WEEK 14: Finish Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and REVIEW

[Mateo Duque]

Class,

This is our last week of class. I will finish covering Aristotle and then we will have a review. Try to write about Aristotle this week--even if you wrote something last week. Try to compare what Aristotle is doing to what you say in Mill and Kant. What are the major differences? similarities? Now that you have read all three of the ethical theories, which one do you agree with the most? Why?

-MD.

[Ellie]

“Each person judges nobly the things he knows, and of these he is a good judge. He is a good judge of a particular thing…if he has been educated with a view to it…Hence…a young person is not an appropriate student, for he is inexperienced in the actions pertaining to life and the arguments are based on these actions and concerns them.” (pg 4)

 

I think that this means that if someone has experience or has been educated in regard to something he can be a good judge of it, and if they don’t have experience or haven’t been educated with regards to it, then they can’t be a good judge of it.

 

I had mentioned something to this effect early on in the semester in regard to the blog posts. I think I had even brought up the example of Newton and gravity to better explain what I was trying to say (not that it helped with the explaining thing, so I’ll repeat and hope it’s more effective this time around…). It doesn’t matter whether you agree or completely disagree with Newton and his theory on gravity. The fact that you, who is uneducated in this particular area, thinks that your uneducated opinion is a good judgment regarding gravity, is not only a bit of a chutzpah, it’s demeaning to Newton who did numerous studies and spent countless hours researching the topic. It’s also kind of silly and laughable. Like who are you to decide if he is right or wrong? Did you research it? Did you conduct studies yourself? Or are you just making uneducated and pretty much baseless assumptions/accusations? Most likely it’s the latter one.

I would think the same can be said with regards to philosophy/philosophers and the blog posts. For many students at BC, this class is the first experience we have with philosophy. So we cannot be considered to have been educated with a view to it. Therefore, (in accordance with the above from Aristotelian ethics), we cannot be a good judge of it.

 

Although I can understand that for the blog posts you want an analysis and not a summary, but to have us “make more declarative sentences." and to "Put yourself out there. Take a stand. Say I think X is wrong for the following reasons....” (you, somewhere on this forum)? How does it logically make sense for someone to take a declarative stand if they don’t have the educational knowledge to back it?

Sure, we (or I, because it’s probably just me) can do the posts that you want and take a strong stand. But just because someone/I write(s) the type of post you’re looking for so that they/I can get a good grade, doesn’t mean that it’s right or any less disrespectful to the philosophers. I still find it totally rude (maybe childish is more like it) and mind boggling that we are expected to take such strong and definite positions when we are completely uneducated in these areas in contrast to those we are taking these positions against.

Now, to the question of whose ethics I agree with more; It doesn’t matter either ways whether I agree with Aristotle, or if I think Mill or Kant is more in the right. Because I am relatively uneducated in this particular thing, therefore, my agreement or disagreement with either of their ethical theories is not one of a ‘good judgment’. Since, I am aware of this (that I am not educated enough to take a stand on ethical theories, AND now that my grade isn’t going to be affected by this post because I already did 10 other ones), I won’t take one. I am not going to take a stand and agree or disagree with anyone. I also sure as hell won’t say someone, who is a trillion times more educated then me in this particular area, is wrong or even right. Because, after all, who am I to make a judgment on something that I’m not adequately educated about?  

 

^^^not trying to be a smartass. I wanted a better understanding/to be more clear on the whole blog post/take a stand thing the whole semester and now that I have Aristotle to sort of ‘back me up’ I went for it…

[elena.pronoza]

Aristotle, "Nicomachean Ethics", book 1, chapter 13

"Yet there seems to be also a certain other nature of the soul that is non-rational, although it does share in reason in a way."

Aristotle talks about reason and determines how it different in two natures of the soul. He says that person can be "self-restrained" and "the one lacking self-restraint". The first type possesses a reason. He lives for the reason, follows it but there is always something that he has to battle with. It is his other part of the nature, a non-rational part. This non-rational part is characterized by "desires" and "longing". Surprisingly, after this discussion Aristotle claims that this non-rational part also has a reason to which it is obedient. Seriously? How is that possible? I can understand that rational and non-rational parts exist in each of us. However, how this non-rational part can be based on the reason if it is frequently based on desires, emotions, and perceptions. Does it mean that according to Aristotle desire is a reason or is moved by reason? I think that emotions are signs of an absence of self-restraining. However, Aristotle definitely doesn't think so. He also goes further in this idea declaring that a "non-rational part is somehow persuaded by reason". Isn't that the opposite? Our desire persuades a non-rational part which acts according to these minute impulses. And without any reasons this part leads us to the non-restrained actions. In other words, we start loosing control under power of emotions, in which we are involved, and reason stops to exist at this point.

[imusicea92]

Using the same quote as Ellie used, I can say I disagree. Sure, an expert in an area will always be a good judgement of that area. However, the truth is you don't get to be an expert without starting at the bottom. When you start at the bottom, you learn from different people and different views and add your own opinion until you're not only an expert but you have created something new. If only experts could be a good judge of an area, there would be no revolutionaries and fields would never change. For example when you create a song, you're drawing inspiration from those who created songs already. You're using what you learned from people who are experts but you add something new and that doesn't mean you're any less valuable than those you drew your inspiration from. It's a cycle. So who is more important? The inspiration whose goal it was to inspire, to be discussed or the revolutionary who couldn't change anything without the inspiration?

