Our read-along continues, now with some text from Aristotle. Politics and contemplation, the methodology of the Nicomachean Ethics, and teleological explanations of action.
I appreciated the opportunity to re-read this. What struck me most is how realists like Aristotle always end up in some sort of regress, where they look like they've explained the idea of the good while only restating the idea itself.
For example, he sounds convincing when he argues that the actions we undertake all have immediate ends and also an ultimate end, which is uniquely valued in itself, and he claims that this is happiness. But while the claim looks logical or empirical, so we seem to have made our first step along the road to an ethics, I think it's really a tautology.
This becomes clear when he discusses the disagreement about what constitutes happiness, as he shows that happiness - understood as the one end that serves no other purpose - is really just the result of fulfilling our other ends. But if happiness is just the result of fulfilling our ends, what of it? A conversation about ethics can only begin in earnest when we have some grasp on what distinguishes good actions from bad ones. So although it looks like he's established that happiness is the identity of the good that all actions aim at, he really only establishes that happiness is a consequence of having aims in the first place.
He does then engage with this problem and says we need a better understanding of what constitutes happiness, and his most valuable insight regards the importance of human activity being goal-directed. We might then understand happiness in terms of the ultimate goal humans are trying to achieve or, put another way, what human lives are for, but I think this also leads to a dead end.
He claims that rational thought is what defines us, and that living well therefore amounts to virtuous activity in accordance with rationality. But "virtuous activity" is an almost literal restatement of "living well", so all he's really offering is the idea (by way of a naturalistic fallacy) that human purpose is rational existence. At this point, we can say that, if happiness is brought about by purpose fulfilment, then it will be brought about by rational existence, but if happiness is not just purpose fulfilment by tautology, the implication still remains to be proven.
Here, I wonder if Aristotle is actually not trying to establish a substantive link between happiness and purpose fulfilment as two different things, but is actually trying to show that they are one and the same. Then, perhaps his worldview is more alien to us than we realise, in that it doesn't really have a place for happiness as a state of mind which arises out of purpose fulfilment, but rather stipulates that ethics has to be grounded in living in accordance with our nature, as there is just no other way of understanding what well-being is. Just as a well-functioning ship doesn't beget some extra state of the ship, a well-functioning person doesn't beget some extra state of mind, though we find it natural to call it 'happiness' nonetheless.
To me, the most interesting thing about Aristotle is not the ethics or the virtues but this idea of purpose. I think his own function argument is weak, as it relies on notions of a natural order which are outdated. But it would be intriguing to try to justify a human function within a modern framework. My intuitive starting point would be creativity - humans are toolmakers, labourers, world-builders and artists - and the highest good might be something like beauty in the form and function of our artefacts. I don't know any better than Aristotle how to rescue such thoughts from tautology but it's a better starting place, I think.
I think your second to last paragraph hits closer to what I’ve come to understand; The word “happiness” brings along its own modern baggage, and Aristotle clearly does not mean that performing the “activities of soul in accord with virtue” will cause one to be in a state of modern emotional happiness or fulfillment, although I suppose he considered it a side effect.
He does rely (as you say) on the notion that humans have a “work” or purpose which is an obvious bone to pick. But meeting Aristotle where he lives, viewing happiness through the lens of “human flourishing,” the work of a human is an activity of the soul. An activity, then, is completed well when done in accord with its virtue. A human can live and a ship builder can build, but for a human to live well, and for a ship builder to build ships well, the work of each must be done in accord with the virtue respective to each.
Put another way, human flourishing (i.e “happiness”) is brought about by performing the work of a human well.
This is my first work of philosophy I have ever read, and also find Aristotle's formatting to be challenging at most times. I often start out strong but with the "run on sentences" and continuous "if-then" style statements, the thread often gets lost and it becomes difficult to pick up.
However, I absolutely love this as a read along and really enjoy the opportunity to discuss during these weekly check-ins to make sure my understanding stays on track. The mental exercise is something I have been needing.
