What do you think?
Rate this book
丕禺賱丕賯
賵蹖跇诏蹖 賲賴賲 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕蹖賳爻鬲 讴賴 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 蹖讴 爻賱爻賱賴 賲卮丕賴丿丕鬲 賵 丕爻鬲丿賱丕賱丕鬲蹖 丕夭 賵丕賯毓蹖鬲鈥屬囏й� 夭賳丿诏丕賳蹖 丕爻鬲. 亘賴 讴賱蹖 毓丕乇蹖 丕夭 賲亘丕丨孬 丕賵賱蹖 蹖丕 倬賳丿 賵 賲賵毓馗賴貙 亘賱讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 乇丕 讴賴 丿丕乇丕蹖 丿乇丕蹖鬲 賵 氐丕丨亘 賯囟丕賵鬲 賵 賳蹖乇賵蹖 鬲賲蹖夭 丕爻鬲 丿乇 亘乇丕亘乇 賲丨爻賵爻丕鬲 夭賳丿诏丕賳蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿丕丿賴 賵 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 賮乇丿 丕賳爻丕賳貙 胤丕賱亘 禺蹖乇 賵 禺賵卮蹖 賵 丌乇夭賵賲賳丿 丿乇讴 爻毓丕丿鬲 丕爻鬲貙 賱匕丕 乇丕賴 賵氐賵賱 亘賴 賴丿賮 賮囟蹖賱鬲 賵 讴賲丕賱 讴賴 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕夭 爻乇讴賵亘蹖 卮賴賵丕鬲 倬賱蹖丿 鈥� 賯賳丕毓鬲 亘賴 丨丿 丕毓鬲丿丕賱貙 噩賱賵诏蹖乇蹖 丕夭 丨乇氐 賵 鬲噩丕賵夭 丕爻鬲貙 禺賱丕氐賴 倬蹖卮诏蹖乇蹖 丕夭 賴賲賴 賳賵毓 丕賮乇丕胤 賵 鬲賮乇蹖胤 乇丕 倬蹖卮 诏乇賮鬲賴 賵 丨丿 賲蹖丕賳賴贁 賯乇丕乇 诏乇賮鬲賴 亘蹖賳 丿賵 丕賳鬲賴丕 乇丕 倬蹖卮賴贁 禺賵丿 賲蹖鈥屫池ж藏� 鬲丕 亘賴 賲賯丕賲 賵丕賱丕蹖 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賳丕蹖賱 卮賵丿.
讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賲毓乇賵賮 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 (鄢鄹鄞鈥撣驰槽辟�. 賲) 亘丕 賳丕賲 芦丕禺賱丕賯禄 丕爻鬲. 芦讴鬲丕亘 芦丕禺賱丕賯禄: 賲毓乇賵賮 亘賴 芦丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕讴賵爻禄 丕爻鬲 賵 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 賳丕賲 倬爻乇 禺賵丿 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕讴賵爻禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丿賴 亘禺卮 鬲丿賵蹖賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴 賵 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丞 芦爻毓丕丿鬲禄 亘賴 丕鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丌賳 乇丕 賮卮乇丿丞 讴鬲丕亘 賵 讴賱蹖丿 丌賳 丿丕賳爻鬲. 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 倬爻 丕夭 賳賮蹖 賱匕賾鬲貙 孬丕亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 丨賯蹖賯蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賲卮丕睾賱 毓賯賱蹖 賵 賲卮賴賵丿丕鬲 賴賵卮蹖 氐乇賮 卮賵丿 賵 丕爻賲 丌賳 乇丕 丨蹖丕鬲 鬲兀賲賾賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁囏�. 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕夭 毓賲賱 鬲兀賲賾賱 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賲乇丿 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿貙 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 禺賵卮亘禺鬲鈥屫臂屬� 賮乇丿 乇賵蹖 夭賲蹖賳 丕爻鬲.
讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 賲毓乇賵賮 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 (鄢鄹鄞鈥撣驰槽辟�. 賲) 亘丕 賳丕賲 芦丕禺賱丕賯禄 丕爻鬲. 芦讴鬲丕亘 芦丕禺賱丕賯禄: 賲毓乇賵賮 亘賴 芦丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕讴賵爻禄 丕爻鬲 賵 诏賮鬲賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 賳丕賲 倬爻乇 禺賵丿 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕讴賵爻禄 賳丕賲蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲. 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丿賴 亘禺卮 鬲丿賵蹖賳 蹖丕賮鬲賴 賵 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖丞 芦爻毓丕丿鬲禄 亘賴 丕鬲賲丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫必池� 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丌賳 乇丕 賮卮乇丿丞 讴鬲丕亘 賵 讴賱蹖丿 丌賳 丿丕賳爻鬲. 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 倬爻 丕夭 賳賮蹖 賱匕賾鬲貙 孬丕亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 丨賯蹖賯蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丿乇 賲卮丕睾賱 毓賯賱蹖 賵 賲卮賴賵丿丕鬲 賴賵卮蹖 氐乇賮 卮賵丿 賵 丕爻賲 丌賳 乇丕 丨蹖丕鬲 鬲兀賲賾賱蹖 賲蹖鈥屬嗁囏�. 丿乇 賳賴丕蹖鬲 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 賳鬲蹖噩賴 賲蹖鈥屭屫必� 讴賴 爻毓丕丿鬲 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕夭 毓賲賱 鬲兀賲賾賱 丕爻鬲 賵 丕蹖賳讴賴 賲乇丿 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿貙 鬲賳賴丕 賮乇丿蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 禺賵卮亘禺鬲鈥屫臂屬� 賮乇丿 乇賵蹖 夭賲蹖賳 丕爻鬲.
552 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 351
7855 people are currently reading
120552 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
3,405听books5,330听followersAristotle (Greek: 螒蚁喂蟽蟿慰蟿苇位畏蟼; 384鈥�322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c.鈥�347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Ab茅lard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c.鈥�347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Ab茅lard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,083 reviews
April 19, 2025
When I was young I had an id茅e fixe - an obsession.
Oh, it鈥檚 easy to be like that if you were brought up in 1950鈥檚 Mainstream Christianity, or later, if - like Cherilyn鈥檚 Dad in the amazing new Chasing Eden - you were influenced at some point or another, by a fundamentalist splinter group.
Then you might have had the id茅e fixe of a retributive God - a PUNISHING God.
And, though my choice was always mainstream theology, when my life went into a tailspin it was ALL BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA. Because we ALL seemed back then to be tarred with its brush!
Now, I just had to escape all that. So, in 1985, I sought relief in reading and meditation... Certainly, over time that clarified my thought.
Maybe too much, for I was then faced with a bustling plethora of variegated POV鈥檚! So I started to pay more attention to the simple directness of the ancient classics, and it became the confusing plethora鈥檚 originary panacea.
And eventually I reread the great philosophers who made Christianity, ALONG with the Bible, the forces that gave Christianity its intellectual chutzpah - Plato and Aristotle.
Things became clear AND easy.
Now, Aristotle said Good can come in any package. And any human being.
Because, like Plato and Socrates, he was an Essentialist. And EVERY form of Good is Essentially (ie Intrinsically) Good. He saw it ALL... as Good like anything or anybody. Any Human Being.
What does it mean for everyone to be Good in the Modern World? For we鈥檙e NOT essentially good. Modern Science, and subsequently, the constant news feeds - who, of course, seem to promote guys like Richard Dawkins, or hype them (which is the same thing) - have warped it all outta shape. It鈥檚 all, at Best, a 鈥淢ixture of Frailties鈥� (as the great novelist Robertson Davies said).
In Modern Physics, for example, the 鈥榦fficial?鈥� version is that we humans are basically and randomly set adrift in a meaningless world, because, it says, it sees the big picture through the lens of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We鈥檙e without hope. So our sources, like the news media, pooh-pooh Hope.
Isn鈥檛 THAT a much smaller and more incomplete picture? For to a Transcendent First Mover, such conflictual behaviour is background noise.
But ALL OUR sources make it sound like it is EXACTLY as the news wags suggest.
Well, this is where Aristotle comes in.
He sees EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY as Essentially Good, even in spite of his incomplete (given his time, though nevertheless tough-minded like our own) scientific picture.
My grandmother used to say 鈥渂e good and you鈥檒l be happy.鈥� Aristotle would have agreed. Goodness IS the way to Happiness - a larger container for life鈥檚 ordinary social joy. Mere pleasure imposes limits to joy: it implies a beginning and a NECESSARY end. An end which can be sudden.
And, I鈥檓 sure, Aristotle would see it in the same way today. For he would STILL see the big picture, Modern Science transcended.
For he sees it in much the same way as Job saw it when God spoke to Job from the Whirlwind! Where does Job find happiness? Nowhere. But all that miraculously changed...
Now, Job, as we know, had had all Hell and High Water thrown at him.
It BROKE him.
He was FINISHED -
CAPUT.
And in the same way - despite the repeated 鈥榗onsolations鈥� his friends tried to feed him - Job remained unrelentingly Broken. And so he had to be, because he had run out of get-up-and go.
But God - in the whirlwind of Job鈥檚 emotional collapse - SPOKE to him.
And Life was suddenly GOOD again for Job. Because he now saw the BIG PICTURE. A larger container.
All his life, Job had been following carrots of pleasure hanging from a stick - money, family, possessions - and when they were gone, he needed to see his previous life had been too LITTLE. He needed a Bigger Container.
鈥淐鈥檓on now!鈥� you say.
鈥淗ow could you even HEAR someone in a storm - even saying for the sake of argument that God CAN speak in the First Place? Gimme a break....鈥�
Well, what would Aristotle say? What did JOB See and Hear?
Aristotle, if he were here, would say...
鈥淲hen you say Life is Good, you mean it鈥檚 INTRINSICALLY good. It鈥檚 Essence is good, from the point of view of our Intelligence. And, naturally, the Supreme Being also sees Life and all Beings as intrinsically Good. And ALL the time.鈥�
Job doesn鈥檛 see Life as Morally or Aesthetically or Emotively Good. But he now knows, looking at it as God sees it, it鈥檚 INTRINSICALLY good.
So Job does now INDEED see Life is Good. And ALL PEOPLE are likewise. Flawed - often deeply - but Good.
You see, because as kids we read the Old - retributive - Testament AND the New - Loving - Testament, we were subconsciously conflictual.
And we JUDGED automatically.
But if everyone鈥檚 LOVED, there are no bad people.
Only flawed, BROKEN people.
As well as, thank Heaven, those who are becoming WHOLE again!
BECAUSE of the Right Attitude.
Oh, it鈥檚 easy to be like that if you were brought up in 1950鈥檚 Mainstream Christianity, or later, if - like Cherilyn鈥檚 Dad in the amazing new Chasing Eden - you were influenced at some point or another, by a fundamentalist splinter group.
Then you might have had the id茅e fixe of a retributive God - a PUNISHING God.
And, though my choice was always mainstream theology, when my life went into a tailspin it was ALL BECAUSE OF THIS IDEA. Because we ALL seemed back then to be tarred with its brush!
