My rating:

add to my books

The Nicomachean Ethics (Ηθικά Νικομάχεια #1)

by Aristotle, J.A.K. Thomson (Translator), Jonathan Barnes (Introduction), Hugh Tredennick (Editor)

3.82 · rating details · 4,841 ratings · 202 reviews

‘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, ...more

Paperback, 400 pages

Published March 30th 2004 by Penguin Classics (first published -350)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

There is a good chance some of your friends read this book. Sign in to see!

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Best Philosophy Book

22nd out of 249 books — 208 voters

The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer

The Complete Works by William Shakespeare

Clifton Fadiman's Lifetime Reading Plan

51st out of 196 books — 48 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 8,309)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 24, 2011

Nemo rated it

Shelves: greco-roman-classics

Aristotle vs. Plato

Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.

Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding Plato’s abstractions (from specie...moreAristotle vs. Plato

Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.

Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding Plato’s abstractions (from species to genus, from the individual instances to the common patterns, i.e. Idea or Form). This is the cause of the majority of his attacks against Plato, as “piety requires us to honour truth above our friends.” How very noble of him!

I don't know whether the Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum charged their students fees. If not, there were no financial incentives in disparaging their rival. If it was purely intellectual rivalry, using straw man is often a sign of an inferior intellect or character. Since both Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellect was the best part of man or the true man, to attack and destroy another's ideas would be equivalent to murder (or Freudian parricide).

However, it could also be true that Aristotle was formulating his own philosophy through engagement with Plato's ideas, and intellectual competitions and debates help facilitate the development of sound ideas. Since this is the first book by Aristotle that I've read, it's very likely that I'm not giving him his due here. It may take some time to switch from Plato to Aristotle's way of thinking.

A Champion of Mediocrity

Aristotle's definitions of good, virtue and happiness are unsatisfactory to me. Good is "that at which all things aim". All people aim at happiness (or pleasure), therefore happiness is the supreme good. But, what exactly is happiness or pleasure? How can one hit his aim if he can't discern what he is aiming at? If virtue is "the mean between deficiency and excess", what is the difference between virtue and mediocrity?

"Pleasure perfects activity not as the formed state that issues in that activity perfects it, by being immanent in it, but as a sort of supervening [culminating] perfection, like the bloom that graces the flower of youth." How can a fleeting thing that lacks permanence be the object of a lifelong pursuit?

In the end, Aristotle agrees with Plato, perhaps begrudgingly as it was dictated by reason, that happiness is contemplation of the divine, which is pleasant, self-sufficient and continuous. He insists on making a distinction between activity and state, but in this instance the distinction is unclear to me.

An Acute Observer of Human Nature

There are a few things I do appreciate in this book. Aristotle's joie de vivre (his delight in learning, being alive and active), his insights into human nature, his clear and penetrating psychological portrayal of various character traits and the dynamic relationships or transactions between human beings. He also introduced me to Pythagorean's fascinating mathematical representation of equality, A:B = B:C and A-M = M -C.(less)

like 2 likes

· see review

Jul 23, 2011

Yann rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: antiquité, philosophie, grece

Aristote resserre dans un seul ouvrage une critique fraiche des thèses de Platon. Pas de grands effets rhétoriques, de mises en scène ingénieuse, d'habileté didactique, le discernement et la méthode prennent nettement le pas sur l'esprit. Les thèmes abordés sont moraux: le consentement, la décision, la justice, le plaisir, l'amitié, le bonheur, la vertu. La sécheresse du style accentue les risques d'erreurs d'interprétation, et peut être qu'un peu d'aisance et de grâce ne trahissent pas la clart...more

like 1 like

· see review

Oct 08, 2008

Mandi rated it

Aristotle doesn't satisfy your whole soul, just the logical side, but here he is quite thorough. The Nicomachean Ethics is his most important study of personal morality and the ends of human life. He does little more than search for and examine the "good." He examines the virtue and vices of man in all his faculties. He believes that the unexamined life is a life not worth living; happiness is the contemplation of the good and the carrying out of virtue with solid acts. Among this book...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 02, 2009

Mark rated it

Very interesting. This was my first real book that expounded a full ethical system. I certainly took a few things from it, but my biggest criticism would be that certain elements are impossible to account for. For example, the punishments for a crime were partly based on the "characters" of the victim and criminal. A man of low character insulting another man of low character was not nearly as serious as a man of low character insulting a man of high character. He also seemed to sugges...more

like 1 like

· see review

Nov 29, 2008

Simon A. Smith rated it

Shelves: philosophy, no-thanks, assigned-in-college

I've got some elitist, pretentious bones in this here body of mine, and I don't pretend not to, but this text was too pompous and presumptuous even for my blood.

