Rating: 
Summary: The Art of Living
Review: "Every art or applied science and every systematic investigation, and similarly every action and choice, seem to aim at some good; the good, therefore, has been well defined as that which all things aim." In his Ethics, Aristotle does little more than to search for and examine the "good." Aristotle examines the virtues and vices of man in all of his faculties. Aristotle refers to three types of lives, the common life, the political life, and the contemplative life, to which he assigns the highest order. Certainly, this is the most difficult life. Similar to Plato, Aristotle believed that "the unexamined life is a life not worth living." Aristotle does nothing other to examine the life of man and what is the best life to live. Unlike Plato, you do not need to read the entire work to walk away with some useful insight into life. Though the over 100 chapters, divided into ten books, flow and build upon each other, you can read just one of them and be benefited. Aristotle covers many different subjects such as the good, morals, virtue, vice, courage, generosity, justice, intelligence, art, science, friendship, love, pleasure, and pain. I can not say enough for the depth of insight Aristotle has into living the good life. Nicomachean Ethics is well written and presented in a clear manner that should be accessible to most readers. This is a must read for everyone.
Rating:
Summary: Psychotherapy? Happy Pills? or Aristotle? -- Aristotle!!!
Review: A previous reviewer described Nicomachean Ethics as "the art of living." I would agree with this sentiment. Aristotle not only teaches the art of living - but he teaches us that it is hard work. Such a conviction stands in stark contrast to the facile solutions that are contrived for "happiness" today. Happiness is not easy. It may not even feel like what we assume it is in our contemporary society (i.e., a feeling of pleasure, self-esteem, material goods). It is much deeper. It is about living the good life. A must read for all those interested in psychotherapy, education, and "the art of living."
Rating:
Summary: pabchan@hknetmail.com
Review: After I read Terence's translation, I found it is much better than Ross one. Note and glossary are especially helpful to those cannot read original greek. I recommend it!
Rating:
Summary: A foundation work in Western ethical thought
Review: After the reading of Plato the reading of his greatest pupil Aristotle seems difficult and uninspiring. Yet Aristotle is in many areas at the foundation of Western thought. He is the master of all who know whose thought about the universe and the way it works dominated Western thought for close to one thousand years. In the Nicomeanan ethics named after his son who edited the work Aristotle sets out his idea of what the good life is for the human being. For Aristotle every element of nature has its own essence that defines what its goal is . This is also true for the human being whose pursuit of good is to lead to eudaimonia ' happiness'. Aristotle talks about three areas of human endeavor, the common everyday area, the political area and the contemplative. For Aristotle the highest life is the life of contemplation and the few who attain this realize the human potential to the full. In his ethics Aristotle emphasizes the 'golden mean' as the path to right action. Between two extremes for instance timidity and rashness comes the virtue of courage. The Ethics aims to teach us what human beings are in essence and how to fully become themselves. In this realization of our own inherent nature we live in a true way.
This short summary does of course not do justice to the Ethics, or to the many subtleties of Aristotle's ethical thought. I believe to get to those subtleties more than reading of this great work is required. Only careful study will help here.
Rating:
Summary: Rigorous, clear and still relevant
Review: Along with many other virtues, Aristotle has the characteristic of being extremely systematic and ordered in his exposition of subjects. It is believed that he, like Plato, wrote dialogues to illuminate his philosophy, and that those dialogues are lost and all we have is his notes for class. It is good we still keep so many notes, because of its said order and clarity. Of course, it is not an easy reading (although I wouldn't put him either among the obscure and dark philosophers). It is rigorous philosophy exposed without useless digressions. Aristotle tells us that all extremes are bad. We have to find the "golden middle". Then he proceeds to expose different sets of extremes and the virtuous middle of the road. Being mad with fury is bad, but being insensible to outrageous actions is also a measure of inhumanity and extreme weakness of character. And so with the other virtues and vices. Aristotle's system is still relevant because of the simple fact that he treats features of the human soul that are universal, regardless of time and place. His theories do not come from Divine revelation or from any mystical source. They come from common sense, and an acute observation of the humankind. Aristotle tells us that we must moderate our primal impulses and instincts, and live by the rule of reason and reasonability. No wonder Aristotle is the source of rigorous, systematic and realist Western philosophy, as opposed to the more literary, poetic and idealist school that comes from Plato, Aristotle's mentor. His is an almost scientific approach, certainly not "entertainment" or Tarot philosophy. It needs no recommendation; it has proved to be a universal work of the mind, one that will stay extant through the ages, as it has already been. Anyone interested in serious philosophy reads this at some point, hopefully an early one. It is of great help when trying to elucidate what is good and what is bad; when trying to figure out if there is a light to guide our behavior and attitude towards the world and our fellow humans. Follow the golden middle and you will eventually find a sense to everyday life, if not to the more torturing reflections on Being. For this last task, read the rest of Aristotle's work, especially the Metaphysics (which have absolutely nothing to do with what cheap deceivers know these days as metaphysics). This is rigorous philosophy, not courses on "excellence" and self-promotion.
