Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nicomachean Ethics

en.wikipedia.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 160 posts

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#111

Post by DanielLihaciu »

lordleft wrote: post #98
crazygringo wrote: post #96

To help put this into context for others here. It's interesting to note that Aristotle's "virtue ethics" -- based primarily on this work -- have come "back into fashion" over the past few decades, after being largely ignored by philosophers for centuries as having any contemporary relevance. (I.e. you studied it for the historical value mainly, but it had zero connection otherwise to contemporary analytic philosophy.…

For additional context, other Socratic schools like Stoicism are also virtue-ethical schools. For folks who are looking for a very specific rule to a life situation, virtue ethics can feel too ambiguous, but for someone like myself, who believes that life is extremely contextual and there can be a lot of legitimate variation in responding to something, Virtue Ethics is wonderfully nuanced and flexible. I for one real…

>like Stoicism are also virtue-ethical schools.

Look up Christian virtue ethics, virtuous pagans

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#112

Post by DanielLihaciu »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #35

I still like the clarity of Plato, where harmony is the basis of health, happiness, wellbeing, virtue, justice and the good. He describes harmony in the individual, in society and in the cosmos. For instance, when there is harmony in the parts of the soul (reason, appetite and passion) a person is virtuous and happy. Obviously much more can be said -- especially considering that harmony is found in the tension of opp…

Friedrich N, the philosopher heavily criticized Plato, also Plato's Republic was brain-food for Stalin, Hitler etc. it is a great work nonetheless

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#113

Post by javert »

DanielLihaciu wrote: post #108

For those new to philosophy I recommend starting with Plato, Then reading his Republic especially chapter XI , then read some Descartes, Hume, Kant and then read Aristotle who is simply know as The Philosopher

I would recommend that people start with something they are interested in.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#114

Post by Yajirobe »

barce wrote: post #102

How did this end up on the front page? Hacker News has always struck me as anti-philosophical and anti-literature. This was one of the book that I read on my own after reading Bloom's "Closing of the American Mind." My reading of the book was tinged with melancholy, for if virtue is a skill necessary for happiness, and if only a few can master a skill, then only a few can be happy. I was 17 at the time and thought, "…

Men from first world countries like to philosophize about ancient Greeks and stoics. That is because some of this philosophy helps them deal with their white-collar jobs and helps establish some meaning in their lives, that's my guess.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#115

Post by menexenus »

Aristotle's Ethics is indeed a foundational text. To simplify things greatly, there is basically only one alternative to it: Nietzsche. As Alasdair MacIntyre explains (the erstwhile Marxist, now Catholic, who helped revive virtue ethics with his book After Virtue), "the underlying structure of [Nietzsche's] argument is as follows: if there is nothing to morality but expressions of will, my morality can only be what my will creates. There can be no place for such fictions as natural rights, utility, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. I myself must now bring into existence 'new tables of what is good'" (AV 114).

Nietzsche is commonly misread as a nihilist, but nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, Nietzsche recognizes clearly that is precisely the installation of fictional moralities that is the source of nihilism, not the denial of those fictions. (This is also something that Heidegger sees clearly, e.g, in "The Letter on Humanism.")

At the end of the day, then, the question is this: Do you believe in some kind of "objective" morality that governs human life, gives meaning to our existence, and so forth? If so, then Aristotle's Ethics is by far the most cogent articulation of that view. However, if you believe that morality is just conventional, historically contingent, and a product of our "wills," then Nietzsche helps us see that clearest. To admit the latter view is not to succumb to nihilism; it is rather to free us to truly pursue the activities of greatness.

Ultimately, MacIntyre (inter alia) thinks that we have to choose. For an example of someone who, by contrast, tries to reconcile Aristotle and Nieztsche, see Hannah Arendt.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#116

Post by Der_Einzige »

VSerge wrote: post #26
aestetix wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Derrida and Foucault are far worse than Kant. At least Kant has substance ;)

I'll second that. After reading the history of sexuality by Foucault in college, I remember coming to the frustrated realization that the point of this jargony disaster of a book could have been made in a couple pages, possibly less. In essence, it says that to be free in one's sexuality, putting words on things which may feel rebellious is actually just trying to define practices and feelings that don't need this to…

What got me is that he spends the very beginning of that book being like "People in the Victorian era thought that they were sexually repressed... They aren't, but let's spend 300+ pages on why they thought that they were sexually repressed."

