I thought it was pretty boring for the most part. There were a few more interesting parts, where Aristotle brought in metaphysics and talked about the soul, but the very detailed discussion on the virtues was really boring.I'm pretty much only interested in Aristotle for his Metaphysics, but I thought that I might as well read the Nicomachean Ethics too.
>>25581296It pairs well with his political ethics found in Politics. Political science as master science for common good and all. Good pillar to stand against Machiavelli and libtard hedonism.
It has been sitting in my bookshelf for a couple of years now. I should probably read it now that I'm interested in getting virtue-pilled
>>25581322liberalism isn't hedonism. liberalism is an ideology that ensures the rule of law and the freedom of man. you can live like a saint in liberalism,as long as you don't force others to follow your way.
>>25581372Freedom of man is an euphemism for the free wheeling, impulse free modern form of it. Its all fried chicken, bottomless abortions, and infinite butt sex.
>>25581383Impulse driven*
When Aristotle said "fat people are evil and its virtuous to kill them" thats when i knew he was the GOAT
>>25581383>infinite butt sexis that a bad thing?
>>25581296>it was pretty boringWhy are you expecting to be entertained while reading an ethics book? Read a novel or a comic if you want to be entertained
>>25581419I never said I expected to be entertained, I can read a dry history book if it's interesting to me and not be bored.
>>25581418It is in so far as you allow your sex drive to compel you into wallowing in another person's filth or someone within yours. Porn brained gooner.
>>25581445bro... you did not fr just say that?
filtered
>>25581419If you can't engage with nichomachean ethics you probably just don't actually care about philosophy. Larpers pretending to care about metaphysics when the primary encounter we have with metaphysical structure is our ethics do not actually care about metaphysics. If you want to see the good you see it as a good human expressing your nature and ethics are how it is expressed. The human and its' excellence (as we are humans) is the primary contact point for metaphysical unity and the metaphysical good.
>>25581475I'm not larping anything and yes, I think it would be correct to say that I'm not really into philosophy, apart from a few authors. I'm only really interested in Hegel, so I'm doing background reading to get to him
>>25581481If you want to "get into hegel" as a standalone thing separate to philosophy that is the definition of a larpThe object of all philosophy is reality/being/truth/goodness and the modes a human can have in relation to it not "reading hegel".It's like people who think they can be complete amoral degenerates but have the pretense of some intellectual understanding of something despite it being completely divorced from their life. Their entire essence is a larp.
>>25581507I think we fundamentally have different worldviews and value things differently, so there's no point in arguing about any of this
>>25581514I don't have a worldview those are also all larps. You have a fundamental moral failing and are unwilling to accept the obligation of your nature as a rational human being. It has nothing to do with a worldview it has to do with you being lazy, a coward, and ungrateful.
is it worth reading?also hardcover or paperback?
>>25581623https://www.amazon.com/Commentary-Aristotles-Nicomachean-Ethics-Aristotelian/dp/1883357519just get the dumb ox editions
>>25581296>"I don't like the discussion on how to live a fulfilling life in virtue and harmony with others, the most practical, sensible, and grounded part of his work">"I prefer the bits about magical woowoo that are entirely untethered from reality"NGMI
>>25581296For someone who claims to be in pursuit of truth, Aristotle places a ridiculous amount of trust in ‘wise and commonly accepted doxa/opinion’. The amount of credit he gives to ‘experience/intuition’ is also ridiculous Plato mogs hard
>>25581383Consider the phrase "free from vice". You exist at a low level of thought, thus, for you, freedom from restriction is really just a new master of impulse. Hear what I have to say, there is true freedom, an invitation to sublime exultant ascendancy. Seek and you shall find or succumb to your cynical bitterness and forever be trapped in the mud like an animal.
>>25581927You are categorically retarded. Aristotle aims at eudaimonia, peaceful, enlightened living which is sustainable through virtue and reason. It's not just "chase was tastes good". Again, you'd literally have to have an IQ of 70 to come away with that impression.
>>25581931Are you illiterate? I understand perfectly what he is aiming at, it’s his method of justifying his opinion that I find flawed. His reasoning can easily be twisted to argue for any point a sophist chooses. there is nothing in it that explicitly leads to his conclusions past his own bias, there is no episteme, only doxaHis system falls apart past book III, if you’ve ever read that far.
>>25581927>>25581950No, the other anon is right, you are fucking retarded if you think that Aristotle is "trusting" doxa when he develops his arguments. Yes, he starts with doxa, but then he refines it dialectically. You know, the same shit that Socrates does in the Socratic dialogues that you rave about. Fucking pseud retard.
