Rating: 
Summary: Reader Beware - Seductive but flawed
Review: 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 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.
Rating: 
Summary: Extremely readable for any individual
Review: Irwin's translation is extremely readable for any individual and I urge any individual to read "Nicomachean Ethics". It is not necessary to have a formal background in philosophy to read and appreciate the concepts developed by Aristotle in "Nicomachean Ethics". It is in my personal opinion that Aristotle was a remarkably gifted individual whose ideas seem to emanate from a divine truth. I can not imagine any individual with a mind open to new ideas who would not benefit greatly from reading this book; especially, those who require a reaffirmation of their own truth developed through the course of their own life, such as: the concept of genuine happiness and a parallel one could draw with regards to the sanctification of human activity/ human life/ human spirit.
Rating:
Summary: Wonderful translation
Review: It is more than a little amusing to see reviewers stumbling over their tongues to comment on Aristotle. Volumes--no, entire libraries--have been dedicated to Aristotelian commentary. I doubt any prospective Amazon buyer cares what Joe Smith from Anytown, USA thinks of Aristotle. What would be helpful is an assessment of the particular translations.Hands down, Martin Ostwald's is, in my opinion, the best available. Well-annotated, with no interpretive essay to clutter the text, Ostwald immerses himself in the Athenian moral vocabulary, to our great benefit. Especially worthwhile is the glossary of oft-used, untranslatable ethical terms at the end of the book. Here, Ostwald clearly shows that the Greeks could convey in scant semantic space what it takes us an entire paragraph to even approximately explain.
Rating:
Summary: Foundation of Western ethical thought
Review: It seems rather foolish to 'review' Aristotle, THE Philosopher. Nothing in the Western intellectual tradition isn't touched by Aristotle's works. The Nichomachean Ethics, unlike say, the largely irrelevant Physics, or extremeley esoteric Metaphysics, is a very accessible. It's also the work that probably best sums up Aristotle's practical philosophy. To summerize in a way that is completely insulting to the work, Aristotle applies his idea of moderation, the Golden mean, to numerous ethical situatlions, in an attempt to discover what constitutes the Good life and the Good man. AS previous reviewers have said, there isn't a chapter of Aristotle that does not produce some revalation or insight. And with over 100 chapters...well, you get the idea. Anyway, in addition to providing a basis for understanding the very workings of ethics and morals in a timeless sense, reading Aristotle changes the way in which you think. Literally. He has a distinctive, ordered, logical philosophy that anyone who want to be taken seriously in argument needs to learn. Simply, this is only of the most important books ever written, and anyone, philosophy scholar or not, owes it to him or her self to read it.
Rating:
Summary: The Pleasures of Contemplation
Review: More than any other of Aristotle's writings, the Nicomachean Ethics speaks in a powerful voice to our own age; not only as an artifact of thought, or as a key to the historical interpretation of "Western Metaphysics", but as a challenge to our values, our assumptions, and, above all else, the complacency with which we approach the task of living life. Yet precisely because of its apparent immediacy, we must remain vigilant regarding the prejudices that we bring to the act of reading. Even the title, in this regard, presents difficulties. Ethics, for Aristotle, is not the same as "morality" or "right conduct": rather it means the cultivation of habit of the soul, --- a disposition towards the passions --- that is conducive to virtuous action. The very notion of virtuous action is itself misleading. Aristotle is not so much concerned with individual "actions" - let alone with the "moral dilemmas" so many so-called "ethicists" - as with the activity that, as the proper work or function (ergon) of human beings, grants a unifying purpose to all the "doings" that constitute life. This "work," - which must be nothing else that the work of our entire lives -, is either the political life or the life of contemplation. The first is the highest purely human life; the latter, in contrast, is divine. Perhaps the strangest notion of the Nicomachean Ethics, however, is pleasure: pleasure is neither a passive sensation, nor some sort of activity, but rather that which brings the activity to perfection, supervening on the activity like "the bloom of health in the young and vigorous."
If we have learned our lessons from Darwin, and have the strength of mind to behold a nature without purpose and a human race with no proper and essential function, what can then remain for us of an ethics grounded upon a natural and immanent teleology? Must we insist upon the fact/value distinction in all its rigor and exile ethics into the stars? Or are we left only with an act of pure, groundless will - a will that exists only through the act of positing values, of assigning to things their worth and thus giving human kind its end and meaning? Perhaps Aristotle's "pleasure" points towards another possibility: the joyful contemplation of this life in the blossom of its ephemerality and contingency.
Rating: 
Summary: Modern translation eschews original meaning
Review: Not worth the read. Many phrases misleadingly translated. Reflects the large and un-Aristotelian preoccupation with rules of modern moral philosophy. Alternative recommendation: J.A.K. Thomson's translation of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics by Penguin Classics.
