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

121–130 of 160 posts

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#121

Post by dr_dshiv »

DanielLihaciu wrote: post #112
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

What was Nietzsche's critiques? Or where can I find them?

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#122

Post by dsubburam »

antman wrote: post #39

I would like to suggest "History of Philosophy without any gaps" podcast website which explains in a rather complete way Philosophy in layman's terms. Everything is neatly organized (just check the top menu). Also it includes non western philosophy such as Avicenna's writings, its importance and relation to Aristotle's work. Here is ths relevant episode on Aristotelian ethics: https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotl…

I discuss philosophy, mostly from the enlightenment period on, in conjunction with classical meditation, in my Practical Meditation podcast[1]. There's a series on free will (Kantian conception), on transcendence (leveraging ideas from advaita/non-duality), and more recently, relationship (in progress).

[1] https://www.subburam.org/podcast/

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#123

Post by joflicu »

pmoriarty wrote: post #84
yboris wrote: post #74

For those interested in a grand overview of history of philosophy (the ideas themselves and the people behind them), this is a worth-reading classic: A History of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...

Just bear in mind that Russell was very biased in favor of Analytic philosophy, so you're not going to get much from him on the Continentals. Like many other Analytics, he seriously misreads Nietzsche, and he doesn't even mention Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, or Foucault. I like Russell, though. He's clear and eloquent, writing well on the subjects he does appreciate and understand.

May I suggest a more equanimous modern re-telling of Western philosophy that I have currently started reading: A New History of Western Philosophy by Kenny https://www.amazon.com/New-History-Western-Philosophy-ebook/...

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#124

Post by ttonkytonk »

DanielLihaciu wrote: post #110
barce wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In different senses. Socrates prefers philosopher kings. Aristotle, a mixed polity, e.g. a government with checks and balances.

Of course Socrates we should let you philosopher rule the world

Philosopher kings are mentioned in Republic, which didn't necessarily represent Socrates' views.

Generally I think he believed that someone with the relevant skills should run things as opposed to anybody and everybody (as in a true democracy) in the same way you wouldn't just want anybody attending to your healthcare, but a physician.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#127

Post by pyuser583 »

ttonkytonk wrote: post #124
DanielLihaciu wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course Socrates we should let you philosopher rule the world

Philosopher kings are mentioned in Republic, which didn't necessarily represent Socrates' views. Generally I think he believed that someone with the relevant skills should run things as opposed to anybody and everybody (as in a true democracy) in the same way you wouldn't just want anybody attending to your healthcare, but a physician.

That was not a practical policy recommendation.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#128

Post by valebant »

aestetix wrote: post #18

As an aside, I strongly recommend reading Thucydides. Once you know the story of the Peloponnesian War, everything that Socrates and Aristotle talked about will have a much deeper meaning.

Seconding this - I would add that the entire debate at Lacedaemon (book 1 67-88) and Pericles' Funeral Oration (book 2 34-46) are especially illuminating. The funeral oration is one of the surviving accounts of Athenian democracy from an indirect viewpoint, and Thucydides presents an interesting comparison between death by battle vs. death by plague (timely perhaps?).

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#129

Post by pdonis »

skat20phys wrote: post #36
dr_dshiv wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be helpful if, in your critique, you could share what precisely you are critiquing. Otherwise it seems very dismissive.

It's difficult to go through everything with specific examples, because that would be an essay onto itself. But, for example, in Book 3 (via the Rackham translation; http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%... ): "If then whereas we wish for our end, the means to our end are matters of deliberation and choice, it follows that actions dealing with these means are done by choice, and voluntary. But…

> what if you believe that society (if not now due to scientific-technical limitations, then some day) has a moral obligation to address criminal wrongdoing by means of neurobehavioral intervention, to treat criminal predisposition as a disease?

Then you are contradicting yourself, because on the one hand you claim the right to treat certain people (the ones you call "criminals") as not having free will, and "cure" them with "neurobehavioral intervention", but on the other hand you claim this right based on "moral obligation", which assumes that you, the person claiming this right, do have free will, because you are claiming the ability to choose who needs to be "cured".

There have been societies in human history that were organized according to such principles as these. They did not turn out well.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#130

Post by SkyBelow »

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…

So for point 1, what counts as being of use in service of something else and of use directly?

Take a game and an helper for that game. The helper is clearly of use in service to the game. But is the game of use directly, or is it in service to the enjoyment of the player? The enjoyment of the player would be the only thing that is done for itself, and even that gets a little odd when you begin to strip back the neurology of what the enjoyment is.

So I see two ways to take this. First, a slight clarification to say that 'something' that a thing may be in use to is limited in a way to not include desires and pursuits.

Second, that the only thing that has the purest usefulness are desire and pursuits we seek only to fulfill them and not for other reasons (if we ignore why our brain wants us to do such).

Both seem odd but not repulsive takes.

Post reply on HN