>>24702629
No, the vicious man still has free will. He mentions this briefly in the Categories but moreso in the Metaphysics. An evil man can become good, or restrain himself on particular occasions.

>>24702763
How does he know what is good? Well, you just know it when you see it. So much for reason

>>24702770
This is not Aristotle's answer. Prudence and wisdom are all about reason. But neither does he subscribe to the modern idea of reason as merely discursive, calculative, instrumental ratio. There is a real ecstasis and union in knowing. Hence, the erotic ascent (eros leading up, agape flowing down) lays open to us.

Aristotle's ethics is imperfect, but it is a very good start.

>>24702835
>There is a real ecstasis and union in knowing. Hence, the erotic ascent (eros leading up, agape flowing down) lays open to us.
That doesn't sound like Aristotle's thought.

>>24703069
It isn’t, he’s full of shit.
>>24702770
It’s impossible to reduce ethics to rules because rules are universal but actuality is particular. In any given situation, multiple duties conflict. It’s also impossible to deduce ethics for the same reason you can’t deduce a line. You want a rule book and a proof that will convince the vicious but there is none. Hegel too understood this. Aristotle said “bad people need punishment, not argument”.

>>24703700
>bad people need punishment, not argument
How did he establish bad

>>24703730
He didn’t, not in the sense you mean anyway. I addressed this already. What you see as a defect is actually the genius of Aristotle. Hegel improves on this well with the dialectic of the beautiful soul. Particular acts, marred with selfishness, necessarily stand in relation to the universal. So in a way “what is approved” is the standard but this judging itself is sublated.

>>24703743
I'm a different anon and I missed your response earlier