Rating:
Summary: The Book that Created Ethics; Don't Miss It!
Review: The Nicomachean Ethics is the first systematic description of an ethical system. It has the clearest formulation of the questions that Ethics asks: 1. How should we live? 2. Why? 3. Why is that best? Aristotle's answer to 1. is that we should avoid extremes, because (answering 2.) every extreme is evil, and (answering 3.) since the opposite of any extreme is itself an evil extreme, we must therefore avoid extremes. The book has been read by every serious ethical philosopher since history began. Because of this, every serious ethical work can (and should) be read as a dialogue with Aristotle, as he sets the rules, and then challenges, "I know of no good that crosses all the categories . . . but in each category there is one particular good." Kant's Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals is an attempt to find a normative good that crosses all categories, a "categorical imperative." Likewise Bentham's discussion of what has come to be called utilitarian ethics. Really, a most important book.
Rating:
Summary: The Oxford edition is great.
Review: The Oxford edition (ISBN: 019283407X) is great, but stay away from the Dover Thrift edition and the Prometheus editions (those editions I give one star). Aristotle's book is essential reading for the student of the history of Ethics, though it is certainly not the first ethical system in the history of philosophy. About the Dover edition, not all of the words are translated in the text, which is rather annoying for anyone with no knowledge of the ancient Greek language. Also, it is far from an easy read, even in portions that are completely translated. About the Prometheus edition, it is a reprint of the Welldon translation, but without his introduction or his index (Prometheus seems to be trying to save a little money, but it makes it much less valuable.) Also, Prometheus renumbered the pages WITHOUT renumbering the references in the margins (if you already purchased this poorly made edition, add 8 to all of the pages in the marginal notes). But wait, there is more that is wrong with this edition! Prometheus omitted a note that explains that the pages referred to in the footnotes are to a different standard edition, so don't bother trying to find those references within the book. All in all, a disgraceful job of reprinting the book. I advise staying away from Prometheus editions whenever possible; see the reviews of Hobbes' Leviathan for another example of their efforts.
Rating:
Summary: A theistic interpretation of Aristotle's ethic
Review: The system of ethics devised by Aristotle rests on his theory of goodness -- what is it for a thing to be considered "good"? According to Aristotle, to determine what constitutes a good X one must first determine the function of an X, and then determine whether it fulfills this function effectively and efficiently. Consider a lawnmower. A lawnmower has an inherent function: to cut overgrown blades of grass. A "good" lawnmower does this; a lawnmower that doesn't isn't fulfilling its inherent function. A car that's reliable, gets good gas mileage, has a comfortable interior, is spacious and safe is generally considered good by the standards appropriate for cars. Now, notice that cars and lawnmowers each possess their own distinct type of goodness -- there is no all-embracing definition of "goodness" that applies to all things. Also, no-one calls something "good" in a purely abstract sense without assigning it to a specific context, with reference to a standard appropriate to the type of thing being evaluated. Aristotle applied this reasoning to morality. What constitutes a good human being? To determine this, one must first determine the function of a human being. That is, what is the function a human being when considered just as a human being, and not as an engineer, scientist, mother, father, teacher, etc? Once this has been determined, then Aristotle's system of ethics can be understood. But first, another Aristotelian idea must be examined -- the concept of human nature. Think for a moment about change. What happens when something undergoes a change? When a thing X changes, it has at one time a property that it lacks at a later time. Each thing is limited by the type of thing it is, to a certain range of changes. A puppy can turn into a dog, but it can't turn into a tree. A piece of paper can turn into ashes, but it can't turn into a rock. Aristotle reasoned that this inner "something" that sets limits or controls what a thing can become is its "nature." According to Aristotle, change is the actualization of inner potentialities; and when the inner potential of a thing becomes actual, that potential is said to be "realized." When a thing's specific potential is realized, a specific form of life results, a form of life involving the realization of the thing's inner potential. Each kind of thing has a unique potential. When a thing is living up to its potential it is functioning in its own unique way. For instance, when a puppy grows into a dog and does the things dogs do when they fulfill their dog potential, the dog is functioning as a dog. When a thing is functioning well, it is "flourishing." So, each species has its own distinctive form of flourishing. Of course, the flourishing of an individual living thing is not always guaranteed. Certain conditions must be present before an individual can function well or flourish, and these conditions vary from species to species. For example, under proper conditions, a rose will flourish. These conditions include a proper temperature, proper quantity of moisture, proper soil conditions, and so on. Aristotle's theory of goodness -- an X is a good X if X is functioning effectively and efficiently, in a manner appropriate for an X -- suggests that a living thing is living a good life when it is functioning well, in a manner appropriate for a thing of its nature. In other words, a being is living the good life when it is "flourishing." Under the right conditions, Aristotle argued, any living thing will naturally order its activities toward the realization of its natural potencies. It thus seems that each kind of thing has an inner desire urging it towards its own flourishing -- a built in orientation towards a distinctive end. This inner desire or drive to develop the natural potentials within can only be explained as proceeding from the inner nature, since it is present within each thing. Aristotle claimed that human beings share a common set of potentials. These shared potentials are part of what constitute our common human nature. This specific set of human capacities or potentials is oriented toward a pattern of activity unique to humans. Aristotle argued that we develop these capacities, we are developing our uniquely human potential; we are doing what it is in our nature to do; we are actualizing or realizing our human nature. Those persons who develop their human capacities fully will achieve a state called by Aristotle "eudaimonia." This is the state of true flourishing, the state of genuine fulfillment. Eudaimonia concerns the overall nature of one's life. Eudaimonia thus constitutes the truly "good life." The good life described by Aristotle, the state of eudaimonia, has sometimes been characterized as a state of "self-realization," for it involves the actualization or realization of one's true potentials as a human being, i.e., those potentials that make up one's human capacity, a capacity common to all humans and only to humans. Those potentials include, according to Aristotle, the potentials to reason, to know, to love, to befriend, to appreciate beauty, to plan our lives rationally, and to philosophize. Those persons who achieve eudaimonia, who develop their human capacities fully, are being most truly themselves. They are "realizing" themselves. In so doing, they are realizing the good life.