With the ground work now laid, I am eager to see how he goes about defining these virtues. I am also curious to see if, similar to the hierarchy of "good" will there be the same for living a virtuous life? Can acting in accordance with one be more likely to bring you to happiness then following along with another?
This is also my first (complete) work of philosophy, and it is certainly difficult but I'm also pleasantly surprised by how much I've been able to puzzle together on my own (after a lot of effort). I took an intro to philosophy class in college almost ten years ago but we didn't do a reading of a complete work like this, only excerpts.
I suspect he will reveal a hierarchy of virtues. I think Jared's insight on Aristotle starting his discussion of virtue by considering what humans are uniquely capable of could shed some light on this - I suspect he will hold contemplation and reasoning as higher virtues than others, because these are things we are uniquely capable of as humans.
First, what licenses the move from "Every action has an end" to "There is a single end that all actions have"? How would Aristotle respond to someone who said: "Yes, some actions aim at pleasure, and some at honor. These are both goods, and they're good whether or not they also contribute toward happiness."
Second, is the conception of happiness as an end individualistic, or collective, or some third position? I think Ayn Rand fancied herself an Aristotelian, and I can imagine her reading Book I and saying, "Yes, each person's actions aim at their own happiness, and not at the happiness of any other person. The good for me is my happiness, and the good for you is your happiness." On the other hand, John Stuart Mill might read Book I and say "Yes, happiness is the good at which all actions aim, and each of us should ideally be indifferent as to whose happiness is increased. The important thing is to maximize happiness for the greatest number." I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be reading Aristotle in either of these ways, but what's the alternative?
The license to move came when Aristotle established that the supreme good is 'happiness', and everything in life that we pursue is in pursuit of happiness. Even though pleasures and honor, for some, might not contribute towards happiness but they must be contributing towards something else, for eg. honorable people are well known in their society and that is what some people seek, recognition. Recognition might be their end goal, but when goals are achieved, happiness is bound to appear, and the cycle goes on. Because if the actions of honor are leading to something that is the opposite of honor, then by logic and reason, those actions will not be a course to take on.
To my understanding a somewhat vague answer to your second question can be found in cf-1094b lines 5-10....even though Aristotle does not talk about the conception of happiness as end for individuals and collective per say, but he does abstractly describes the importance of them.
"For even the good of the community coincides with that of the individual it is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the case of an individual, to do so in the case of a people or a state is something more sublime"
That is even though individual happiness is important, the happiness and welfare of the society is more important.
Aristotle takes the individual into account - after all, he addresses the individual here - yet, his conception of happiness is based on the welfare of the entire civic community (the citizens of a given polis). This is also the reason why he holds politics as super ordinate to all the other arts and activities which take place within a polis (city).
To your first questions, assuming I understand you correctly, Aristotle is using the known starting point of general opinion to state that every action is “held to” aim at some good. He establishes that there is a hierarchy of ends, not that there is a single end that all actions have. The end at the top of the hierarchy (eudaimonia/happiness) is most choiceworthy because we choose it for its own sake rather than for the sake of something else. He sidesteps an issue of infinite regress by saying “we do not choose all things on account of something else — for in this way the process will go on infinitely such that the longing involved is empty and pointless…”. So Aristotle would agree that there are ends which aim at pleasure and honor, and that these can be goods, but they are not THE good; We value honor because we want the esteem of our peers, and we want the esteem of our peers because we believe it will make us happy, and similar for pleasure. Aristotle is investigating no less than the best possible human life, which means investigating THE good rather than subordinate goods or ends.
That’s my take, anyway.
As to your second question, I think you should get more insight on this as we get further into the book, but whenever it’s a question of where Aristotle falls between two extremes, it’s a safe bet that the answer is going to be “somewhere in the middle.”
