The Nicomachean Ethics
- Downloads：3378
- Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
- Create Date：2021-09-27 05:51:28
- Update Date：2025-09-06
- Status：finish
- Author：Aristotle
- ISBN：0140449493
- Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
- Download
Summary
‘One swallow does not make a summer; neither does one day。 Similarly neither can one day， or a brief space of time， make a man blessed and happy’
In the Nicomachean Ethics， Aristotle sets out to examine the nature of happiness。 He argues that happiness consists in ‘activity of the soul in accordance with virtue’， for example with moral virtues， such as courage， generosity and justice， and intellectual virtues， such as knowledge， wisdom and insight。 The Ethics also discusses the nature of practical reasoning， the value and the objects of pleasure， the different forms of friendship， and the relationship between individual virtue， society and the State。 Aristotle’s work has had a profound and lasting influence on all subsequent Western thought about ethical matters。
J。 A。 K。 Thomson’s translation has been revised by Hugh Tredennick， and is accompanied by a new introduction by Jonathan Barnes。 This edition also includes an updated list for further reading and a new chronology of Aristotle’s life and works。
Previously published as Ethics
In the Nicomachean Ethics， Aristotle sets out to examine the nature of happiness。 He argues that happiness consists in ‘activity of the soul in accordance with virtue’， for example with moral virtues， such as courage， generosity and justice， and intellectual virtues， such as knowledge， wisdom and insight。 The Ethics also discusses the nature of practical reasoning， the value and the objects of pleasure， the different forms of friendship， and the relationship between individual virtue， society and the State。 Aristotle’s work has had a profound and lasting influence on all subsequent Western thought about ethical matters。
J。 A。 K。 Thomson’s translation has been revised by Hugh Tredennick， and is accompanied by a new introduction by Jonathan Barnes。 This edition also includes an updated list for further reading and a new chronology of Aristotle’s life and works。
Previously published as Ethics
Reviews
Tim
，
A tough read but well worth it。
Jaime Bayona
，
Es Aristóteles ¿Qué puede decir uno？ Ran actual como hace 2300 años
Ryan Binz
，
This was great。 Wish I had started here instead of the metaphysics。 Learn from me and start here if your diving into Aristotle。 So much of what we take for granted is built off this and the Politics。
Ioana Bogdan
，
I am a hoe for only and ONLY Aristotle。 Fight me
CesarZma
，
self help and shi
Tyler J McDonald
，
I found the book to be very enlightening in terms of how he presented his argument and how his thought process works。 Some of his arguments did not seem to work with a Christian perspective but I found most of his thoughts on how humans think and revisions to their thought processes quite profound。 His thoughts on friendship are really cool; however， I think the ways in which he thinks of others is quite detached from any emotion which is nothing a virtuous person would do。
Karla Baldeon
，
Review on Spanish。Dejo de lado los conceptos errados sobre esclavitud， humanidad y machismo de la época para no manchar la idea general de la obra que nos aporta un razonamiento profundo y ejemplar sobre las cuestiones éticas de la conducta del ser humano。Así， Aristóteles plantea que la ética se desarrolla en una persona con un alma virtuosa， siendo que estas virtudes solo se pueden alcanzar mediante el ejercicio de estos valores en diferentes aspectos de la vida。Las virtudes son el punto medio Review on Spanish。Dejo de lado los conceptos errados sobre esclavitud， humanidad y machismo de la época para no manchar la idea general de la obra que nos aporta un razonamiento profundo y ejemplar sobre las cuestiones éticas de la conducta del ser humano。Así， Aristóteles plantea que la ética se desarrolla en una persona con un alma virtuosa， siendo que estas virtudes solo se pueden alcanzar mediante el ejercicio de estos valores en diferentes aspectos de la vida。Las virtudes son el punto medio por excelencia entre dos actitudes que se contraponen， la cobardía contra la temeridad tienen su medio en la valentía， por ejemplo， siendo que el cobarde huye cuando debe pelear y el temerario lucha cuando debería razonar la situación， el valiente pelea en el momento y la situación que es apropiada e indudablemente es reconocido por ello。