Now, I just had to escape all that. So, in 1985, I sought relief in reading and meditation... Certainly, over time that clarified my thought.
Maybe too much, for I was then faced with a bustling plethora of variegated POV鈥檚! So I started to pay more attention to the simple directness of the ancient classics, and it became the confusing plethora鈥檚 originary panacea.
And eventually I reread the great philosophers who made Christianity, ALONG with the Bible, the forces that gave Christianity its intellectual chutzpah - Plato and Aristotle.
Things became clear AND easy.
Now, Aristotle said Good can come in any package. And any human being.
Because, like Plato and Socrates, he was an Essentialist. And EVERY form of Good is Essentially (ie Intrinsically) Good. He saw it ALL... as Good like anything or anybody. Any Human Being.
What does it mean for everyone to be Good in the Modern World? For we鈥檙e NOT essentially good. Modern Science, and subsequently, the constant news feeds - who, of course, seem to promote guys like Richard Dawkins, or hype them (which is the same thing) - have warped it all outta shape. It鈥檚 all, at Best, a 鈥淢ixture of Frailties鈥� (as the great novelist Robertson Davies said).
In Modern Physics, for example, the 鈥榦fficial?鈥� version is that we humans are basically and randomly set adrift in a meaningless world, because, it says, it sees the big picture through the lens of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We鈥檙e without hope. So our sources, like the news media, pooh-pooh Hope.
Isn鈥檛 THAT a much smaller and more incomplete picture? For to a Transcendent First Mover, such conflictual behaviour is background noise.
But ALL OUR sources make it sound like it is EXACTLY as the news wags suggest.
Well, this is where Aristotle comes in.
He sees EVERYTHING and EVERYBODY as Essentially Good, even in spite of his incomplete (given his time, though nevertheless tough-minded like our own) scientific picture.
My grandmother used to say 鈥渂e good and you鈥檒l be happy.鈥� Aristotle would have agreed. Goodness IS the way to Happiness - a larger container for life鈥檚 ordinary social joy. Mere pleasure imposes limits to joy: it implies a beginning and a NECESSARY end. An end which can be sudden.
And, I鈥檓 sure, Aristotle would see it in the same way today. For he would STILL see the big picture, Modern Science transcended.
For he sees it in much the same way as Job saw it when God spoke to Job from the Whirlwind! Where does Job find happiness? Nowhere. But all that miraculously changed...
Now, Job, as we know, had had all Hell and High Water thrown at him.
It BROKE him.
He was FINISHED -
CAPUT.
And in the same way - despite the repeated 鈥榗onsolations鈥� his friends tried to feed him - Job remained unrelentingly Broken. And so he had to be, because he had run out of get-up-and go.
But God - in the whirlwind of Job鈥檚 emotional collapse - SPOKE to him.
And Life was suddenly GOOD again for Job. Because he now saw the BIG PICTURE. A larger container.
All his life, Job had been following carrots of pleasure hanging from a stick - money, family, possessions - and when they were gone, he needed to see his previous life had been too LITTLE. He needed a Bigger Container.
鈥淐鈥檓on now!鈥� you say.
鈥淗ow could you even HEAR someone in a storm - even saying for the sake of argument that God CAN speak in the First Place? Gimme a break....鈥�
Well, what would Aristotle say? What did JOB See and Hear?
Aristotle, if he were here, would say...
鈥淲hen you say Life is Good, you mean it鈥檚 INTRINSICALLY good. It鈥檚 Essence is good, from the point of view of our Intelligence. And, naturally, the Supreme Being also sees Life and all Beings as intrinsically Good. And ALL the time.鈥�
Job doesn鈥檛 see Life as Morally or Aesthetically or Emotively Good. But he now knows, looking at it as God sees it, it鈥檚 INTRINSICALLY good.
So Job does now INDEED see Life is Good. And ALL PEOPLE are likewise. Flawed - often deeply - but Good.
You see, because as kids we read the Old - retributive - Testament AND the New - Loving - Testament, we were subconsciously conflictual.
And we JUDGED automatically.
But if everyone鈥檚 LOVED, there are no bad people.
Only flawed, BROKEN people.
As well as, thank Heaven, those who are becoming WHOLE again!
BECAUSE of the Right Attitude.
August 12, 2024
Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle postulates the highest human good is eudaimonia or what is loosely translated into English as happiness. And a substantial component in the path to such human happiness is acting with the appropriate virtues over the course of an entire lifetime. The details of these Aristotelean teachings form the Nicomachean Ethics, one of the most influential works in the entire history of Western Civilization.
As a way of sharing but a small example of Aristotle鈥檚 extensive philosophy outlined in these pages, I will focus on Book IV Chapter 8 where the eminent Greek philosopher addresses the virtue of being witty, sensitive to others, discerning and perceptive, particularly when we are at our leisure. Here are six Aristotle quotes and my brief accompanying comments:
鈥淪ince life includes rest as well as activity, and in this is included leisure and amusement, there seems here also to be a kind of intercourse which is tasteful; there is such a thing as saying- and again listening to- what one should and as one should.鈥�
Aristotle鈥檚 focus on time spent outside of work, what we nowadays refer to as 鈥榣eisure time鈥�, makes this section of his ethical teachings particularly relevant for us today, most especially since we are bombarded by a nonstop barrage of advertisements, store signs, billboards, Muzak, etc. etc., some subtle, many not so subtle.
鈥淭he kind of people one is speaking to or listening to will also make a difference.鈥�
Very important who we associate with both at work and outside of work. Aristotle is optimistic that we can actively participate in society and exercise discrimination as we develop wisdom to speak as we should and listen as we should. In contrast, another Greek philosopher, Epicurus, was not so optimistic on this point. Epicurus judged conventional society as blind and dumb, particularly as it pertains to men and women expounding values regarding such things as riches and fame and what constitutes our true human needs. The answer for Epicurus: withdraw into a separate community with like-minded friends and philosophers.
鈥淩egarding people鈥檚 views on humor there is both an excess and a deficiency as compared with the mean. Those who carry humor to excess are thought to be vulgar buffoons, striving after humor at all costs, and aiming rather at raising a laugh than at saying what is becoming and at avoiding pain to the object of their fun while those who can neither make a joke themselves nor put up with those who do are thought to be boorish and unpolished.鈥�
Sounds like Aristotle attended the same junior high school and high school as I did. Again, he is optimistic that someone who aspires to philosophic excellence, virtue and the mean (maintaining a middle position between two extremes) can live among buffoons and boors without being pulled down to their level. The question I would pose to Aristotle: What happens when we live in an entire society dominated by vulgar buffoon and uptight boors, where the buffoons and boors set the standards for what it means to be human? Particularly, what happens to the development of children and young adults?
鈥淏ut those who joke in a tasteful way are called ready-witted, which implies a sort of readiness to turn this way and that; for such sallies are thought to be movements of the character, and as bodies are discriminated by their movements, so too are characters.鈥�
I had an opportunity to see the Dalai Lama speak. You will be hard pressed to find someone with a more lively sense of humor. If you haven鈥檛 seen him speak, you can check out YouTube.
鈥淭he ridiculous side of things is not far to seek, however, and most people delight more than they should in amusement and in jestingly and so even buffoons are called ready-witted because they are found attractive; but that they differ from the ready-witted man, and to no small extent, is clear from what has been said.鈥�
Ha! So Aristotle sees, in fact, how buffoonery can easily lapse into the social norm. Thus our challenge is how to retain our integrity when surrounded by slobs and buffoons.
鈥淭o the middle state belongs also tact; it is the mark of a tactful man to say and listen to such things as befit a good and well-bred man; for there are some things that it befits such a man to say and to hear by way of jest, and the well-bred man's jesting differs from that of a vulgar man, and the joking of an educated man from that of an uneducated.鈥�
Aristotle鈥檚 overarching observation on how the wisdom of the middle way between two extremes applies here 鈥� not good acting at either extreme, being a boor or being a buffoon. Unfortunately, speaking and otherwise communicating in a buffoonish or boorish way is in no way restricted to the uneducated or dull 鈥� I鈥檝e witnessed numerous instances of buffoonery and boorishness among the highly educated and intellectually astute.
The entire Nicomachean Ethics is available online:
December 1, 2021
The Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle
The Nicomachean Ethics is the name normally given to Aristotle's best-known work on ethics.
The work, which plays a pre-eminent role in defining Aristotelian ethics, consists of ten books, originally separate scrolls, and is understood to be based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum.
The title is often assumed to refer to his son Nicomachus, to whom the work was dedicated or who may have edited it (although his young age makes this less likely).
