brysonseabold's review
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
Read for my intro philosophy class enjoyed it a lot
bookwaffle's review
3.0
I actually do not understand myself sometimes. I started this book a while ago, and I was pretty slow with it, and just recently I was on page 80, and suddenly I finished the book.
"The Nicomachean Ethics" is not that though of a read like Plato`s books - it is pretty annoying sometimes - but it is a genuine fun book that I enjoyed quite a lot. The book follows what it means to do good, and take good actions, and Aristotle debates for this form of utopia surronding: "If activities are what gives life its character no happy man can become miserable, for he will never do the acts that are hateful or mean. For he who is truly good and wise, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances. And if this is the case the happy man can never become miserable, though he will not reach blessedness"
I don`t agree that much with some points of what he said, but as I continued i found myself to agree with him due to the way he thought. He understands that there are ups and downs in a society, but he believes what i quoted previously. He also goes on to divide the good in three "classes": - external, others as relating to soul or to body: those that relate to soul are the most properly and truly goods, and physical action and activities. So he clealy divides it between a good deed that affects the soul and gives us the "fuzzy feeling inside" and then puts physical action and activities on another branch, which left me puzzled.
Like I said earlier, Aristotle argues for a perfect utopia, like most philosophers, and that is one of the biggest things that do not stick with me quite honestly: "No one would call a man just, who did not enjoy acting justly" - to that I argue that they would.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been delcared to be that at which all things aim" - Aristotle
"The Nicomachean Ethics" is not that though of a read like Plato`s books - it is pretty annoying sometimes - but it is a genuine fun book that I enjoyed quite a lot. The book follows what it means to do good, and take good actions, and Aristotle debates for this form of utopia surronding: "If activities are what gives life its character no happy man can become miserable, for he will never do the acts that are hateful or mean. For he who is truly good and wise, bears all the chances life becomingly and always makes the best of circumstances. And if this is the case the happy man can never become miserable, though he will not reach blessedness"
I don`t agree that much with some points of what he said, but as I continued i found myself to agree with him due to the way he thought. He understands that there are ups and downs in a society, but he believes what i quoted previously. He also goes on to divide the good in three "classes": - external, others as relating to soul or to body: those that relate to soul are the most properly and truly goods, and physical action and activities. So he clealy divides it between a good deed that affects the soul and gives us the "fuzzy feeling inside" and then puts physical action and activities on another branch, which left me puzzled.
Like I said earlier, Aristotle argues for a perfect utopia, like most philosophers, and that is one of the biggest things that do not stick with me quite honestly: "No one would call a man just, who did not enjoy acting justly" - to that I argue that they would.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been delcared to be that at which all things aim" - Aristotle
mattlikesbooks's review against another edition
4.0
Though incredibly basic principles are to be found in this book, they are absolutely necessary in order to understand any later developments in philosophy. Additionally, Aristotle’s style of argument is such that it is easy to understand but can be made much deeper by digging in and asking more questions. Potentially hot take: this dude is better than Plato when it comes to practicality and can’t hold a candle when it comes to metaphysics.
sharpenanother's review against another edition
4.0
There are parts of this that I still need to wrap my head around, but I enjoyed most of the parts I could understand. The main thing that I took away is that happiness is the ultimate human good and that we live a happy life by living according a set of virtues in thoughts and character. The argument I agreed the most with was that virtue lies at the mean of two extremes, like courage is between cowardice and recklessness. And moderation doesn't mean, say, that you never get angry, but that you're angry only when it's called for. The distinction between 'incontinence' and intemperance was interesting. One thing I really didn't understand was how pleasure is an activity, not a state. I'll have to come back to parts of the book later.