Todo tipo de virtudes pueden ser desarrolladas a lo largo de la vida y es solo en la costumbre de este accionar y razonar que un hombre se hace virtuoso。 No es un logro que se puede conseguir en un momento， sino a través de toda una vida siguiendo este ejemplo。Así que la virtud es el justo medio de las acciones y con ella se encuentra la felicidad que es la máxima que deben buscar todos los hombres。Los ejemplos son muy claros y el camino señalado bien explicado y reconocible。Lo único en contra， según mi opinión personal， es que si bien el hombre sabe hasta por instinto cuál es el camino de la virtud que debe seguir en todo momento， seguirlo es lo verdaderamente difícil cuando nuestra sociedad pone tantas trabas y desdén al comportamiento virtuoso， mientras que halaga los vicios。 En fin， cosas que nos hacen desear regresar al tiempo aristotélico， tal vez。Video reseña:https://www。instagram。com/tv/CTfPpaIn。。。 。。。more
Dorado Louise
，
❤️
L
，
Good without GodI read this book in order to counter an idea I often hear from Christians -- that it is impossible for an atheist to be a good person。 There are three main arguments presented。 The first is that a "Good person" *by definition* must have faith in God。 The second is that it is impossible to know good from evil unless you RTFM: you need a higher authority to tell you which is which。 And the third is that the only possible reason anyone could have to be good is fear of Hell。 The firs Good without GodI read this book in order to counter an idea I often hear from Christians -- that it is impossible for an atheist to be a good person。 There are three main arguments presented。 The first is that a "Good person" *by definition* must have faith in God。 The second is that it is impossible to know good from evil unless you RTFM: you need a higher authority to tell you which is which。 And the third is that the only possible reason anyone could have to be good is fear of Hell。 The first argument is vacuous。 As for the third: a person who cannot be honest and kind unless compelled by fear of an afterlife of everlasting torment is not a good person -- their opinion should be ignored。 Argument 2 is just wrong， and this book shows it。 In it Aristotle sets out to systematically explore good。 He was not a Christian， having lived hundreds of years before Christianity got off the ground。 In fact， religion plays no important role in the book。 Aristotle shows that it is possible to think about good without a God to tell you what it is。So， I read it。 Aside from proving that it is possible to think about good without God， I do not find it a useful guide to action。 In this regard Plato is more convincing。 Even though Plato does not systematically survey the subject of ethics in one place， the questions of what is good， what is virtue， and how should a good person act arise frequently in Plato， and the views presented there are clearer and more convincing than Aristotle's。 So， in that regard Ethics is disappointing。Why is this？ There are a few reasons。 First， it should be noted that there is a hugely important technical difficulty in reading Ethics: vocabulary and translation。 A good illustration of this is Aristotle's discussion of courage。 It became obvious immediately when I began to read the chapter on the subject that what Aristotle means by （the word translated as） courage is not at all what I and most English speakers mean by it。 Aristotle's concept is much narrower， really covering only physical courage in war。 In fact， the word Aristotle uses is ανδρεία （andreia）， which is derived from άνδρας （andras -- man）。 So what Aristotle here discusses is something like "manliness"， and even of that he has a narrow concept。 （Google translate informs me that modern Greek has two other words for courage that correspond more closely to the modern concept: θάρρος （tharros） and κουράγιο （couragio））。 I don't know if those words were in use in Aristotle's time， but I can tell you that his discussion of courage is seriously flawed from my point of view since it has little to do with anything that I would recognize as courage。 It is barely even possible to imagine a courageous woman in Aristotle's views。 （Chinese has a similar vocabulary problem: here is brave: 勇， and here is male: 男。 The English word "courage" is derived from the Latin for heart， and is thus free of sexual etymology。）This points towards another problem with Aristotle: he considers man superior to non-man， to the point of incomparability。 Non-man includes women， children， and animals。 Women and children are barely mentioned in Ethics。 