Alternatively, the work may have been dedicated to his father, who was also called Nicomachus.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 賲丕乇爻 爻丕賱2007賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻蹖貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕乇爻胤賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖 (夭丕丿賴 爻丕賱1274賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貙 丿乇 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丿乇诏匕卮鬲賴 爻丕賱1349賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖)貨 賵夭丕乇鬲 毓賱賵賲 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丿乇330氐貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 卮乇蹖毓鬲蹖 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳蹖貙 賲丨賲丿 丕亘乇丕賴蹖賲 丕卮讴 卮蹖乇蹖賳貙 丿乇610氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789640407622貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丕禺賱丕賯貙 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 - 爻丿賴4倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕乇爻胤賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿丨爻賳 賱胤賮蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 胤乇丨 賳賵貙 爻丕賱1378貙 丿乇414氐貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 爻丕賱1385貨 卮丕亘讴9645625696貨
丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賮乇賴蹖禺鬲诏丕賳貙 賵 賳禺亘诏丕賳 毓賱賲蹖 芦丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳禄貨 丿乇 爻丿賴 蹖 诏匕卮鬲賴貙 芦氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖 (夭丕丿賴 爻丕賱1274賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貙 丿乇诏匕卮鬲賴 爻丕賱1349賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖)禄 丕夭 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 亘賱賳丿貙 賵 賲賲鬲丕夭蹖貙 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿貙 亘乇賴丕賳 丌賳 賴賲 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲貙 芦毓賱丕賲賴 爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄 賲丨丿賵丿 亘賴 蹖讴 丨賵夭賴 賳亘賵丿賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 卮丕毓乇蹖 夭亘乇丿爻鬲貙 賵 賲鬲乇噩賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳賲賳丿 亘賵丿賳丿貙 賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖 跇乇賮蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 賵 蹖讴 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇 丨乇賮賴 丕蹖 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖乇賮鬲賳丿貨 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖 芦丕賮讴丕乇 卮丕毓乇禄貙 芦丕禺賱丕賯 丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 芦賳賯丿 亘蹖丿賱禄貙 芦丕賱鬲賴匕蹖亘禄 賵 ...貨 賴賲賴 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 讴賴 亘丕乇賴丕 丿乇 丿丕禺賱 賵 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 芦丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貨 芦爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄 丿乇 讴賱貙 賴賲丕賳賳丿 蹖讴 芦丿丕卅乇丞 丕賱賲毓丕乇賮 (丿丕賳卮賳丕賲賴)禄 亘賵丿賳丿貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 噩丿丕蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賲丕丿乇蹖貙 亘賴 夭亘丕賳賴丕蹖 芦毓乇亘蹖禄貙 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄貙 芦賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖禄貙 芦丌賱賲丕賳蹖禄貙 賵 芦丕乇丿賵禄 賴賲 鬲爻賱胤 丿丕卮鬲賳丿
賮賴乇爻鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴 乇賵丕賳卮丕丿 芦氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄: 芦蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲 賳丕卮乇 氐 賴賮鬲禄貨 芦鬲賲賴蹖丿 氐 賳賴禄貨 芦賲毓乇賮蹖 氐 蹖讴氐丿 賵 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 蹖讴禄貨 蹖丕丿丌賵乇蹖 氐 蹖讴氐丿 趩賴賱 賵 賴賮鬲禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 氐1禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丿賵賲 氐43禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 爻賵賲 氐73禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 趩賴丕乇賲 氐141禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 倬賳噩賲 氐165禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 卮卮賲 氐213禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賴賮鬲賲 氐247禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賴卮鬲賲 氐297禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賳賴賲 氐323禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丿賴賲 氐457禄貨 芦賮賴乇爻鬲 鬲賮氐蹖賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 氐433禄貨 芦賳丕賲賳丕賲賴 氐457禄貨 芦賳賯卮賴 賳賯丕胤 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕乇爻胤賵貙 氐463禄貨
丕禺賱丕賯 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻蹖禄貙 毓賳賵丕賳 卮賳丕禺鬲賴鈥� 卮丿賴鈥� 鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 丿乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 讴賴 賳賯卮 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿乇 賲毓乇賮蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 芦丕乇爻胤賵蹖蹖禄 丿丕乇丿貙 丕夭 丿賴 讴鬲丕亘 鬲卮讴蹖賱貙 賵 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥� 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳丕賳 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丿乇 芦賱蹖爻蹖賵賲禄 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇貙 蹖丕 鬲賵爻胤 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻 (倬爻乇 丕乇爻胤賵)禄貙 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮 卮丿賴貙 蹖丕 亘賴 丕蹖卮丕賳 鬲賯丿蹖賲 卮丿賴鈥� 丕爻鬲
爻噩蹖賴 鈥屰屫� 賴賲丕賳 禺賱賯 賵 禺賵蹖 賳蹖讴 丕夭 卮乇丕蹖胤 賱丕夭賲貙 亘乇丕蹖 丿爻鬲鈥屰屫жㄛ� 亘賴 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 睾丕蹖鬲 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕爻鬲貨 倬爻 睾丕蹖鬲 賴賲賴 鈥屰� 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賮乇丕丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賮乇丿蹖貙 賵 禺賵丕賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘夭乇诏鈥屫臂屬� 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 亘乇丕蹖 亘夭乇诏鈥屫臂屬� 賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 亘卮乇貙 丨丕氐賱 卮賵丿貨 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 賴蹖趩 賳賵毓 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖貙 亘蹖賳 禺蹖乇 賮乇丿貙 賵 禺蹖乇 丕賮乇丕丿 賳賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж迟嗀� 亘賱讴賴 禺蹖乇 賮乇丿 乇丕貙 亘丿賵賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓貙 禺蹖賱蹖 囟毓蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 禺賵丕賴 賮乇丿貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 禺蹖乇貙 丌诏丕賴 亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕卮丿貨 倬爻 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲鈥屬呝嗀臂屬� 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕夭 丿蹖丿 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 噩丕賲毓賴 丌賳 乇丕貙 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿賴 亘丕卮丿貨 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 賲賲賱讴鬲貙 蹖讴 賲乇讴夭 亘夭乇诏 賵 賯賵蹖貙 亘乇丕蹖 鬲毓賱賲 賵 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘賴 賮乇丿 賮乇氐鬲 賲囟丕毓賮蹖 乇丕貙 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮賮 禺賵蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賮乇賯蹖 讴賴 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 亘蹖賳 丿賵 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 亘丕賵乇 丿丕乇丿貙 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕爻鬲 丕夭: 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿貙 亘乇丕蹖 賴蹖丕鬲 讴丕賲賱 賲丿賳蹖貙 賵 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 亘賴乇賴 鈥屭屫臂� 毓賲賱蹖 丕夭 賲丿賳蹖鬲貨 賴爻鬲賴 鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 芦乇爻丕賱賴鈥� 蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 丕乇爻胤賵禄 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 爻噩蹖賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮賵丿貨 亘丿蹖賳鈥屫必屫ㄘ� 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳貙 亘乇丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴鈥� 蹖 賲丿賳蹖貙 丌賲丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴 鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲 丕夭 芦丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻禄貙 丕孬乇 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 讴賴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 鬲丕 讴鬲丕亘 丿賴賲 乇丕貙 卮丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 20/11/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/09/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
The Nicomachean Ethics is the name normally given to Aristotle's best-known work on ethics.
The work, which plays a pre-eminent role in defining Aristotelian ethics, consists of ten books, originally separate scrolls, and is understood to be based on notes from his lectures at the Lyceum.
The title is often assumed to refer to his son Nicomachus, to whom the work was dedicated or who may have edited it (although his young age makes this less likely).
Alternatively, the work may have been dedicated to his father, who was also called Nicomachus.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮: 賲丕賴 賲丕乇爻 爻丕賱2007賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 毓賱賲 丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻蹖貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕乇爻胤賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖 (夭丕丿賴 爻丕賱1274賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貙 丿乇 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丿乇诏匕卮鬲賴 爻丕賱1349賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖)貨 賵夭丕乇鬲 毓賱賵賲 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳貙 丿乇330氐貨 趩丕倬 丿蹖诏乇 卮乇蹖毓鬲蹖 丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳蹖貙 賲丨賲丿 丕亘乇丕賴蹖賲 丕卮讴 卮蹖乇蹖賳貙 丿乇610氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789640407622貨 賲賵囟賵毓: 丕禺賱丕賯貙 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 蹖賵賳丕賳 - 爻丿賴4倬蹖卮 丕夭 賲蹖賱丕丿
毓賳賵丕賳: 丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 丕乇爻胤賵貨 賲鬲乇噩賲: 賲丨賲丿丨爻賳 賱胤賮蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 胤乇丨 賳賵貙 爻丕賱1378貙 丿乇414氐貨 趩丕倬 丿賵賲 爻丕賱1385貨 卮丕亘讴9645625696貨
丿乇 賲蹖丕賳 賮乇賴蹖禺鬲诏丕賳貙 賵 賳禺亘诏丕賳 毓賱賲蹖 芦丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳禄貨 丿乇 爻丿賴 蹖 诏匕卮鬲賴貙 芦氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖 (夭丕丿賴 爻丕賱1274賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貙 丿乇诏匕卮鬲賴 爻丕賱1349賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖)禄 丕夭 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 亘賱賳丿貙 賵 賲賲鬲丕夭蹖貙 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘賵丿賴 丕賳丿貙 亘乇賴丕賳 丌賳 賴賲 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲貙 芦毓賱丕賲賴 爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄 賲丨丿賵丿 亘賴 蹖讴 丨賵夭賴 賳亘賵丿賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 卮丕毓乇蹖 夭亘乇丿爻鬲貙 賵 賲鬲乇噩賲蹖 鬲賵丕賳賲賳丿 亘賵丿賳丿貙 賲胤丕賱毓丕鬲 賮賱爻賮蹖 跇乇賮蹖 丿丕卮鬲賳丿貙 賵 蹖讴 乇賵夭賳丕賲賴 賳诏丕乇 丨乇賮賴 丕蹖 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 卮賲丕乇 賲蹖乇賮鬲賳丿貨 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖 芦丕賮讴丕乇 卮丕毓乇禄貙 芦丕禺賱丕賯 丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 芦賳賯丿 亘蹖丿賱禄貙 芦丕賱鬲賴匕蹖亘禄 賵 ...貨 賴賲賴 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 讴賴 亘丕乇賴丕 丿乇 丿丕禺賱 賵 禺丕乇噩 丕夭 芦丕賮睾丕賳爻鬲丕賳禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丕賳丿貨 芦爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄 丿乇 讴賱貙 賴賲丕賳賳丿 蹖讴 芦丿丕卅乇丞 丕賱賲毓丕乇賮 (丿丕賳卮賳丕賲賴)禄 亘賵丿賳丿貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 噩丿丕蹖 丕夭 夭亘丕賳 賲丕丿乇蹖貙 亘賴 夭亘丕賳賴丕蹖 芦毓乇亘蹖禄貙 芦丕賳诏賱蹖爻蹖禄貙 芦賮乇丕賳爻賵蹖禄貙 芦丌賱賲丕賳蹖禄貙 賵 芦丕乇丿賵禄 賴賲 鬲爻賱胤 丿丕卮鬲賳丿
賮賴乇爻鬲 鬲乇噩賲賴 乇賵丕賳卮丕丿 芦氐賱丕丨 丕賱丿蹖賳 爻賱噩賵賯蹖禄: 芦蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲 賳丕卮乇 氐 賴賮鬲禄貨 芦鬲賲賴蹖丿 氐 賳賴禄貨 芦賲毓乇賮蹖 氐 蹖讴氐丿 賵 亘蹖爻鬲 賵 蹖讴禄貨 蹖丕丿丌賵乇蹖 氐 蹖讴氐丿 趩賴賱 賵 賴賮鬲禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 氐1禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丿賵賲 氐43禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 爻賵賲 氐73禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 趩賴丕乇賲 氐141禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 倬賳噩賲 氐165禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 卮卮賲 氐213禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賴賮鬲賲 氐247禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賴卮鬲賲 氐297禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 賳賴賲 氐323禄貨 芦讴鬲丕亘 丿賴賲 氐457禄貨 芦賮賴乇爻鬲 鬲賮氐蹖賱蹖 讴鬲丕亘貙 氐433禄貨 芦賳丕賲賳丕賲賴 氐457禄貨 芦賳賯卮賴 賳賯丕胤 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕乇爻胤賵貙 氐463禄貨
