
Nicomachean Ethics - godelmachine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
======
austincheney
It’s been a very long time since i read this. The two things that really stuck
with me (personal opinion):

1\. _Utility_

There are three levels of utility. Things whose use is only in service of
something else are least valued. Things whose use is direct and not in service
of something else are of highest value. Things whose use is of both something
else and it’s own direct utility are of medium value.

As an example a code library is less valuable to the end user than the
application it supports.

John Stuart Mill’s father founded the philosophy of Utilitarianism based upon
Nicomachean Ethics.

2\. _Directness of Intent_

Be clear about what you want and why you want it then pursue that objective
without distraction. If your primary intent is pleasure then pursue the
pleasure first without shame or manipulation. There are books in the set
written to subjectively describe such pursuits in terms of base virtues, such
as happiness.

This is perhaps more about honesty to the self than honesty to others. I
suppose if you cannot keep from lying to yourself you will be challenged to
communicate honestly at all. It also considers motivation as an economic
quantity that can be measured, predicted, and compared when considering the
balance of multiple agents acting in concert.

~~~
crazygringo
I've studied philosophy a great deal, and I'm terribly confused about your
takeaways, because neither have anything to do with Aristotle as far as I
know.

Aristotle was the founder of what is now termed "virtue ethics", which
expressly has nothing to do with utility. In fact, utilitarianism and
Bentham/Mill are seen as expressly _opposite_ Aristotle's virtue ethics, not
building on it. (Kant's deontology being the third main philosophical
alternative.)

Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less
Aristotelian. If you could boil down virtue ethics to a single line, it would
be that virtue is about finding the happy medium between excesses.

I think you're confusing something else with Nicomachean Ethics. I'm kind of
curious what it is now, though.

~~~
austincheney
As far as utility you can find numerous similar interpretations online
searching Google for: _ethics "exists for its own sake"_.

For a more detailed interpretation see Stanford philosophy text on
Aristotelian Ethics: [https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-
ethics/#HumaGoo...](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-
ethics/#HumaGoodFuncArgu)

Everything I just searched for referred directly back to Nicomachean Ethics,
but it appears this idea exists directly at the top of Aristotle's Metaphysics
Book 1.

> Similarly, pursuing an objective without distraction could not be less
> Aristotelian.

Perhaps. It has been a long time since I have looked at any of this. If I
remember correctly it is more about the clarity of intention/purpose than the
substance of the subject for that substance will reveal itself through the
pursuit.

Aristotle wrote a lot about happiness and even had a word for it:
_eudaimonia_. It did not seem to be a goal but rather the journey and ethics
were the guidance that provided both direction and the narrow path.

------
hkt
This book is the foundation of my worldview. The message I took away from it
is that there is a skill of being good at being a person, and that goodness in
terms of what we now consider to be ethics will follow from that.

Worthy of note in particular is eudaimonia as a concept, especially the debate
between whether it is happiness or goodness. I read it (somewhat loosely) as
being the process by which a person's behaviours engender virtuous cycles in
their communities and themselves.

It's been a long time since I read it but I'd recommend it to anyone. Maybe
I'll revisit it before lockdown is out.

~~~
mbrock
Have you also read Alasdair MacIntyre's "After Virtue" from 1981? As I
understand it basically revived Aristotelian virtue ethics as a viable
philosophical theory, indeed by thoroughly criticizing modern (post-
Enlightenment) justifications of morality. It's probably my favorite book of
modern philosophy.

~~~
hkt
I have not, but that sounds awesome. Recommending in turn "natural goodness"
by Philippa Foot, also a revival of virtue ethics.

~~~
VSerge
Thanks for the recommendations. I would in return suggest Braintrust by
Patricia Churchland. It looks at how morality and ethics arise from the needs
of social animals such as ourselves to exist within a group that won't tear
itself apart, and at the neurochemistry of it. The material is very
accessible, and if the writing can be a bit stuffy at times, the points are
solid and well worth the read.

------
antman
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/aristotle-
ethics](https://historyofphilosophy.net/aristotle-ethics)

