Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια

Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια➵ [Read] ➱ Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια By Aristotle ➿ – Heartforum.co.uk Excerpt from Aristotelis Ethicorum Nicomacheorum Libri Decem Codicum Mss Collatione Recogniti Et Notis IllustratiAbout the PublisherForgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic Excerpt from Aristotelis Ethicorum Nicomacheorum Libri Decem Codicum Mss Collatione Recogniti Et Notis IllustratiAbout the PublisherForgotten books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books Find at wwwforgottenbookscomThis book is a reproduction of an important historical work Forgotten books uses state of the art technology to digitally reconstruct the work preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy In rare cases an imperfection in the original such as a blemish or missing page may be replicated in our edition We do however repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.


Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια MOBI Ä
  • Paperback
  • 494 pages
  • Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια
  • Aristotle
  • 01 May 2014
  • 9780364870808

10 thoughts on “Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια

  1. Ahmad Sharabiani says:

    The Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle The Nicomachean Ethics is the name normally given to Aristotle's best known work on ethics The work which plays a pre eminent role in defining Aristotelian ethics consists of ten books originally separate scrolls and is understood to be based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum The title is often assumed to refer to his son Nicomachus to whom the work was dedicated or who may have edited it although his young age makes this less likely Alternatively the work may have been dedicated to his father who was also called Nicomachusتاریخ نخستین خوانش ماه مارس سال 2007 میلادیعنوان علم اخلاق نیکوماخوسی؛ نویسنده ارسطو؛ مترجم صلاح الدین سلجوقی زاده سال 1274 هجری خورشیدی، درگذشته سال 1349 هجری خورشیدی؛ در 330 ص؛ موضوع اخلاق، سده 4 پیش از میلادعنوان اخلاق نیکوماخوس؛ نویسنده ارسطو؛ مترجم محمدحسن لطفی؛ تهران، طرح نو، 1378، در 414 ص؛ چاپ دوم 1385؛ شابک 9645625696؛ موضوع اخلاق، سده 4 پیش از میلاداخلاق «نیکوماخوسی»، عنوان شناخته‌ شده‌ ترین اثر «ارسطو»، در زمینه ی اخلاق است این اثر که نقش برجسته‌ ای در معرفی اخلاق ارسطویی دارد، از ده کتاب تشکیل، و بر مبنای یادداشت‌ برداری از سخنان «ارسطو» در «لیسیوم» شکل گرفته‌ است این اثر، یا توسط «نیکوماخوس پسر ارسطو»، ویرایش شده، یا به ایشان تقدیم شده‌ است ا شربیانی

  2. Glenn Russell says:

    Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle postulates the highest human good is eudaimonia or what is loosely translated into English as happiness And a substantial component in the path to such human happiness is acting with the appropriate virtues over the course of an entire lifetime The details of these Aristotelean teachings form the Nicomachean Ethics one of the most influential works in the entire history of Western Civilization As a way of sharing but a small example of Aristotle’s extensive philosophy outlined in these pages I will focus on Book IV Chapter 8 where the eminent Greek philosopher addresses the virtue of being witty sensitive to others discerning and perceptive particularly when we are at our leisure Here are six Aristotle uotes and my brief accompanying comments “Since life includes rest as well as activity and in this is included leisure and amusement there seems here also to be a kind of intercourse which is tasteful; there is such a thing as saying and again listening to what one should and as one should” Aristotle’s focus on time spent outside of work what we nowadays refer to as ‘leisure time’ makes this section of his ethical teachings particularly relevant for us today most especially since we are bombarded by a nonstop barrage of advertisements store signs billboards Muzak etc etc some subtle many not so subtle “The kind of people one is speaking to or listening to will also make a difference” Very important who we associate with both at work and outside of work Aristotle is optimistic that we can actively participate in society and exercise discrimination as we develop wisdom to speak as we should and listen as we should In contrast another Greek philosopher Epicurus was not so optimistic on this point Epicurus judged conventional society as blind and dumb particularly as it pertains to men and women expounding values regarding such things as riches and fame and what constitutes our true human needs The answer for Epicurus withdraw into a separate community with like minded friends and philosophers “Regarding people’s views on humor there is both an excess and a deficiency as compared with the mean Those who carry humor to excess are thought to be vulgar buffoons striving after humor at all costs and aiming rather at raising a laugh than at saying what is becoming and at avoiding pain to the object of their fun while those who can neither make a joke themselves nor put up with those who do are thought to be boorish and unpolished” Sounds like Aristotle attended the same junior high school and high school as I did Again he is optimistic that someone who aspires to philosophic excellence virtue and the mean maintaining a middle position between two extremes can live among buffoons and boors without being pulled down to their level The uestion I would pose to Aristotle What happens when we live in an entire society dominated by vulgar buffoon and uptight boors where the buffoons and boors set the standards for what it means to be human Particularly what happens to the development of children and young adults “But those who joke in a tasteful way are called ready witted which implies a sort of readiness to turn this way and that; for such sallies are thought to be movements of the character and as bodies are discriminated by their movements so too are characters” “I had an opportunity to see the Dalai Lama speak You will be hard pressed to find someone with a lively sense of humor If you haven’t seen him speak you can check out Youtube “The ridiculous side of things is not far to seek however and most people delight than they should in amusement and in jestingly and so even buffoons are called ready witted because they are found attractive; but that they differ from the ready witted man and to no small extent is clear from what has been said” Ha So Aristotle sees in fact how buffoonery can easily lapse into the social norm Thus our challenge is how to retain our integrity when surrounded by slobs and buffoons “To the middle state belongs also tact; it is the mark of a tactful man to say and listen to such things as befit a good and well bred man; for there are some things that it befits such a man to say and to hear by way of jest and the well bred man's jesting differs from that of a vulgar man and the joking of an educated man from that of an uneducated” Aristotle’s overarching observation on how the wisdom of the middle way between two extremes applies here – not good acting at either extreme being a boor or being a buffoon Unfortunately speaking and otherwise communicating in a buffoonish or boorish way is in no way restricted to the uneducated or dull – I’ve witnessed numerous instances of buffoonery and boorishness among the highly educated and intellectually astute The entire Nicomachean Ethics is available online