丕禺賱丕賯 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻蹖禄貙 毓賳賵丕賳 卮賳丕禺鬲賴鈥� 卮丿賴鈥� 鬲乇蹖賳 丕孬乇 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 丿乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇 讴賴 賳賯卮 亘乇噩爻鬲賴鈥� 丕蹖 丿乇 賲毓乇賮蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 芦丕乇爻胤賵蹖蹖禄 丿丕乇丿貙 丕夭 丿賴 讴鬲丕亘 鬲卮讴蹖賱貙 賵 亘乇 賲亘賳丕蹖 蹖丕丿丿丕卮鬲鈥� 亘乇丿丕乇蹖 丕夭 爻禺賳丕賳 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丿乇 芦賱蹖爻蹖賵賲禄 卮讴賱 诏乇賮鬲賴鈥� 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖賳 丕孬乇貙 蹖丕 鬲賵爻胤 芦賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻 (倬爻乇 丕乇爻胤賵)禄貙 賵蹖乇丕蹖卮 卮丿賴貙 蹖丕 亘賴 丕蹖卮丕賳 鬲賯丿蹖賲 卮丿賴鈥� 丕爻鬲
爻噩蹖賴 鈥屰屫� 賴賲丕賳 禺賱賯 賵 禺賵蹖 賳蹖讴 丕夭 卮乇丕蹖胤 賱丕夭賲貙 亘乇丕蹖 丿爻鬲鈥屰屫жㄛ� 亘賴 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 睾丕蹖鬲 賳賴丕蹖蹖 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕爻鬲貨 倬爻 睾丕蹖鬲 賴賲賴 鈥屰� 丕毓賲丕賱 丕賮乇丕丿貙 禺賵丕賴 賮乇丿蹖貙 賵 禺賵丕賴 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘夭乇诏鈥屫臂屬� 爻毓丕丿鬲貙 亘乇丕蹖 亘夭乇诏鈥屫臂屬� 賵 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖賳 丕賮乇丕丿 亘卮乇貙 丨丕氐賱 卮賵丿貨 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 賴蹖趩 賳賵毓 鬲賮丕賵鬲蹖貙 亘蹖賳 禺蹖乇 賮乇丿貙 賵 禺蹖乇 丕賮乇丕丿 賳賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж迟嗀� 亘賱讴賴 禺蹖乇 賮乇丿 乇丕貙 亘丿賵賳 丕噩鬲賲丕毓貙 禺蹖賱蹖 囟毓蹖賮 賲蹖鈥屫з嗁嗀� 禺賵丕賴 賮乇丿貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 禺蹖乇貙 丌诏丕賴 亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賳亘丕卮丿貨 倬爻 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賵 爻毓丕丿鬲鈥屬呝嗀臂屬� 夭賳丿诏蹖貙 丕夭 丿蹖丿 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 噩丕賲毓賴 丌賳 乇丕貙 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿賴 亘丕卮丿貨 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 賲賲賱讴鬲貙 蹖讴 賲乇讴夭 亘夭乇诏 賵 賯賵蹖貙 亘乇丕蹖 鬲毓賱賲 賵 鬲乇亘蹖鬲 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 亘賴 賮乇丿 賮乇氐鬲 賲囟丕毓賮蹖 乇丕貙 亘乇丕蹖 讴卮賮 禺賵蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 賮乇賯蹖 讴賴 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄貙 亘蹖賳 丿賵 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖貙 亘丕賵乇 丿丕乇丿貙 毓亘丕乇鬲 丕爻鬲 丕夭: 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 丕爻鬲毓丿丕丿貙 亘乇丕蹖 賴蹖丕鬲 讴丕賲賱 賲丿賳蹖貙 賵 賲乇丨賱賴 鈥屰� 亘賴乇賴 鈥屭屫臂� 毓賲賱蹖 丕夭 賲丿賳蹖鬲貨 賴爻鬲賴 鈥屰� 丕氐賱蹖 芦乇爻丕賱賴鈥� 蹖 丕禺賱丕賯 丕乇爻胤賵禄 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 爻噩蹖賴 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮賵丿貨 亘丿蹖賳鈥屫必屫ㄘ� 讴賴 丕賳爻丕賳貙 亘乇丕蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 丿乇 蹖讴 噩丕賲毓賴鈥� 蹖 賲丿賳蹖貙 丌賲丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 讴鬲丕亘 丨丕囟乇貙 鬲乇噩賲賴 鈥屫й� 丕爻鬲 丕夭 芦丕禺賱丕賯 賳蹖讴賵賲丕禺賵爻禄貙 丕孬乇 芦丕乇爻胤賵禄 讴賴 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 鬲丕 讴鬲丕亘 丿賴賲 乇丕貙 卮丕賲賱 賲蹖鈥屫促堌�
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 20/11/1399賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 09/09/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
May 16, 2021
I鈥檓 a bit annoyed 鈥� I wrote up my review to this last night and thought I鈥檇 posted it, but it seems to have gone to god鈥ot happy about that (amusingly enough). This is my reconstruction of last night鈥檚 review.
There is a story that is almost certainly apocryphal about a French woman (in the version I know, this is Madame De Gaulle) who is in England towards the end of her husband鈥檚 career and is asked at some sort of official function what she wants most from life. She answers, 鈥榓 penis鈥� 鈥� which, unsurprisingly, brings a near complete silence over the room, something see seems completely confused by. Charles De Gaulle then says to his wife, 鈥業 think they pronounce it 鈥榓ppiness鈥�, darling鈥�
Aristotle is writing about how to live a good life 鈥� pretty much what 鈥榚thics鈥� means 鈥� and his answer is that a good life is a happy life. Well, sort of. Actually, the Greek word that is translated as 鈥榟appiness鈥� here (not unlike Madame De Gaulle鈥檚 mis-pronunciation) doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean what we would normally take 鈥榟appiness鈥� to mean. Eudaimonia is made up of two words meaning 鈥榞ood鈥� and 鈥榮oul鈥�, but can also be translated as meaning 鈥榟uman flourishing鈥�. Now, if you asked me how I was going and I said, 鈥業鈥檓 flourishing鈥�, that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean 鈥業鈥檓 happy鈥�. It is not that the two ideas are a million miles apart, but even Roget would be unlikely to slam them together in his little book of synonyms.
This is a remarkably practical book 鈥� not so much in that it tells you exactly how to behave at all times and in all circumstances, it isn鈥檛 practical in that sense, but rather that it sets about giving you tools to help make a rational judgement about how you ought to behave given various circumstances.
It does this by discussing Aristotle鈥檚 鈥榙octrine of the mean鈥�. Aristotle says that every virtue falls between two extremes which are excesses of qualities that also go to make up that virtue. So, if you think of courage, for example, it falls between cowardice and foolhardiness. In one case you have an exaggerated regard for your own life (despite being seen as a coward and the likely humiliation that will bring) and in the other you are too prepared to throw your life away and therefore not giving your life its proper value. Now, the point is that Aristotle isn鈥檛 saying all that much here about how you might behave in a given situation, but rather giving you guiding lines to watch out for 鈥� his point is that if you are called upon to be brave there may be times when it is rational to behave in ways that might otherwise look foolhardy, and at other times in ways that might look cowardly 鈥� but a wise and happy person would do so on the basis of a rational assessment of where the mean lies given the time, place and circumstance 鈥� and knowing there are extremes you need to avoid is useful here.
There are bits of this that I found much more annoying this time around than I did when I read it years ago (30 years ago, now 鈥� yuck鈥� how did that happen?). In fact, I can鈥檛 quite tell if Aristotle has become more reactionary over the years or if I鈥檝e become more progressive 鈥� but it鈥檚 one or the other.
For instance, I found a lot of his discussions about women particularly annoying this time around. Take this as a case in point from Book VIII, 鈥淪ometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; their rule is thus not in accordance with virtue, but due to wealth and power鈥� (page 157). People will tell you that one of the problems with Aristotle and Plato is the fact that they could never conceive of a society in which there were no slaves 鈥� but one of the advantages of Plato is that he did think women could, and probably should, be educated. Aristotle clearly does not 鈥� but the point I would really like to make is that he notices when women rule due to their wealth and power, but not when men do the same. Given so many more men rule at all and so many of them rule due to the access their position gives them 鈥� it seems an odd thing for someone like Aristotle not to notice.
Because this is quite a practical ethics, he spends a lot of time talking about the sorts of things people ought to have in their lives to make them happy 鈥� and this is why so much of the book is devoted to friendship. I won鈥檛 go over his arguments for the various types of friends one might have, but do want to talk about love and lovers. I think I could mount a case for saying that Aristotle is arguing against having a lover. Not that he is advocating a life of celibacy or even of abstinence, but rather that lovers come in what I like to think of as pairs (after McCullers or Somerset Maugham 鈥� who both said that there are lovers and the beloved and of the two everyone wants to be the lover, rather than the beloved) 鈥� and that since being either the lover or a beloved is basically irrational, given we fall in love by lightning strike as much as anything else, it might stop just as quickly as it all started, and then a lover who doesn鈥檛 love any more leaves a beloved who is no longer beloved 鈥� not the basis for a lasting relationship. The point being that friendship is based more rationally on mutual benefits and mutual care 鈥� if it was me, I鈥檇 pick the latter over the former (friendship over love) every time 鈥� if these things allowed for choices like that, that is.
Now, I want to end by quoting a longer bit from Book X (page 200).
鈥淪ome think we become good by nature, some by habit, and others by teaching. Nature's contribution is clearly not in our power, but it can be found in those who are truly fortunate as the result of some divine dispensation. Argument and teaching, presumably, are not powerful in every case, but the soul of the student must be prepared beforehand in its habits, with a view to its enjoying and hating in a noble way, like soil that is to nourish seed. For if someone were to live by his feelings he would not listen to an argument to dissuade him, nor could he even understand it. How can we persuade a person in a state like this to change his ways? And, in general, feelings seem to yield not to argument but to force. There must, therefore, somehow be a pre-existing character with some affinity for virtue through its fondness for what is noble and dislike of what is disgraceful.
鈥淏ut if one has not been reared under the right laws it is difficult to obtain from one's earliest years the correct upbringing for virtue, because the masses, especially the young, do not find it pleasant to live temperately and with endurance. For this reason, their upbringing and pursuits should be regulated by laws, because they will not find them painful once they have become accustomed to them.鈥�
I find this really interesting for a whole range of reasons. Okay, so, he starts off by saying that nature is the main thing to ensure that one is capable of learning 鈥� but it is interesting that this alone is not enough. Nature is essential, but left on its own will not get you very far. The other is teaching, but teaching too may not help unless you have been prepared to hear the lesson 鈥� something Gramsci talks about at some length saying working class children need to be given discipline (that they are unfamiliar with) if they are to have any hope of succeeding in education. What is stressed here is the development of habits and dispositions and that these are what allows the other two (nature and teaching) to be given any chance of success.
Aristotle is keen to stress that he is talking about virtues 鈥� but again, the Greek word here (ar锚te) doesn鈥檛 just mean morally good behaviours, but rather something closer to the excellences that we associate with different kinds of behaviours 鈥� so that a fisherman has virtues too, not in the sense of being morally upright, but rather, at knowing what is good for a fisherman to do and be.
A lot of this reminded me of Pascal鈥檚 Pens茅es. There is a bit in that where Pascal says that happiness really isn鈥檛 related to the outcome, but more to the process. That is, that you won鈥檛 make a hunter happy by giving him a couple of rabbits at the start of the day and saying to him, 鈥榥ow you don鈥檛 have to go out hunting today, relax, enjoy yourself鈥�. Rather, even a mangy rabbit caught through the effort of the hunt will be worth more to the hunter than a dozen plump ones handed over without effort at the start of the day. Not always true, of course, but I鈥檓 exaggerating to make the point. In a lot of ways that is Aristotle鈥檚 ethics 鈥� find out what you are meant to do and do that as best you can and that will make you happy 鈥� or good souled 鈥� or flourishing 鈥� one of those.