~~~
PebblesRox
And for fun, I recommend Existential Comics:
[https://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Aristotle](https://existentialcomics.com/philosopher/Aristotle)

~~~
dredmorbius
More than just fun. EC's "freedom monster" is at least one original
contribution. And topical to utilitarianism. and ethics.

[http://existentialcomics.com/comic/259](http://existentialcomics.com/comic/259)

------
skat20phys
It's been awhile since I've read this. Rereading about it now, it seems like a
conceptual mess.

I also have this sense, hard to put into words, that it is written from a
perspective of socioeconomic privilege and implicitly assumes a certain
freedom, or has as its focus certain concerns that reflect that. It comes
across to me now as narrow-minded and lacking in understanding of the broader
human condition and diversity of challenges affecting persons. Put another
way, it seems to be written as if advising royalty or the wealthy is the
implied goal, ignoring the broader experiences of mankind, which seems to me
in turn ironically a moral failure.

Maybe related to this, it seems to presume a certain set of things that I see
as actually being fundamental societal and philosophical questions, such as
free will and personal agency and all that encompasses. Failure to attain
well-being in a broad sense is a failure of the individual to practice free
will, under The Ethics, and not of society to foster or intervene in a way so
as to facilitate individual improvements in well-being. The sort of paradigm
being asserted in The Ethics provides no way out to address the question of
"how do I improve the lot of my fellow persons?" or to develop virtues in
others. If someone rejects the notion of free will, either in itself or as a
meta-phenomenon (that is, as something that can be manipulated itself), The
Ethics seems misguided at best and pernicious at worst.

Virtue ethics also seem naive to me often, in that there's often little self-
awareness of its limitations. For example, what if two virtues conflict? How
do you resolve this? How do you interpret a behavior vis-a-vis its outcome in
the presence of fundamental uncertainty?

~~~
dr_dshiv
It would be helpful if, in your critique, you could share what precisely you
are critiquing. Otherwise it seems very dismissive.

~~~
skat20phys
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%...](http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abook%3D3%3Achapter%3D5%3Asection%3D1)):

"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 the activities in which the virtues are
exercised deal with means.

Therefore virtue also depends on ourselves. And so also does vice. For where
we are free to act we are also free to refrain from acting, and where we are
able to say No we are also able to say Yes; if therefore we are responsible
for doing a thing when to do it is right, we are also responsible for not
doing it when not to do it is wrong, and if we are responsible for rightly not
doing a thing, we are also responsible for wrongly doing it.

But if it is in our power to do and to refrain from doing right and wrong, and
if, as we saw,1 being good or bad is doing right or wrong, it consequently
depends on us whether we are virtuous or vicious."

These types of passages assume or assert (1) free will, (2) the notion of
responsibility for behavior as a consequence of this, and (3) a schema that is
framed in terms of broad evaluative personal characteristics rather than
specific decisions. If you believe that the notion of free will is specious,
even partially in significant cases of vice, the entire Ethics starts to
become questionable. To be even more specific: what if you believe that
society (if not now due to scientific-technical limitations, then some day)
has a moral obligation to address criminal wrongdoing by means of
neurobehavioral intervention, to treat criminal predisposition as a disease?
Is relying on an Aristotlian view of ethics as personal responsibility then
unethical because it elevates an erroneous assumption of free will above the
societal consequences of reducing suffering from criminal behavior?

This is taken out of context to some extent, as Aristotle also discusses free
will, voluntary vs. nonvoluntary actions etc. But I'd argue that those
discussions are kind of beside the point, and amount to logical loopholes of
sorts in that they amount to something like "I'm not talking about cases where
there isn't free will." But what if that is the main issue at some level?

The discussion of virtue ethics in general, to be contrasted with
deontological or consequentialist ethical reasoning, for example, is a whole
other topic, about which books have been written.