Hmmmm... ever notice how 'p' words tend to be used to express disdain for arrogance? I just noticed that my above review is a virtual thesaurus of p words meaning phony... or synonyms for pharisaic. Weird.

like 2 likes

· see review

Nov 14, 2008

Joshua Nomen-Mutatio rated it

Shelves: philosophy, ethics-and-or-metaethics

As translated and cited by Owen Flanagan in The Really Hard Problem:

"We should consider our discussion adequate insofar as we make things perspicuous enough as regrds our subject matter. We do not seek or expect the same degree of exactness in all sort of arguments (compare: mathematics, physics, history), just as we do not expect sameness in the products of different crafts (compare pressing coins, to knitting clothes)...In ethics and political science each of our generalizati...more

like 1 like

· see review

Nov 08, 2011

Giovanni rated it

· review of another edition

The cover here is a much uglier green. Blech. I had to read this for PHL100Y1Y, Intro to Philosophy.

Well, correction: I had to read snippets. And I didn't even read some of the later snippets because I had mono. But I had my professor's lecture notes about Aristotle's lecture notes.

And that's the thing here. They're lecture notes. They're amazingly dry, and have this funny way of phrasing rather easy to grasp concepts in the hardest of ways. I don't know if this is a fail...more

· see review

Oct 01, 2011

Jared rated it

· review of another edition

Before I really go into this review, I want to note that it is a weird thing to give a classic like Aristotle's ethics a rating based on stars. Any book that has survived as long as Aristotle's Ethics automatically has the best rating applied to it "classic". An author can only hope and dream that their writing may reach such status.
When reviewing ancient writing I have to keep a couple different things in mind. One thing I must keep in mind is the translation. This trans...moreBefore I really go into this review, I want to note that it is a weird thing to give a classic like Aristotle's ethics a rating based on stars. Any book that has survived as long as Aristotle's Ethics automatically has the best rating applied to it "classic". An author can only hope and dream that their writing may reach such status.
When reviewing ancient writing I have to keep a couple different things in mind. One thing I must keep in mind is the translation. This translation seemed to be more on the form literal side, so it ended up being fairly challenging to read. A lot of times the translator just left in the original Greek word (which fortunately I know a little Greek so it worked out for me) which means that there would be a few spots where many readers would not even know what the word sounds like. The explanatory note section in the back was not set up in a helpful way. You go to the notes and then it references the page, and explains it. I would have preferred a foot note system with explanations at the bottom of the page. Because of these difficulties I recommend a different translation of Aristotle's ethics.
What struck me about Aristotle's Ethics was how much of it just seemed like common sense to me. And I am still not sure whether a lot of this actually is common sense or it seems like common sense because of the impact Aristotle has had on western culture. I imagine it is a bit of both. I liked Aristotle's golden mean I think it works for everyday situations. The basic idea is that you want to behave in between two extremes. For instance you can be a coward on one extreme and on the other extreme you can be reckless and stupid, but in the middle is courage. I at first worried that his golden mean would keep soldiers from being brave, and self sacrificial. But then I realized that if a soldier is not brave and fearless they are cowardly. So the golden mean can shift to being really far on the no guts or glory in a war, and in peace time switches towards the no unnecessary risk. Overall it seems to work.
A lot of the other things Aristotle speaks on seems to be more psychological then philosophical. A lot of what he says describes how men act. He speaks on lending, and friendship and usually describes how men act towards one another. These were the most fun tidbits to read because he had an interesting way of describing human nature.
(less)

· see review

Apr 29, 2011

Gavin rated it

Forgive a long and direct quoting of my favourite passage:

"Benefactors are thought to love those whom they have benefited more than the beneficiaries love their benefactors... [m]ost people conclude that it is because the latter owe and the former are owed a debt... It may be thought, however, that the cause lies deeper in nature, and that the case of the lender is not even analagous. It is not affection that the lender feels, but a wish for the debtor's safety with a view to re

...moreForgive a long and direct quoting of my favourite passage:

"Benefactors are thought to love those whom they have benefited more than the beneficiaries love their benefactors... [m]ost people conclude that it is because the latter owe and the former are owed a debt... It may be thought, however, that the cause lies deeper in nature, and that the case of the lender is not even analagous. It is not affection that the lender feels, but a wish for the debtor's safety with a view to reimbursement; whereas the author of a kindness feels affection and love for the recipient even if he neither is nor is likely to be of any use to him. This is just what happens in the other crafts too. Every craftsman loves the work of his own hands more than it would love him if it came to life. Probably this happens most of all with poets, because they are exceedingly fond of their own poems, loving them as if they were their children. Well, the case of the benefactor is much the same. What he has benefited is his own handiwork; so he loves it more than the work loves its maker. The reason for this is that existence is to everyone an object of choice and love, and we exist through activity (because we exist by living and acting); and the maker of the work exists, in a sense, through his activity. Therefore the maker loves his work, because he loves existence. This is a natural principle; for the work reveals in actuality what is only potentially."