There is a story that is almost certainly apocryphal about a French woman (in the version I know, this is Madame De Gaulle) who is in England towards the end of her husband鈥檚 career and is asked at some sort of official function what she wants most from life. She answers, 鈥榓 penis鈥� 鈥� which, unsurprisingly, brings a near complete silence over the room, something see seems completely confused by. Charles De Gaulle then says to his wife, 鈥業 think they pronounce it 鈥榓ppiness鈥�, darling鈥�
Aristotle is writing about how to live a good life 鈥� pretty much what 鈥榚thics鈥� means 鈥� and his answer is that a good life is a happy life. Well, sort of. Actually, the Greek word that is translated as 鈥榟appiness鈥� here (not unlike Madame De Gaulle鈥檚 mis-pronunciation) doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean what we would normally take 鈥榟appiness鈥� to mean. Eudaimonia is made up of two words meaning 鈥榞ood鈥� and 鈥榮oul鈥�, but can also be translated as meaning 鈥榟uman flourishing鈥�. Now, if you asked me how I was going and I said, 鈥業鈥檓 flourishing鈥�, that doesn鈥檛 necessarily mean 鈥業鈥檓 happy鈥�. It is not that the two ideas are a million miles apart, but even Roget would be unlikely to slam them together in his little book of synonyms.
This is a remarkably practical book 鈥� not so much in that it tells you exactly how to behave at all times and in all circumstances, it isn鈥檛 practical in that sense, but rather that it sets about giving you tools to help make a rational judgement about how you ought to behave given various circumstances.
It does this by discussing Aristotle鈥檚 鈥榙octrine of the mean鈥�. Aristotle says that every virtue falls between two extremes which are excesses of qualities that also go to make up that virtue. So, if you think of courage, for example, it falls between cowardice and foolhardiness. In one case you have an exaggerated regard for your own life (despite being seen as a coward and the likely humiliation that will bring) and in the other you are too prepared to throw your life away and therefore not giving your life its proper value. Now, the point is that Aristotle isn鈥檛 saying all that much here about how you might behave in a given situation, but rather giving you guiding lines to watch out for 鈥� his point is that if you are called upon to be brave there may be times when it is rational to behave in ways that might otherwise look foolhardy, and at other times in ways that might look cowardly 鈥� but a wise and happy person would do so on the basis of a rational assessment of where the mean lies given the time, place and circumstance 鈥� and knowing there are extremes you need to avoid is useful here.
There are bits of this that I found much more annoying this time around than I did when I read it years ago (30 years ago, now 鈥� yuck鈥� how did that happen?). In fact, I can鈥檛 quite tell if Aristotle has become more reactionary over the years or if I鈥檝e become more progressive 鈥� but it鈥檚 one or the other.
For instance, I found a lot of his discussions about women particularly annoying this time around. Take this as a case in point from Book VIII, 鈥淪ometimes, however, women rule, because they are heiresses; their rule is thus not in accordance with virtue, but due to wealth and power鈥� (page 157). People will tell you that one of the problems with Aristotle and Plato is the fact that they could never conceive of a society in which there were no slaves 鈥� but one of the advantages of Plato is that he did think women could, and probably should, be educated. Aristotle clearly does not 鈥� but the point I would really like to make is that he notices when women rule due to their wealth and power, but not when men do the same. Given so many more men rule at all and so many of them rule due to the access their position gives them 鈥� it seems an odd thing for someone like Aristotle not to notice.
Because this is quite a practical ethics, he spends a lot of time talking about the sorts of things people ought to have in their lives to make them happy 鈥� and this is why so much of the book is devoted to friendship. I won鈥檛 go over his arguments for the various types of friends one might have, but do want to talk about love and lovers. I think I could mount a case for saying that Aristotle is arguing against having a lover. Not that he is advocating a life of celibacy or even of abstinence, but rather that lovers come in what I like to think of as pairs (after McCullers or Somerset Maugham 鈥� who both said that there are lovers and the beloved and of the two everyone wants to be the lover, rather than the beloved) 鈥� and that since being either the lover or a beloved is basically irrational, given we fall in love by lightning strike as much as anything else, it might stop just as quickly as it all started, and then a lover who doesn鈥檛 love any more leaves a beloved who is no longer beloved 鈥� not the basis for a lasting relationship. The point being that friendship is based more rationally on mutual benefits and mutual care 鈥� if it was me, I鈥檇 pick the latter over the former (friendship over love) every time 鈥� if these things allowed for choices like that, that is.
Now, I want to end by quoting a longer bit from Book X (page 200).
鈥淪ome think we become good by nature, some by habit, and others by teaching. Nature's contribution is clearly not in our power, but it can be found in those who are truly fortunate as the result of some divine dispensation. Argument and teaching, presumably, are not powerful in every case, but the soul of the student must be prepared beforehand in its habits, with a view to its enjoying and hating in a noble way, like soil that is to nourish seed. For if someone were to live by his feelings he would not listen to an argument to dissuade him, nor could he even understand it. How can we persuade a person in a state like this to change his ways? And, in general, feelings seem to yield not to argument but to force. There must, therefore, somehow be a pre-existing character with some affinity for virtue through its fondness for what is noble and dislike of what is disgraceful.
鈥淏ut if one has not been reared under the right laws it is difficult to obtain from one's earliest years the correct upbringing for virtue, because the masses, especially the young, do not find it pleasant to live temperately and with endurance. For this reason, their upbringing and pursuits should be regulated by laws, because they will not find them painful once they have become accustomed to them.鈥�
I find this really interesting for a whole range of reasons. Okay, so, he starts off by saying that nature is the main thing to ensure that one is capable of learning 鈥� but it is interesting that this alone is not enough. Nature is essential, but left on its own will not get you very far. The other is teaching, but teaching too may not help unless you have been prepared to hear the lesson 鈥� something Gramsci talks about at some length saying working class children need to be given discipline (that they are unfamiliar with) if they are to have any hope of succeeding in education. What is stressed here is the development of habits and dispositions and that these are what allows the other two (nature and teaching) to be given any chance of success.
Aristotle is keen to stress that he is talking about virtues 鈥� but again, the Greek word here (ar锚te) doesn鈥檛 just mean morally good behaviours, but rather something closer to the excellences that we associate with different kinds of behaviours 鈥� so that a fisherman has virtues too, not in the sense of being morally upright, but rather, at knowing what is good for a fisherman to do and be.
A lot of this reminded me of Pascal鈥檚 Pens茅es. There is a bit in that where Pascal says that happiness really isn鈥檛 related to the outcome, but more to the process. That is, that you won鈥檛 make a hunter happy by giving him a couple of rabbits at the start of the day and saying to him, 鈥榥ow you don鈥檛 have to go out hunting today, relax, enjoy yourself鈥�. Rather, even a mangy rabbit caught through the effort of the hunt will be worth more to the hunter than a dozen plump ones handed over without effort at the start of the day. Not always true, of course, but I鈥檓 exaggerating to make the point. In a lot of ways that is Aristotle鈥檚 ethics 鈥� find out what you are meant to do and do that as best you can and that will make you happy 鈥� or good souled 鈥� or flourishing 鈥� one of those.
February 23, 2023
O carte fundamental膬. Am ales doar una dintre problemele discutate de Stagirit, fericirea.
Dac膬 omul vrea s膬 ating膬 fericirea trebuie s膬-i urmeze pe zei. Numai zeul e fericit 艧i asta 卯ntruc卯t existen牛a divinit膬葲ii se rezum膬 la purul exerci牛iu contemplativ. A filosofa 卯nseamn膬 a 卯ncerca s膬 devii asem膬n膬tor zeului, dup膬 cum a spus 葯i Platon, 卯n dialogul Theaitetos.
Aristotel a preluat ideea 艧i a dezvoltat-o 卯n Etica nicomahic膬 (dar 艧i 卯n Protreptikos): omul e 卯ndemnat s膬-l imite pe zeu, pe c卯t 卯i st膬 卯n putin牛膬, prin virtute 艧i contempla牛ie. 脦n acest mod, omul ajunge s膬 se 鈥瀒mortalizeze鈥� [athanatizein e termenul folosit de Aristotel]. Ierarhia fiin牛elor 艧i a scopurilor 艧i faptul c膬 dintre toate activit膬牛ile omului cea mai nobil膬 艧i 鈥瀙rofitabil膬鈥� este contemplarea [= theoria] rezult膬 din urm膬torul fragment [cartea X, VII: 1177a-1178a):
鈥濧ceast膬 activitate [conform膬 cu virtutea 艧i aduc膬toare de fericire: eudaimonia] este contemplativ膬鈥� [艦i] afirma牛ia noastr膬 pare s膬 concorde at卯t cu cele spuse anterior, c卯t 艧i cu adev膬rul. Ea [contempla牛ia, teoria] este activitatea cea mai elevat膬, pentru c膬 intelectul [= nous] este ceea ce avem mai elevat 卯n noi, iar dintre obiectele cognoscibile, cele ale intelectului s卯nt cele mai 卯nalte鈥� 脦n sf卯r艧it, credem cu to牛ii c膬 fericirea [= eudaimonia] trebuie s膬 fie contopit膬 cu pl膬cerea; or, toat膬 lumea este de acord c膬 cea mai pl膬cut膬 dintre activit膬牛ile conforme cu virtutea este filosofia. 脦n orice caz, este un fapt recunoscut c膬 studiul filosofiei ofer膬 pl膬ceri de o admirabil膬 puritate鈥︹€� (pp.253-254).
Am f膬cut unele ad膬ugiri pentru a u葯ura lectura acestui text dificil.
Dac膬 omul vrea s膬 ating膬 fericirea trebuie s膬-i urmeze pe zei. Numai zeul e fericit 艧i asta 卯ntruc卯t existen牛a divinit膬葲ii se rezum膬 la purul exerci牛iu contemplativ. A filosofa 卯nseamn膬 a 卯ncerca s膬 devii asem膬n膬tor zeului, dup膬 cum a spus 葯i Platon, 卯n dialogul Theaitetos.
Aristotel a preluat ideea 艧i a dezvoltat-o 卯n Etica nicomahic膬 (dar 艧i 卯n Protreptikos): omul e 卯ndemnat s膬-l imite pe zeu, pe c卯t 卯i st膬 卯n putin牛膬, prin virtute 艧i contempla牛ie. 脦n acest mod, omul ajunge s膬 se 鈥瀒mortalizeze鈥� [athanatizein e termenul folosit de Aristotel]. Ierarhia fiin牛elor 艧i a scopurilor 艧i faptul c膬 dintre toate activit膬牛ile omului cea mai nobil膬 艧i 鈥瀙rofitabil膬鈥� este contemplarea [= theoria] rezult膬 din urm膬torul fragment [cartea X, VII: 1177a-1178a):
鈥濧ceast膬 activitate [conform膬 cu virtutea 艧i aduc膬toare de fericire: eudaimonia] este contemplativ膬鈥� [艦i] afirma牛ia noastr膬 pare s膬 concorde at卯t cu cele spuse anterior, c卯t 艧i cu adev膬rul. Ea [contempla牛ia, teoria] este activitatea cea mai elevat膬, pentru c膬 intelectul [= nous] este ceea ce avem mai elevat 卯n noi, iar dintre obiectele cognoscibile, cele ale intelectului s卯nt cele mai 卯nalte鈥� 脦n sf卯r艧it, credem cu to牛ii c膬 fericirea [= eudaimonia] trebuie s膬 fie contopit膬 cu pl膬cerea; or, toat膬 lumea este de acord c膬 cea mai pl膬cut膬 dintre activit膬牛ile conforme cu virtutea este filosofia. 脦n orice caz, este un fapt recunoscut c膬 studiul filosofiei ofer膬 pl膬ceri de o admirabil膬 puritate鈥︹€� (pp.253-254).