  3. Fergus says:

    When I was young I had an idée fixe an obsessionOh it’s easy to be like that if you were brought up in 1950’s Mainstream Christianity or later if like Cherilyn’s Dad in the amazing new Chasing Eden you were influenced at some point or another by a fundamentalist splinter group Then you might have had the idée fixe of a retributive God a PUNISHING GodAnd though my choice was always mainstream theology when my life went into a tailspin it was ALL BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA Because we ALL seemed back then to be tarred with its brushNow I just had to escape all that So in 1985 I sought relief in reading and meditation Certainly over time that clarified my thought Maybe too much for I was then faced with a bustling plethora of variegated POV’s So I started to pay attention to the simple directness of the ancient classics and it became the confusing plethora’s originary panaceaAnd eventually I reread the great philosophers who made Christianity ALONG with the Bible the forces that gave Christianity its intellectual chutzpah Plato and Aristotle Things became clear AND easyNow Aristotle said Good can come in any package And any human beingBecause like Plato and Socrates he was an Essentialist And EVERY form of Good is Essentially ie Intrinsically Good He saw it ALL as Good like anything or anybody Any Human BeingWhat does is mean for everyone to be Good in the Modern World For we’re NOT essentially good Modern Science and subseuently the constant news feeds who of course seem to promote guys like Richard Dawkins or hype them which is the same thing have warped it all outta shape It’s all at Best a “Mixture of Frailties” as the great novelist Robertson Davies saidIn Modern Physics for example the ‘official’ version is that we humans are basically and randomly set adrift in a meaningless world because it says it sees the big picture through the lens of Relativity and uantum Mechanics We’re without hope So our sources like the news media pooh pooh HopeIsn’t THAT a much smaller and incomplete picture For to a Transcendent First Mover such conflictual behaviour is background noiseBut ALL OUR sources make it sound like it is EXACTLY as the news wags suggest Well this is where Aristotle comes inHe sees EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY as Essentially Good even in spite of his incomplete given his time though nevertheless tough minded like our own scientific picture My grandmother used to say “be good and you’ll be happy” Aristotle would have agreed Goodness IS the way to Happiness a larger container for life’s ordinary social joy Mere pleasure imposes limits to joy it implies a beginning and a NECESSARY end An end which can be suddenAnd I’m sure Aristotle would see it in the same way today For he would STILL see the big picture Modern Science transcendedFor he sees it in much the same way as Job saw it when God spoke to Job from the Whirlwind Where does Job find happiness Nowhere But all that miraculously changedNow Job as we know had had all Hell and High Water thrown at him It BROKE him He was FINISHED CAPUTAnd in the same way despite the repeated ‘consolations‘ his friends tried to feed him Job remained unrelentingly Broken And so he had to be because he had run out of get up and goBut God in the whirlwind of Job’s emotional collapse SPOKE to him And Life was suddenly GOOD again for Job Because he now saw the BIG PICTURE A larger containerAll his life Job had been following carrots of pleasure hanging from a stick money family possessions and when they were gone he needed to see his previous life had been too LITTLE He needed a Bigger Container“C’mon now” you say“How could you even HEAR someone in a storm even saying for the sake of argument that God CAN speak in the First Place Gimme a break”Well what would Aristotle say What did JOB See and HearAristotle if he were here would say“When you say Life is Good you mean it’s INTRINSICALLY good It’s Essence is good from the point of view of our Intelligence And naturally the Supreme Being also sees Life and all Beings as intrinsically Good And ALL the time”Job doesn’t see Life as Morally or Aesthetically or Emotively Good But he now knows looking at it as God sees it it’s INTRINSICALLY goodSo Job does now INDEED see Life is Good And ALL PEOPLE are likewise Flawed often deeply but GoodYou see because as kids we read the Old retributive Testament AND the New Loving Testament we were subconsciously conflictualAnd we JUDGED automaticallyBut if everyone’s LOVED there are no bad peopleOnly flawed BROKEN peopleAs well as thank Heaven those who are becoming WHOLE againBECAUSE of the Right Attitude

