Aristotle’s Rules for Living Well

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
“How to flourish” was one such topic, “flourishing” being a workable rendering of Aristotle’s term eudaimonia. We might also translate the term in the usual way, as “happiness,” as long as we suspend some of that word’s modern associations; eudaimonia wasn’t something that waxed and waned with our moods.

For Aristotle, ethics was centrally concerned with how to live a good life: a flourishing existence was also a virtuous one.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/...-well-aristotle-susan-sauve-meyer-book-review
 
"The enormous role of judgment in Aristotle’s picture of how to live can sound, to modern readers thirsty for ethical guidance, like a cop-out. Especially when they might instead pick up a treatise by John Stuart Mill and find an elegantly simple principle for distinguishing right from wrong, or one by Kant, in which they will find at least three. They might, for that matter, look to Jordan Peterson, who conjures up as many as twelve.
 
Aristotle is very hard to read because he jumps all over the place even when trying to make a single point.

The dude like to write that's for sure.

For instance this is what he said about happiness.

the good life is an excellent, flourishing, happy life and that the good life can only be achieved by people with exceptional character who have taken excellent care to develop their virtues.

Yet he never explained exactly what a virtue is, this is comment on virtue

Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices.

What the hell does that mean?

He was just weird.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Aristotle is very hard to read because he jumps all over the place even when trying to make a single point.

The dude like to write that's for sure.

For instance this is what he said about happiness.

the good life is an excellent, flourishing, happy life and that the good life can only be achieved by people with exceptional character who have taken excellent care to develop their virtues.

Yet he never explained exactly what a virtue is, this is comment on virtue

Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices.

What the hell does that mean?

He was just weird.
Click to expand...

You would have to read and understand Nicomachean Ethics to understand Aristotle's vision of eudaimonia.

Frantically googling for five minutes won't cut it.

Most scholars think Aristotle's writing is rudimentary compared to Plato because the surviving material we have of Aristotle are probably something like lecture notes, not treatises like Plato wrote.
 
Cypress said:
You would have to read and understand Nicomachean Ethics to understand Aristotle's vision of eudaimonia.

Frantically googling for five minutes won't cut it.

Most scholars think Aristotle's writing is rudimentary compared to Plato because the surviving material we have of Aristotle are probably something like lecture notes, not treatises like Plato wrote.
Click to expand...

I had to study all these guys in college but I admit, I am hardly an expert.

Frantic googling is about all I have at this point unless I want to dig out the papers I wrote.

Still, it's an interesting thread and I'd like to see it survive for awhile, maybe I will learn something new.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices.

What the hell does that mean?

He was just weird.
Click to expand...

Fairly straightforward to understand for anyone who takes the time and diligence to study Aristotle.

In Aristotle's ethics for example, to cultivate the virtue of courage, you have to consistently and conciously tailor your behavior and actions so they lie in the sweet spot, the golden mean, somewhere in between rashness/foolhardiness and timidity/cowardice.

Aristotle would say you are not really cultivating the virtue of courage if your actions cross the line into recklessness and rashness.
 
Cypress said:
Fairly straightforward to understand for anyone who takes the time and diligence to study Aristotle.

In Aristotle's ethics for example, to cultivate the virtue of courage, you have to consistently and conciously tailor your behavior and actions so they lie in the sweet spot, the golden mean, somewhere in between rashness/foolhardiness and timidity/cowardice.

Aristotle would say you are not really cultivating the virtue of courage if your actions cross the line into recklessness and rashness.
Click to expand...

This is the problem with Aristotle compared to Socrates and Plato, he doesn't define what recklessness and rashness is.

He puts out the idea of virtue but you have no idea where to fit it in.

His teachings were more of a general nature rather than specific.

His stuff is basically him just saying shit that makes no actual sense.

For instance, is it reckless of me to piss someone off to make them want to hit me and if I hit them back knowing they are bigger than me and will kick my ass is that being rash?

If I don't fight back will I lack the virtue of courage?

Nobody knows what he is trying to say.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
This is the problem with Aristotle compared to Socrates and Plato, he doesn't define what recklessness and rashness is.

He puts out the idea of virtue but you have no idea where to fit it in.

