Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

The Nicomachean Ethics

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

3.86 of 5 stars 3.86 · rating details · 10,891 ratings · 312 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, generosity a...more

Paperback, 400 pages

Published March 30th 2004 by Penguin Classics (first published January 1st 1861)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

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 465 books — 434 voters

The Invention of Religion by Alexander Drake

Books that Change the Way You View Life

149th out of 1,147 books — 956 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

Dec 24, 2011 Nemo rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: greco-roman, great-books, philosophy

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 species to genus, from the individua...more 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 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)

4 likes · like · see review

Mar 02, 2013 John Carncross rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: reviewed

If you are going to walk, you may as well learn to walk in the proper way. If you are going to eat, you may as well learn the art of eating. Which one is the salad fork? Aristotle thinks we achieve happiness by learning the art of living. Our lives are a work of art, and we learn the technique of happiness.

It is true that we want a doctor that knows the art of surgery. And this makes make him a good surgeon. But being competent does not make you a good person.

I like the idea that ethics has to...more

2 likes · like · see review

Jul 23, 2011 Yann rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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

1 like · like · see review

May 18, 2011 Bruce rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

This is a book worth rereading every few years. It is actually lecture notes by one of Aristotle’s students, as are most of the extant writings attributed to Aristotle. Not a work to be rushed through, the Ethics requires concentration and pondering, work that rewards the effort.

Aristotle begins by investigating what is good for man, proceeding to examine both moral and intellectual virtues. In each of these areas, he first defines his terms. Then he examines various virtues and vices such as co...more

4 likes · like · see review

Oct 08, 2008 Mandi rated it 5 of 5 stars

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's most ou...more

4 likes · like · see review

Jan 02, 2009 Mark rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 suggest that men...more

1 like · like · see review

Nov 29, 2008 Simon A. Smith rated it 2 of 5 stars

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.

3 likes · like · see review

Nov 14, 2008 Joshua Nomen-Mutatio rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 generalizations ought to be un...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 16, 2011 S. Annelise Adams rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: u-of-c

I wanted goose bumps and didn’t get them. Aristotle's logic-bloated writing style is achingly tedious in a 'trying to run through wet cement nightmare' way. What he says (eventually) is of course important beyond measure but I kept having a Mona Lisa on a Cereal Box experience which is the phenomenon of feeling blasé, numb and maybe a little cheated when one finds oneself standing in front of the ORIGINAL that has been riffed on, torn up, dissected, and regurgitated in forms both heavenly and he...more

1 like · like · see review

May 08, 2013 Brian Schiebout rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Nicomachean Ethics is a book of philosophy written by Aristotle and translated into English by Joe Sachs. To begin my response I will try to explain ethics and what Aristotle meant by the term and what I induced and deduced from it. Ethos is a Greek work meaning character and so the focus of this book is on what makes up a persons character. For the most part this book talks about different methods of being-at-work in an active condition but at times this is extended to passive experiences. The...more Nicomachean Ethics is a book of philosophy written by Aristotle and translated into English by Joe Sachs. To begin my response I will try to explain ethics and what Aristotle meant by the term and what I induced and deduced from it. Ethos is a Greek work meaning character and so the focus of this book is on what makes up a persons character. For the most part this book talks about different methods of being-at-work in an active condition but at times this is extended to passive experiences. The proper ways of being-at-work in an active condition are those which pursue the good and the beautiful, these Aristotle would call virtues. For myself and my interpretation of Aristotle comes off as confused prideful work unless I add to it that statement from the Bible that only God is good. So I then, for myself as Aristotle most certainly never states it, would formulate that virtue is serving God beautifully through his spirit as such actions correspond to different aspects of our lives. There are many similarities between Aristotle's virtues and Paul's fruits of the spirit which I do not believe happened by chance but because God opened the path for the gospel into the Greek world by inspiring contemplation on an aspect of the truth. The most important virtues are dealt with later by Aristotle but in the interest of brevity I will instead start from the important ones. The virtue which Aristotle argues that all other virtues sit is justice. Justice according to Aristotle is the virtue affiliated with giving people what they deserve. Unlike our modern conception of justice only as a punishment for wrong in this book it also deals with fairness in all transactions. The other virtues require this to keep them standing because without a conception of worth and value their can be nothing that is either good or beautiful. As for the virtues of temperance, practical judgment, knowledge, courage, generosity, magnificence, honor, gentleness, truthfulness, and charm I do not have the space nor the will to explain how they relate to a Christian life lived for God but I believe Thomas Aquinas has made a valiant effort even if I have yet to read is Summa Theologica. Two of the other virtues I feel the need to at least discuss a bit. The first in the Greek is megalopsychia which is translated in this work as greatness of the soul but in other versions is referred to as pride. After reading the section on it I believe pride is a better translation as it has more to do with vice by which one puts what is not good or beautiful in the place of him who is truly beautifully good. The final section I will comment on deals with the topic of friendship and love. I found Aristotle's comment that true friendship is the mutual appreciation of virtues to be helpful in explaining why I have few friends. I often wrongly went into relationships thinking of either the others use to me or how they were pleasant to be around and those things change rapidly which is why true friendship and love must be based on virtue which only comes from God's spirit moving us toward him.(less)