[nadiahamidi7]

"A Heroic Farmer" or "A Foolish Farmer?"

Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics" was certainly an interesting read. Every chapter built on top of the previous one which made it a whirlwind to remember. It's kind of like trying to create a family tree with a great grandmother speaking 50mph. Everything builds on top of each other and expands so if you don't get one aspect (or miss out on one branch), you're screwed!

In the third chapter of the first book, Aristotle begins by saying it is not every individual's duty to interfere with everything. More simply put, "It is not the farmer's duty to try and fix his neighbor's broken car. It's the mechanic's duty." Right after that, Aristotle claims that it is in human nature to dispute with each other and "laws" (defined as "customs" on the bottom) exist not by nature, but by following. This was a little difficult for me to understand but Aristotle really takes the cake with his next statement, he says,

"And even the good things admit of some such variability on account of the harm that befalls many people as a result of them: it has happened that some have been destroyed on account of their wealth, others on account of their courage" (3.16-19).

It took me several reads of this particular passage to really understand what Aristotle is trying to say. I know we have a translated version, and it can never be an identical match to the native language, but I will attempt to give a modern-day translation. (I will also translate it in accordance to the previous translation I gave).

"And even if the farmer does try and fix his neighbor's car but fails and harms himself, it is possible that his injury may be a result of his foolishness and intent for praise, or it may be just because he is a courageous man who failed."

I'm not sure if I even understand it enough to translate it, but what the hell, I'm taking a stand! When Aristotle mentions why humans do not break away from each other and fight, he speaks about the "noble" (3.15) and the "just" (3.15) things. On the previous page, there is a huge definition of the word "kalos" which can mean anything from "noble" to "beautiful" to "fine" in English. According to the explication of "kalos" the footnote explains it indicates physical beauty, but more importantly, admirable in terms of morality. 

So, is Aristotle trying to say my farmer pal is observing kalos when trying to fix his neighbor's car even though he has no knowledge to back up his actions? Or, is he trying to say the farmer is a fool and deserves getting hurt? Why can't Aristotle be clearer?! 

[pesantezkevin]

Something that stood out to me most while reading Aristotle was the fact the spoke about people doing things in order to reach something in the end.  He compared this idea to an archer and he with his bow and arrow have a target to hit.  It would be good for people to do things without an end result to it and just to do it to better them.  The only thing is that this would be an endless cycle with no end to it.  Imagine the archer’s arrow has to hit its target which is the dot in the middle only.  If the archer shot the arrow with no target in sight or in mind then the target would go on forever.   In some aspects this would be good for example; feeding the poor would be great because if you could help one person with food that originally did not have any then you would be doing what you set out to do.  The going on with no end would be like digging a hole.  You will not know why you are digging this hole or how far down to dig it.  You just know to dig it, thus you may in fact be a digging a hole forever.

[felixjonanthony]

The opposing views of Ellie and imusicea92 were so interesting that I actually changed my paper topic to what they discussed i this post. My first stance will be elaborating on Ellie's views with opinions of my own. If we do not know of it, we cannot judge it. I feel this is the more popular opinion when it comes to this theory so I shall address it first. This popularity comes from the fact that it seems like common sense – a deaf man cannot critique the songs played by a musician and a blind man cannot harshly judge a photographer. His claim of youth also mirrors a timeless belief seen with parenting young children – something I call the “you don’t know any better” theory. We constantly place our youth in this category of them not knowing enough to properly behave, respond, or accomplish tasks. The key to this is the not knowing. They are unaware how we function, how to process and convey emotion properly, or even speak as young children – so how can they make proper opinions on how their parent does certain things? This makes sense – if you are unknowledgeable about a subject, you must be unfit to properly judge said subject. However, Aristotle does mention that age is not the core reason, but age leads to a lack of time to grow passionate for something and understand it. “…because he is disposed to follow the passions, he will listen pointlessly and unprofitably, since the end involved is not knowledge but action. And it makes no difference at all whether he is young in age or immature in character: the deficiency is not related to time but instead arises on account of living in accord with passion and pursuing each passion in turn.” (4)

[krystalgonzalez.28]

Aristotle's argument is similar in that he is speaking almost of morality, and the actions of people like Kant and Mill.  Aristotle speaks about voluntary, and involuntary actions that we do without realizing it might cause pain to someone, and we would probably feel guilty about it.  He believes that a persons intention plays an important part in moral ethics, so for example if someone wants to help an elderly person cross the street just for the sake of helping him/her get across safely Aristotle would say that is kalos, an example of something morally beautiful.  If you are doing this to get an award or for the newspaper to give you recognition of this action you are doing this almost involuntary your not really doing this because you want to.  Your intentions are not pure and this would be wrong, even though you did get the action completed by helping them cross your intentions were bad.  Mills would say its still a good and moral act because you did something right, and since the elderly person is happy and your happy because of your 2 mins of fame the happiness level is high and that makes this action right. I would agree with Aristotle when put in this situation.