For instance， he has this to say about animals and boys: "It is natural， then， that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity。 For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts， owing to his age。" He does seem to consider the possibility that there might be such things as womanly virtues， although they are clearly far inferior to those available to men。 Another problem I find with Aristotle is the view that a man's will is unitary。 （This he shares with Plato and Socrates。） It is the idea that what one wants is what one wants， i。e。 that there is no such thing as internal conflict -- the very idea makes no sense。 Aristotle， unlike Plato and Socrates， does admit a limited exception， which he calls incontinence， where， under certain circumstances a less-than-perfectly virtuous person may give in to temptation even though he knows he should not。 This error （for so， I maintain， it is） also infects his discussion of courage。 Aristotle thinks a courageous man does not fear death in battle。 In fact， I believe， as I think most people do， that without fear there is no courage。 Courage is doing the thing you fear when it is right。 Aristotle cannot fully conceive the idea that a man fears dying in battle yet does so voluntarily。 Who the Hell am I， who thinks he has the standing to find fault with Aristotle？ I am an educated 21st-century human。 I am somewhat familiar with 2300 years of history that had not yet happened when Aristotle lived。 I am aware of real governments， constitutions， movements， and nations of which he could barely conceive。 I have read the works of many philosophers， including some who came after Aristotle。 I am infected by the liberal values of my time， which hold that humans are far more alike than they are different。 For instance， except for sexual physiology， men and women are mostly alike。 Humans are animals （Aristotle knew that） and are not discontinuously different from other animals。 I am also， as it happens， a retired neuroscientist。 Thus I know that we reason and philosophize with our brains。 This was not generally appreciated in Aristotle's time。 Aristotle himself believed that the brain was a kind of radiator whose purpose was to cool the heart， which he， like most people of his time， believed to be the seat of reason。 （It was not until Harvey's description of the circulation of the blood in 1628 that anyone correctly understood the purpose of the heart。） I know that the brain is a complicated organ of many parts， and that these parts may act in opposition， so that a human is almost constantly in a state of internal conflict。 There is nothing logically incoherent in the idea of a person overcoming his/her fear。I bought The Basic Works of Aristotle intending to read Ethics and Politics， and then perhaps others of Aristotle's works。 However， I am sufficiently disappointed in Ethics that I do not intend to read Politics。 As I already said， Plato is better。 。。。more
Juan Ruiz
，
un libro muy difícil de leer， fue un gran desafío
Lucy
，
just a platonic girl trying to live in an aristotelian world
Eric
，
For the time that it was written and the collection of ideas， a true marvel。 Dense at times。
Marcus Norberg
，
Aristoteles menar att etik främst är ett praktiskt， inte ett strikt teoretiskt， ämne。 Etik handlar om hur en person bör handla för att vara en god människa och leva det goda livet。 Aristoteles vill inte bara hitta enskilda goda saker människor kan göra， utan han vill nå fram till vad som är det högsta goda。 De kriterier Aristoteles sätter upp för att något ska anses vara det högsta goda är att （1） det är eftersträvansvärt för dess egen skull， （2） det inte är eftersträvansvärt för att uppnå något Aristoteles menar att etik främst är ett praktiskt， inte ett strikt teoretiskt， ämne。 Etik handlar om hur en person bör handla för att vara en god människa och leva det goda livet。 Aristoteles vill inte bara hitta enskilda goda saker människor kan göra， utan han vill nå fram till vad som är det högsta goda。 De kriterier Aristoteles sätter upp för att något ska anses vara det högsta goda är att （1） det är eftersträvansvärt för dess egen skull， （2） det inte är eftersträvansvärt för att uppnå något annat gott， （3） allt annat gott är eftersträvansvärt för dess （dvs det högsta godas） skull。 Det som uppfyller alla dessa kriterier enligt Aristoteles är eudaimonia （grovt översatt till blomstrande eller lycka）。 Lyckan är eftersträvansvärd för sin egen skull， lyckan är inte eftersträvansvärd för att uppnå något annat gott， och allt annat gott eftersträvas för att nå lyckan。t Vad som ovan menas med ”annat gott” är gott handlande i olika sammanhang。 Gott handlande innebär förträfflighet och dygdigt handlande， där dygderna innefattar egenskaper såsom mod， rättvishet och besinning。 Men hur kommer Aristoteles fram till att just de dygder han tar upp är de viktigaste för gott handlande？ Och hur handlar man exempelvis modigt på ett idealt vis？ Aristoteles menar att dygderna naturligt har uppkommit， och genom god fostran och utbildning har människor lärt sig att älska dessa egenskaper。 Vad gäller exakt hur man ska handla， lägger Aristoteles fram sin berömda princip om det intermediära。 Mellan extrempunkterna feghet och övermod finner vi mod。 Vad som just är modigt kan skilja beroende på tid och tillfälle， men i varje given situation finns en intermediär väg。 Att vara modig innebär att veta när， hur och med vilka medel man ska handla， samt även givetvis att handla。t Aristoteles resonerar även om hur människan kan utveckla dygdigt handlande， och därigenom nå det goda livet。 Han beskriver människans själ och dess komponenter och har flera olika kategorier och subkategorier。 De som framstår som viktigast för Aristoteles är den vegetativa förmågan （för att kroppen ska överleva， helt enkelt）， förnimmelseförmågan och förnuftsförmågan。 Förnimmelseförmågan innefattar inte bara perception utan även begär， vilket konkurrerar med förnuftsförmågan。 Förnuftsförmågan är den förmåga som särskiljer människan från djuren， då denna förmåga används till allt som är typiskt mänskligt （språk， planering， lagar etc）。 Aristoteles menar att alla andra funktioner behöver underordna sig förnuftsförmågan för att säkerställa gott handlande och ett gott liv。 Genom förnuftsförmågans kontemplation， insikt och vilja kan goda vanor kultiveras。 När de goda vanorna väl infunnit sig blir det goda handlandet naturligt och inte alls lika energikrävande。 Men， enligt Aristoteles räcker inte förnuftsförmågan i sig självt till att nå lycka。 Vissa externa krav måste uppfyllas för att kunna handla så dygdigt man kan。 Individen behöver bland annat få sina grundläggande behov uppfyllda， den behöver även vänner， och medel såsom pengar och makt till att kunna handla generöst， modigt och rättvist。t Vidare diskuteras vänskap ytterligare， lustens relation till lycka， och statens uppgift i att fostra goda medborgare， men det lämnar jag därhän。 Jag vet inte om det var just den här översättaren som var torr och använde sig av lite överdrivet svår svenska， eller om Aristoteles verkligen är mycket tråkigare än Platon。 Men det tog mig i alla fall mycket längre tid att ta mig igenom detta verk än dubbelt så många sidor av Platon。 Han skiljer sig väldigt mycket från Platon i sin filosofiska approach， vilket kanske även skapar torftigheten i hans text。 Det är mycket mer systematiskt， då han vill kategorisera och skapa logiska samband。 Ändock var materialet väldigt intressant på sina håll， och jag förstår det intryck Aristoteles har haft på efterkommande filosofer。 Aristoteles filosofi är induktiv och upptäckande och uppmuntrar handlande。 Svaret finns ute i den fysiska världen。 Det skiljer sig från Platon som， så att säga， menade att svaret redan fanns i formvärlden och att det gällde att nå kunskap om formerna， då kunskap är den högsta dygden。t Aristoteles filosofi tilltalar mig inte lika mycket som Platons。 Jag kan inte helt argumentera för vad jag tycker är ”fel” i Aristoteles filosofi， men jag tror att det handlar om hans materialism。 Det känns dock nyttigt att även läsa filosofi man inte håller med om， för att få ett bredare perspektiv。 4/5， dels på grund av översättningens språk （eller om det nu är Aristoteles språk， vem vet）。 。。。more
Alik
，
I was twice approached by people on the street who， probably having recognized a Tusculum edition in my hands， asked what I was reading。Ooh， they then said in a sly， dignified manner， Get the feeling how smart that guy was？And so I was tickled and irritated twice。But no， the highlight of reading this was not recognizing how smart he was， although that did enter my mind more than once。One of the highlights was that everything I had known about philosophy （which wasn't much， but I had thought it r I was twice approached by people on the street who， probably having recognized a Tusculum edition in my hands， asked what I was reading。Ooh， they then said in a sly， dignified manner， Get the feeling how smart that guy was？And so I was tickled and irritated twice。But no， the highlight of reading this was not recognizing how smart he was， although that did enter my mind more than once。One of the highlights was that everything I had known about philosophy （which wasn't much， but I had thought it rather variegated， even with names attached here and there， names of people who lived about 2000 years after the smart guy）， （and also， incidentally， some things I had known about history and many other disciplines and cultural phenomena） I encountered here。 Notable exceptions: Heraclitus notoriously wading in a river， and Kant's letter about man-eating cockroaches found in Indochina （？） to somebody of no importance in the Russian Academy of Science or something。Another highlight was that though it is not nuclear physics or a matter of refined taste in art， I will probably never apply myself enough to fully grasp the rules of Greek accentuation。The rest leaves me in a long queue of confused wretches who read Aristotle and got the impression that they are a bit less confused because， though they have many more questions than they had had before， some of them they now know how to ask and will mostly never do。 。。。more
Marisa Cee
，
Maybe because it was over audiobook but I just couldn't follow along and feel invested enough to finish it。 Maybe because it was over audiobook but I just couldn't follow along and feel invested enough to finish it。 。。。more
Meyte Chan
，
I really tried to enjoy this but I just couldn’t do it。 It was far to repetitive and long winded。 I’ll give other works a go。 But I definitely struggled with this
macarena
，
what even is happiness
Micah Jakubowicz
，
A must read。 Built the foundation for almost everything we see today in politics， religious philosophy， and ethics。 Aristotle truly was the enlightenment thinker before the Enlightenment。 Way ahead of his time！
Andy
，
Some very good wisdom here and there。 Some parts drag on but I can see why many enjoy this book。
Misiu Cyrański
，
Tak zwana książka-klucz。Niesamowicie potrzebna dla każdej osoby przytłoczonej tym cholernym emocjonalnym ciężarem nieustannych starań moralnych w życiu codziennym。 Imperatywy są super， ale moralny człowiek potrafi ocenić czym jest moralny czyn。
Richard
，
3。5 stars。A bit complex， and not a few digressions， but insightful nonetheless。Aristotle's explanations of good and bad ethics are insightful， and he even delves into some paradoxes of ethics as well。 3。5 stars。A bit complex， and not a few digressions， but insightful nonetheless。Aristotle's explanations of good and bad ethics are insightful， and he even delves into some paradoxes of ethics as well。 。。。more
Ivan Gamez
，
One of the seminal works of classical Greek civilization。 Aristotle tries to explain the reasons， ends， and means of why we make decisions。 It ties into Aristotle's overall philosophy of the ideal man and state。 One of the seminal works of classical Greek civilization。 Aristotle tries to explain the reasons， ends， and means of why we make decisions。 It ties into Aristotle's overall philosophy of the ideal man and state。 。。。more
Sabeeh
，
Not everyone's cup of tea - I would say。 But anyone starting to delve into philosophy should give this a try。 Aristotle discusses human behavior and proposes an argument on the end goal of a human， and what it means to be 'good。' Some of the insights were quite interesting， but a lot of it is a repetition of the norms that currently prevail。 However， it is still interesting to see how these norms came into being and the influence Aristotelian ethics have on contemporary society。 Not very long ei Not everyone's cup of tea - I would say。 But anyone starting to delve into philosophy should give this a try。 Aristotle discusses human behavior and proposes an argument on the end goal of a human， and what it means to be 'good。' Some of the insights were quite interesting， but a lot of it is a repetition of the norms that currently prevail。 However， it is still interesting to see how these norms came into being and the influence Aristotelian ethics have on contemporary society。 Not very long either， so worth reading if ethics/philosophy is a topic of interest。 。。。more
Felix Englund
，