Rating: 
Summary: Great book, bad translation
Review: Aristotle's Ethics is an excellent philosphical read and gives great insight into both greek philosphy and the history of philosphy. All of the above review are correct, my only concern, and the reason why I gave it a low rating, is that the translation is terrible in this version. It is meant to be a simple and easy to understand version. For more serious students, I would stick to more scholary versions.
Rating:
Summary: Great book, bad translation
Review: Aristotle's Ethics is an excellent philosphical read and gives great insight into both greek philosphy and the history of philosphy. All of the above review are correct, my only concern, and the reason why I gave it a low rating, is that the translation is terrible in this version. It is meant to be a simple and easy to understand version. For more serious students, I would stick to more scholary versions.
Rating:
Summary: A response to Kenghis Khan...one of the best books ever writ
Review: Having spent an entire semester in a philosophy class studying ONLY Aristotle, I believe I can say that I have a good understanding of the subject matter on which he wrote. Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is one of the greatest books of Western Civilization. It encompasses much more than just how to be a "good" person. Because it builds off of his other books, specifically the Categories and the Metaphysics, it is difficult to understand all the nuances of the book.
In response to "Kenghis Khan," succinctly put, you are wrong. Aristotle does not arbitrarily decide that the human telos, or goal, is to reach eudiamonia, or a fully flourishing life. Aristotle uses sound reasoning to come to this conclusion. Kenghis Khan makes Aristotle sound as though he has decided that the good life is only achievable by perfecting a talent that he has decided is inherently human. Aristotle believes that everything in nature has a purpose or goal. Because humans are the only animals that reason, (monkeys also pick their noses by the way) it is our reason that makes us unique. This is only a tiny aspect of living the virtuous life. Kenghis Khan mentions that being a good flute player and perfecting that talent makes us virtuous. This is not true. First, Aristotle believes that anyone who works with their hands, including musicians, is vulgar craftsmen. Therefore, he would not consider someone who is musically inclined to be good. Second, only developing the talent that one is good at does not constitute virtue. One must practice all the virtues-temperance, courage, mildness, and just-ness to name a few. However, habituation alone is not enough. Because we are rational animals, we must use our reasoning abilities to deliberate about what would be an appropriate action to a given situation. We should always aim for the mean reaction and avoid actions of excess or deficiency. A virtuous person must also have leisure time. Leisure time insures that we will have time to contemplate. The most perfect act of contemplation is the act of contemplating the telos of the human species. Aristotle also writes that in order to be truly virtuous, we must engage in political debate, because being political is our nature.
In conclusion, Aristotle does NOT tell us that we must simply develop on facet of ourselves to be considered virtuous. Instead, we must use our rational ability to deliberate about choices, we must spend time contemplating the meaning of our life, and we must engage in open debate, particularly political debate. So, even if Aristotle had said that nose-picking was an inherently human action, he would have never granted that merely perfecting it would make us virtuous.
Rating: 
Summary: He's out of touch
Review: I found this book extremely tedious and pointless. I don't see Aristotle's convoluted "ethical" theories having any relevance at all to the world today. He might think that he knows how people ought to live their lives, but he doesn't have much of a clue. All in all, a wase of time.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting reading
Review: I found this book very challenging (it wasn't my copy I have to admit) and to be honest a lot of it was really way over my head, but I think I understood some of the main points. I think this will be interesting for anyone who wants to know about the moral values of people two thousand years ago, when there whole life style was much more serious than todays.
|