Am f膬cut unele ad膬ugiri pentru a u葯ura lectura acestui text dificil.
March 3, 2022
Nicomachean Ethics (349 BCE) deals with assessing and defining the finest behavior of humans toward themselves, others, and their surroundings. Aristotle seeks to distinguish and construct an ideal person using selected character traits known as virtues. These virtues are both intellectual and moral (intellectual ranking above moral) and are best attained through the act of repetitiveness and from an adequate role model. Achieving these virtuous principles will guide one to do the right thing, hence, become a better person.
Yet, how do we know what is good or bad and how can we assess what is right or wrong? Since virtues are the building blocks of goodness, Aristotle claims that they are found between the two extreme vices. A midpoint between the deficiency and excess of a particular virtue. For instance, courage is the midpoint between its deficiency, which is cowardliness, and its excess, which is recklessness. Thus, reaching the highest pinnacle of good, will require a person of moderate behavior.
But what's in it for us? Why should one live an ethical life and be good? Well, in order to reach the ultimate goal, life's most meaningful purpose, the utmost reward. No, not necessarily eternal bliss in the hereafter, but primarily to attain happiness in this lifetime. Besides the virtues, having a few good friends, enjoying some permissible pleasures, and having good fortuity will make happiness more achievable.
For those of you, like myself, who wondered why the book is titled "Nicomachean" Ethics. For starters, the term was never mentioned in the book, but, apparently, Aristotle dedicated the book to his father and or son that were both named Nicomachus, hence, Nicomachean.
Yet, how do we know what is good or bad and how can we assess what is right or wrong? Since virtues are the building blocks of goodness, Aristotle claims that they are found between the two extreme vices. A midpoint between the deficiency and excess of a particular virtue. For instance, courage is the midpoint between its deficiency, which is cowardliness, and its excess, which is recklessness. Thus, reaching the highest pinnacle of good, will require a person of moderate behavior.
But what's in it for us? Why should one live an ethical life and be good? Well, in order to reach the ultimate goal, life's most meaningful purpose, the utmost reward. No, not necessarily eternal bliss in the hereafter, but primarily to attain happiness in this lifetime. Besides the virtues, having a few good friends, enjoying some permissible pleasures, and having good fortuity will make happiness more achievable.
For those of you, like myself, who wondered why the book is titled "Nicomachean" Ethics. For starters, the term was never mentioned in the book, but, apparently, Aristotle dedicated the book to his father and or son that were both named Nicomachus, hence, Nicomachean.
September 17, 2022
Happiness is the activity of a rational soul in accordance with virtue, writes Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics. Activity means living. Rational soul means a human being. And virtue means human excellence. So happiness means a human living excellently.
How does one live excellently? One learns to be good at these things called "virtues". In fact, one cultivates habits that contribute to virtuous living. Aristotle discusses many virtues, but four are primary: courage, temperance, justice and practical wisdom.
Courage is how we deal with pain and disappointment. Courage is an example of the "golden mean". Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness.
Temperance is how we deal with pleasure. Temperance is the mean between gluttony and abstinence.
Justice is how we deal with human relationships. Essentially, it means to give every person their due, which will be defined by their relationship to you.
Practical wisdom is the knowledge to understand how to discern the moderate path or the mean and how to moderate passions in order to think clearly and make good decisions.
But my favorite thing about the Ethics is that Aristotle devotes many pages to a discussion of friendship, which is fundamental to happiness. Some scholars argue that Aristotle's discussion of friendship comes from a separate book. That is, when scrolls with the Ethics were first discovered, early scholars mistakenly mixed two books together. Perhaps, this is true. But it is heartening to read about happiness and find that much of the discussion has to do with being a good friend.
One more thing about this great book. It is difficult to read. I am told that this is due to the fact that it was compiled from notes of Aristotle's students and was not written by Aristotle. That is, these are notes of his lectures.
They read like it.
My way of dealing with the impenetrability was to lean on secondary sources. In particular, I listened to lectures from the Teaching Company as I re-read the Ethics a few years ago. That made all the difference.鈥ㄢ€� The Nichomachean Ethics is arguably the most important work on ethics in western culture. But you might not be able read it on your own without constantly fogging out. So figure out a way to get through it with patience and attention. You will be rewarded for your effort.
How does one live excellently? One learns to be good at these things called "virtues". In fact, one cultivates habits that contribute to virtuous living. Aristotle discusses many virtues, but four are primary: courage, temperance, justice and practical wisdom.
Courage is how we deal with pain and disappointment. Courage is an example of the "golden mean". Courage is the mean between cowardice and rashness.
Temperance is how we deal with pleasure. Temperance is the mean between gluttony and abstinence.
Justice is how we deal with human relationships. Essentially, it means to give every person their due, which will be defined by their relationship to you.
Practical wisdom is the knowledge to understand how to discern the moderate path or the mean and how to moderate passions in order to think clearly and make good decisions.
But my favorite thing about the Ethics is that Aristotle devotes many pages to a discussion of friendship, which is fundamental to happiness. Some scholars argue that Aristotle's discussion of friendship comes from a separate book. That is, when scrolls with the Ethics were first discovered, early scholars mistakenly mixed two books together. Perhaps, this is true. But it is heartening to read about happiness and find that much of the discussion has to do with being a good friend.
One more thing about this great book. It is difficult to read. I am told that this is due to the fact that it was compiled from notes of Aristotle's students and was not written by Aristotle. That is, these are notes of his lectures.
They read like it.
My way of dealing with the impenetrability was to lean on secondary sources. In particular, I listened to lectures from the Teaching Company as I re-read the Ethics a few years ago. That made all the difference.鈥ㄢ€� The Nichomachean Ethics is arguably the most important work on ethics in western culture. But you might not be able read it on your own without constantly fogging out. So figure out a way to get through it with patience and attention. You will be rewarded for your effort.
March 12, 2019
This re-read was perhaps a slight bit superfluous. I remembered reading it way back in high school - on my own - just because I was that kind of geek.
Get the foundations read, kid! Know what the whole line of thought is all about! Use it later to trounce your fellow debaters!
Yeah, whatever. Logic and an examined life have since then been more of an end rather than a means.
Case in point: This is about examining Happiness. It does so in a fairly exhaustive but not exhausting way. Aristotle just lays down the foundations, brings up the various opinions people usually hold about WHAT happiness entails, and then tries to pare away the flawed answers.
Usually, a normal adventure tale is never about the end destination. End destinations are usually a let-down. The effort to get there is usually a lot more satisfying.
Same for Aristotle. It turns out I remembered the first journey perfectly. And it brought me happiness. :)
Get the foundations read, kid! Know what the whole line of thought is all about! Use it later to trounce your fellow debaters!
Yeah, whatever. Logic and an examined life have since then been more of an end rather than a means.
Case in point: This is about examining Happiness. It does so in a fairly exhaustive but not exhausting way. Aristotle just lays down the foundations, brings up the various opinions people usually hold about WHAT happiness entails, and then tries to pare away the flawed answers.
Usually, a normal adventure tale is never about the end destination. End destinations are usually a let-down. The effort to get there is usually a lot more satisfying.
Same for Aristotle. It turns out I remembered the first journey perfectly. And it brought me happiness. :)
September 13, 2022
Veo el valor, veo el aporte, veo todo el pensamiento aristot茅lico que ha servido como influencia para Occidente pero a煤n as铆, a m铆 esto me ha hecho m谩s mal que bien sinceramente. Objetivamente merece m谩s nota, pero subjetivamente me ha parecido un ladrillo para su corta extensi贸n.
September 27, 2024
Everyday we make a choice as to how we will interact with others; but often that choice is not predicated on reciprocation...WE want to be treated in a certian way; but WE often do not see the need to treat OTHERS in that same way. Aristotle looks at this dilemma and forces us to step back and get perspective - should be required reading for all politicians and CEOs.
October 25, 2015
The Nicomachean Ethics is one of the greatest works of Aristotle, the famous philosopher who was really much more of a scientist than a philosopher. This is the book where he indulges in the discussion of happiness, virtue, ethics, politics, and really anything else describing the way in which human beings functioned together in the society of a Greek city-state of early Antiquity.
Especially in the field of politics, this work excels, and Aristotle puts forth a particularly interesting theory on the forms of government. According to him, there are really only three different forms of government, but each of them comes with a corresponding corrupt deviation. The finest form of government, he says, is the monarchy, the rule of one. But its corresponding deviation, which is tyranny, is the worst form of government, and the line between the two is thin and sinuous. Likewise, the second finest form of government is the aristocracy, the rule of the best. And aristocracy in its corrupted form is oligarchy, the second worst form of government. Lastly, the third finest form of government is timocracy, the rule of property-owners, which was strikingly similar to the political system already existing in Aristotle's Athens. But the corrupt form of timocracy, he says, is democracy, a system in which society has deviated into a constant squabble where everyone seeks to advance their own interests rather than the interests of the state. The conclusion seems to be that as long as long as the rulers of the state are just and competent, it is better the fewer they are. But if the rulers are unjust and incompetent, the opposite is true. To those as interested in political theory as I am, I would recommend just reading Book VIII, and skipping all the rest.
The most interesting thing about the book, however, is that the writing is absolutely terrible. Not the language, mind you, but the style in which the book is written. What is truly incredible is that the writing here is exactly how an average academic writer today would write his or her books. On one hand, that made this book ridiculously boring to read. On the other, it was really interesting because it proves how much modern academics owe to the legacy of Aristotle. And that they should find another source of inspiration, since for instance Plato was a far better writer than his most famous pupil.
I would recommend this book only to those particularly interested in philosophical, political and ethical theory, and even then I would suggest just opening the book and reading the parts that sound interesting to you instead of attempting the dreary business of reading it as a whole.
