I started thinking more deeply about prudence after our discussion on Sunday. Can prudence be taken too far, thus keeping us from acting even though it might be dangerous? If I see two people fighting, do I do the prudent thing and protect myself first? I could call the police and wait to see what happens, thus physically protecting myself. But what if one of the people is hurt and I can stop them from being further injured. Some people would jump into the fray without thinking of self-preservation. Does that action make them a better person?
Thank you for your hard work, Jared. Your comments are very helpful, especially for the last couple of books. I get lost in all the divisions that are made and have trouble finding my footing. Your articles have helped me grasp the main idea of each book and reflect a lot more on what I read. This book has earned a re-read for me in the future, that's for sure!
Your comments on the different Books of Nicomeachean Ethics are valuable, and the way that you have kept them available adds to their value. I'm sure that I would never have learned this much about this important work without the framework that you have created.
On prudence and deliberation: to me this is Aristotle's way of taking uncertainty into account before the concept was invented (Steven Stigler has a book on this invention, The History of Statistics, that I have been meaning to read). You need prudence and you need to deliberate when uncertainty runs high and decisions are important.
I am sorry. I finally ran into a brick wall with this book. Aristotle broke me. I can no longer focus. This is the first time reading Aristotle and the first time in decades reading philosophy. With summer ending and my kids going back to school, I need to take a short break and pick it back up later. His style is such that it became exhausting to keep up. I need to take it slower. I'll conitinue to follow the postings here and wait for the next read a long.
I started thinking more deeply about prudence after our discussion on Sunday. Can prudence be taken too far, thus keeping us from acting even though it might be dangerous? If I see two people fighting, do I do the prudent thing and protect myself first? I could call the police and wait to see what happens, thus physically protecting myself. But what if one of the people is hurt and I can stop them from being further injured. Some people would jump into the fray without thinking of self-preservation. Does that action make them a better person?
Thank you for your hard work, Jared. Your comments are very helpful, especially for the last couple of books. I get lost in all the divisions that are made and have trouble finding my footing. Your articles have helped me grasp the main idea of each book and reflect a lot more on what I read. This book has earned a re-read for me in the future, that's for sure!
Your comments on the different Books of Nicomeachean Ethics are valuable, and the way that you have kept them available adds to their value. I'm sure that I would never have learned this much about this important work without the framework that you have created.
On prudence and deliberation: to me this is Aristotle's way of taking uncertainty into account before the concept was invented (Steven Stigler has a book on this invention, The History of Statistics, that I have been meaning to read). You need prudence and you need to deliberate when uncertainty runs high and decisions are important.
I am sorry. I finally ran into a brick wall with this book. Aristotle broke me. I can no longer focus. This is the first time reading Aristotle and the first time in decades reading philosophy. With summer ending and my kids going back to school, I need to take a short break and pick it back up later. His style is such that it became exhausting to keep up. I need to take it slower. I'll conitinue to follow the postings here and wait for the next read a long.
Come back when you can. The posts will be up, and I hope they’ll be helpful if you return to Aristotle!