Rating a book like this after a single read seems to offer little value。 The star rating may therefore be disregarded。 Nonetheless， since this is a neat way to make some notes on the book I will do so。The Ethics is certainly worth reading for someone interested in virtue ethics and the subject of ethics in general。 Due to it being a foundational work， it makes sense to read first hand what will later be built and commented upon throughout the centuries， and even millennia。 Beyond that， it inspir Rating a book like this after a single read seems to offer little value。 The star rating may therefore be disregarded。 Nonetheless， since this is a neat way to make some notes on the book I will do so。The Ethics is certainly worth reading for someone interested in virtue ethics and the subject of ethics in general。 Due to it being a foundational work， it makes sense to read first hand what will later be built and commented upon throughout the centuries， and even millennia。 Beyond that， it inspires one to become a better person。 That may be the most important benefit。If you decide to read it， a guiding hand is helpful to understand Aristotle's terminology。 I found such guiding hands in the 3rd edition of Terence Irwin's translation， of which half of the pages are notes， and the online seminars at Hillsdale College held by Dr Arnn。 Setting the arguments themselves aside， since substantive discussion of them has already been held for a long time， a quick note on the style。 It was not easy。 It probably has to do with the translation from Greek and how our way of writing has transformed。 Taking it slowly may help。Finally， I hope you enjoy this book。 I look forward to reading it again in a few years。 。。。more
Alexander
，
"Никомахова етика" е един от малкото трактати на Аристотел， които времето е пощадило; за разлика от логическите， натурофилософските и метафизичните му съчинения， това произведение все още представлява една от основите на етическата философия。Мисля， че всеки， който е решил да открие най-подходящата ценностна система， обезателно трябва да обърне внимание на "Никомахова етика"。 Макар и написан от Аристотел， трактатът няма нищо общо с гореспоменатите му произведения， тъй като е написан на значително "Никомахова етика" е един от малкото трактати на Аристотел， които времето е пощадило; за разлика от логическите， натурофилософските и метафизичните му съчинения， това произведение все още представлява една от основите на етическата философия。Мисля， че всеки， който е решил да открие най-подходящата ценностна система， обезателно трябва да обърне внимание на "Никомахова етика"。 Макар и написан от Аристотел， трактатът няма нищо общо с гореспоменатите му произведения， тъй като е написан на значително по-достъпен за читателите език （въпреки че преводът на настоящото издание отнема известна част от въпросната достъпност）。Силно препоръчвам на читателите да се запознаят с диалозите на Платон， както и с творчеството на Омир， Хезиод， Еврипид， Софокъл， Есхил и Ксенофонт преди да започнат да четат "Никомахова етика"， тъй като трактатът изобилства от препратки към произведенията на тези автори （и много други освен тях）。 。。。more
Geir Skårland
，
Givende bok， så lenge etter den ble skrevet。 Mange gode tanker å ta med seg。 Også et interessant innblikk i antikk gresk kultur。 God epilog ved oversetteren etterpå。 Selve oversettelsen hakker litt， jeg ville ønsket meg et par hakk i retning det ideomatiske。
Mihai
，
The whole argument that "the middle point in everything is the best position" is artificial and forced。Some arguments are reasonable。 Some parts/books are interesting， some are useless。At times， Aristotle is arguing through examples instead of proper argument。For a reader from the western culture， it provides a standard of the Greek ethics， not yet affected by the Christian ethics standard。It is a relatively fast read。 Probably worth to be read if you are new to ethics。 The whole argument that "the middle point in everything is the best position" is artificial and forced。Some arguments are reasonable。 Some parts/books are interesting， some are useless。At times， Aristotle is arguing through examples instead of proper argument。For a reader from the western culture， it provides a standard of the Greek ethics， not yet affected by the Christian ethics standard。It is a relatively fast read。 Probably worth to be read if you are new to ethics。 。。。more
Rachel
，