In truth this is more of a psychological insight than a philosophical one, but I embrace these even when the ancient context sometimes lessens their practical worth. In the excellent introduction it's pointed out that Aristotle's aim is really "human expertise rather than moral excellence", and in this sense it is more concerned with practical concerns than I found with Plato's Republic, which I read before this. The prescriptivism might annoy at first, but in the end you see the shape of what he's getting at, and recall Aristotle's own warnings that none of this is an exact science.

I particularly like his principle of aiming for the mean in all things - essentially, always choosing the porridge that is neither too hot nor too cold, in virtue. He leaves it to us to work out where our own "means" lie, which thankfully separates it from any specious self-help book - but I absolutely get it. I get the impression this idea was a Big Thing with Aristotle - I haven't read any of his other works, but it's a principle I can get behind.

Unfortunately it's a tough read in parts. As the introduction politely puts it, "the vintage is not for quaffing". Apparently Aristotle was wonderfully good at speaking and writing, but what we've gotten passed down through the ages amounts to terse lecture notes, though it isn't as bad as that sounds. Plato is better in this respect. Still worth it though. The translation is good, reasonably well annotated, and the introduction is sensible though probably more interesting to read afterwards. There's plenty of other Aristotle about, but this is probably a good one to have a go at.(less)

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 22, 2011

Tim rated it

· review of another edition

This book’s a difficult case. On one hand there’s the infamous defense of slavery and the statements on the inferiority of women, and parts of the book seem downright pedestrian. But a closer reading of Aristotle on slavery suggests he supported a rather different and probably far more limited form than was his society’s practice. (If this is correct, implementing this version would have likely caused a revolution in the ancient Greek socieo-economic system, quite possibly eliminating the cla...moreThis book’s a difficult case. On one hand there’s the infamous defense of slavery and the statements on the inferiority of women, and parts of the book seem downright pedestrian. But a closer reading of Aristotle on slavery suggests he supported a rather different and probably far more limited form than was his society’s practice. (If this is correct, implementing this version would have likely caused a revolution in the ancient Greek socieo-economic system, quite possibly eliminating the class which had the leisure to philosophize, but Aristotle doesn’t follow up on these implications here or in the Politics.) Perhaps a closer reading of Aristotle on women might suggest something less unenlightened than at first blush, and we should be careful about keeping historical and cultural context in mind and not unreflectively applying 21st c. views to the 4th c. BC. If nothing else, he writes of women with more sympathy and humanity than is typical of ancient Greeks (notable atypicals being Euripides and of course Sappho). And when you’ve been wading through some of the seemingly pedestrian material to the point that you’re losing faith in “the master of those who know,” suddenly the penetrating, profound, nuanced, and original mind reappears, notably in his discussion of “intellectual virtue.”

I won’t try to synopsize or critique this work other than to point out, as others have, that the Christian conception of the individual’s struggle with sin (and the “post-Christian” derivatives of this concept) significantly illumines a blind spot in ancient Greek psychology (or so I believe). However, Aristotle doesn’t try to prove the Socratic/Platonic notion that people never willingly choose to do wrong. Rather, he makes a compelling case that only a virtuous life is truly satisfying and that any rational and critically-thinking person should see this and live accordingly. It might be the most effective argument for ethical living that doesn’t rely on divinity (although there is a non-causal [at least in the modern sense] tie to divinity). It doesn’t try to say we ought to live a certain way; just that nothing else truly satisfies the most fundamental natural needs of man. Aristotle neither has to make an exclusive claim nor does he need to prove his claim: experience demonstrates it conclusively (he believes). (I probably wouldn’t have grasped this without reading Jonathan Lear’s thoroughly excellent Aristotle: The Desire to Understand, which has also helped me better understand Aristotle on slavery and on many other things.)