Especially in the field of politics, this work excels, and Aristotle puts forth a particularly interesting theory on the forms of government. According to him, there are really only three different forms of government, but each of them comes with a corresponding corrupt deviation. The finest form of government, he says, is the monarchy, the rule of one. But its corresponding deviation, which is tyranny, is the worst form of government, and the line between the two is thin and sinuous. Likewise, the second finest form of government is the aristocracy, the rule of the best. And aristocracy in its corrupted form is oligarchy, the second worst form of government. Lastly, the third finest form of government is timocracy, the rule of property-owners, which was strikingly similar to the political system already existing in Aristotle's Athens. But the corrupt form of timocracy, he says, is democracy, a system in which society has deviated into a constant squabble where everyone seeks to advance their own interests rather than the interests of the state. The conclusion seems to be that as long as long as the rulers of the state are just and competent, it is better the fewer they are. But if the rulers are unjust and incompetent, the opposite is true. To those as interested in political theory as I am, I would recommend just reading Book VIII, and skipping all the rest.
The most interesting thing about the book, however, is that the writing is absolutely terrible. Not the language, mind you, but the style in which the book is written. What is truly incredible is that the writing here is exactly how an average academic writer today would write his or her books. On one hand, that made this book ridiculously boring to read. On the other, it was really interesting because it proves how much modern academics owe to the legacy of Aristotle. And that they should find another source of inspiration, since for instance Plato was a far better writer than his most famous pupil.
I would recommend this book only to those particularly interested in philosophical, political and ethical theory, and even then I would suggest just opening the book and reading the parts that sound interesting to you instead of attempting the dreary business of reading it as a whole.
August 11, 2023
I was so impressed with how down-to-earth and practical this book was. Aristotle begins pragmatically by breaking down a simple question (well not in these exact words, but in essence), what is the purpose of man? Or, What is the characteristic function of man? Everything in the world works according to it's function and everything seemingly fulfills it's function. You can't change the characteristic function of a rock to go upward instead of down no matter how many times you throw it into the air. The rock will not change. It just sits there doing it鈥檚 thing, being extremely rock-like. Aristotle didn鈥檛 know about the universal law of gravity, but you get the picture. What is that for man? What is man made for? What is man's function? According to our nature? Aristotle posits the idea that our function is to be virtuous. The ideal form of a man will be the man that is most virtuous, and the pursuit of a virtuous life is equated by Aristotle to the good life. Because it is what we are made to do. How do we know that the epicurean pursuit of happiness is not equated to the ultimate good? Because we also value temperance and self control as "good". If pleasure=happiness=good there would be no need for temperance. Yet we do value both temperance and the experience of pleasure as good! So, it seems that the virtuous good is in a sort of balancing act.
So how do we know what the virtuous good is? Well, according to Aristotle it is not so easily expressed as this or that specifically because it is found as a mean between two vices鈥攐ne of excess and one of deficiency. So that in almost anything there is a balance where the virtue lies between two kinds of vices. For example the overindulgence of food is on the extreme end of excess what we call gluttony, yet the one who starves themselves for one reason or another would also be in a vice of deficiency, maybe even to the point of self harm, so that we find the truly virtuous man to be the mean between the two extremes. This example can be extrapolated to almost anything. Anger, action, sexual pleasure, thinking, talking, being a tough-guy, etc. Another example given by Aristotle is that of a courageous man. The excess vice being rashness, and the deficient vice that of cowardice, so that true virtue lies between the two extremes, i.e. courage. He extrapolates this idea with several more examples, pride, ambition, friendliness, truthfulness, etc. He even brings this idea into the realm of the arts and talks a bit about comedy, so that there is is the extreme comic who tries to always get a laugh in at the expense of anything and everything, versus the sort of guy who's a complete bore and can't take a joke even when it is executed wittily and at the precise time, and once again we find the virtuous man in the middle.
I have to say, I really love this way of looking at virtue as a sort of mean on a scale between vices, so that the truly virtuous man is one who we could call 'well-adjusted.' I think this also makes a lot of sense why some people would think differently about what virtue looks like, as if morality was relative, when it is not. If someone naturally finds themselves on one of the extreme sides of the scale they will interpret the truly virtuous as the extreme on the other side. For example, if we look at courage again, if I am naturally on the rash side acting before thinking always and basically being dumb in the name of courageous virtue when the truly virtuous man weighs out the situation before acting, I will likely call him a coward. Likewise if I am naturally a coward, and the virtuous man acts in confidence and is truly courageous, I would be apt to call him rash. Yet, true virtue is a mean between vices, despite what we think about it. The well-adjusted man is, according to Aristotle, the most virtuous.
Following this, Aristotle begins to speak about continence and incontinence. Which, as far as I can understand is that there are basically four types of people and only one of them is completely lost with no hope of redemption.
There is the virtuous man, the continent man, the incontinent man, and the irredeemable.
The virtuous man is someone who knows that something is wrong for him, DOESN'T desire to do it based on his knowledge, and does not do it.
The continent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, but lets his wisdom guide him, and does not do it.
The Incontinent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, and against his better judgement DOES it.
And the irredeemable man is someone who thinks that the wrong thing is right, DOES desire to do the thing, and does it according to his judgement and wishes.
He is considered irredeemable because his judgement is wrong, and in order to seek repentance from doing an evil act one would need to judge the thing as wrong to begin with. So this man will never be able to repent.
As a reformed protestant this break down was pretty eye-opening for me. I loved this way of thinking about the moral categories of sin, and I think this is similar to the Christian view of sin. The only truly virtuous man was Christ, the perfect man, the exemplar of virtue, the second Adam who was not corrupted by sin, but perfect in all ways. And Christians dealing with the battle of incontinence in their sin and straddling the line between continence and incontinence, and those who believe that evil is good are irredeemable not because their sins are graver, but because they see no need in repentance, because they find evil to be good, and they see no need for Jesus. Yet, the Christian would argue that if God opens this man's eyes to see his evil he then is granted the option to repent.
Following this, Aristotle speaks on friendship, and once again Aristotle is refreshingly pragmatic. He looks at all kinds of friendship, and differentiates between different types of friendships, including the relationships between people who are alike, or different, joyous, or sad, friends who are there for a sort of economic agreement where both receive an equal amount of benefit from the friendship, etc. He differentiates between these friendships and the friendship a lover shares with his or her spouse, or a father to his son, or a son to his father, or a brother to his brother, etc. And he explores what the best version of all of these friendships is. What the virtuous man should look for and find in a friendship. How many friends is too many? etc etc. He truly leaves no stones unturned.
He then looks at the parallels between different friendships and different government systems claiming that each government system is based on a different type of friendship. A timocracy is based on a brotherhood type of friendship in it's honor based ruling, where-as a democracy is based on a more economical type of friendship where the focus is equality, and the monarchy a sort of patriarchal friendship and so on and so forth. I found this part to be truly insightful, and it is the part of this book that I'm most excited to revisit, because he seems to be riffing on Plato's four types of government at the end of The Republic and the how they revolve endlessly from one to the next, yet Aristotle has a different idea about which governments evolve into others, and as far as I could tell (already wanting to re-read this part to clarify) Aristotle seems to be saying that all of these governments are flawed because they function within the framework of only one type of friendship, yet humans are diverse and different, so we need several types of relationships within a government to function correctly. There needs to be "mothers" and "fathers" and "sons" and "daughters" and "friendships on an equal standing" all together. A democracy fails because there is only one type of friendship, that between equals that is purely economical in nature. Yet, we don't respect the people who are authorities above us because we don't believe in authority we hammer everyone down to fit into the same hole, yet it is a fabrication created by the government that tells us that we are all equal when we are not. Likewise in the other forms of government they lack the full spectrum of human relations so that in the end they always fail. That is, if I understood him correctly.
Yet I think his point here, and in the whole book in general is once again unrelentingly pragmatic, wouldn't the perfect governance (just like virtue itself) be a sort of balancing act just like friendship in that it is concerned solely with the good, with the virtuous and by pursuing virtue all parties are benefitted and happy because of the good. One that promotes the self (not in a capitalist/materialist sense but in the sense that virtue is the ultimate good for the self, worth a million times more than material possessions) and by doing so promotes everyone else. One that pursues the happiness and the good of all people by the virtuous pursuit of each individual. It is not black or white. This or that. It is more of a mean between this, this, and that.
So how do we know what the virtuous good is? Well, according to Aristotle it is not so easily expressed as this or that specifically because it is found as a mean between two vices鈥攐ne of excess and one of deficiency. So that in almost anything there is a balance where the virtue lies between two kinds of vices. For example the overindulgence of food is on the extreme end of excess what we call gluttony, yet the one who starves themselves for one reason or another would also be in a vice of deficiency, maybe even to the point of self harm, so that we find the truly virtuous man to be the mean between the two extremes. This example can be extrapolated to almost anything. Anger, action, sexual pleasure, thinking, talking, being a tough-guy, etc. Another example given by Aristotle is that of a courageous man. The excess vice being rashness, and the deficient vice that of cowardice, so that true virtue lies between the two extremes, i.e. courage. He extrapolates this idea with several more examples, pride, ambition, friendliness, truthfulness, etc. He even brings this idea into the realm of the arts and talks a bit about comedy, so that there is is the extreme comic who tries to always get a laugh in at the expense of anything and everything, versus the sort of guy who's a complete bore and can't take a joke even when it is executed wittily and at the precise time, and once again we find the virtuous man in the middle.
I have to say, I really love this way of looking at virtue as a sort of mean on a scale between vices, so that the truly virtuous man is one who we could call 'well-adjusted.' I think this also makes a lot of sense why some people would think differently about what virtue looks like, as if morality was relative, when it is not. If someone naturally finds themselves on one of the extreme sides of the scale they will interpret the truly virtuous as the extreme on the other side. For example, if we look at courage again, if I am naturally on the rash side acting before thinking always and basically being dumb in the name of courageous virtue when the truly virtuous man weighs out the situation before acting, I will likely call him a coward. Likewise if I am naturally a coward, and the virtuous man acts in confidence and is truly courageous, I would be apt to call him rash. Yet, true virtue is a mean between vices, despite what we think about it. The well-adjusted man is, according to Aristotle, the most virtuous.
Following this, Aristotle begins to speak about continence and incontinence. Which, as far as I can understand is that there are basically four types of people and only one of them is completely lost with no hope of redemption.
There is the virtuous man, the continent man, the incontinent man, and the irredeemable.
The virtuous man is someone who knows that something is wrong for him, DOESN'T desire to do it based on his knowledge, and does not do it.
The continent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, but lets his wisdom guide him, and does not do it.
The Incontinent man is someone who knows something is wrong, DOES desire to do it, and against his better judgement DOES it.
And the irredeemable man is someone who thinks that the wrong thing is right, DOES desire to do the thing, and does it according to his judgement and wishes.
He is considered irredeemable because his judgement is wrong, and in order to seek repentance from doing an evil act one would need to judge the thing as wrong to begin with. So this man will never be able to repent.
As a reformed protestant this break down was pretty eye-opening for me. I loved this way of thinking about the moral categories of sin, and I think this is similar to the Christian view of sin. The only truly virtuous man was Christ, the perfect man, the exemplar of virtue, the second Adam who was not corrupted by sin, but perfect in all ways. And Christians dealing with the battle of incontinence in their sin and straddling the line between continence and incontinence, and those who believe that evil is good are irredeemable not because their sins are graver, but because they see no need in repentance, because they find evil to be good, and they see no need for Jesus. Yet, the Christian would argue that if God opens this man's eyes to see his evil he then is granted the option to repent.