I sort of think right now that he would posit that true happiness for a "serious person" would be on more or less the same basis (i.e. not like "the many" whose answer for happiness varies based on some immediate need). For the point about Mill, the political art would probably be about like that - but in practicing the political art, one would then also become happy...
These are great questions. I am hoping later books shed some light on your second question, because Aristotle does acknowledge the importance of individual good and the good of the community in Book 1, and also softly implies in Chapter 2 that the good of the community may not coincide with the good of an individual, but does not elaborate on that point. There is definitely room for ambiguity, and I'm wondering if his thought is that since ethics is not precise, this ambiguity is unavoidable and we shouldn't spend too much time worrying over this, and we should instead focus on acting in accordance with virtue as individuals. I'm hoping for a more direct confrontation of this question but I could see Aristotle not being overly concerned with it.
In general, I found this difficult reading indeed. I also read the "Book I" section of the essay at the back of your recommended Bartlett and Collins translation, although it didn't clear things up nearly as much as I'd hoped.
In both the primary reading and the essay, I was struck by how tentative and contradictory the text seemed. Your summary here reads as if Aristotle is all-in on the combo of "happiness is the ultimate good" and "happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with virtue", but in the text, this was heavily complicated by discussions of how misfortune may interfere with our ability to be happy and whether or not your happiness could change after you died.
I certainly prefer your simple combo explanation as a way forward; it just wasn't what I got from the text(s).
He seems to lean on the idea that the truly good person will bear both good and bad fortunes "altogether nobly and suitably in every way," such that "He would not be unstable and subject to reversals either, for he will not be easily moved from happiness, and then not by any random misfortunes but only by great and numerous ones" (1.10).
He does seem to allow that fortune has some small bearing on happiness, but nothing dispositive of happiness or the lack thereof except at the extremes.
Similarly, he dismisses changes in happiness after death as mostly inconsequential. "The friends' faring well, then, appears to make some contribution to the condition of those who have passed away, as does, similarly, their faring ill - but a contribution of such a kind and degree as not to make the happy unhappy or anything else of that sort" (1.11). This did feel a bit conclusory, though.
I'm very happy to be part of this read along as it converges very well with my current reading project: Political philosophy. I would like to note first that I'm reading a french Translation, and it is not that hard to follow along with you in English, It is rather helpful to reprocess my understanding in another language.
This is my first Aristotle read, and I found myself drawn to compare this experience with the one I have with Plato. I am surprisingly more captivated by Aristotle's methodology, although it is dense, I can easily point out the arguments he uses. Which is a bit challenging with Plato.
I'm doing the same but with the Spanish translation! Spanish is my native language, so it's easier for me to follow the arguments, wich is important because i'm just starting in philosofy. I completely agree with the reprocess part.
Yes! This jumped out at me on first read. Sometimes, in modern times, people exclaim that they're "bad at being human" or "bad at adulting"... depending on what they're doing, Aristotle might objectively agree!
I like Aristotle's view of happiness as living a virtuous life. It echoes the idea I've encountered elsewhere that human flourishing is really what we're after, a concept that rings true to me. Framing it in terms of an activity rather than something like a characteristic also jibes with the research on the immense enjoyment we derive from being in flow states.
To the extent we tend to equate happiness merely with pleasure, I found his point that the virtuous person actually derives pleasure from acting virtuously to be a helpful insight. It can literally feel good to do the right thing.
The writing style did take some getting used to, and I found Chapter 13 a bit hard to follow, particularly his distinction between the rational part of the soul possessing reason in the authoritative sense vs. merely being apt to listen to reason, but it seems like this might be something that will be revisited further in.
To answer your second question, Aristotle is the second most difficult-to-read philosopher I've ever studied. (Kant is number one on that list.) And I'm twenty-seven years out of grad school, so it's been a while since I've attempted very difficult texts, and making it through Book I was a bit of a slog. I'll try to write down some more substantive thoughts when I have time later this week.