like · see review

Nov 08, 2011 Sophia rated it 2 of 5 stars · 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 failing of Aristotle or Mr....more

like · see review

Oct 01, 2011 Jared rated it 3 of 5 stars · 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 translation seemed to be mor...more 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 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)

like · see review

Apr 29, 2011 Gavin rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 reimbursement; wher

...more 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 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)

2 likes · like · see review

Jan 22, 2011 Tim rated it 4 of 5 stars · 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 class...more 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 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)

like · see review

Jun 03, 2010 Rowland Bismark rated it 4 of 5 stars

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 and metaphysic...more 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 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)

like · 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 interpret it in a sarcastic way, that Ar...more

1 like · like · see review

Jan 03, 2010 Erik Graff rated it 3 of 5 stars · 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 Greek tragedy, I never much...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 03, 2011 hirtho added it Recommends it for: fellow dummies with good attention spans

Recommended to hirtho 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 as analogo...more

like · see review

Apr 27, 2010 Yesterday's Muse Bookstore rated it 2 of 5 stars

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 stated as i...more

like · see review

Apr 06, 2013 Darran Mclaughlin rated it 3 of 5 stars

Aristotle's work on ethics is very practical and commonsensical. He draws his conclusions from his observations of how people actually lived around him rather than appealing to an external guarantor of ethical standards, like God. I think his advice is mostly very sound, like finding the golden mean between two extremes of behaviour, extolling the value of friendship and suggesting that people naturally live their lives to enjoy pleasure. Some of his ideas now look unacceptable to modern mores,...more

like · see review

Aug 15, 2012 Chris Leo rated it 2 of 5 stars

Aristotle's Ethics is a difficult read: meandering paragraphs, muddled sentences and diversions abound.

The book is divided into ten subsets (referred to as 'books'), each attempting to examine how man can achieve happiness, which to Aristotle is the proper end of all human endeavour.

Book 1 sets out the nature of the subject under examination, namely that of happiness. The author begins with the acknowledgement that the definition of happiness is subjective and that there are incalculable instan...more

like · see review

Feb 11, 2013 Kipriadi prawira added it

All human activities aim at some end that we consider good. Most activities are a means to a higher end. The highest human good, then, is that activity that is an end in itself. That good is happiness. When we aim at happiness, we do so for its own sake, not because happiness helps us realize some other end. The goal of the Ethics is to determine how best to achieve happiness. This study is necessarily imprecise, since so much depends on particular circumstances.
Happiness depends on living in ac...more

like · see review

Sep 21, 2011 Russ Painter rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: religion-and-other-nonsense, philosophy

I think society would have progressed much faster if it weren't for guys like Aristotle being looked up to as much. He was extremely arrogant, and was obviously very good at expressing his ideas. Too bad his ideas weren't always backed by scientific reasoning, and should have been challenged.

