Does the great philosopher talk about how ahuman gains knowledge in one of his books? Or, more in general, what is the book where he talks mostly about it, coul you tell me?

So if I understand correctly:

1. Virtue ethics central idea is that in order to act ethically, you need to be virtuous

2. To be virtuous, to have a virtuous character, you need to act with the intention of virtue. Not the result of your action matters but the intention you had that led you to this action.

3. A virtue is a trait of character that enables you to live a good life.

But living a good life does not necessarily correlate with ethics. It appears like virtue ethics is not about ethics (what is good and evil) and more about the purpose of life (what is the correct way to live).

For example:

Is honesty a virtue?

Purely from feeling, I would say (and most people would agree) that honesty is morally good. In most cases, being honest is the right thing to do.

But being honest does not necessarily lead to a good life, because being honest is not necessarily to your benefit. Some people can and will take advantage of your honesty to your detriment. And in many scenarios in which lying will give you an advantage.

So by 3), does honesty enable you to live a good life?

Also, what exactly is a good life? Isn't this a circular definition, where virtue is something that leads to a good life. To be (morally) good in life is to be ethical. To be ethical is to be virtuous.

I am currently going through Aristotle's "On Interpretation" in a group setting. As we enter the second half of the work (past ch. 7) the discussions have been becoming increasingly tense.

In particular, I support the position that (i) affirmation and negation are simple propositions, (ii) the simplest forms of an affirmation can either be constructed as (noun)&(verb) e.g. man is, or (indefinite noun)&(verb) non-man is, (iii) the simplest forms of a negation can either be constructed as (noun)&(indefinite verb) man is not, (indefinite noun)&(indefinite verb) non-man is not.

The other position says that in ch. 10 Aristotle says "Without a verb there will be no affirmation or negation" and that in Ch. 3 he says "an indefinite verb is not a verb". As such, a simple affirmation is (noun)&(verb) man is and a simple negation is (indefinite noun)&(verb) not-man is. Furthermore, they propose that propositions with indefinite nouns are compound propositions and not simple ones.

If I am on the wrong I would appreciate it if you could give me a few pointers. If I am on the right as well.

Maybe 20 years ago, I read a book about Aristotle's ethics. It included a section that broke down the golden means into three yes/no questions and provided eight levels of response for each ethical category - one for each pairing of yes/no answers. Do any of y'all recognize such a scheme? Maybe you know the book or can refer to the idea? Thank you in advance.

Hi; I’m trying to establish an ontology of the book qua book (as a concept rather than a particular book) through the four causes. In regard to this I have a more general and a more specific question.

1. What would, in your, opinion constitite each of the four causes for the book qua book (NB: book is a very complex item - both a commodity and a thing that is read but has potential beyond its reading…)?

2. Would the words be a formal or a material cause? What, then, is the material cause?

I know this sounds odd. But I am trying to think this trough. I might need to work on how to formulate this question.

I know I need to be more specific about what the object is that is transforming. I was thinking of the example of Aristotles elements, a transformation from fire to air for example. But why I am thinking about this is, I was trying to think of the self, or the object in our psyche that houses our experience. I was trying to imagine if the object moves or transforms. I think it moves, or either everything else moves compared to that object.

I was wondering if anyone can think of a passage (in NE or EE) where Aristotle expresses an opinion on the moral status of crime/wrongdoing that happens unkowingly/due to ignorance?

So far I've only been able to find passages about whether such acts are acts of injustice,

(e.g. "Whether an act is or is not an act of injustice (or of justice) is determined by its voluntariness or involuntariness [...]. By the voluntary I mean [...] any of the things in a man's own power which he does with knowledge, i.e. not in ignorance either of the person acted on or of the instrument used or of the end that will be attained [...]." NE 1135a19-26)

but of course an act not being one of injustice doesn't have to mean it is morally right or that the guilt that comes with it has to be relieved.

Would be very grateful for any and all input on this!

I'm looking for the source of his quote "Men come together in cities in order to live: they remain together in order to live the good life"

I can't find it in any Aristotle's Politics (Different editions)

I am writing a paper on Aristotle for my Business Ethics class and I am stuck on a few questions.

1. What are two fundamental assumptions of Aristotles approach to ethics that are typical of most Ancient Greek philosophers?

2. On the basis of Aristotles discussion of virtue, what appears to be the Greek conception of the good man? Does it differ from the Christian conception of the good man? If so, how does it differ?

3. In what ways do you consider Aristotle’s moral philosophy applicable or inapplicable to present day problems and needs?

Thank you in advance!

Reading the Categories right now. How have you personally implemented his tools for critical thinking laid out in his book? What are you successes/critiques?

​

​

I've been wanting to get a copy of Aristotle's Complete Works, for which it seems like the New Oxford Translation is the only option, but I also heard someone mention that Hackett will be putting out a version later this year. I know they've been working on translating most of his works but I can't find any other info about a new complete works. Does anyone know enough to corroborate/correct me?

Im not really that familiar with Aristotle’s philosophy (yet) so could anyone that is familiar with his work say something on this?

This language arose from the question: what if geometry represented time, not space?

https://philarchive.org/rec/VETMAT

This book historically analyzes the art of memory, surveying multiple cultures, examining Chinese, Indian and Greek meditation, I then construct a new universal language using Aristotelian, and Daoist philosophy. The language utilizes Newtonian physics and a symbolic form of binary. The inspiration for the language was Leibniz's charastica universalis, along with Bruno and Ramon lull wheels. The language attempts to mathematically define archetypes across the stated cultures. If the language hasn't made any worthwhile discoveries within mathematics and physics, I hope it signifies my attempt to understand something just beyond my grasp. Bruno spoke extensively of signs.

I have a copy of McKeon that I'm annotating with my own marginalia. I want to read the logical and physical works, some of which are abridged in McKeon. Is it worth dropping the $$ on Barnes? To be clear, I have some of the missing texts in Loebs but I want to keep them clean and not write in them. I'm also pressed for time and am wondering if I can let McKeon be a guide in what is essential.

tl;dr: what am I missing from the following omissions in McKeon If I want to know Aristotle's logic and physics well?

• Prior An. [various chapters, but I read this elsewhere]
• Topics: Books II-VIII
• On Soph. Ref. C.4-33
• On the Heavens: BII.C1-12
• Hist./Part./Gen. of Animals: Many chapters missing

Am I dumb and it just says his name? But I’ve researching this for a bit and can’t find anything

Hi, first time posting here:

There's a popular (Nietzschean) understanding that one of the great events in human history was the transformation of values-hierarchy by Christianity from one which worships strength, nobility or greatness of character as virtue (in short, inner and external power), to one which worships humility, ascetism and devotion to a higher power or cause as virtue (or goodness). Some classify this as the shift from Faustian to Post-Faustian thought/ethics; a (very!) gradual shift from warrior culture to a monastic culture. In the Hellenistic context I think it's fair to use a term like 'Homeric virtue' for the specific strain of Faustian, i.e. what it meant to be a noble/heroic figure or godly in Homer's epics, and by extension in Greek mythology. So, Achilles and to a smaller extent Odysseus. For all intents and purposes the former wass a vain, egocentric dickhead by our standards, but unrivalled until the whole heel thing in Iliad. Odysseus on the other hand was mainly smart as hell--more wise than strong, I think--which I think might have inspired Socrates/Plato towards rationalist virtue, but that's another post.

But reading through Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, specifically the chapters on friendship, suggests that this was not such a clear-cut transition. Aristotle's concept of greatness embodied in love of friends is far from the militaristic depiction of great heroes by Homer, or the amoral Machiavellianism depicted in the gods of Greek mythology. Similarly, the qualities of the rabbi Jesus of Nazareth included what might reasonably be called Homeric and Hellenistic (Platonist/Aristotelian/Stoic) virtue.

Further, with regards to intellectual method itself, to the extent it works off Neoplatonism i.e. realism, early Christian thought (patristics) seems to almost *inverse* endoxa. However it's unclear that Jesus is suggesting this in parables so as much as appealing to Torah endoxa. (Forgive me, this thought is just a sketch and needs a lot more clarification and study in my mind)

To what extent DOES Jesus, both as historical man and Son of God for Christians, actually represent an end to the might-makes-right, or a beginning to the love-thy-neighbour era? It seems to me that Aristotle's already making major game-changing revisions--likely Plato before him?

​

Reading Politics for the first time. Any recommendations on which translation to get?