~~~
barrkel
_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.)

~~~
ewzimm
I appreciate what you're saying, but I think you might be mixing modalities.
Considering that free will may be a pleasant deception doesn't necessarily
lead to blaming externalities instead of changing a bad situation.

The concept of blame as it is usually expressed depends on the belief in free
will. The person whose free choices led to an outcome bears the greatest
responsibility. Assigning blame to others is therefore accomplished by proving
that the self didn't possess this freedom. When no choice exists,
responsibility reverts to environmental circumstances.

The condition you're describing can only be coherent if a person believes they
lack personal agency but that the framework of free will and the primary
responsibility of those who have a choice remains in place. This is a real
condition that many people suffer from, and many will disguise it as giving in
to inevitable causes and effects, but the problem is not that they lack faith
in free will, but that they have assigned freedom elsewhere.

If a person accepts the idea that free will is unattainable, the conventional
concept of blame becomes incomprehensible. Every dependent choice is related
to every other choice. There is no hierarchy of blame that defaults to the
environment. A person can either accept no responsibility or all
responsibility. Accepting all responsibility will appear impossible to a
person holding on to the idea of free will, but to someone who fully abandons
it and considers that they are part of a larger whole, personal responsibility
for every outcome becomes a natural consequence.

~~~
barrkel
_personal responsibility for every outcome becomes a natural consequence_

I don't see how this works. The biggest reason is that if everyone is
personally responsible then noone is responsible; this is pretty well
established in psychology, with diffusion of responsibility.

~~~
ewzimm
People follow that trend differently. Strong believers in free will tend to be
especially against collective responsibility or guilt. I also don't believe
there's any evidence that ethical systems or religions that traditionally deny
free will produce less responsible societies.

------
alangibson
I read HN because it's the only place on the Internet where a link to a
Wikipedia page on Nicomachean Ethics could hit the #1 position.

~~~
koheripbal
Is HN the only place that happens? Has anyone found another site that has a
lots of well organized quality intellectually stimulating content?

~~~
3pt14159
There is slatestarcodex.com and a handful of twitter accounts. Also, there are
some think tank slacks that are out there, but most of the good stuff is
private. Occasionally the ArmsControlWonk slack will be hours ahead of the
news and with a lot more certainty over something.

~~~
koheripbal
These are specialized sites - I'm wondering if there's an aggregate site like
HN for well educated commenters.

We need a healthy ecosystem of sites like HN.

------
menexenus
Aristotle's _Ethics_ is indeed a foundational text. To simplify things
greatly, there is basically only one alternative to it: Nietzsche. As Alasdair
MacIntyre explains (the erstwhile Marxist, now Catholic, who helped revive
virtue ethics with his book _After Virtue_ ), "the underlying structure of
[Nietzsche's] argument is as follows: if there is nothing to morality but
expressions of will, my morality can only be what my will creates. There can
be no place for such fictions as natural rights, utility, the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. I myself must now bring into existence 'new
tables of what is good'" (AV 114).

Nietzsche is commonly misread as a nihilist, but nothing could be further from
the truth. In fact, Nietzsche recognizes clearly that is precisely the
_installation_ of fictional moralities that is the source of nihilism, not the
denial of those fictions. (This is also something that Heidegger sees clearly,
e.g, in "The Letter on Humanism.")

At the end of the day, then, the question is this: Do you believe in some kind
of "objective" morality that governs human life, gives meaning to our
existence, and so forth? If so, then Aristotle's _Ethics_ is by far the most
cogent articulation of that view. However, if you believe that morality is
just conventional, historically contingent, and a product of our "wills," then
Nietzsche helps us see that clearest. To admit the latter view is not to
succumb to nihilism; it is rather to free us to truly pursue the activities of
greatness.

Ultimately, MacIntyre (inter alia) thinks that we have to choose. For an
example of someone who, by contrast, tries to reconcile Aristotle and
Nieztsche, see Hannah Arendt.

~~~
wahern
From an evolutionary perspective there _are_ some objective morals, the most
obvious being incest (simple genetics) and cold-blooded murder (mix of
genetics and whatever dynamics give rise to human altruism, which is at the
root of our specie's survival fitness).

Unfortunately, the universe defies simple, categorical distinctions. Kant's
categorical imperative superficially comes closest to capturing the above
examples, but not really, because Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche, all seem to
side-step the question of free will, at least as it relates to the meaning of
morality. Free will itself of course also defies simple distinctions. The
problem in all these explorations of morality is that the number of implied
assumptions is enormous, and it's the character of those assumptions which
matters far more than the effectively trite observations about human behavior
these philosophers often make.