This is an argument which seems to have been forgotten in our “post-Christian” West as it’s been searching for a way to re-ground its inherited ethics (some of which are quite different from Aristotle’s, but that’s a comparison and critique I said I wouldn’t get into). Whether it’s a strong enough argument and whether it could succeed widely are open questions; Aristotle believed most people are neither inclined to virtue nor susceptible to rational argument, so he probably wouldn’t expect this argument to have much influence. But for the few, it seems possibly more sound than any ethical theory from Kant to Rawls. Perhaps Kant, Rawls and other moderns have hoped for something that could be convincingly translated for the masses. Like Aristotle, I’m skeptical that that could be done successfully. I also think Aristotle’s probably right that most people are motivated largely by animal desires and only effectively constrained by the threat of force, primarily through law (Aristotle’s almost starting to sound like a Calvinist). Which leaves a larger open question about ethics and contemporary society that I won’t try to address. Suffice it to say that Aristotle’s consciously preaching to a choir – explaining virtue to the already virtuous – not trying to convert heathens.(less)

· see review

Jun 03, 2010

Rowland Bismark rated it

As the successor of Socrates and Plato, Aristotle was the last of the great Greek philosophers. Philosophy first flourished in Greece sometime in the early sixth century b.c. as inquisitive thinkers began developing rational methods for investigating the mysteries of nature and mathematics. These pre-Socratic thinkers were as much scientists and mathematicians as they were philosophers.

While there is significant pre-Socratic influence in Aristotle’s work, primarily in the sciences an...moreAs the successor of Socrates and Plato, Aristotle was the last of the great Greek philosophers. Philosophy first flourished in Greece sometime in the early sixth century b.c. as inquisitive thinkers began developing rational methods for investigating the mysteries of nature and mathematics. These pre-Socratic thinkers were as much scientists and mathematicians as they were philosophers.

While there is significant pre-Socratic influence in Aristotle’s work, primarily in the sciences and metaphysics, his most significant influence was undoubtedly Plato (427–347 B.C.). Plato’s philosophy was centered on his famous Theory of Forms, or Theory of Ideas. The theory is based on the observation that there must be some universal quality that all things classed under a single name share in common. For instance, a flower is beautiful in a very different way from a human, but both the flower and the human must share something in common if we are to call them both “beautiful.” Plato’s answer is that they share in common the “Form of Beauty,” which is itself invisible, unchanging, and eternal. Anything that we perceive in this world as beautiful is beautiful because it participates in some way in the Form of Beauty. But while beautiful flowers will wilt and beautiful humans will grow old and die, the Form of Beauty is everlasting and unchanging. Plato theorizes that our world of sensible experience, with its changes and disappointments, is but a poor reflection of the ideal world of pure Forms that underlies our experience. The goal of philosophy, then, is to train the mind to see beyond the veil of experience and to contemplate the true reality of Forms that lies behind it.

While Aristotle was undoubtedly influenced by Plato, this influence was mostly negative. Most of his works, including the Nicomachean Ethics,contain involved refutations of many of Plato’s theories. Aristotle himself was an empirical scientist who felt that true wisdom comes from examining the objects of experience and not from trying to look beyond them. In the Ethics, he is primarily critical of Plato’s Form of Good. According to Aristotle, there is not a single Form by virtue of which all good things are good. Instead, he discusses at length the multiplicity of the various virtues.

Aristotle’s work in the Ethics is deeply informed by his own work in the sciences and metaphysics. Properly describing the breadth of Aristotle’s impressive system is far beyond the scope of this Spark-Note, but Jonathan Barnes’s Aristotle (2000) provides an excellent and brief introduction to Aristotelian philosophy.

In terms of impact on the Ethics, perhaps Aristotle’s most significant concept is that of the teleology of nature. According to Aristotle, nature works toward a telos, or end goal. His biological work aims constantly at the question of what purpose different aspects of plants and animals serve. He classifies humans as “rational animals,” meaning that our telosis rational. In other words, our function in life is to realize our full potential as rational beings. If we are not fully rational, we are falling short of our true nature.

This teleological view gives Aristotle’s Ethics a clear sense of direction. Our goal in life is to achieve our true nature, and this true nature consists essentially of rationality. The purpose of a moral education, then, is to teach us how we may become perfectly rational and immune to the temptations of our lower animalistic parts.

Ethics is just one of a number of fields that Aristotle classifies as “practical science.” Unlike the natural sciences, which examine the world around us, these sciences deal with the practical aspects of human society and how best to arrange this society. The practical sciences are all closely connected, and Aristotle frequently expounds on the connection between the good life for the individual and the kind of state that could make this good life possible. Hence, Aristotle’s Politics is an important companion and sequel to his Ethics.

While the Nicomachean Ethics is Aristotle’s most popular work on ethics, there is a second work called the Eudemian Ethics, which is far less widely read. Most scholars agree that the Eudemian Ethics was written earlier in Aristotle’s career and represents a less mature view. Books V, VI, and VII of the Nicomachean Ethics are also found in the Eudemian Ethics.

Aristotle’s influence on Western philosophy is difficult to exaggerate. While his works were lost to the West for many centuries, they were slowly transmitted back into Europe by Arab scholars during the Middle Ages. Thanks mostly to the influence of Saint Thomas Aquinas, Aristotelian philosophy became accepted almost as dogmatically as the Bible during the late Middle Ages. While modern philosophy broke significantly from the scholastic tradition of the Middle Ages, Aristotle’s influence remains undiminished. In particular, his emphasis on scientific reasoning and experimentation has been a cornerstone of modern empiricist philosophy.(less)

· see review

Apr 07, 2010

Alex Konrad added it

Aristotle, according to Dante, is "the master of those who know."

