Hi guys :)
I'm about to start reading the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, is there anyone else on here who's also reading it?? We could swap ideas about it, ask questions if there were confusing bits etc..
??
Sarah ;)
Printable View
Hi guys :)
I'm about to start reading the Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, is there anyone else on here who's also reading it?? We could swap ideas about it, ask questions if there were confusing bits etc..
??
Sarah ;)
You are so cool. I should be but I start Da Vinci's notebook (anatomy and physiology) today. Let me know how it goes, though. I'd love to hear about it.
Thanks :)Quote:
Originally Posted by isidro
Da Vinci is fascinating, I saw some of his drawings once in a museum exhibition, the sheetes all brown and crumbled with age.. incredible they should have survived for so long!
I've read it twice in different translations. Which translation are you reading? I did find it difficult, and produced a written summary of his arguments as I went along. Haven't looked at my summary for a year. It's about time I looked at it again. So keep the thread going! It might motivate me :)Quote:
Originally Posted by bsbdesja
I'm reading "Against Method" by Terry Eagleton at the moment and he makes much reference to the ideas in this work. I've found references to NE in many different popular works recently (Another example is "Authentic Happiness" by Martin Seligman).
Indeedy, I loved reading Nicomachean Ethics, but have not read it for some time, and only in one translation, that by W.D. Ross - perhaps discussing it may help relieve some of those atrophied neurons, worn by lack of use. Reading Aristotle can feel like quite a work out, but he owned the virtue (pun intended) of constructing valid, logical, and smooth-flowing arguments, as did many of the peripatetics before and during his time; luckily, he seemed one of the few who did not contribute as heavily into Sophism, much like the aforementioned. He worked, and indeed functioned, too, as a teacher, desiring his students to thoroughly comprehend him, so understanding Nicomachean Ethics, as well as any of his other works, in their entirety or in segments, feels not quite as difficult as the density of Kant (just one example), yet absorbing and applying Aristotle's ethical philosophy can feel like a weight-lifting competition for the cerebrum.
Good luck, and let us know how it goes. :)
In my last read through I used Crisp's translation as the main text, with Irwin on stand-by. I found Crisp to be the most readable translation, but Irwin has an amazing glossary that I found useful to clear up some points. When I was defeated by these two I turned to Ross (available online). Some secondary literature was also useful (especially Kraut.) If al that failed, as it did several times, I just guessed or tossed a coin to determine meaning :)Quote:
Originally Posted by mono
Of course, there are all kinds of pitfalls. For instance should pathos be translated as emotion or feeling? What is the relation between emotion and feeling? Should arete be translated as excellence or virtue? Is a virtue an excellence or a 'Christian virtue'? What exactly is an excellence, or a virtue?
Although I agree with you that Aristotle (for long stretches) produces amazing logical arguments, I wouldn't call them smooth (at least in the translations I've read!) Convoluted, over wordy, spring to mind more. As I read, I tried to shorten the arguments into modern-day English that I could understand.
Also, there are massive arguments in the secondary literature about what Aristotle was actually saying in many places, and about the translation of key words. So, when you disentangle the arguments, don't expect unambiguous clarity!
Although Aristotle had the reputation of being a great teacher don't look on NE as a polished educational tool. It was either his lecture notes, or notes jotted down by one of his students (the experts aren't certain !) All his polished work was lost, awaiting some intrepid Archaeologist to make the most significant discovery in human history...
I agree Aristotle is not as tough to chew on as Kant (or Heidegger). But he's still tough. I'm not sure he's worth it. But if you want the challenge of struggling with a major philosophical text it's a good bone to chew on. I prefer eating pedigree chum (Shakespeare, Dickens...) most of the time, but an old bone like NE is worth chewing on now and again. Keeps the logic-chopping incisors clean and in-shape, even if it leads to a great deal of frustration and perplexity. (Where's the real meat? Just how do I get to that marrow? :)