~~~
philipov
Although viable offspring and stable communities are pretty natural choices
for moral goods, a preference for the long term over the short term that
predicates them is still a subjective decision.

~~~
wahern
It depends on your definition of objective, which is part of the point. What
it means to be "human" will color everybody's preferences. How many outliers
does it take for a preference to become subjective rather than objective? The
nature of the question, more than the question itself, will determine whether
something is "subjective" or "objective".

Are there objective moralities? Yes, if you qualify what objective means--
e.g., approximately universally _manifest_ preferences among humans. The
particular morals, or at least the simplest aspects[1], will then tend to fall
naturally from that.

But if our benchmark of objectivity is something completely abstract, then
objectivity is unlikely to exist. Pure math allows us to create infinite
universes with consistent rules, yet only one of those universes can exist in
any physical sense. As long as you can pick from those non-existent realities
(which is pretty much what philosophers do), then you can always rebut any
claim of universality, objectivity, etc; or even, conversely, assert
objectivity of a finely detailed morality by simply predicating a claim on
your universe of choice (see, e.g., Social Darwinism).

[1] We don't have a good track record of fully comprehending biological
determinants, especially as applied to human behavior. The interplay of
culture and biology is extremely complex, and we suck at even identifying
which is which, let alone inferring anything complex from the distinction.

------
pfortuny
This is one of the books that, until yo do read it, you think (because that is
the “folklore wisdom”) will be a huge bore.

Then it blows your mind, and you start to understand freedom.

~~~
sweetdreamerit
Aristotle is difficult to read, for a number of reasons. The main one in my
opinion is that it is so dense of inestimable content that I am overwhelmed at
every paragraph.

~~~
andrew_
My suggestion, based on what worked for me, is to use a highlighter. Highlight
things that are both interesting and confusing. At the end of a chapter,
review. I found the passages I highlighted because they were confusing ended
up being truly interesting.

------
aestetix
As an aside, I strongly recommend reading Thucydides. Once you know the story
of the Peloponnesian War, everything that Socrates and Aristotle talked about
will have a much deeper meaning.

~~~
pyuser583
Yes!

Socrates and Aristotle both sound very anti-democratic.

Thucydides explains why.

~~~
SkyBelow
To what extent is democracy just re-branding of the concept of letting the
popularity contest winner run things? Though at face value the unpopularity of
winners (and near winners) makes this seem counter intuitive, but that may be
explained by the extent that our sense of popularity can be and is being
manipulated.

As such, democracy would seem a very unpalatable outcome. Better than the
alternatives they had, but lacking enough that they would have distaste for it
and seek something better.

Similar the Churchill quote (which itself is rephrasing an earlier quote.

>Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except
for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

~~~
philipov
> _To what extent is democracy just re-branding of the concept of letting the
> popularity contest winner run things?_

Not all democracies are created equal, and the Churchill quote is a grand feat
of equivocation that paints many different systems as if they were a single
immutable institution.

Athenian democracy was a direct democracy where any citizen could get up and
talk. Where officers were needed it mostly used a lottery system [0] instead
of elections precisely because they were afraid that elections just become a
popularity contest that favors the incumbent oligarchic interests.

Generals were an exception because they had to be skilled at war. Handling
money was also a skilled profession, and favored the rich so that the money
could be recovered from their estate in the case of embezzlement. Politics, on
the other hand, was not seen as a skilled profession, and what was important
was loyalty to democratic ideals.

Looking at the quality of politicians we have and the power of entrenched
oligarchic interests in our society, it really makes me appreciate the wisdom
of the ancients.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Officeholde...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy#Officeholders)

------
lisardo
I read this book during law school. The conclusions are nice, but the book
writing is obtuse.

~~~
soufron
Or maybe you were too young ;)

And maybe such complex problems don't come with very clear solutions.

Re-read it :D

~~~
guerrilla
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.

~~~
philipov
Many writers are terrible by accident, but Kant elevated it to an artform.

~~~
toxicFork
Now I want to really read his writings

~~~
popara
Take first Critique, and read it as if a software engineer wrote his ideas now
some software might be architected in order order to work as it is working
right now: that is the point of Transcendental Argument.

------
ketzo
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.