The master of those who know [that he is the master:]?
The master of those who [knew about him during the Renaissance period:]?

In The Nicomachean Ethics, going against the assumption of ancient philosophy that 'first there is the question,' Aristotle criticizes those who inquire into things, as well as inquiry itself, instead giving primacy to knowing. So, by this Dante meant, and I can only ...more

like 1 like

· see review

Jan 03, 2010

Erik Graff rated it

· review of another edition

Recommends it for: Aristotle fans

Recommended to Erik by: Shimer College

Shelves: philosophy

After being laid off from Loyola University I looked for work at other higher educational institutions. One of them, Shimer College, a "great books" school which my step-brother was attending, actually solicited my applications via the agencies of some of their staff. Pursuing this option, I made an effort to read all of the books in their curriculum which I hadn't yet studied. The Nicomachean Ethics was one such book.

Except for On Poetry, which did help me understand Gr...more

like 1 like

· see review

Dec 03, 2011

Barry added it

Recommends it for: fellow dummies with good attention spans

Recommended to Barry by: Great Books/PEL podcast list

Shelves: philosophy

tran H. Rackam 1926 322 Pages

12/3 - this made for a wonderful rainy day read, very calming, chilling out and sorting some thoughts on lots of fundamental ideas. Much of his terminology seems to encompass different attributes than either its current use or more modern synonyms probably cover, so reading along and making that adjustment seemed necessary. Also there's some downright obsolete concepts and cultural consensus stuff in here, but again adjustments are easy to think of as well ...more

· see review

Apr 27, 2010

Yesterday's Muse Bookstore rated it

Shelves: philosophy

While I respect Aristotle's contributions to philosophy, his work is not my favorite. He approaches philosophical thought in an extremely scientific way, providing precise definitions and following these through to their logical conclusions.

There are two reasons this does not work for me: 1) It is boring, and makes it difficult to reference the text because all the sections sound the same; 2) The definitions from which everything follows are seemingly picked out of thin air. They are...more

· see review

Jun 20, 2010

Matt rated it

· review of another edition

Therefore, the activity of the divinity which surpasses all others in bliss must be a contemplative activity, and the human activity which is most closely akin to it is, therefore, most conducive to happiness{…}So happiness is coextensive with study, and the greater the opportunity for studying, the greater the happiness, not as an incidental effect but as inherent in study; for study is in itself worthy of honor. Pg. 293.

Eudaimon, generally translated as “Happiness”, is the goal of Aristotle...more

Therefore, the activity of the divinity which surpasses all others in bliss must be a contemplative activity, and the human activity which is most closely akin to it is, therefore, most conducive to happiness{…}So happiness is coextensive with study, and the greater the opportunity for studying, the greater the happiness, not as an incidental effect but as inherent in study; for study is in itself worthy of honor. Pg. 293.

Eudaimon, generally translated as “Happiness”, is the goal of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. His scientific empiricist nature clearly manifests as he formulates an ethical code to reach what he believes the human goal is; happiness. Unlike his predecessor, Plato, Aristotle does not seek out value beyond his experience. Aristotle adopts the accepted values in Athens and practically addresses how to achieve them. This results in what has later been termed his Doctrine of the Mean. Most of Book IV is devoted to this idea. Be generous, but not extravagant nor stingy. Be high-minded, but not vain nor petty. Be friendly, but not obsequious nor grouchy. You get the gist.

Of course, Aristotle cannot, and does not try, to articulate what the limits are for behavior. It depends on the person and situation. In the end, this is practical philosophy. It’s about drawing awareness to behavior that may pull you from the mean. It’s probably the first self-help book in Western literature.

But Aristotle is a teleological fellow. Just as in his view of science that all physical phenomena are designed for purpose, so is the virtuous mean designed for a purpose as well. Happiness. Through virtuous action and discerning decision-making, the wise will find happiness. From moderation in physical pleasure to moderation in maintaining worthy friends, Aristotle works through the superfluous pleasures of amusement to obtain true Pleasure. Such Pleasure is found in the contemplative life of study. However,

“Must we not rather abide by the maxim that in matters of action the end is not to study and attain knowledge of the particular things to be done, but rather do them. Surely knowing about excellence or virtue is not enough: we must try to possess it and use it, or find some other way in which we may become good.” Pg.295.

So as Aristotle ends Nicomachean Ethics, he opens the discussion into what will become his Politics.

