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

51–60 of 160 posts

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#51

Post by barrkel »

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…

you believe that the notion of free will is specious, even partially in significant cases of vice

Don't mix your modalities.

It's possible to reason in terms of free will and decisions between right and wrong; or in terms of causes and effects, from mental illness and broken childhoods through to poverty and criminality; but separately.

The problem with reasoning in just one modality or the other is that you miss what the other modality captures. Reason entirely in the former, and you can miss out on social and political changes which can result in better outcomes in the aggregate. Reason entirely in the latter, and you miss out on the ability for the individual to improve themselves, and deny them agency in choosing their own destiny.

(Personally, I think "believing that the notion free will is specious" - actually wrong - is incredibly disempowering, and will have the effect of causing people to blame externalities even when they have the power to change their situation. It has an effect all of its own. You don't need to have free will at the Physics level in order for belief in free will to have a positive mental effect in a mechanistic cause and effect way.)

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#52

Post by danaos »

gliese1337 wrote: post #3
ketzo wrote: post #2

I took a “History of Philosophy” class as a GE my freshman year of college. It’s pretty astounding, when you start tracing it back, how much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics come from, like, four or five Greek guys.

From works written down by four or five Greek guys, or by other guys who cited those Greek guys as the source. The fact that our surviving records all happen to funnel through those guys is not proof that it all originated with those guys. It is highly likely that they were both building on an extensive unrecorded philosophical tradition, and participating in a broader contemporary cultural conversation whose other p…

Counterpoint: Aristotle's life is widely documented, having been born in the small ancient city of Stagira, and famously taught Alexander the Great.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#53

Post by empath75 »

hliyan wrote: post #50
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…

This is an amazing resource, thank you! I wish they had episodes on more recent thinkers such as Kant...

He’s getting there! It updates every two weeks.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#54

Post by maw »

empath75 wrote: post #53
hliyan wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an amazing resource, thank you! I wish they had episodes on more recent thinkers such as Kant...

He’s getting there! It updates every two weeks.

Yeah, another five years or so and he ought to get there. This sounds like a long time but there's also at least one gloriously awful and/or awfully glorious pun to look forward to per episode along the way.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#55

Post by naravara »

0xddd wrote: post #14
guerrilla wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. A lot of these books are thought to just be lecture notes and things like that pieced together. Compare that to something like Plato's and it's a big difference. I imagine nobody will ever beat Kant in the terrible writing department though.

> Aristotle is notoriously a terrible writer. Is this really uncontroversial? I can't say I've heard that said before, or found Aristotle more difficult than other texts of that time. Obviously there are stylistic differences between this and Plator's dialogues, but I imagine a large part of your impression could be due to the particular translations you read.

Pretty incontrovertial. Most of our surviving writings “by Aristotle” are actually lecture notes from his students rewritten later. So it’s got a lot of the hallmarks of being written by committee and coming across as being very dry.

Compare this to Plato, whose writings were actually pretty entertaining even as pure fiction. He’s full of side stories, lurid metaphors, and funny turns of phrase.

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#56

Post by vharuck »

JamesG124 wrote: post #25

Anyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of performative erudition?

I'd much rather "performative erudition" than "performative idiocy" (a.k.a. trolling), because the latter makes visiting idiots feel they're in good company[0].

[0] Paraphrased (surprisingly to me) from a Hacker News user: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#57

Post by HPsquared »

ketzo wrote: post #2

I took a “History of Philosophy” class as a GE my freshman year of college. It’s pretty astounding, when you start tracing it back, how much of our law, literature, politics, ethics, and aesthetics come from, like, four or five Greek guys.

That's what I call a high "impact factor"!

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#58

Post by ExtremisAndy »

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…

Yes! A few years back I was asked to teach a philosophy class (having done no philosophy in many years... go figure!) and this podcast was instrumental in helping me to review the basics and form in my mind a solid overview of the history of major philosophical ideas and insights. It really helped me feel more prepared to teach the course. Highly recommended!

Re: Nicomachean Ethics

#60

Post by mod50ack »

danaos wrote: post #52
gliese1337 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From works written down by four or five Greek guys, or by other guys who cited those Greek guys as the source. The fact that our surviving records all happen to funnel through those guys is not proof that it all originated with those guys. It is highly likely that they were both building on an extensive unrecorded philosophical tradition, and participating in a broader contemporary cultural conversation whose other p…

Counterpoint: Aristotle's life is widely documented, having been born in the small ancient city of Stagira, and famously taught Alexander the Great.

We know. And Aristotle was certainly a star of his era. But we also know that Aristotle didn't come up with this all from nothing; he was engaging in a number of disputes with other philosophers of the time. You can see this reflected in his work, where he often gives accounts of what his opponents' theories are as well before offering his rebuttal.

In fact, the work of Aristotle is one of the better sources we have for views of philosophers whose writings are largely lost.

Post reply on HN