~~~
gliese1337
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
participants have merely not been lucky enough to have their names recorded by
history.

~~~
achillesheels
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle unoriginal? Enlightenment Europe is similarly
the work done by a handful of geniuses participating in an intellectual
culture. We can patently see their originality - what makes you so sure the
Greeks did not have the same?

~~~
gliese1337
Nothing. I am not saying they _weren 't_ geniuses. I am merely pointing out
that there is insufficient evidence for a _definite_ conclusion either way.

Cf. Shakespeare. Yes, he was a genius, but not nearly so much of a genius as
many people often claim, because a lot of people confuse "Shakespeare is our
earliest surviving recorded source for a lot of features of the English
language" for "Shakespeare single-handedly invented half of the English
language", which is absurd.

And the great minds of the European Enlightenment may also have been genuinely
great... but they are also nearly all rich men with patrons and leisure time,
and the means to preserve their thoughts in writing. Our view on their history
is much clearer than our view of the ancient Greeks, but there's still no
telling exactly how much influence there was from their surrounding unrecorded
culture, or how many important ideas would've been independently proposed by
others if others had the same access to publication and historical
preservation.

~~~
achillesheels
There is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers
which have moved and influence world history. So I'm befuddled how you don't
see sufficient evidence, nor what constitutes such sufficiency for genius?

I highly recommend you read Arthur Schopenhauer's essay _On Philosophy at the
Universities_ :
[https://archive.org/stream/23341891SchopenhauerParergaAndPar...](https://archive.org/stream/23341891SchopenhauerParergaAndParalipomenaV2/23341915-Schopenhauer-
Parerga-and-Paralipomena-V-1)

It is a persuasive essay that, no matter the resources, genuine philosophers
or geniuses pursue the truth for its very sake. I concur that historically
this has been the art of the aristocracy, but so what? Hypothetical or
"unrewarded genius" doesn't amount to much in world history. Results do. And
such fruit is actually the result of a _cohesive_ organization of a society,
ie genius is the goal of civilization proper. Plato and Descartes both had to
have their trash picked up by somebody in order for them to impact us today.

~~~
gliese1337
> There is a very clear heritage of the ideas of those Ancient Greek thinkers
> which have moved and influence world history.

Yes, there is. But that is a very different thing from having very clear
evidence that those ideas originated uniquely in a specific small set of
brains whose owner's names are recorded. "This person's writings have a clear
influence on history" is a very different claim from "This person was the very
first person to ever think the thoughts that he wrote down."

~~~
achillesheels
Original minds do not find satisfaction in being derivative. Searching for
truth leads to originality for this very reason. So it is safe to say that
Socrates was a novelty in the human race because of his philosophical turn
towards examining moral knowledge, which there was no previous recording of. I
guess I don’t see the point in questioning it, chiefly because such genius is
normally a culmination of rare and successful inter-generational cultural
growth, so it really is “one-of-a-kind.”

------
jpxw
Understanding the concept of “eudaimonia”, discussed in this work, is
something that has genuinely improved my life.

~~~
DanTheManPR
Eudaimonia dramatically improved my late game economy in Alpha Centauri.

------
dr_dshiv
I still like the clarity of Plato, where harmony is the basis of health,
happiness, wellbeing, virtue, justice and the good. He describes harmony in
the individual, in society and in the cosmos. For instance, when there is
harmony in the parts of the soul (reason, appetite and passion) a person is
virtuous and happy.

Obviously much more can be said -- especially considering that harmony is
found in the tension of opposing forces -- but that's a remarkably enduring
approach

~~~
DanielLihaciu
Friedrich N, the philosopher heavily criticized Plato, also Plato's Republic
was brain-food for Stalin, Hitler etc. it is a great work nonetheless

~~~
dr_dshiv
What was Nietzsche's critiques? Or where can I find them?

------
danielam
N.b. CUP has made an upcoming Elements book, “Aquinas’ Ethics”, available for
free[0] until mid-May. (Aquinas draws a great deal from the Nicomachean
Ethics.)

[0] [https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/aquinass-
ethics/6E12...](https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/aquinass-
ethics/6E12E058585683A44571D91568CEDBC1)

------
barce
How did this end up on the front page? Hacker News has always struck me as
anti-philosophical and anti-literature.

This was one of the book that I read on my own after reading Bloom's "Closing
of the American Mind."

My reading of the book was tinged with melancholy, for if virtue is a skill
necessary for happiness, and if only a few can master a skill, then only a few
can be happy.

I was 17 at the time and thought, "What an awful world that would give
happiness to so few!"

~~~
Yajirobe
Men from first world countries like to philosophize about ancient Greeks and
stoics. That is because some of this philosophy helps them deal with their
white-collar jobs and helps establish some meaning in their lives, that's my
guess.

------
crazygringo
To help put this into context for others here.

It's interesting to note that Aristotle's "virtue ethics" \-- based primarily
on this work -- have come "back into fashion" over the past few decades, after
being largely ignored by philosophers for centuries as having any contemporary
relevance. (I.e. you studied it for the historical value mainly, but it had
zero connection otherwise to contemporary analytic philosophy.)

The two main strands of philosophical thought over the past few centuries have
been deontology (best exemplified by Kant) which is that you follow specific
moral rules ("don't kill", "don't lie", "keep a promise") no matter what, and
utilitarianism (Bentham/Mill) which is "the greatest good for the greatest
number" (divert the trolley to kill one person instead of five).

They both obviously have truth to them but are also deeply incompatible with
each other. Aristotle's "virtue ethics" says instead that what is most
important is one's _character_ , and that a virtuous character comes from a
_balance_ of temperaments. For example, you shouldn't get angry all the time,
but you also shouldn't be cowardly all the time. Good character means knowing
the right times to take bold angry action, but also knowing the right times to
stay back out of fear -- and that honing good judgment is the key to knowing
when. Sometimes it means breaking a promise, sometimes it means sacrificing a
greater good for another principle, and there isn't always an obviously right
answer.

Thus the idea of "good judgment that can't be reduced to strict rules" is now
seen as an equally viable alternative to deontology and utilitarianism.
Perhaps because it seems particularly relevant in an age of relativism.

Also perhaps particularly telling, in the TV show _The Good Place_ which
recently ended, and where every episode is about a different philosophical
dilemma, when the creater Mike Schur was asked about which philosophical
system was closest to his own beliefs, he replied that it would have to be
Aristotle's virtue ethics.

I personally found reading _Nicomachean Ethics_ a fascinating experience,
because it was written pre-Christianity, so the complete and utter lack of
notions of "good and evil" is revelatory. We're so used to thinking in such
terms in much of the world, it's refreshing to see a totally different
worldview.

In case anyone is curious for a modern treatment of Aristotelian thought,
Martha Nussbaum's book _Upheaveals of Thought_ played a big part in
"rehabilitating" Aristotle in contemporary philosophy. It has parallels to the
vein of "emotional intelligence" that became popular a few years earlier.

~~~
lordleft
For additional context, other Socratic schools like Stoicism are also virtue-
ethical schools. For folks who are looking for a very specific rule to a life
situation, virtue ethics can feel too ambiguous, but for someone like myself,
who believes that life is extremely contextual and there can be a lot of
legitimate variation in responding to something, Virtue Ethics is wonderfully
nuanced and flexible.

I for one really appreciate the renewed attention to ethics in recent decades
from philosophers. It's a reorientation to one of the oldest purposes of
philosophy -- to teach us how to live well.

~~~
DanielLihaciu
>like Stoicism are also virtue-ethical schools.

Look up Christian virtue ethics, virtuous pagans

------
sealthedeal
My favorite course in college. An entire semester dedicated to Nicomachaen
Ethics. Helped me think so much about what "happiness" truly is, and what type
of a "virtuous" life one should lead to achieve maximum happiness.

~~~
JangoSteve
Well don't leave us hanging. What's the answer?

~~~
aesyondu
Eat when hungry, sleep when tired

------
DanielLihaciu
For those new to philosophy I recommend starting with Plato, Then reading his
Republic especially chapter XI , then read some Descartes, Hume, Kant and then
read Aristotle who is simply know as The Philosopher

~~~
javert
I would recommend that people start with something they are interested in.