Between this and his BS explanations for why Leprosy disappeared from Europe I realized that Foucault was a charlatan.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#117

Post by yboris »

pmoriarty wrote: post #94
karatestomp wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russell is up front about his biases and limitations in that book, at least. IIRC he divides most chapters into his best effort to describe a philosopher or movement's positions or ideas, then an analysis of how those have held up since (this is incredibly helpful and absent in a lot of texts that try to be dryly objective and not even report any more-or-less consensus passing-of-judgement by philosophy as a field) a…

Yeah, that dismissive, condescending view of Bergson is par for the course of many Analytic's attitudes towards Continentals (though Bergson himself was not part of the Continental tradition). Sure, such condescension may be the best that Russell can muster, but I'm not sure you'd get a charitable reading of Bergson (or any other philosopher Russell didn't like) from someone so hostile and unappreciative of him. Russ…

Continental philosophers were approaching the topic of philosophy very differently. Much of it comes off as convoluted nonsense: rather than clarity of expression it feels like mysticism for which you need a 'guru' to elaborate and elucidate.

To take existentialism, the basic message is "you have to decide and take control of your life". Sure, that sounds good, but what is the advice about how to do it? Existentialism seems to offer no guide.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#118

Post by achillesheels »

gliese1337 wrote: post #85
achillesheels wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle unoriginal? Enlightenment Europe is similarly the work done by a handful of geniuses participating in an intellectual culture. We can patently see their originality - what makes you so sure the Greeks did not have the same?

Nothing. I am not saying they weren't geniuses. I am merely pointing out that there is insufficient evidence for a definite conclusion either way. Cf. Shakespeare. Yes, he was a genius, but not nearly so much of a genius as many people often claim, because a lot of people confuse "Shakespeare is our earliest surviving recorded source for a lot of features of the English language" for "Shakespeare single-handedly inve…

There is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers which have moved and influence world history. So I'm befuddled how you don't see sufficient evidence, nor what constitutes such sufficiency for genius?

I highly recommend you read Arthur Schopenhauer's essay On Philosophy at the Universities: https://archive.org/stream/23341891SchopenhauerParergaAndPar...

It is a persuasive essay that, no matter the resources, genuine philosophers or geniuses pursue the truth for its very sake. I concur that historically this has been the art of the aristocracy, but so what? Hypothetical or "unrewarded genius" doesn't amount to much in world history. Results do. And such fruit is actually the result of a cohesive organization of a society, ie genius is the goal of civilization proper. Plato and Descartes both had to have their trash picked up by somebody in order for them to impact us today.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#119

Post by neerajsi »

menexenus wrote: post #115

Aristotle's Ethics is indeed a foundational text. To simplify things greatly, there is basically only one alternative to it: Nietzsche. As Alasdair MacIntyre explains (the erstwhile Marxist, now Catholic, who helped revive virtue ethics with his book After Virtue ), "the underlying structure of [Nietzsche's] argument is as follows: if there is nothing to morality but expressions of will, my morality can only be what…

I'm clearly not as deep as you in the reading of Aristotle (though I did read Nietzsche's BGE a long time ago). However, I'd point out the distinction from an ethics course I took between 'descriptive' ethics and 'normative' ethics. Both can coexist and they serve useful purposes.

The ethics of a group is the rule set agreed to by the group, including how to deal with deviations that naturally arise. This is more of a descriptive, evolutionary phenomenon. Normative ethics is more a proposal of an ideal or future ruleset, which needs to both appeal to those with the power to follow and enforce the rules, and to also ensure the preservation and stability of the rules and the people who follow them.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#120

Post by bladegash »

austincheney wrote: post #47

It’s been a very long time since i read this. The two things that really stuck with me (personal opinion): 1. Utility There are three levels of utility. Things whose use is only in service of something else are least valued. Things whose use is direct and not in service of something else are of highest value. Things whose use is of both something else and it’s own direct utility are of medium value. As an example a c…

This is kind of nit picky, but isn’t Jeremy Bentham typically credited as the founder of Utilitarianism? Not criticizing, genuinely curious as James Mills was barely mentioned when I took philosophy coursework.
Post reply on HN