I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and bitch-slap him.

1 like · like · see review

Jun 20, 2010 Matt rated it 3 of 5 stars · 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’s...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)

1 like · like · see review

Jul 03, 2012 Matthew rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: ethics

A classic of Western philosophy, the Nicomachean Ethics is amongst Aristotle's most important and influential works, an essential text from his own day to the dawn of the Enlightenment and enjoying a resurgence of popularity as a philosophical resource, and not simply an historical text, even today. Aristotle's lays out the fundamentals of his virtue ethic, a contextualist and holistic approach to ethical living that strives to cultivate internal states in search of the good.

Crisp's translation...more A classic of Western philosophy, the Nicomachean Ethics is amongst Aristotle's most important and influential works, an essential text from his own day to the dawn of the Enlightenment and enjoying a resurgence of popularity as a philosophical resource, and not simply an historical text, even today. Aristotle's lays out the fundamentals of his virtue ethic, a contextualist and holistic approach to ethical living that strives to cultivate internal states in search of the good.

Crisp's translation and accessible while still providing some flavour of the Greek original. Like any translator of such a monumental work, especially between such dissimilar languages and across such an expanse of time, Crisp faced immense challenges in rendering Aristotle's thought in a way understandable to modern readers. He is not bound to single translations of complex term, translating key terms such 'arete' and 'eudaimonia' in varying ways when appropriate, though endeavouring wherever possible to keep to the most established renderings (for instance he prefers 'happiness' to 'living well' as a translation of 'eudaimonia' but employs the latter when 'happiness' simply will not do). He provides an acceptably extensive glossary of key Greek terms and all the used English translations. Bekker numbers are included to the column.

This edition is very much in-keeping with the stated goals of Cambridge Texts in the History of Philosophy, providing an accessible translation of an important text at a low cost to undergraduate and postgraduate students. The usual complaint of the lack of a critical apparatus is no more or less on point than normal with the series. It is most bothersome should one wish to track down the editorial changes noted in the 'Note on the text,' which identifies the changes down to the (Bekker) line number. On a handful of occasions I felt the need to look up the Corpus Aristotelicum original and slog through Crisp's translation to locate and understand the changes he had made. Obviously that level of critical apparatus is on interest to little and accessible only to those with a knowledge of Greek but it would nevertheless have been appreciated had Crisp even identified the specific locations of changes made within the text itself and not simply in a separate section.

I heartily recommend this edition to any English speaker seeking a clear and accessible translation of the Nicomachean Ethics, particularly if you have no use for the Greek. The overall quality of Crisp's work and the comparatively low cost of the edition more than make up for the somewhat rarefied shortcomings.(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jan 18, 2013 Joseph Sverker added it

Shelves: philosophy

This is no doubt an absolutely brilliantly argued book. But every knows that. It is not always easy to follow and it might have something to do with the somewhat high brow translation.

Hannah Arendt argues that Augustine was the first one to turn will against itself in contrast to Aristotle when it comes to ethics. And Luther's undrstanding of Aristotle was that Aristotelianism led to Pelagianism, salvation on your own. I think they are correct in their analysis, yet it was interesting to find ou...more This is no doubt an absolutely brilliantly argued book. But every knows that. It is not always easy to follow and it might have something to do with the somewhat high brow translation.

Hannah Arendt argues that Augustine was the first one to turn will against itself in contrast to Aristotle when it comes to ethics. And Luther's undrstanding of Aristotle was that Aristotelianism led to Pelagianism, salvation on your own. I think they are correct in their analysis, yet it was interesting to find out that Aristotle is aware that not all people act according to what they know are best. He simply say that they are not following their knowledge. He argues that there is some faculty of the soul that is turned against the will to do good, what he fails to see, which I think Augustine (following Paul) sees is that it is the will itself that can turn against the will.