------
Luc
Any recommendations on which edition or translation to get? Thanks in advance!

~~~
dcre
This newer one from University of Chicago Press is really nice.

[https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Nicomachean-Ethics-
Aristot...](https://www.amazon.com/Aristotles-Nicomachean-Ethics-
Aristotle/dp/0226026752/ref=tmm_pap_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1587761415&sr=8-4)

------
Aaronstotle
Always glad to see philosophy on HN, I have fond memories learning about NE
during my ethics class at Cal. We spent the most amount of time on this, and
then slowly went on towards other ethic systems.

------
zw123456
A nice canonical compendium of philosophical theories
[https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#a](https://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html#a)

------
Jun8
Years ago a good friend had this quote hung up on the wall by her desk: "ἔστι
... ὁ φίλος ἄλλος αὐτός" (A friend is another self), which I loved: you
experience the world through loved ones too, and expand your consciousness (on
a related note see Hofstadter's _Strange Loop_ on his thoughts about having a
version of his deceased wife's consciousness "running" in his brain).

Later I learned that it came from the _Nicomachean Ethics_
([https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-
nicomachean_ethi...](https://www.loebclassics.com/view/aristotle-
nicomachean_ethics/1926/pb_LCL073.535.xml)) and is much deeper that I thought.

Bonus quote from Antisthenes: "τῷ σοφῷ ξένον οὐδὲν" (The wise person is
foreign to nothing). One interesting thing about this one is that Ancient
Greek had two words fro _nothing_ : _ouden_ and _meden_.

------
andrew_
I bought the paperback of this book a few years ago, and I make a point to
read it at least once a year. Every time I do, I find something new.

Continually amazed that humans were so insightful so long ago.

------
yboris
For those interested in a grand overview of history of philosophy (the ideas
themselves and the people behind them), this is a worth-reading classic:

 _A History of Western Philosophy_ by Bertrand Russell

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosoph...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy)

~~~
pmoriarty
Just bear in mind that Russell was very biased in favor of Analytic
philosophy, so you're not going to get much from him on the Continentals.

Like many other Analytics, he seriously misreads Nietzsche, and he doesn't
even mention Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, or Foucault.

I like Russell, though. He's clear and eloquent, writing well on the subjects
he does appreciate and understand.

~~~
karatestomp
Russell is up front about his biases and limitations in that book, at least.
IIRC he divides most chapters into his best effort to describe a philosopher
or movement's positions or ideas, then an analysis of how those have held up
since (this is _incredibly_ helpful and absent in a lot of texts that try to
be dryly objective and not even report any more-or-less consensus passing-of-
judgement by philosophy as a field) and, to varying extents, his own takes on
them.

The funniest one I recall is Bergson, near the end of the book, which he
prefaces with (loosely paraphrasing) "Look, this whole thing seems like total
bullshit to me, and I've never read any description of it that _doesn 't_ seem
like total bullshit, so when I try to describe it and it seems like bullshit
that's just the best I can do. Sorry."

~~~
pmoriarty
Yeah, that dismissive, condescending view of Bergson is par for the course of
many Analytic's attitudes towards Continentals (though Bergson himself was not
part of the Continental tradition).

Sure, such condescension may be the best that Russell can muster, but I'm not
sure you'd get a charitable reading of Bergson (or any other philosopher
Russell didn't like) from someone so hostile and unappreciative of him.

Russell did take Nietzsche more seriously, but to me it seems Nietzsche just
went over Russell's head. Russell is best at reading other philosophers who,
like himself, are clear, easy to understand, and relatively conventional.

~~~
yboris
Continental philosophers were approaching the topic of philosophy very
differently. Much of it comes off as convoluted nonsense: rather than clarity
of expression it feels like mysticism for which you need a 'guru' to elaborate
and elucidate.

To take existentialism, the basic message is "you have to decide and take
control of your life". Sure, that sounds good, but what is the advice about
how to do it? Existentialism seems to offer no guide.

------
llcoolv
Great submission! I found the examples on the cardinal virtues very useful.

------
JamesG124
Anyone rememer how that New Yorker piece describes HN as a place full of
performative erudition?

~~~
vharuck
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](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1012082)

