice is found near line 10.
Book six chapter 11 line 20 starts off describing a state called consideration which is the ‘correct judgement of a decent person’
In book five Aristotle writes about the difference between the just and the decent and implies (or even says) that decency is superior to justice.
Again, in book six, we are again presented with the concept of the decent individual and the differences between the consideration and prudence.
Do we need to talk more about the ‘decent’ individual? In the book on justice, justice seemed to be the realm of the legislator while decency seemed to be more personal.
How does this distinction apply to wisdom and prudence?
Can you find the line numbers for this? If so I can look into it.
Decency is the title of chapter ten of book five in my translation (Terence Irwin 3rd edition). The statement about decency being superior to justice is found near line 10.
Book six chapter 11 line 20 starts off describing a state called consideration which is the ‘correct judgement of a decent person’
On science: a key difference between the present and anything before a few hundred years ago, such as the works of Aristotle, is the discovery of uncertainty, forming the new fields of probability and statistics. So science today is the narrowing down of the truth of a proposition from possible to likely to an approximation of certainty. I think it is fair to state that millions of skilled professionals in the U.S. today devote a large part of their time to hypothesis testing--to statistical research.
Excellent Beatles reference- one of my favorites! Not much to add with this one, other than I agree with your post and some other comments that it took some time to get accustomed to the way terms like science are used in the book.
Also, I don't have the time at present, but at some point I feel like I really want to get pencil and paper and diagram out Aristotle's system of the soul, its parts, how they grasp truth, etc., and try to get a sense of the whole model. It's clearly well thought out, which means there is likely value in simply trying to figure it out, regardless of its accuracy.
Another challenging book, but I feel like I got there in the end (after reading and re-re-reviewing).
I also did find myself thumbing back to the glossary a few times to check my understanding of “science” and “intellect” in their intended context.
Whenever I see a statement (be it from Aristotle, Plato, or whoever) along the lines of “there are 5 things by which the soul attains truth…” I feel a tug at the back of my mind. I suppose the tendency these days is to resist this kind of neat classification. Or maybe it’s my own natural skepticism. Either way, I have to resist the assumption that someone else, probably someone smarter than me, could make an equally well-reasoned list of four things, or six things, or different things altogether.
That said, I also recognize that this is just my initial gut reaction, and that clarification awaits me in the following paragraphs and pages. I feel like I am still able to meet Aristotle where he lives — at least with whatever meager success I can claim.
At least with Aristotle, you can rest assured that it is highly systematic and integrated into almost every area of his philosophy.
Good point, and probably part of the reason why I am eager to keep reading his other works. You have to admire his scope.
Thank you for your comments on this chapter. For some reason, unknown to me, this chapter was harder for me to follow along with. My main takeaway when I finished reading it was that prudence seems good, I should strive to be prudent. Your article helped fill in some of the missing links in my understanding of a few small sections. Thanks :)
You’re not alone on this :) Also found myself struggling more than usual during this book
Glad to know I'm not alone! 😀