Which all seems somewhat of a shell game.

If the virtuous life is to obtain happiness through Pleasure, and that Pleasure is in contemplative study to become wise, why is it virtuous to forsake that Pleasure to engage in legislation? I think the answer to this is in the values of classical Greece that intertwines the personal and public life of its citizens. This particular virtue, however, is not discussed in Nicomachean Ethics.

Aristotle’s analysis of correct living merely using the mores of Athens as a measure seems to be a clear break in form from Plato, but it is inevitably rooted in the same presuppositions that plague his mentor. Even so, it’s an interesting read to help recalibrate yourself to once again focus on what is the purpose for most of our actions. (less)

· see review

Aug 17, 2009

Michael Griffith rated it

Aristotle's Ethics is an incredibly pragmatic view of how one should live their lives and explaining how he came to these conclusions. A good deal of this is all about being of a "mean" disposition- basically, on average, you should fit his categories, which are means of extreme conditions.

Shockingly, Aristotle (occupation: philosopher)comes to the conclusion the contemplative life is the best and happiest condition. His discussion of the role of politics is interesting, wh...more

· see review

Jan 06, 2011

Sharon Archer added it

I only read the first two books for my great books discussion group...

He has some lofty ideas...he is quite the elitist....he is free to have all the time in the world to think due to the fact his every need was cared for by slaves. He goes into some length to defend slavery, to justify it...and I really don't have words to describe how I feel about his thoughts on women...

Much of the language is very subjective and can drive you a wee bit crazy. However, the very fact that...more

· see review

Jan 31, 2012

kaelan rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: for-school, philosophy

Aristotle’s main purpose in Nicomachean Ethics is to define what exactly constitutes virtue and, more generally, the good life.

To the modern reader, many of his arguments appear blatantly invalid (perhaps most troubling is that his account seems to rest on a possible tautology: a virtuous act is an act such that a virtuous man would do it). Furthermore, many of his beliefs are so grounded in 4th-century Greek thought as to make any modern day applications of his philosophy improbabl...more

· see review

Jun 09, 2011

James rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: classics, favorites, philosophy, u-of-chicago

This is Aristotle's classic guide to ethics including the golden mean, the nature of friendship and other topics. While it is more a set of lecture notes than a polished philosophical treatise it still demonstrates the power of the mind of the man behind it. As he does for other subjects Aristotle approaches ethics in an organized and scientific manner with an initial emphasis on definitions such as: what is the good, virtue, justice and moral excellence? He does this with an expectation of only...more

· see review

Jan 31, 2010

Chris rated it

Shelves: greek-philosophy

I give this book four stars out of appreciation of what Aristotle put together. There are so many good ideas here, but the ideas I liked for the most part had already been spelled out by Plato. The part on Friendship was new and I enjoyed it until it got into more business relationship stuff. Aristotle seemed to want to reinvent the wheel, and in doing so created the philosophical equivalent of a car - it appears to be good and practical but really just makes my life more complicated than it ...more

· see review

Sep 13, 2008

Julianne rated it

· review of another edition

Shelves: non-fiction

Possible essay questions I would assign to my seminar students, if I were in fact making my seminar students read the Nicomachean Ethics:

1) What does Aristotle mean when he writes “seems?” (e.g. “Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good…” 1094a, p. 1.)
2) What does Aristotle mean by “nature?” (e.g. “…the things that are pleasant to those who are passionately devoted to what is beautiful are the things that are pleasant by natur...morePossible essay questions I would assign to my seminar students, if I were in fact making my seminar students read the Nicomachean Ethics:

1) What does Aristotle mean when he writes “seems?” (e.g. “Every art and every inquiry, and likewise every action and choice, seems to aim at some good…” 1094a, p. 1.)
2) What does Aristotle mean by “nature?” (e.g. “…the things that are pleasant to those who are passionately devoted to what is beautiful are the things that are pleasant by nature…” 1099a, p. 14.)
3) How do absolutes function in Aristotle?
4) What does Aristotle mean by “guidance?” (e.g. “…the wasteful person who has not come under guidance passes over into dissipated acts, but if such a person happens to have care taken over him, he might arrive at the mean and at what one ought to do” 1121b, p. 62.) Does this concept of “guidance” impinge on free will? Why/why not?
5) How does “incidentally” differ from “unwilling” or “nonwilling?” (See 1137a, p. 99; 1139b, p. 105; 1157b, p. 149.)
6) What is Aristotle’s view of human nature? (See 1163b, p. 162; 1167b, p. 171; 1172b, p. 181.)
7) How does Aristotle decide which questions to pursue in the course of his philosophic inquiry and which to abandon? (e.g. “Now whether it is for this reason or for some other that their cares are lightened, let the question be put aside, but what is described does appear to happen” 1171a, p. 178).