Had to wrench my western brain away from equivocating happiness and pleasure. I'm very interested in seeing if/where he goes with the idea of vocations! It seemed to me that he said the "best life" would be someone finding happiness in pursuing a noble vocation, which begs the question: what makes a certain vocation more noble/virtuous than another, and does this add an element of luck to one's ability to live the "most good" life?
Thanks for doing this read-along, Jared. I haven't gotten to study philosophy under the guidance of an experienced scholar since high school, so I'm really looking forward to these next few months!
I took this read-along as my cue to jump in to what will be my first work of philosophy. So far I've enjoyed the challenge.
As someone unaccustomed to this sort of reading, I find its dryness to be a hurdle at times. Wiggling my way into the mind of Aristotle results in some chafe. I'm surprised at the juxtaposition of arguments at times as mere sketches, and at others as paragraph-long sidebar refutations that seem to lead nowhere.
I find myself chuckling at the "get off my lawn" quality of books two and three, and really enjoying book eight and its argument that happiness is "the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing; and these are not separated." It harmonizes with my own experience, especially over the last year as I've navigated big life changes.
I'm still integrating, and a bit unsure of whether I can keep up with the read-along. But I'm hopeful.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.
I find it quite dificult to get the notion of virtue by the things we do better. Because in our society everything that comes to us is already made, we hardly get to do things and try to do the better version of it. It seens that today happiness is associated with pleasure because of capitalist society, so are we wrong and Aristotle right in this sense? There could be right or wrong in this approach?
I would also like to thank you for the encouragement, I'm a brazillian teacher and I started writing here at substack.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.
I've been sick this weekend, as has my son, but writing this brought me a lot of joy. I'm really looking forward to discussing this with all of you.
And as I write this comment, I see a typo in the title. Alas!
I appreciated the opportunity to re-read this. What struck me most is how realists like Aristotle always end up in some sort of regress, where they look like they've explained the idea of the good while only restating the idea itself.
For example, he sounds convincing when he argues that the actions we undertake all have immediate ends and also an ultimate end, which is uniquely valued in itself, and he claims that this is happiness. But while the claim looks logical or empirical, so we seem to have made our first step along the road to an ethics, I think it's really a tautology.
This becomes clear when he discusses the disagreement about what constitutes happiness, as he shows that happiness - understood as the one end that serves no other purpose - is really just the result of fulfilling our other ends. But if happiness is just the result of fulfilling our ends, what of it? A conversation about ethics can only begin in earnest when we have some grasp on what distinguishes good actions from bad ones. So although it looks like he's established that happiness is the identity of the good that all actions aim at, he really only establishes that happiness is a consequence of having aims in the first place.
He does then engage with this problem and says we need a better understanding of what constitutes happiness, and his most valuable insight regards the importance of human activity being goal-directed. We might then understand happiness in terms of the ultimate goal humans are trying to achieve or, put another way, what human lives are for, but I think this also leads to a dead end.
He claims that rational thought is what defines us, and that living well therefore amounts to virtuous activity in accordance with rationality. But "virtuous activity" is an almost literal restatement of "living well", so all he's really offering is the idea (by way of a naturalistic fallacy) that human purpose is rational existence. At this point, we can say that, if happiness is brought about by purpose fulfilment, then it will be brought about by rational existence, but if happiness is not just purpose fulfilment by tautology, the implication still remains to be proven.
Here, I wonder if Aristotle is actually not trying to establish a substantive link between happiness and purpose fulfilment as two different things, but is actually trying to show that they are one and the same. Then, perhaps his worldview is more alien to us than we realise, in that it doesn't really have a place for happiness as a state of mind which arises out of purpose fulfilment, but rather stipulates that ethics has to be grounded in living in accordance with our nature, as there is just no other way of understanding what well-being is. Just as a well-functioning ship doesn't beget some extra state of the ship, a well-functioning person doesn't beget some extra state of mind, though we find it natural to call it 'happiness' nonetheless.
To me, the most interesting thing about Aristotle is not the ethics or the virtues but this idea of purpose. I think his own function argument is weak, as it relies on notions of a natural order which are outdated. But it would be intriguing to try to justify a human function within a modern framework. My intuitive starting point would be creativity - humans are toolmakers, labourers, world-builders and artists - and the highest good might be something like beauty in the form and function of our artefacts. I don't know any better than Aristotle how to rescue such thoughts from tautology but it's a better starting place, I think.
I think your second to last paragraph hits closer to what I’ve come to understand; The word “happiness” brings along its own modern baggage, and Aristotle clearly does not mean that performing the “activities of soul in accord with virtue” will cause one to be in a state of modern emotional happiness or fulfillment, although I suppose he considered it a side effect.
He does rely (as you say) on the notion that humans have a “work” or purpose which is an obvious bone to pick. But meeting Aristotle where he lives, viewing happiness through the lens of “human flourishing,” the work of a human is an activity of the soul. An activity, then, is completed well when done in accord with its virtue. A human can live and a ship builder can build, but for a human to live well, and for a ship builder to build ships well, the work of each must be done in accord with the virtue respective to each.
Put another way, human flourishing (i.e “happiness”) is brought about by performing the work of a human well.
This is my first work of philosophy I have ever read, and also find Aristotle's formatting to be challenging at most times. I often start out strong but with the "run on sentences" and continuous "if-then" style statements, the thread often gets lost and it becomes difficult to pick up.
However, I absolutely love this as a read along and really enjoy the opportunity to discuss during these weekly check-ins to make sure my understanding stays on track. The mental exercise is something I have been needing.
With the ground work now laid, I am eager to see how he goes about defining these virtues. I am also curious to see if, similar to the hierarchy of "good" will there be the same for living a virtuous life? Can acting in accordance with one be more likely to bring you to happiness then following along with another?
This is also my first (complete) work of philosophy, and it is certainly difficult but I'm also pleasantly surprised by how much I've been able to puzzle together on my own (after a lot of effort). I took an intro to philosophy class in college almost ten years ago but we didn't do a reading of a complete work like this, only excerpts.
I suspect he will reveal a hierarchy of virtues. I think Jared's insight on Aristotle starting his discussion of virtue by considering what humans are uniquely capable of could shed some light on this - I suspect he will hold contemplation and reasoning as higher virtues than others, because these are things we are uniquely capable of as humans.
I had two big questions after reading Book I.
First, what licenses the move from "Every action has an end" to "There is a single end that all actions have"? How would Aristotle respond to someone who said: "Yes, some actions aim at pleasure, and some at honor. These are both goods, and they're good whether or not they also contribute toward happiness."
Second, is the conception of happiness as an end individualistic, or collective, or some third position? I think Ayn Rand fancied herself an Aristotelian, and I can imagine her reading Book I and saying, "Yes, each person's actions aim at their own happiness, and not at the happiness of any other person. The good for me is my happiness, and the good for you is your happiness." On the other hand, John Stuart Mill might read Book I and say "Yes, happiness is the good at which all actions aim, and each of us should ideally be indifferent as to whose happiness is increased. The important thing is to maximize happiness for the greatest number." I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be reading Aristotle in either of these ways, but what's the alternative?
The license to move came when Aristotle established that the supreme good is 'happiness', and everything in life that we pursue is in pursuit of happiness. Even though pleasures and honor, for some, might not contribute towards happiness but they must be contributing towards something else, for eg. honorable people are well known in their society and that is what some people seek, recognition. Recognition might be their end goal, but when goals are achieved, happiness is bound to appear, and the cycle goes on. Because if the actions of honor are leading to something that is the opposite of honor, then by logic and reason, those actions will not be a course to take on.
To my understanding a somewhat vague answer to your second question can be found in cf-1094b lines 5-10....even though Aristotle does not talk about the conception of happiness as end for individuals and collective per say, but he does abstractly describes the importance of them.
"For even the good of the community coincides with that of the individual it is clearly a greater and more perfect thing to achieve and preserve that of a community; for while it is desirable to secure what is good in the case of an individual, to do so in the case of a people or a state is something more sublime"
That is even though individual happiness is important, the happiness and welfare of the society is more important.
Aristotle takes the individual into account - after all, he addresses the individual here - yet, his conception of happiness is based on the welfare of the entire civic community (the citizens of a given polis). This is also the reason why he holds politics as super ordinate to all the other arts and activities which take place within a polis (city).
To your first questions, assuming I understand you correctly, Aristotle is using the known starting point of general opinion to state that every action is “held to” aim at some good. He establishes that there is a hierarchy of ends, not that there is a single end that all actions have. The end at the top of the hierarchy (eudaimonia/happiness) is most choiceworthy because we choose it for its own sake rather than for the sake of something else. He sidesteps an issue of infinite regress by saying “we do not choose all things on account of something else — for in this way the process will go on infinitely such that the longing involved is empty and pointless…”. So Aristotle would agree that there are ends which aim at pleasure and honor, and that these can be goods, but they are not THE good; We value honor because we want the esteem of our peers, and we want the esteem of our peers because we believe it will make us happy, and similar for pleasure. Aristotle is investigating no less than the best possible human life, which means investigating THE good rather than subordinate goods or ends.
That’s my take, anyway.
As to your second question, I think you should get more insight on this as we get further into the book, but whenever it’s a question of where Aristotle falls between two extremes, it’s a safe bet that the answer is going to be “somewhere in the middle.”
I sort of think right now that he would posit that true happiness for a "serious person" would be on more or less the same basis (i.e. not like "the many" whose answer for happiness varies based on some immediate need). For the point about Mill, the political art would probably be about like that - but in practicing the political art, one would then also become happy...
These are great questions. I am hoping later books shed some light on your second question, because Aristotle does acknowledge the importance of individual good and the good of the community in Book 1, and also softly implies in Chapter 2 that the good of the community may not coincide with the good of an individual, but does not elaborate on that point. There is definitely room for ambiguity, and I'm wondering if his thought is that since ethics is not precise, this ambiguity is unavoidable and we shouldn't spend too much time worrying over this, and we should instead focus on acting in accordance with virtue as individuals. I'm hoping for a more direct confrontation of this question but I could see Aristotle not being overly concerned with it.
Thanks for organizing this.
In general, I found this difficult reading indeed. I also read the "Book I" section of the essay at the back of your recommended Bartlett and Collins translation, although it didn't clear things up nearly as much as I'd hoped.
In both the primary reading and the essay, I was struck by how tentative and contradictory the text seemed. Your summary here reads as if Aristotle is all-in on the combo of "happiness is the ultimate good" and "happiness is an activity of the soul in accord with virtue", but in the text, this was heavily complicated by discussions of how misfortune may interfere with our ability to be happy and whether or not your happiness could change after you died.
I certainly prefer your simple combo explanation as a way forward; it just wasn't what I got from the text(s).
He seems to lean on the idea that the truly good person will bear both good and bad fortunes "altogether nobly and suitably in every way," such that "He would not be unstable and subject to reversals either, for he will not be easily moved from happiness, and then not by any random misfortunes but only by great and numerous ones" (1.10).
He does seem to allow that fortune has some small bearing on happiness, but nothing dispositive of happiness or the lack thereof except at the extremes.
Similarly, he dismisses changes in happiness after death as mostly inconsequential. "The friends' faring well, then, appears to make some contribution to the condition of those who have passed away, as does, similarly, their faring ill - but a contribution of such a kind and degree as not to make the happy unhappy or anything else of that sort" (1.11). This did feel a bit conclusory, though.
I'm very happy to be part of this read along as it converges very well with my current reading project: Political philosophy. I would like to note first that I'm reading a french Translation, and it is not that hard to follow along with you in English, It is rather helpful to reprocess my understanding in another language.
