katreadsalot's review against another edition
3.0
Enjoyed what I read. Many interesting observations on life and happiness.
henry_michael03's review against another edition
challenging
informative
inspiring
reflective
slow-paced
4.5
selaadin's review against another edition
4.0
I'm not the hugest fan of Aristotle's philosophy, but this was still a very good read both to inform myself on general philosophy, and to get a grasp on how to present philosophical arguments (though, again, it's not the absolute best at presenting it). It definitely should be read by anyone interested in philosophy, but it's not the best philosophical text ever.
leyma_01's review against another edition
4.0
Ha sido la primera lectura de un club de lectura entre amigos. Personalmente, el libro me ha gustado mucho, podemos ver claramente la visión de Aristóteles respecto a temas sociales y políticos.
Por poner alguna objeción, no me ha gustado del todo que realmente pareciera que leía a Platón (sobre todo en el índole político, ya que es prácticamente un copia y pega de éste). Aunque su desarraigo respecto al tema ético, la búsqueda de la felicidad y la justicia, me ha apasionado.
Otro punto que también me ha encantado, ha sido tal vez el tan remarcable "áurea mediocritas", presente en toda la ética de Aristóteles.
Sin lugar a dudas, una gran lectura.
Por poner alguna objeción, no me ha gustado del todo que realmente pareciera que leía a Platón (sobre todo en el índole político, ya que es prácticamente un copia y pega de éste). Aunque su desarraigo respecto al tema ético, la búsqueda de la felicidad y la justicia, me ha apasionado.
Otro punto que también me ha encantado, ha sido tal vez el tan remarcable "áurea mediocritas", presente en toda la ética de Aristóteles.
Sin lugar a dudas, una gran lectura.
caris96's review against another edition
1.0
This review comes after my reading of both the Ethics and the Metaphysics. I can’t see myself reading any more of Aristotle for quite some time, for reasons that will become apparent. My review also comes after having read Plato’s Republic and some of the modern philosophy that heavily draws on Aristotelian thought. And, well, this is one of the most forgettable and mediocre works I’ve ever read.
My philosophical background is a bit unconventional. I was introduced to philosophy through post-structuralism, as it’s relevant in the social sciences. Aside from the odd summary of the history of philosophical ideas, I kind of dove into the deep end (and sank) with the likes of Foucault and Sartre. I also read a lot of Nietzsche, which paired nicely with my prior experience in Christian theology. But after reading through these initial thinkers, focussing solely on what caught my interest, I started to engage more broadly with the subject. This is to say, I am absolutely biased.
Aristotle appears on nearly every list of recommended philosophy books, and I can’t quite put my finger on why; but given that he’s found so many loyal proponents among white men, I would guess it has something to do with ancient Greece’s exaltation of individualism and essentialism in things like passions and morals.
I’ve always been opposed to the idea that a thinker’s influence alone should warrant praise in itself. The fact that a bad idea is influential only demonstrates how many people are susceptible to bad ideas (it’s not surprising Christian theology is often built on Aristotelian thought). In the case of Aristotle, I don’t mean ‘bad’ as a moral judgement—I mean this work is simply… useless? Boring? It’s almost as though it was simply such a default, “common-sensical” system of thought that it’s completely unsurprising that it was so foundational for later philosophy (e.g., forms and essences, causes and effects, etc.).
This isn’t to say that my lack of appreciation is Aristotle’s fault, or that of any ancient system for that matter. In the history of ideas, I would expect someone to engage with any metaphysics at some point; and this was a point in our species’ intellectual journey. It might be tempting to say that we’ve moved on from these ideas but we’re here today because of them. And that would be meaningful, if people didn’t actually still think in Aristotelian metaphysics or politics.
My philosophical background is a bit unconventional. I was introduced to philosophy through post-structuralism, as it’s relevant in the social sciences. Aside from the odd summary of the history of philosophical ideas, I kind of dove into the deep end (and sank) with the likes of Foucault and Sartre. I also read a lot of Nietzsche, which paired nicely with my prior experience in Christian theology. But after reading through these initial thinkers, focussing solely on what caught my interest, I started to engage more broadly with the subject. This is to say, I am absolutely biased.
Aristotle appears on nearly every list of recommended philosophy books, and I can’t quite put my finger on why; but given that he’s found so many loyal proponents among white men, I would guess it has something to do with ancient Greece’s exaltation of individualism and essentialism in things like passions and morals.
I’ve always been opposed to the idea that a thinker’s influence alone should warrant praise in itself. The fact that a bad idea is influential only demonstrates how many people are susceptible to bad ideas (it’s not surprising Christian theology is often built on Aristotelian thought). In the case of Aristotle, I don’t mean ‘bad’ as a moral judgement—I mean this work is simply… useless? Boring? It’s almost as though it was simply such a default, “common-sensical” system of thought that it’s completely unsurprising that it was so foundational for later philosophy (e.g., forms and essences, causes and effects, etc.).
This isn’t to say that my lack of appreciation is Aristotle’s fault, or that of any ancient system for that matter. In the history of ideas, I would expect someone to engage with any metaphysics at some point; and this was a point in our species’ intellectual journey. It might be tempting to say that we’ve moved on from these ideas but we’re here today because of them. And that would be meaningful, if people didn’t actually still think in Aristotelian metaphysics or politics.
yohn_dezmon's review against another edition
4.0
Some random thoughts that come to mind after having read this book:
-Not all pleasures are equal.
-You must do just things to become just, one is not born just.
-Understanding/learning is one of the finer, if not the finest, things about being human.
-The rich person needs friends in order to share their wealth, whereas the poor person needs friends to help them through their circumstances.
-Some amount of fortune/luck is needed to be happy.
-Virtue/virtuous action will lead to eudaemonia.
-As adults, if we doing something shameful, since we have the capacity to choose otherwise (our prefrontal cortexes have developed) it is our fault and our responsibility to avoid such action.
-The masses won't be convinced by fine arguments, hence the need for laws, as the masses do fear repercussions.
-Friends are necessary for relaxation, relaxation is necessary to be able to do more serious/virtuous things.
-A good ruler must have things in common, and must be friendly, with those they rule.
-'Incontinent' people know what is right, but abandon reason and submit to their appetite.
-A brave person sticks to what he knows is right even in the face of adversity.
-Not all pleasures are equal.
-You must do just things to become just, one is not born just.
-Understanding/learning is one of the finer, if not the finest, things about being human.
-The rich person needs friends in order to share their wealth, whereas the poor person needs friends to help them through their circumstances.
-Some amount of fortune/luck is needed to be happy.
-Virtue/virtuous action will lead to eudaemonia.
-As adults, if we doing something shameful, since we have the capacity to choose otherwise (our prefrontal cortexes have developed) it is our fault and our responsibility to avoid such action.
-The masses won't be convinced by fine arguments, hence the need for laws, as the masses do fear repercussions.
-Friends are necessary for relaxation, relaxation is necessary to be able to do more serious/virtuous things.
-A good ruler must have things in common, and must be friendly, with those they rule.
-'Incontinent' people know what is right, but abandon reason and submit to their appetite.
-A brave person sticks to what he knows is right even in the face of adversity.