  4. Trevor says:

    I’m a bit annoyed – I wrote up my review to this last night and thought I’d posted it but it seems to have gone to godnot happy about that amusingly enough This is my reconstruction of last night’s reviewThere is a story that is almost certainly apocryphal about a French woman in the version I know this is Madame De Gaulle who is in England towards the end of her husband’s career and is asked at some sort of official function what she wants most from life She answers ‘a penis’ – which unsurprisingly brings a near complete silence over the room something see seems completely confused by Charles De Gaulle then says to his wife ‘I think they pronounce it ‘appiness’ darling’Aristotle is writing about how to live a good life – pretty much what ‘ethics’ means – and his answer is that a good life is a happy life Well sort of Actually the Greek word that is translated as ‘happiness’ here not unlike Madame De Gaulle’s mis pronunciation doesn’t necessarily mean what we would normally take ‘happiness’ to mean Eudaimonia is made up of two words meaning ‘good’ and ‘soul’ but can also be translated as meaning ‘human flourishing’ Now if you asked me how I was going and I said ‘I’m flourishing’ that doesn’t necessarily mean ‘I’m happy’ It is not that the two ideas are a million miles apart but even Roget would be unlikely to slam them together in his little book of synonymsThis is a remarkably practical book – not so much in that it tells you exactly how to behave at all times and in all circumstances it isn’t practical in that sense but rather that it sets about giving you tools to help make a rational judgement about how you ought to behave given various circumstances It does this by discussing Aristotle’s ‘doctrine of the mean’ Aristotle says that every virtue falls between to extremes which are excesses of ualities that also go to make up that virtue So if you think of courage for example it falls between cowardice and foolhardiness In one case you have an exaggerated regard for your own life despite being seen as a coward and the likely humiliation that will bring and in the other you are too prepared to throw your life away and therefore not giving your life its proper value Now the point is that Aristotle isn’t saying all that much here about how you might behave in a given situation but rather giving you guiding lines to watch out for – his point is that if you are called upon to be brave there may be times when it is rational to behave in ways that might otherwise look foolhardy and at other times in ways that might look cowardly – but a wise and happy person would do so on the basis of a rational assessment of where the mean lies given the time place and circumstance – and knowing there are extremes you need to avoid is useful hereThere are bits of this that I found much annoying this time around than I did when I read it years ago 30 years ago now – yuck how did that happen In fact I can’t uite tell if Aristotle has become reactionary over the years or if I’ve become progressive – but it’s one or the otherFor instance I found a lot of his discussions about women particularly annoying this time around Take this as a case in point from Book VIII “Sometimes however women rule because they are heiresses; their rule is thus not in accordance with virtue but due to wealth and power” page 157 People will tell you that one of the problems with Aristotle and Plato is the fact that they could never conceive of a society in which there were no slaves – but one of the advantages of Plato is that he did think women could and probably should be educated Aristotle clearly does not – but the point I would really like to make is that he notices when women rule due to their wealth and power but not when men do the same Given so many men rule at all and so many of them rule due to the access their position gives them – it seems an odd thing for someone like Aristotle not to noticeBecause this is uite a practical ethics he spends a lot of time talking about the sorts of things people ought to have in their lives to make them happy – and this is why so much of the book is devoted to friendship I won’t go over his arguments for the