His teachings were more of a general nature rather than specific.

His stuff is basically him just saying shit that makes no actual sense.

For instance, is it reckless of me to piss someone off to make them want to hit me and if I hit them back knowing they are bigger than me and will kick my ass is that being rash?

If I don't fight back will I lack the virtue of courage?

Nobody knows what he is trying to say.
Click to expand...

The Nicomachean Ethics are a reasonably sophisticated treatment of the meaning of life, moral excellence, and self knowledge.


Scrambling to read about Aristotle for five minutes on Wikipedia doesn't cut the mustard. You have to do the work to read and study Aristotle.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Aristotle is very hard to read because he jumps all over the place even when trying to make a single point.

The dude like to write that's for sure.

For instance this is what he said about happiness.

the good life is an excellent, flourishing, happy life and that the good life can only be achieved by people with exceptional character who have taken excellent care to develop their virtues.

Yet he never explained exactly what a virtue is, this is comment on virtue

Aristotle defines moral virtue as a disposition to behave in the right manner and as a mean between extremes of deficiency and excess, which are vices.

What the hell does that mean?

He was just weird.
Click to expand...

Someone does something that makes you mad. Should you be mad; what should you do? If someone wrongs you, you should do something about it--and doing nothing would also be wrong.
 
Cypress said:
You would have to read and understand Nicomachean Ethics to understand Aristotle's vision of eudaimonia.

Frantically googling for five minutes won't cut it.

Most scholars think Aristotle's writing is rudimentary compared to Plato because the surviving material we have of Aristotle are probably something like lecture notes, not treatises like Plato wrote.
Click to expand...

Aristotle's writing is not rudimentary. Not sure what that meant to you. Plato was writing dialogues.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
This is the problem with Aristotle compared to Socrates and Plato, he doesn't define what recklessness and rashness is.

He puts out the idea of virtue but you have no idea where to fit it in.

His teachings were more of a general nature rather than specific.

His stuff is basically him just saying shit that makes no actual sense.

For instance, is it reckless of me to piss someone off to make them want to hit me and if I hit them back knowing they are bigger than me and will kick my ass is that being rash?

If I don't fight back will I lack the virtue of courage?

Nobody knows what he is trying to say.
Click to expand...

He is saying each situation is different and requires judgment. There is no principle to use. We have to decide if we are being excessive or negligent.
 
Cypress said:
You would have to read and understand Nicomachean Ethics to understand Aristotle's vision of eudaimonia.
Click to expand...
You will find that Aristotle operated on an erroneous assumption which permeates subtle errors throughout his works. He refers to every means as being intended for a greater good, not simply as being intended for an "end". His model logically equates the evil acts of evil men with a "greater good" because the acts are pursued as something that is wanted and that brings happiness (to the evil individual). Aristotle doesn't use those exact words, he simply defines every end as being for a greater good. But then he convolutes the matter and specifies that virtue has to fit snugly into the statistical average, i.e. be in "moderation," and ceases to be virtuous if it is to either excess or deficiency. He rambled a lot.

Aristotle also convoluted "voluntary" and "involuntary" to an absurd extent. Actions done under threat of coercion may appear involuntary but are like voluntary and should be considered voluntary in the light of the decision to bring about the most happiness. But if you choose to do something stupid, like buy the latest crypto shitcoin, or invest in quantum computing, those actions are not voluntary because they are done out of ignorance.

The problem stems from Aristotle's maxim of happiness being the greatest good, and if great evil brings happiness to a twisted mind, it is a greatest good. Evil is simply defined as what one does not want, e.g. physical pain. Hilter's tossing of Jews into ovens was a greater good. The DNC stealing the Presidential election, it was a greater good. Aristotle didn't really think things through very thoroughly, but then again, validation and vetting standards in his day were substantially lesser.

Cypress said:
Frantically googling for five minutes won't cut it.
Click to expand...
Is that why you don't really know anything about it?

Cypress said:
Most scholars think ...
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for any scholars. Anyone who wants to form an opinion on the Nicomachean Ethics can simply read it.

deb95c059d50b644e6cf5c3b0a3a0e75.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top