There have been many times in my Primary Text Philosophy journey that I felt grateful not to be a card-carrying scholar in any sense。 Therefore I’m free to say that I found this book quite dull。 Aristotle is famous for his ‘golden mean’ – which， amusingly， is never called such by him in this treatise – but what I didn’t realise is that I’d get a whole chapter in which he muses as to what constitutes the mean between ‘pusillanimity’ and ‘vanity’ and so on。 The more I read of philosophy， the more There have been many times in my Primary Text Philosophy journey that I felt grateful not to be a card-carrying scholar in any sense。 Therefore I’m free to say that I found this book quite dull。 Aristotle is famous for his ‘golden mean’ – which， amusingly， is never called such by him in this treatise – but what I didn’t realise is that I’d get a whole chapter in which he muses as to what constitutes the mean between ‘pusillanimity’ and ‘vanity’ and so on。 The more I read of philosophy， the more I come to think that there are no or few universal rules; that morality needs to be treated on a case-by-case basis。 And I’m very glad I don’t have to do a viva to defend that stance。After that， I took notes， because that worked to steady my attention through 700 pages of Locke so by god I’m using it again。Introduction“[…] ethical judgements are lacking in precision because they hold only ‘for the most part’。”My point exactly！Book I: The Object of LifeKnowledge of good is a requirement for conduct。Community good > individual good。Happiness is the ultimate good – but what is happiness？ Is it pleasure， honour， goodness？ It is not wealth， as wealth is a means to an end。 Goodness does not equal a happy life。Good can exist in its own right and relative to other things。 Sight is a good in itself。Happiness is a virtuous activity。 Children cannot be happy as they are not rational。Happiness is an attitude one brings to the events of one’s life。The soul is both rational and irrational。“Honour is felt to depend more on those who confer than on him who receives it”“[…] the possession of goodness is thought to be compatible even being asleep […] and nobody would call such a life happy – unless he was defending a paradox。”“For the same reason no child is happy either， because its age debars it as yet from such activities; if children are so described， it is by way of congratulation on their future promise。”Modern people would say the total opposite， I feel。Book II: Moral GoodnessIntellectual virtue requires instruction。Moral goodness is a habit。Nature allows us to receive these things， nothing more。Virtue is destroyed by deficiency and excess。Actions are regulated via pain and pleasure， not by accident。Feelings are made of: faculty or capability to feel; and disposition or how you feel about your feelings。You’re not good because of feelings but because of virtues and vices， which are actions。Virtue does not come from the capability of feeling a certain way either。Virtues are dispositions。Virtue exists in a mean， in relation to something else。 It can be difficult to tell how far to travel from this mean。Some things cannot be done ‘rightly’ – murder or theft。 （I contend this point。 Is the murder of Hitler or Donald Trump a ‘wrong’？ How about ‘stealing’ the profits of big corporations to fund social safety nets？ Or the destruction of statues of slave-owners？ Case-by-case basis！）“Similarly， we become just by performing just acts， temperate by performing temperate ones， brave by performing brave ones。 […] Legislators make their citizens good by habituation; this is the intention of every legislator， and those who do not carry it out fail of their object。”“Hence the importance （as Plato says） of having been trained in some way from infancy to feel joy and grief at the right things: true education is precisely this。”Book III: Moral ResponsibilityResponsibility can be voluntary， involuntary， or coerced。In compulsory cases， the cause is external and the person themselves doesn’t contribute。Ignorance renders an act involuntary。 This includes temper and desire。Voluntary does not equal choice – for example， spur of the moment decisions。Less certainty causes more deliberation。Choice is an aim post deliberation。Wickedness is voluntary。After a certain point you can’t turn yourself around， for example becoming ill after bad health choices。All actions are under the control of the disposition only at the start。Terror is a spectrum。Spirit is similar to courage。Courage implies the presence of pain。Licentiousness only applies to some senses – not sight， for example; mostly touch。Children must learn to be restrained。 Book IV: Other Moral VirtuesA liberal man is one who makes the best use of his wealth。The magnanimous man reminds me of Marcus Aurelius。The mean sometimes hasn’t got a name – like the mean between obsequious and quarrelsome。Shame shouldn’t be felt by good people because they shouldn’t do things that cause shame！ OKAY BRO。“[…] all people are fonder of what they have produced themselves – just like parents and poets。”Book V: JusticeJust equals lawful and fair。Justice is a virtue for someone else’s good。Unjust acts are done for gain。A good man does not equal a good citizen。