I am running behind after a couple weeks overseas with minimal time to read, but I just wanted to say that this read along has been super informative and a great exercise overall. It has helped me think and ask questions about the text that I hadn’t considered on precious readings.
Well, I finished reading Nichomachean Ethics last night. It's definitely one of the most challenging texts I've read since grad school.
I don't know if anyone else who's been reading along shares my interest in classical Chinese philosophy, but the latest episode of Peter Adamson's podcast "History of Philosophy: India, Africana, China" (the non-Western companion to his "History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps" podcast) is a comparison of Confucian ethics with Aristotelean ethics. There are a lot of parallels.
I am not well-versed in Confucian ethics. I have read the Tao Te Ching, and I've read Trying Not to Try by Edward Slingerland, which compares Confucian philosophy to the Tao Te Ching and other seeming compromises between the 2 (such as Zhuangzi and Mencius), which is quite fascinating. I'll try to check out the podcast you mention.
Oh, if you like Slingerland's book, I highly recommend viewing his 2-part online course "Chinese Thought: Ancient Wisdom Meets Modern Science" on the edX platform.
There's another new podcast on Chinese philosophy that debuted in January of this year, "This Is The Way", by Prof. Justin Tiwald of the University of Hong Kong and Prof. Richard Kim of Loyola. I haven't listened to every episode yet, but what I have listened to has been excellent.
Most of my diligent study has been in eastern philosophy and religion. There are many parallels. Since many of these text predate western ones, I wonder if there were travelers who brought this knowledge west that have not been historically documented.
I've been reading Aristotle a bit but really appreciate your recaps. What stood out to me was when you said,
"We have surrendered the idea of living a good life to people who write self-help books. In our cynicism about that genre, we have dismissed the whole project of living a good life. But Aristotle should remind us that this is an important task — this is part of what it is to be human."
Why do you think there's cynicism about self help? Is self help a genre of philosophy? I'm interested to better understand that relationship.
Well, the cynicism is well-founded. Many of the books are very bad.
What I think is problematic is that we rightfully are cynical of a publishing category, but then we dismiss the idea of helping (or improving) ourselves. I think quite a bit of philosophy is interested in that topic.
One of the things that stood out to me about reading Aristotle is the pronounced degree to which he is incorrect concerning animals. I agree with Stephen RL Clark that although there is much to look up to in the Greek philosophers (I myself am un unrepentant Neoplatonist), a disease they spread was the idea that animals don't participate in nous or contemplation. He was dead wrong. We know now more than ever just how wrong we were. They may not do differentials equations,, but neither do my brothers.
I can't recall exactly. I've read so much of his work and it's been a while. Most likely in Biology and Christian Ethics or the Moral Status of Animals. As an aside, he is my favorite living philosopher.
Here is the YouTube clip where he mentions it towards the end of the video.
I agree with Aristotle that pleasure isn't the good. We often choose things that are unpleasant. In some cases, it could be argued we endure this unpleasantness in service of some other pleasure, such as one we will have in the future (I endure a hard workout now because I know I'll feel better about myself later), but (i) the degrees of unpleasant now vs. pleasant later often seem quite incommensurate (suggesting the pleasure isn't really the motivation) and (ii) this other "pleasure" in some cases seems to really stretch the definition of the term.
Thank you for this reading group. This has been a great experience to not only read this work but to travel along with others. That community effort has been just enough to keep me on track. It has been a worthwhile summer activity. I vicariously have implemented some strategies for reading other challenging works that make them much more doable.
"...he agrees with Plato that pleasure mixed with pleasure is superior to pleasure alone"
Is one of those first two occurrences of "pleasure" supposed to be some other word?
Prudence! I’ll fix that soon.
I am running behind after a couple weeks overseas with minimal time to read, but I just wanted to say that this read along has been super informative and a great exercise overall. It has helped me think and ask questions about the text that I hadn’t considered on precious readings.
Well, I finished reading Nichomachean Ethics last night. It's definitely one of the most challenging texts I've read since grad school.
I don't know if anyone else who's been reading along shares my interest in classical Chinese philosophy, but the latest episode of Peter Adamson's podcast "History of Philosophy: India, Africana, China" (the non-Western companion to his "History of Philosophy Without Any Gaps" podcast) is a comparison of Confucian ethics with Aristotelean ethics. There are a lot of parallels.
I am not well-versed in Confucian ethics. I have read the Tao Te Ching, and I've read Trying Not to Try by Edward Slingerland, which compares Confucian philosophy to the Tao Te Ching and other seeming compromises between the 2 (such as Zhuangzi and Mencius), which is quite fascinating. I'll try to check out the podcast you mention.
Oh, if you like Slingerland's book, I highly recommend viewing his 2-part online course "Chinese Thought: Ancient Wisdom Meets Modern Science" on the edX platform.
There's another new podcast on Chinese philosophy that debuted in January of this year, "This Is The Way", by Prof. Justin Tiwald of the University of Hong Kong and Prof. Richard Kim of Loyola. I haven't listened to every episode yet, but what I have listened to has been excellent.
thanks for the recommendations, I will be sure to check them out.
Most of my diligent study has been in eastern philosophy and religion. There are many parallels. Since many of these text predate western ones, I wonder if there were travelers who brought this knowledge west that have not been historically documented.
I've been reading Aristotle a bit but really appreciate your recaps. What stood out to me was when you said,
"We have surrendered the idea of living a good life to people who write self-help books. In our cynicism about that genre, we have dismissed the whole project of living a good life. But Aristotle should remind us that this is an important task — this is part of what it is to be human."
Why do you think there's cynicism about self help? Is self help a genre of philosophy? I'm interested to better understand that relationship.
Well, the cynicism is well-founded. Many of the books are very bad.
What I think is problematic is that we rightfully are cynical of a publishing category, but then we dismiss the idea of helping (or improving) ourselves. I think quite a bit of philosophy is interested in that topic.
One of the things that stood out to me about reading Aristotle is the pronounced degree to which he is incorrect concerning animals. I agree with Stephen RL Clark that although there is much to look up to in the Greek philosophers (I myself am un unrepentant Neoplatonist), a disease they spread was the idea that animals don't participate in nous or contemplation. He was dead wrong. We know now more than ever just how wrong we were. They may not do differentials equations,, but neither do my brothers.
Do you have a good reference for that Clark work? I’d like to look into it.
I can't recall exactly. I've read so much of his work and it's been a while. Most likely in Biology and Christian Ethics or the Moral Status of Animals. As an aside, he is my favorite living philosopher.
Here is the YouTube clip where he mentions it towards the end of the video.
https://youtu.be/VPUdKYT1KMc.
Hope that helps!
I agree with Aristotle that pleasure isn't the good. We often choose things that are unpleasant. In some cases, it could be argued we endure this unpleasantness in service of some other pleasure, such as one we will have in the future (I endure a hard workout now because I know I'll feel better about myself later), but (i) the degrees of unpleasant now vs. pleasant later often seem quite incommensurate (suggesting the pleasure isn't really the motivation) and (ii) this other "pleasure" in some cases seems to really stretch the definition of the term.
Thank you for this reading group. This has been a great experience to not only read this work but to travel along with others. That community effort has been just enough to keep me on track. It has been a worthwhile summer activity. I vicariously have implemented some strategies for reading other challenging works that make them much more doable.