In my opinion, this edition of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics succeeds in being both no-frills and beautiful. Of course, to me, there is something inherently beautiful in a scholarly work that includes a minimum of editorial clutter; I am perhaps biased. (However, if so, I believe this is a bias shared by most other would-be readers of Aristotle, so I make no apologies for recommending this edition.) Set against 200 pages of Aristotle’s Ethics are a mere 31 pages of preface, introduction, and glossary—a highly appropriate way to present a new translation (accomplished in 2000–02) that seeks to “bypass the accumulated baggage of a tradition” (vii). In his preface and introduction, Joe Sachs argues that clarity in language and precision in thinking are inextricably linked and that “in this translation I have aimed at accuracy above all else, with the hope of putting you in contact with Aristotle, as nearly as you can be without reading his Greek” (ix).

But lovers of the scholarly tradition, fear not. In all this brevity and baggage-bypassing, Sachs has not sacrificed substance. The preface and the introduction both contributed greatly to my understanding of Sachs’s ensuing translation, and the glossary, while decidedly bare-bones, includes valuable explanation of some of the most important concepts in Aristotle as well as their corresponding names in Greek. And as for the translation…

As a result of reading his translation, I do imagine Sachs less as a bespectacled academician crouched over ponderous tomes of lore as I do of him as an opthalmologist polishing, focusing, and carefully noting which lenses best enable sight and for which reasons—an inherently less scholarly image in the popular imagination, to be sure; however for the bespectacled academician to read his ponderous tomes, he must first have visited the opthalmologist. Hard-core academicians who find fault with Sachs’s divergence from tradition based on the substance of his translation—and I say this as a non-Greek-reader—probably need to reexamine just what it is they love about Aristotle. Aristotle himself was less a product of poring over inherited tradition than of attempting to see the world around him clearly. (In point of absolute fact, Aristotle would probably not describe himself as a product at all but as an individual exhibiting certain characteristic ways of, to quote Sachs, “being-at-work” in the world. In other words, Aristotle is not so much ‘someone who sees clearly’ as he is ‘clear seeing.’)

Clear seeing precedes clear understanding, and a clear understanding of how sight functions precedes a clear understanding of how to correct faulty vision. Sachs’s translation is both clear-sighted and scholarly and provides a service to all would-be readers of Aristotle in bypassing the baggage, dispensing with the frills, and presenting the the beauty of Aristotle’s thought in as unfiltered a form as possible.
(less)

· see review

Aug 02, 2008

Jon rated it

Shelves: favoriteclassics

I'll just share one of the many pieces of wisdom I gleaned from this one. These ideas come, primarily, from Book I, Section C.

Aristotle believes that a person can become more virtuos by practing virtue. For example, the more one is humble as opposed to prideful, the more naturally humility comes to him. Virtues, by the way, are broken into intellectual and moral virtues (the above is a moral virtue).

I've heard this idea compared to a piano player: the more one pract...more

· see review

Jul 25, 2007

Ryan rated it

Recommends it for: Anyone interested in ethics

Aristotle is pretty great. I mean, there's just no getting around that. His system of ethics, based on virtue, is one that sort of faded from popularity (or even recognition) for a long time. Recently, it's made something of a comeback, so I was curious about getting to the source of it. Overall, it's pretty much brilliant, with a few exceptions. First, the translation. They've translated eudaimonia as happiness throughout, when there really is no good English equivalent. Yes, it means ha...more

· see review

Jul 25, 2007

Kenghis Khan rated it

· review of another edition

I read this work during high school on my own and was compelled to read it in the university. Going through it the first time, I was deeply impressed by Aristotle's praise of human thought and the contemplative life. Furthermore, his claims that Ethics is a practical science are particularly illuminative, and Aristotle refuses to "loose touch" with reality. Finally, Aristotle's attempts to develop our moral principles from a series of premises is very striking and relevant to our own a...moreI read this work during high school on my own and was compelled to read it in the university. Going through it the first time, I was deeply impressed by Aristotle's praise of human thought and the contemplative life. Furthermore, his claims that Ethics is a practical science are particularly illuminative, and Aristotle refuses to "loose touch" with reality. Finally, Aristotle's attempts to develop our moral principles from a series of premises is very striking and relevant to our own activities. However, his argument is not without its difficulties. For one, it gets off to a bad start. In essence, Aristotle's first statement reads something like this: For everything, there is a good to which it aims. Therefore, there is a good to which everything aims. Not so. For example, in elementary arithmetic, I can't say: for every number, there is a number bigger than it. Therefore, there is a number bigger than all numbers. The conclusion is patently false, while the premise holds. Aristotle's inference is unjustified. Related to this difficulty is his view that "doing what you are 'natural at' constitutes 'the good'." Hence, a good flute player is one who plays the flute well. Ok, so suppose it were the essence of man to pick his nose. Then picking the nose at the expense of everything else would be "good," and other things, like helping people and suchwhat, are inferior acts. Granted this is based on the assumption that picking the nose is man's essence, as far as I know man is the only animal that picks his nose. Since Aristotle considers uniqueness a sufficient justification for making reasoning the essence of man, a life spent exclusively in picking the nose seems just as ethical as the contemplative life. And perhaps unbenounced to us human reason evolved to perfect the art of nose picking, which held some tremendous evolutionary advantage for man. Or if whoever decides what an "essence" should be shows up and tells us our essence is to pick our nose. In all these cases, I'd rather not think of "picking of the nose" as the highest ethical act and reject Aristotle. Nevertheless, Aristotle's approach to ethics as a deductive and practical science is illuminating when we all think about what the good life really could be for ourselves.(less)

· see review

Oct 24, 2011

Katherine rated it

· review of another edition

A really good translation, a fantastic introduction, and a very useful glossary and notes at the back.

I like how clear the translation is, and readable. It wasn't the set version, but I found it more useful for answering questions in class.

As for the philosophy itself...

After a semester of glaring at Ayn Rand, this was a refreshing breath of fresh air. I agree with most of what he says, and his rather colourful examples of people eating babies (he agrees that this...more

· see review

Jun 30, 2010

Jeremy added it

Shelves: philosophy, politics

In spite of my usual reservations about Aristotle, I found myself really liking this. The style is straight forward, his arguments are succinct and to the point, unlike the uber-dense abstractions in the Physics. And Unlike certain greek philosophers (cough, Plato, cough), his analysis manages to be upbeat and actually contains a shred of practicality. I don't see how it could work in the non-classical world, but it's such an enthusiastic piece of writing, so confident that it can pin down what ...more

· see review

May 31, 2010

Tom McKone rated it

Aristotle appears simple at first glance but, as you continue reading, you find yourself in the weeds because you weren't being attentive to what was being said.
Aristotle was far more difficult for the monotheistic religions to digest. Plato is absolute and idealistic. Aristotle is a relativist.
Norman Cantor, in the Civilization of the Middle Ages, stated that Islam and Judaism never successfully incorporated Aristotelianism into their theologies. Christianity was more successful be...more

· see review

May 23, 2010

Jesse Lopes rated it

· review of another edition

Have you ever thought morality is an art form? Aristotle did too! Come, see the error of your ways: read this. It is one of the best organized of Aristotle's texts and thoroughly well written, with colorful examples and plausible descriptions. However, to call ethics an art is an egregious display of self-conceit, which leads you to "the magnanimous man," or the modern, what Zizek calls, liberal communists, i.e. Bill Gates, etc.

· see review

Dec 03, 2008

Kris rated it

Recommends it for: philosophers/students

Shelves: scholarship, favorites

An excellent, albeit dry, primer on how the rational man/woman derives his/her virtue. I love this book! I can hardly recommend it though, for its difficulty level. Aristotle does not have the charisma or communication skills of his predecessor Plato. That makes Aristotle something of an acquired taste. But if one can get past the superficial obstacles, Aristotle and his lessons on virtue will wow you beyond expectation.

· see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 276 277 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (189)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

566 users

Classics

102 users

Non Fiction

92 users

Academic > School

21 users

Academic > College

19 users

Literature > Ancient

16 users

Politics

15 users

History

9 users

Philosophy > Theory

8 users

Academic > Read For School

7 users

See top shelves...

Readers Also Enjoyed

About Aristotle

Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.

Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important found...more

More about Aristotle...

Books by Aristotle

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Pin It

Trivia About The Nicomachean E...

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Nicomachean Ethics

“One swallow does not make a summer,
neither does one fine day;
similarly one day or brief time of happiness does not make a person entirely happy.” — 66 people liked it

“Philosophy can make people sick.” — 25 people liked it

More quotes…

Groups That Shelved The Nicomachean E...

Around the World in 80 Books

334 members

last activity 5 minutes ago

shelf: read

Classics and the Western ...

922 members

last activity 27 minutes ago

shelf: to-read

Classical Self-Education

13 members

last activity Feb 06, 2012 08:15pm

shelf: to-read

title link	preview: The Nicomachean Ethics
avg rating	preview: The Nicomachean Ethics Goodreads rating: 3.82 (4841 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19068.The_Nicomachean_Ethics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1327869327m/19068.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/19068.The_Nicomachean_Ethics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle[/url]

The Nicomachean Ethics (Ηθικά Νικομάχεια #1)

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Readers Also Enjoyed

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website