In distribution， justice equals merit – but how to define merit？Money is a means to allow exchange of commensurable goods。 Parents can’t be unjust because children are slaves？Unjust acts are voluntary。 If done in ignorance they are mistakes， if done through unreasonable expectation they are misadventure， if knowingly but not premediated they are an injury， if done on purpose they are unjust。Being treated unjustly is involuntary。Equity is not superior to justice， it is a different genus and a rectification of law。“[…] a child until it is of a certain age and has attained independence， is as it were a part of oneself; and nobody chooses to injure himself （hence there can be no injustice towards oneself）; and so neither can there be any conduct towards them that is politically just or unjust。”Think you talked yourself into justifying legions of child abuse， there。Book VI: Intellectual VirtuesAction is controlled by sensation， intellection， and appetition。Intellect’s function is to arrive at the truth。Origin of action is choice。Origin of choice is reasoning。Induction is to universals， deduction is from universals。Wisdom is intuition plus scientific knowledge。Prudence requires experience。Virtue is conformity with prudence。Book VII: Continence and IncontinenceTemper is amenable to reason but desire isn’t。Excitability in decisions is easier to cure than those who deliberate but don’t abide by their decisions through weakness。Pleasure isn’t a good。 Why？ Prudence suggests freedom from pain > pleasure。 Pleasure is a hindrance to thinking （especially sex）。 Pleasure is pursued by children and brutes。Book VIII: The Kinds of FriendshipDo people love what is good or what is good for them？Three kinds of friendship: mutual affection， utility （derive benefit）， and pleasure。Utility friendship is impermanent。Claims of justice increase with intensity of friendship。“Democracy is most completely expressed in households where there is no master， for in them the members are all on an equality; but it also obtains where the head of the household is weak， and everyone can do as he likes。”I gather he’s not a Fan。Book IX: The Grounds of FriendshipA quarrel is where outcome doesn’t equal desire。Does the receiver or giver dictate value？Price of anything should be what you were willing to pay before you owned it。Goodwill is not the same as friendship or affection。To live is to think。To be conscious of thinking is to be conscious of existence。 Book X: PleasurePleasure is not necessarily a good just because pain is an evil。Pleasure doesn’t require an antedecent pain。Pleasure is not necessarily replenishing a deficiency。Pleasure is not continuous; happiness is an activity， not a state。Relaxation is not an end。A happy life is serious and not just about amusement。 The highest virtue is intellect。Contemplation is the highest form of activity and the most continuous; you can also do it alone。 It is appreciated for its own sake。 The activity of the gods is contemplation。 Our characters must have some affinity to virtue for goodness to happen。 I really dispute this！ It also seems contrary to many point he’s made about virtue being a habit rather than a natural state。 。。。more
Chandler Z
，
changed my view on friendship， helped me understand respect。
David
，
“For it is our decisions to do what is good or bad， not our beliefs， that make the characters we have” （1112a）。This book contains some really well-constructed arguments， many of which could have been easily condensed without losing too much。 Most of this applies to the elaboration on individual virtues。 The main arguments about finding a mean in nearly all aspects of life is very sound advice。 If you will only read Aristotle or Plato， I would personally recommend Plato， though， because I have fo “For it is our decisions to do what is good or bad， not our beliefs， that make the characters we have” （1112a）。This book contains some really well-constructed arguments， many of which could have been easily condensed without losing too much。 Most of this applies to the elaboration on individual virtues。 The main arguments about finding a mean in nearly all aspects of life is very sound advice。 If you will only read Aristotle or Plato， I would personally recommend Plato， though， because I have found his works to be better for learning and generally much more entertaining。 。。。more
Reference
google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Nicomachean Ethics
hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Nicomachean Ethics&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft