EconTalk Books discussion
This topic is about
The Nicomachean Ethics
Reading Group?
date
newest »
newest »
Loving the response!What format do you all suggest? Should we just start a sub-group? post questions/comments/observations here? Open to suggestions!
OK- here's what I suggest... Desperately seeking feedback!Let's start in three weeks (i.e., Monday, April 26), and discuss two books per week? So we'd discuss Book 1 (Happiness) and Book 2 (Virtue of Character) the week of the 26th.
Is this schedule too much/ not enough?
Should we designate folks to pose initial questions?
Eager for thoughts from the group!
The schedule sounds good. Initial (guidance) questions is a good idea.
Jorge Lara wrote: "The schedule sounds good. Initial (guidance) questions is a good idea."Thanks!
Just joining now. Sounds great.
I'd like to posit a question for discussion on Book 1: Aristotle describes happiness as an activity of soul. There is great emphasis on action and virtuous activities. Is this because actions are observable by others?
"Activities are what give life it's character, no happy man can become miserable" (10) What are examples of these activities, or of misery?
Can virtuous activity be "faked?" [Or, what is the role of intentionality for Aristotle?]
Only the "actor" of the activity would know if a virtuous activity, for example helping a stranger in need, was "faked". Activities are only observable by others, so what might appear to be genuine kindness, might be a nefarious plan for that person to earn recognition on the evening news or to be commended by friends. In this first chapter, I am uncertain about Aristotle's stance on intentionality. Because he sees this human life project as an ongoing process, I'm wondering if he might have approved of actions by deliberation before the virtuous are developed. But I may just be unclear about this. Anyone?
Alice wrote: "I'd like to posit a question for discussion on Book 1: Aristotle describes happiness as an activity of soul. There is great emphasis on action and virtuous activities. Is this because actions ar..."
For one thing, Aristotle focuses on the character of a person, with some posterior development by contemporary scholars some virtue ethics. For another, developing the character of, for example, courage, requires doing courageous things. You might want to look at relevant documents through searching with the keyword 'phrónēsis', or simply 'phronesis'. I guess it no fiction that repeated behaviours train habits.
Thanks for the reminder of the word phronesis. This term for practical virtue does capture the significance of action/activity and happiness.
About Book Two... what are your thoughts? We will continue to post a question for discussion on one Book per week (there are ten). It would be easy to catch up and join us!"....it is no easy task to be good". Aristotle speaks of the mean and intermediate state and that "to find the middle of a circle is not for everyone". How rare is this task? Can one be considered mostly good yet struggle with the lure of a particular vice?
What might "right education" for youth look like today?
Alice wrote: "About Book Two... what are your thoughts? We will continue to post a question for discussion on one Book per week (there are ten). It would be easy to catch up and join us!"....it is no easy task..."
Only (partly) in jest... let's not forget Socrates was put to death for "educating" the youth of Athens...
In Book III, Aristotle outlines five types of bravery, though first reminds us that bravery is NOT avoidance of poverty or pain. Is bravery always accompanied by pain and distress before a pleasant end to the circumstance? Courage more obviously involves pain, and facing pain is bravery. Does the following quotation resonate with anyone?
"...for it is harder to face what is painful than to abstain from what is pleasant."
In Book IV, Aristotle runs through a litany of remaining virtues and the behaviors the virtuous person exhibits. Always, a polar opposite, "vice" behavior follows. Magnificence, we are told, is a virtue tied to wealth that is not available to the poor. It is about large-scale, tasteful expenditures. The liberal man, who is magnificent will both give and spend the right amounts and on the right objects.
Is a multibillionaire head of a powerful global foundation magnificent? Why or Why not?
someone should bring this back to life...
(inspired by the recent episode with Leon Kass)