>>25581950>is reasoning can easily be twisted to argue for any point a sophist chooses.No it can't, because things like murder, slavery, torture, and environmental destruction are inherently unsustainable. When living in society with others (which is necessary to the human condition) there are certain attitudes and behaviors which are rewarded and others which lead to disaster. Thus, with sufficient circumspection, the virtues become necessary if your goal is the good life. In other words, true "utilitarianism" would have to take the whole total of your life and seek to maximize the total outcome, and since the future is largely unknown, we must adopt actions most likely to produce the desired outcome of a completely fulfilled life. Again, every honest examination of this question leads inexorably back to specific virtues, because the synergistic benefits of living in a functional society are so astronomically impactful to your life in the long run than anything else is just self destructive shortsightedness.
>>25581968He established Endoxa and relies on it as a core of his arguments If you believe unsubstantiated blind faith is a decent bedrock for a philosophical system, then good for you champ :)
>>25581980>He established Endoxa and relies on it as a core of his arguments ... as a starting point for an argument, or even merely the topic itself. It is nowhere near a core. "Some people say X. Some people say Y. There is a point to X and Y to some extent, but the truth is that it is Z, for reasons A, B, and C." There is never a point where he simply accepts the common opinion for the sake that it is common. Are you just trying to say retarded shit on purpose to bait people? Because this is just embarrassingly low effort, and you should genuinely kill yourself by choking on your own saliva like the mouth-breathing, oxygen-stealing troglodyte that you are if you actually believe this with even 1% confidence.
>>25581997And now he has nothing to say. What a prime example of the absolute pollution on this board.
>>25582060He probably took my advice. Good riddance ffs.
I enjoyed his idea of the cultivation of an active state to create a way of being, or hexis and energeia. Sachs is an absolute gift for bypassing the Aristotlean vocab. Wish he'd discussed more about arete specifically as performative excellence rather than its relation or state in other areas, though, that was mainly why I grabbed the book. Kind of funny to see him talking about how the lesser wealthy and lower classes can't be as virtuous as the wealthiest because they lack the means for some of the virtues. Sort of like a mirrored prosperity gospel, actually.Anyone got any decent recommendations on arete in classical greece?
>>25581923Virtue ethics are also entirely untethered from reality
>>25581296why do you think anything produced over 2000 years ago would be comparable to what is produced today? it's impressive because of how early it is. that doesn't make the ideas good or the writing good.I first learned this lesson when I tried to read On the Origin of Species by Darwin. It's fucking HORRENDOUS in every single aspect - it's poorly written, the scientific arguments are total shit, the one central observation (natural selection) is just repeated over and over again with different stupid examples. Modern science and even modern pop science books are FAR better than the shit darwin produced. it's the same with early works of philosophy.
>>25581623Read online here.https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~Eth
>>25582388...so you read a real book of science, didn't understand how the science was being done, and prefer popsci books? Unsurprising and frankly embarrassing.
>>25582388This just made me sad thinking how much better the people were in those days.Imagine an Aristotle or Alexander the Great living in modern times, the world would be saved.
>>25581372Bentham and Mill synthesized ethical hedonism with liberalism
>>25581445Aristotle was a pederest bruh no one cares about your aversion to gay shit.
>>25582440>didn't understand how the science was being doneI'm saying pop sci books about evolution like Life Ascending are FAR more scentifically rigorous than anything Darwin has ever produced the standard for scientific writing in Darwin's time was abysmal the science is not difficult to understand, and insulting anonymous posters on 4chan does not make you look more intelligent
>>25582542There's nothing rigorous in a pop science book, assertions backed by footnotes and endnotes that you're not going to check and that the author likely didn't more than skim isn't rigor, and it's silly to pretend otherwise while complaining about actual rigor in Darwin,>the one central observation (natural selection) is just repeated over and over again with different stupid examples.
>>25582570listen, I have read on the origin of species, and you haven't, so I am not sure what point you are even trying to make Yes, it has immense historical value for its foundational role in science and evolutionary biology That does NOT mean it is a good work of literature. It doesn't even mean it's especially good science. Darwin makes a lot of mistakes in the book, attributing things not directly caused by natural selection to it, going on random tangents about dog breeds and their mentalities, ranting about various other stuff he noticed. For someone trying to learn evolutionary biology today it has very little value. For someone looking to understand 19th century literature or scientific understanding it also honestly has little value. I like Darwin a lot. I'm just saying he should've hired an editor, honed his ideas a little bit more before publishing that heap of shit.