Another interesting insight was when Aristotle argues about where ethics might be based. He bases them in the habits and expressively not in human nature for example. He argues (I think it was in book II) that if ethics is based in human nature, then we cannot help but to do what is in our nature. That is obviously not true that ethics work like that and thus Aristotle argues that it comes down to habits. I think this is quite a critique against some of the modern atheistic attempts to base ethics in evolution. The more thought through of those don't base it solely in human nature, but when reading them (Dawkins et al) it still sounds like a whole lot comes down to evolution. I wonder what Aristotle would have said to them. There certainly is the problem why we don't do as we know we should do, if ethics is put in human nature like an instinct. How do we account for the conflicting messages? Is it ethics against ethics or different instincts against each other. What decides which instinct wins? And if it is not some sort of conscious deliberation how can it be called moral. But if it is some deliberation that decides, where does those norms come from that the deliberation decides from? Aristotle seemed to be aware of those difficulties, interestingly enough.

This leads to that he doesn't exactly talk about universals in ethics as Plato is able to do. Aristotle has been critique about "who decides the virtues". I think that is a little bit unfair after having read this book. He appears to be aware that ethics is in some sense relative from person to person. What he does is that he argues his case through observations and the reader can either agree or disagree with his definitions. Maybe that is why Aristotle also writes on Retorics (except for it being a "standard" topic) namely that it is not the connection to the universals that decide the truth, but whether you can convince your listener about the coherence and truth of your observations.

It is amazing how much he can get in to a book like this and so much of what I have learnt about Aristotle can be found here. It is certainly worth a read. I'm sure I will come back to this review with more thoughts.(less)

like · see review

Sep 24, 2010 Caleb rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

Best (literal) translation of the Ethics, although difficult at times. I usually need a seperate easier to read edition to help me wade through Sachs's precise translation. Joe Sachs's introduction, footnotes, and glossery of terms are golden.

As far as the treatise itself is concerned...the book is its own best argument.

1 like · like · see review

Mar 22, 2012 Queirosiana rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Já terminei o livro. Desde sempre que desejara ler um livro de filosofia, dos grandes três filósofos!

Aborda como tema central a Ética, mas analisa-a sobre várias formas, na felicidade, na amizade, no prazer, no auto-domínio, nas suas formas de excelência. (Já expliquei no post anterior o decorrer da minha leitura por isso, vou dispensar essa descrição aqui).

Gostei muito de o ler!

E não posso deixar de escrever aqui alguns trechos do livro que me marcaram:

"Cada um discerne correctamente apenas em...more

like · see review

Mar 14, 2013 Chris Byron rated it 5 of 5 stars

There's nothing I could possibly say about this book that hasn't already been said, and hasn't already been said better than I could articulate any point. The degree to which we have fallen from Aristotle's view of man is abominable. The need to which we ought to return to his view is dire, and necessary. Is man operating according to his function? No. Are we achieving excellence? Rarely. Who amongst us is virtuous, and who amongst us experiences eudaimonia? Few, if any. So long as the structure...more

like · see review

Oct 08, 2007 jim rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Hard not to make this a "5" but equally hard to do so since it suggests understanding the meaning of the text. Went back to this book looking for conceptual help understanding how practical judgment works. Aristotle helps with such architectural problems.

1 like · like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 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 (203)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

1,057 users

Classics

200 users

Non Fiction

159 users

Literature > Ancient

28 users

Academic > School

27 users

Politics

24 users

Academic > College

23 users

History

20 users

Cultural > Greece

18 users

Reference

12 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

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 founding figures...more

More about Aristotle...

Books by Aristotle

The Complete Works of Aristotle 1: Revised Oxford Translation

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About Ethics

1 trivia question

More quizzes & trivia...

Quotes from The 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.” — 179 people liked it

“Without friends, no one would want to live, even if he had all other goods.” — 158 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: The Nicomachean Ethics
avg rating	preview: The Nicomachean Ethics Goodreads rating: 3.86 (10891 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.litocracy.com/book/show/19068.The_Nicomachean_Ethics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1327869327l/19068.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.litocracy.com/book/show/19068.The_Nicomachean_Ethics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]The Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle[/url]

The Nicomachean Ethics

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website