various types of friends one might have but do want to talk about love and lovers I think I could mount a case for saying that Aristotle is arguing against having a lover Not that he is advocating a life of celibacy or even of abstinence but rather that lovers come in what I like to think of as pairs after McCullers or Somerset Maugham – who both said that there are lovers and the beloved and of the two everyone wants to be the lover rather than the beloved – and that since being either the lover or a beloved is basically irrational given we fall in love by lightning strike as much as anything else it might stop just as uickly as it all started and then a lover who doesn’t love any leaves a beloved who is no longer beloved – not the basis for a lasting relationship The point being that friendship is based rationally on mutual benefits and mutual care – if it was me I’d pick the latter over the former friendship over love every time – if these things allowed for choices like that that isNow I want to end by uoting a longer bit from Book X page 200“Some think we become good by nature some by habit and others by teaching Nature's contribution is clearly not in our power but it can be found in those who are truly fortunate as the result of some divine dispensation Argument and teaching presumably are not powerful in every case but the soul of the student must be prepared beforehand in its habits with a view to its enjoying and hating in a noble way like soil that is to nourish seed For if someone were to live by his feelings he would not listen to an argument to dissuade him nor could he even understand it How can we persuade a person in a state like this to change his ways And in general feelings seem to yield not to argument but to force There must therefore somehow be a pre existing character with some affinity for virtue through its fondness for what is noble and dislike of what is disgraceful“But if one has not been reared under the right laws it is difficult to obtain from one's earliest years the correct upbringing for virtue because the masses especially the young do not find it pleasant to live temperately and with endurance For this reason their upbringing and pursuits should be regulated by laws because they will not find them painful once they have become accustomed to them”I find this really interesting for a whole range of reasons Okay so he starts off by saying that nature is the main thing to ensure that one is capable of learning – but it is interesting that this alone is not enough Nature is essential but left on its own will not get you very far The other is teaching but teaching too may not help unless you have been prepared to hear the lesson – something Gramsci talks about at some length saying working class children need to be given discipline that they are unfamiliar with if they are to have any hope of succeeding in education What is stressed here is the development of habits and dispositions and that these are what allows the other two nature and teaching to be given any chance of successAristotle is keen to stress that he is talking about virtues – but again the Greek word here arête doesn’t just mean morally good behaviours but rather something closer to the excellences that we associate with different kinds of behaviours – so that a fisherman has virtues too not in the sense of being morally upright but rather at knowing what is good for a fisherman to do and be A lot of this reminded me of Pascal’s Pensées There is a bit in that where Pascal says that happiness really isn’t related to the outcome but to the process That is that you won’t make a hunter happy by giving him a couple of rabbits at the start of the day and saying to him ‘now you don’t have to go out hunting today relax enjoy yourself’ Rather even a mangy rabbit caught through the effort of the hunt will be worth to the hunter than a dozen plump ones handed over without effort at the start of the day Not always true of course but I’m exaggerating to make the point In a lot of ways that is Aristotle’s ethics – find out what you are meant to do and do that as best you can and that will make you happy – or good souled – or flourishing – one of those

  5. Bradley says:

    This re read was perhaps a slight bit superfluous I remembered reading it way back in high school on my own just because I was that kind of geekGet the foundations read kid Know what the whole line of thought is all about Use it later to trounce your fellow debaters Yeah whatever Logic and an examined life have since then been of an end rather than a meansCase in point This is about examining Happiness It does so in a fairly exhaustive but not exhausting way Aristotle just lays down the foundations brings up the various opinions people usually hold about WHAT happiness entails and then tries to pare away the flawed answersUsually a normal adventure tale is never about the end destination End destinations are usually a let down The effort to get there is usually a lot satisfyingSame for Aristotle It turns out I remembered the first journey perfectly And it brought me happiness

  6. Brad Lyerla says:

    Happiness is the activity of a rational soul in accordance with virtue writes Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics Activity means living Rational soul means a human being And virtue means human excellence So happiness means a human living excellently How does one live excellently One learns to be good at the things that are human and these are called virtues Aristotle discusses many virtues but four are primary courage temperance justice and practical wisdom Courage is how we deal with pain and disappointment Courage is an example of the golden mean Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness Temperance is how we deal with pleasure Temperance is the mean between gluttony and abstinence Justice is how we deal with human relationships Essentially it means to give every person their due which will be defined by their relationship to you Practical wisdom is the knowledge to understand how to discern the moderate path or the mean and how to moderate passions in order to think clearly and make good decisions But my favorite thing about the Ethics is that Aristotle devotes many pages to a discussion of friendship which is fundamental to happiness Some scholars argue that Aristotle's discussion of friendship comes from a separate book That is when scrolls with the Ethics were first discovered early scholars mistakenly mixed two books together Perhaps this is true But it is heartening to read about happiness and find that much of the discussion has to do with being a good friend One thing about this great book It is difficult to read I am told that this is due to the fact that it was compiled from notes of Aristotle's students and was not written by Aristotle That is these are notes of his lecturesThey read like it My way of dealing with the impenetrability was to lean on secondary sources In particular I listened to lectures from the Teaching Company as I re read the Ethics a few years ago That made all the difference

 The Nichomachean Ethics is arguably the most important work on ethics in western culture But you might not be able read it on your own without constantly fogging out So figure out a way to get through it with patience and attention You will be rewarded for your effort

  7. Markus says:

    The Nicomachean Ethics is one of the greatest works of Aristotle the famous philosopher who was really much of a scientist than a philosopher This is the book where he indulges in the discussion of happiness virtue ethics politics and really anything else describing the way in which human beings functioned together in the society of a Greek city state of early AntiuityEspecially in the field of politics this work excels and Aristotle puts forth a particularly interesting theory on the forms of government According to him there are really only three different forms of government but each of them comes with a corresponding corrupt deviation The finest form of government he says is the monarchy the rule of one But its corresponding deviation which is tyranny is the worst form of government and the line between the two is thin and sinuous Likewise the second finest form of government is the aristocracy the rule of the best And aristocracy in its corrupted form is oligarchy the second worst form of government Lastly the third finest form of government is timocracy the rule of property owners which was strikingly similar to the political system already existing in Aristotle's Athens But the corrupt form of timocracy he says is democracy a system in which society has deviated into a constant suabble where everyone seeks to advance their own interests rather than the interests of the state The conclusion seems to be that as long as long as the rulers of the state are just and competent it is better the fewer they are But if the rulers are unjust and incompetent the opposite is true To those as interested in political theory as I am I would recommend just reading Book VIII and skipping all the restThe most interesting thing about the book however is that the writing is absolutely terrible Not the language mind you but the style in which the book is written What is truly incredible is that the writing here is exactly how an average academic writer today would write his or her books On one hand that made this book ridiculously boring to read On the other it was really interesting because it proves how much modern academics owe to the legacy of Aristotle And that they should find another source of inspiration since for instance Plato was a far better writer than his most famous pupilI would recommend this book only to those particularly interested in philosophical political and ethical theory and even then I would suggest just opening the book and reading the parts that sound interesting to you instead of attempting the dreary business of reading it as a whole

  8. Mandi says:

    Aristotle doesn't satisfy your whole soul just the logical side but here he is uite thorough The Nicomachean Ethics is his most important study of personal morality and the ends of human life He does little than search for and examine the good He examines the virtue and vices of man in all his faculties He believes that the unexamined life is a life not worth living; happiness is the contemplation of the good and the carrying out of virtue with solid acts Among this book's most outstanding features are Aristotle's insistence that there are no known absolute moral standards and that any ethical theory must be based in part on an understanding of psychology and firmly grounded in the realities of human nature and daily life Though the over 100 chapters divided into ten books flow and build upon each other you can benefit from reading just one of them One of my favorite philosophical reads I cannot say enough for the depth of insight Aristotle has into living the good life

  9. Amy says:

    November 20 2019 5 starsAiiiiiii look at me re reading books in the same year Definitely did not expect to be go back to this one so soon but glad I did Context does amazing things for your understanding Read this one as part of class instead of just 'cause and gained so much out of it January 31st 2019 Review 4 stars Dry but thought provoking Obviously it is hard to rate someone like Aristotle For the way it shaped Western thought Ethics easily deserves 5 stars Yet it also proved a dense and freuently uninteresting read so in fairness to myself as an educated reader I'm rating based on my personal understanding and appreciation 4 stars it gets

  10. Jasmine says:

    One lesson of our age is that barbarism persists under the surface and that the virtues of civilized life are less deeply rooted than used to be supposed The world is not too richly endowed with examples of perseverance and subtlety in analysis of moderation and sanity in the study of human affairs It will be a great loss if the thinker who above all others displays these ualities is ever totally forgotten DJ Allan author of The Philosophy of Aristotle Oxford 1952 about Aristotle 384 BC 323 BC

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *