cadonelson's review against another edition
5.0
This pretty much being my introduction to Aristotle, other than the few excerpts we read in lab class, I was intrigued. Even though he was a descendant of the Socratic/Platonic school of thought, he is different in many ways. I think Aristotle is more practical in his beliefs while Socrates is more radical and concerned with things that are philosophical, but not immediately practical. I still think I'm more of a Platonist, but I am excited to read more of Aristotle this semester.
livruther's review against another edition
only had to read part of it for school, but it was pretty good
chilotte's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
reflective
slow-paced
3.5
The writing was terrible, but otherwise it was interesting and (surprisingly) optimistic
eb00kie's review against another edition
4.0
In a nutshell: There are a couple of interesting ideas, but it's a pioneer work.
Many thanks to the volunteers of Librivox for compiling this.
For example, the idea that an extreme of anything is bad, that too much bravery is foolishness and too little is cowardice - that's interesting. However, in the attempt to define and categorise, the book meanders into fantasy: the underlying arguments are the sort that are irksome when in audio-book version and rage-inducing in paperback, that is, when I am the engine of my own progress. I'll try to find that argument about the falling rock at some point.
There’s the casual assumption of the relative weakness or lower worth of women, which is not unexpected and provides therefore a bit of the taste of the times, a thousand years later, which is appreciated. His argument about how women (and men who resemble them) vent without looking for a solution being weakness, that was cool. Why? Because it shows that apparently women were doing it back then, too! Psychology now provides a basis for it and how it’s useful, but from a sociology POV, it was a cool moment of connection across millennia.
Finally, there is the point of how government should enforce practices towards ‘beauty’ and bestow pain on the unwilling as if on a ‘beast of burden’. This is a view that has not been digested enough, thrown on the last pages of the last book and closer to the ‘philosopher-kings’ of Plato than to the ‘servants of the people’ of later. It is one of those ideas that can be twisted to justify many a theft of freedom and as such, putting it on paper without proper arguments is plain lazy. As I said, a pioneer work. Governments then didn’t have the reach then that they do today.
Glad it’s over, glad I read it. Onwards.
Many thanks to the volunteers of Librivox for compiling this.
For example, the idea that an extreme of anything is bad, that too much bravery is foolishness and too little is cowardice - that's interesting. However, in the attempt to define and categorise, the book meanders into fantasy: the underlying arguments are the sort that are irksome when in audio-book version and rage-inducing in paperback, that is, when I am the engine of my own progress. I'll try to find that argument about the falling rock at some point.
There’s the casual assumption of the relative weakness or lower worth of women, which is not unexpected and provides therefore a bit of the taste of the times, a thousand years later, which is appreciated. His argument about how women (and men who resemble them) vent without looking for a solution being weakness, that was cool. Why? Because it shows that apparently women were doing it back then, too! Psychology now provides a basis for it and how it’s useful, but from a sociology POV, it was a cool moment of connection across millennia.
Finally, there is the point of how government should enforce practices towards ‘beauty’ and bestow pain on the unwilling as if on a ‘beast of burden’. This is a view that has not been digested enough, thrown on the last pages of the last book and closer to the ‘philosopher-kings’ of Plato than to the ‘servants of the people’ of later. It is one of those ideas that can be twisted to justify many a theft of freedom and as such, putting it on paper without proper arguments is plain lazy. As I said, a pioneer work. Governments then didn’t have the reach then that they do today.
Glad it’s over, glad I read it. Onwards.
bluishgreen12's review against another edition
challenging
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
4.0
brysonseabold's review against another edition
challenging
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
Read for my intro philosophy class enjoyed it a lot
bookwaffle's review against another edition
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