Rating:
Summary: Readers: Read!
Review: There is a Kind of consensus among scholars that erudition is a condition sine qua non in approaching the field of the History of Ideas or philosophy. Everyone will agree with the Japanese smart guy ("Reader Beware")when he says that one can get anywhere one wants by way of rational deductions or syllogistics. There is no question about it. Aristotle or anyone else ever disputed it, as far as I know. If you say that the aim of human life and the supreme good of the existence of man (as well as his distinctive carachter) is picking his nose, you might as well succeed in proving it by way of deduction, as the smart guy from Japan actually did, as long as...another person, or a comunity of persons share the same premisses with you, your point of departure, which happens to be, in this particular case, that man's ultimate good is picking his (or her) nose. But when this "sharing" is not a reality, you cannot expect in a sane mind that you would be able to convince others or make them believe or assume that your reasoning or your conclusions are true. But what is really in question here is the more or less full assesment of Aristotle's ethics. What does it mean? What is the purpose of it? If there is such meaning and such purpose about it is it universally valid in all it's features or only in some or only in it's general conclusions or in all or in none of these? Well, that is why this review begins with the statement that "erudition" (wich is not mine) is a condition sine qua non to the study of the history of ideas. All Aristotle's reasoning is built up upon what the greeks knew by "endoxon", wich is a set of premisses that the "contenders" of a dialectic debate must accord altogether betweem them and with the audience too just for starters, and which are OUT of DISCUSSION. This does not mean that they are self-evident or simply true, tout court: this only means that the people so to say "exposed" to them (in a rational debate) accord them altogether, believe or simply state them, with no critical consideration whatsoever. The first "endoxon" of all in the Nichomachean Ethics is exactly that "all things naturally points to some good", and the final conclusion, built upon this principal and other secundary "endoxoi", is that "the ultimate good towards which the Human life naturally aims is happiness (eudaimonia)". To be sure, if you reject right away the first and principal premisse of Aristotle's rational construction there is no "Endoxon", i.e there is no dialectical debate - which is almost the only methodology used in the Nichomachean - and you can save your money and read the selections of the reader's digest if you wish. Otherwise, you might as well admit that you never give the question of Ethics as a science (for that is what the thing here is all about) a serious or systematic thought and concede - if only, for the sake of game - Aristotle all the premisses he may present you in order to see where it will eventually lead you. Perhaps you get out of it with a clearer thought of the question. Perhaps not. But you may never expect to find in this or any other systematization of thought a final statement about what is the ultimate good or a ultimate definition of your own essence. There is no such thing. Aristotle was trying to get at a more rigorous assessment of the validity of the ethical "endoxoi" (the premisses) assumed by the people of his culture and time - particularly the wisest ones, the philosophers and poets - by the people of the polis of Athenas, and check them one by one with what he thought to be better instruments than the simple "common sense", a veritable methodology, a serious research of the truth and validity of that propositions. The wise guy from Japan is wrongful, in my point of view, by anachronism (lack of historical and philosophical sense)and superficiality of thought, for not having the proper background and knowledge (erudition) to assess the context and the real "nexus" of Aristotle's discourse . Just like a "philosophe" of the Enlightenment (Iam flattering him) he thinks reason to be one and the same in all fields of investigation, cultures and times and that the mere act of reasoning is a evidence of the truth of what one says. I think Aristotle has perhaps a little bit more to offer than a jeau de mots when you read him with an open and humble disposition of mind.
|