This is my first Aristotle read, and I found myself drawn to compare this experience with the one I have with Plato. I am surprisingly more captivated by Aristotle's methodology, although it is dense, I can easily point out the arguments he uses. Which is a bit challenging with Plato.
I'm doing the same but with the Spanish translation! Spanish is my native language, so it's easier for me to follow the arguments, wich is important because i'm just starting in philosofy. I completely agree with the reprocess part.
Cuál edición tienes? Lo leí del editorial Gredos.
Human is a verb!
Yes! This jumped out at me on first read. Sometimes, in modern times, people exclaim that they're "bad at being human" or "bad at adulting"... depending on what they're doing, Aristotle might objectively agree!
I like Aristotle's view of happiness as living a virtuous life. It echoes the idea I've encountered elsewhere that human flourishing is really what we're after, a concept that rings true to me. Framing it in terms of an activity rather than something like a characteristic also jibes with the research on the immense enjoyment we derive from being in flow states.
To the extent we tend to equate happiness merely with pleasure, I found his point that the virtuous person actually derives pleasure from acting virtuously to be a helpful insight. It can literally feel good to do the right thing.
The writing style did take some getting used to, and I found Chapter 13 a bit hard to follow, particularly his distinction between the rational part of the soul possessing reason in the authoritative sense vs. merely being apt to listen to reason, but it seems like this might be something that will be revisited further in.
To answer your second question, Aristotle is the second most difficult-to-read philosopher I've ever studied. (Kant is number one on that list.) And I'm twenty-seven years out of grad school, so it's been a while since I've attempted very difficult texts, and making it through Book I was a bit of a slog. I'll try to write down some more substantive thoughts when I have time later this week.
Had to wrench my western brain away from equivocating happiness and pleasure. I'm very interested in seeing if/where he goes with the idea of vocations! It seemed to me that he said the "best life" would be someone finding happiness in pursuing a noble vocation, which begs the question: what makes a certain vocation more noble/virtuous than another, and does this add an element of luck to one's ability to live the "most good" life?
Thanks for doing this read-along, Jared. I haven't gotten to study philosophy under the guidance of an experienced scholar since high school, so I'm really looking forward to these next few months!
I took this read-along as my cue to jump in to what will be my first work of philosophy. So far I've enjoyed the challenge.
As someone unaccustomed to this sort of reading, I find its dryness to be a hurdle at times. Wiggling my way into the mind of Aristotle results in some chafe. I'm surprised at the juxtaposition of arguments at times as mere sketches, and at others as paragraph-long sidebar refutations that seem to lead nowhere.
I find myself chuckling at the "get off my lawn" quality of books two and three, and really enjoying book eight and its argument that happiness is "the best, noblest, and most pleasant thing; and these are not separated." It harmonizes with my own experience, especially over the last year as I've navigated big life changes.
I'm still integrating, and a bit unsure of whether I can keep up with the read-along. But I'm hopeful.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.
After reading a bunch of Plato, it's quite refreshing to be reading something very straightforward.
I find it quite dificult to get the notion of virtue by the things we do better. Because in our society everything that comes to us is already made, we hardly get to do things and try to do the better version of it. It seens that today happiness is associated with pleasure because of capitalist society, so are we wrong and Aristotle right in this sense? There could be right or wrong in this approach?
I would also like to thank you for the encouragement, I'm a brazillian teacher and I started writing here at substack.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.
It took me a few chapters to adjust to the writing style and then it became more like reading a book full of cliff hangers. An idea posited and then poked full of holes until we find something that can withstand the scrutiny.
Then it dawned on me that this is exactly what I do in my own life and work. I’m a forensic structural engineer and am always seeking to understand why things fail. I naturally poke holes in theories or see the problems with ideas/products.
I didn’t get my book until Sunday so I just finished Book I today. Looking forward to starting book 2 tomorrow.