Following this, Aristotle speaks on friendship, and once again Aristotle is refreshingly pragmatic. He looks at all kinds of friendship, and differentiates between different types of friendships, including the relationships between people who are alike, or different, joyous, or sad, friends who are there for a sort of economic agreement where both receive an equal amount of benefit from the friendship, etc. He differentiates between these friendships and the friendship a lover shares with his or her spouse, or a father to his son, or a son to his father, or a brother to his brother, etc. And he explores what the best version of all of these friendships is. What the virtuous man should look for and find in a friendship. How many friends is too many? etc etc. He truly leaves no stones unturned.
He then looks at the parallels between different friendships and different government systems claiming that each government system is based on a different type of friendship. A timocracy is based on a brotherhood type of friendship in it's honor based ruling, where-as a democracy is based on a more economical type of friendship where the focus is equality, and the monarchy a sort of patriarchal friendship and so on and so forth. I found this part to be truly insightful, and it is the part of this book that I'm most excited to revisit, because he seems to be riffing on Plato's four types of government at the end of The Republic and the how they revolve endlessly from one to the next, yet Aristotle has a different idea about which governments evolve into others, and as far as I could tell (already wanting to re-read this part to clarify) Aristotle seems to be saying that all of these governments are flawed because they function within the framework of only one type of friendship, yet humans are diverse and different, so we need several types of relationships within a government to function correctly. There needs to be "mothers" and "fathers" and "sons" and "daughters" and "friendships on an equal standing" all together. A democracy fails because there is only one type of friendship, that between equals that is purely economical in nature. Yet, we don't respect the people who are authorities above us because we don't believe in authority we hammer everyone down to fit into the same hole, yet it is a fabrication created by the government that tells us that we are all equal when we are not. Likewise in the other forms of government they lack the full spectrum of human relations so that in the end they always fail. That is, if I understood him correctly.
Yet I think his point here, and in the whole book in general is once again unrelentingly pragmatic, wouldn't the perfect governance (just like virtue itself) be a sort of balancing act just like friendship in that it is concerned solely with the good, with the virtuous and by pursuing virtue all parties are benefitted and happy because of the good. One that promotes the self (not in a capitalist/materialist sense but in the sense that virtue is the ultimate good for the self, worth a million times more than material possessions) and by doing so promotes everyone else. One that pursues the happiness and the good of all people by the virtuous pursuit of each individual. It is not black or white. This or that. It is more of a mean between this, this, and that.
August 17, 2017
鈥庁堌池з嗁� 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇貙 賲鬲兀爻賮丕賳賴 亘丕乇賴丕 丿蹖丿賴 丕賲 讴賴 毓丿賴 丕蹖 亘蹖爻賵丕丿 賵 賳丕丿丕賳貙 蹖丕 亘賴 毓賲丿 賵 蹖丕 丕夭 乇賵蹖 亘蹖爻賵丕丿蹖貙 賳賵卮鬲賴 賴丕蹖 <丕乇爻胤賵> 乇丕 賴賲趩賵賳 丿蹖诏乇 賮賱丕爻賮賴貙 蹖丕 鬲丨乇蹖賮 讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 蹖丕 爻丕賳爻賵乇 賳賲賵丿賴 丕賳丿 賵 丨鬲蹖 亘賴 賯賵賱賽 禺賵丿卮丕賳 鬲乇噩賲賴 賴丕蹖 毓噩蹖亘 賵 睾乇蹖亘蹖 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴 丕賳丿 讴賴 賳賲蹖丿丕賳賲 丌賳 噩賲賱丕鬲 乇丕 丕夭 讴噩丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇丌賵乇丿賴 丕賳丿 .. 賱匕丕 鬲氐賲蹖賲 诏乇賮鬲賲 鬲丕 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丌賳 亘賴 賲賵囟賵毓賽 賲賴賲 <丕禺賱丕賯> 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 丕爻鬲貙 鬲丕 噩丕蹖蹖 讴賴 乇蹖賵蹖賵 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 賳卮賵丿貙 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 亘賳賵蹖爻賲... 丿乇 賲賵乇丿 讴鬲丕亘賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 賮賱爻賮蹖 賳蹖夭貙 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇丕 禺賵丕賴賲 讴乇丿 賵 倬蹖卮 丕夭 丕蹖賳 賳蹖夭 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 乇丕 丕賳噩丕賲 丿丕丿賴 丕賲
鈥庁� 夭蹖乇 亘賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖锟斤拷 賳馗乇丕鬲 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲賲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻賲
--------------------------------------
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 亘賴 胤賵乇賽 讴賱蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕氐乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 亘诏賵蹖丿: 丕禺賱丕賯 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 賴丿賮賽 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 讴卮賮 讴賳蹖賲.. 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 賴丕 亘丕卮蹖賲 鬲丕 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 亘乇爻蹖賲... 倬爻 賴丿賮賽 丕氐賱蹖賽 丕蹖賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 賵 亘乇丕蹖賽 讴爻亘賽 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿丕乇丕蹖賽 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賵 丿丕賳丕蹖蹖 賵 丕賮夭賵賳蹖 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵 亘賻爻
鈥庁必驰屫� 亘賴 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賵 丿丕賳丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴贁 亘賴乇賴 亘乇丿賳 丕夭 禺乇丿 賵 毓賯賱貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖卮賵丿
鈥庁з嗀池з� 亘乇丕蹖賽 丌賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 卮讴賱賽 賲賲讴賳 丕夭 禺乇丿 亘賴乇賴 亘乇丿賴 賵 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 賴賲賴 賳馗乇 亘乇丕蹖賽 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴乇丿賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲賳丕爻亘 亘賵丿賴 賵 丕夭 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 亘蹖禺乇丿蹖 賴丕貙 倬丕讴 亘丕卮丿 賵 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮丿
鈥庁й屬� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵 賲丨蹖胤賽 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 賲賳丕爻亘 乇丕 鬲賳賴丕 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳丿... 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳賽 禺乇丿賲賳丿蹖 丕蹖賳 乇丕 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 讴賴
鈥庁ㄘ堎嗁� 鬲乇丿蹖丿 丨讴賵賲鬲 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖貙 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖賽 丕蹖噩丕丿賽 趩賳蹖賳 賲丨蹖胤蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丌賳賴丕 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 丿乇 賴乇丕爻 賴爻鬲賳丿
*
鈥庁ж必池焚� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 睾乇賵乇 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 賮乇賵鬲賳蹖 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 丕賲賾丕 乇賵卮 亘蹖丕賳 丌賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 亘丕卮丿.... 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 亘丨孬賽 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕貙 丕夭 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖" 爻禺賳 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 賵 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖" 乇丕 蹖讴 賳賵毓 禺賵亘蹖 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴爻蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 丕爻鬲.. 丕賵 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖賽 亘夭乇诏 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 ... 丨丕賱 丕蹖賳 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖 趩賴 賲蹖亘丕卮丿!! 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮"貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 <丿丕乇丕蹖蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖> 賲蹖亘丕卮丿.. 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 <丿丕乇丕蹖蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖>貙 丌亘乇賵 賵 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 丕爻鬲.... 倬爻 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮"貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌亘乇賵 賵 丕毓鬲亘丕乇賽 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿.. 賱匕丕 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕爻鬲貙 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 鬲賲丕賲蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕蹖賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 乇丕 蹖讴噩丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿... 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖"貙 鬲丕噩賽 卮丕賴丕賳賴贁 賴賲賴贁 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕爻鬲.... 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕蹖賳 丨賯 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丕賵 鬲賲丕賲賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 倬賳丿丕乇賽 賳蹖讴 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賵 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲丕賳賽 禺賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁й屬嗀ж池� 讴賴 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 丕蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 趩诏賵賳賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 卮丕诏乇丿賽 丿賵丕夭丿賴 爻丕賱賴 丕卮貙 <丕爻讴賳丿乇賽 賲賯丿賵賳蹖> 乇丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘乇 鬲賲丕賲賽 丕蹖賳 讴乇賴贁 禺丕讴蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 賴賲賴 乇丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 夭蹖乇 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵蹖卮 爻丕夭丿 賵 賴乇讴噩丕 亘乇賵丿 亘丕 禺賵丿 睾丕乇鬲 賵 賵蹖乇丕賳蹖 賵 讴卮鬲丕乇 乇丕 亘賴 丕乇賲睾丕賳 亘蹖丕賵乇丿 賵 禺賵丿 乇丕 蹖讴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 亘丿丕賳丿
鈥庂� 丕賲賾丕 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 丕蹖賳 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴賴 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕乇爻胤賵 丿丕乇丕蹖賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖蹖 讴賳丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" ... 卮禺氐賽 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴爻蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿爻鬲賽 讴賲 賲蹖诏蹖乇丿貙 賱匕丕 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖賽 讴賲鬲乇 賵 丕乇夭卮賽 讴賲鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿... 賵 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丕乇夭卮賽 乇丕爻鬲蹖賳賽 丕賵 亘丕賱丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕夭賴賲 丕賵 蹖讴 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕爻鬲 .... 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖丕賳賴贁 禺賵亘蹖 亘丕 賮乇賵鬲賳蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 賮乇賵鬲賳 乇丕 賱丕蹖賯賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 丕乇夭卮 賴丕 賳賲蹖丿丕賳丿
鈥庂嗂┴� 丕蹖 讴賴 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖貙 倬蹖卮讴卮 賵 賴丿蹖賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮丕賳" 丕乇夭丕賳蹖 诏卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 ... 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丿丕乇丕 亘賵丿賳 賵 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 亘賵丿賳 賵 丌亘乇賵賲賳丿蹖貙 丕夭 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲賽 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 亘丕卮賳丿貙 賱匕丕 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丕蹖賳 爻乇亘賱賳丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲賽 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖貙 丕乇夭丕賳蹖 诏卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲
**
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 讴卮賲讴卮 賵 賳亘乇丿貙 賲蹖丕賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賽 丕賵貙 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵亘 賳卮兀鬲 賲蹖诏蹖乇丿
鈥庁� 賵噩賵丿 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇貙 賴賲 禺乇丿 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 賴賲 卮賴賵鬲.. 丕賲丕 賴乇讴丿丕賲 亘噩丕 賵 亘禺賵亘蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖卮賵賳丿... 倬爻 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲: 丿乇 賵噩賵丿賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇貙 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕 丌賵丕蹖賽 禺乇丿貙 丿乇 賴賲丕賴賳诏蹖賽 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
鈥庁ж必池焚� 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇趩卮賲賴贁 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 賳丕賴賲丕賴賳诏蹖 賴丕 賵 賳丕賴賲爻丕賳蹖 賴丕 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 讴賵丿讴蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 鬲賱賯蹖賳 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 夭蹖丕丿 禺賵丕賴 賳亘丕卮賳丿 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 讴賲 丕乇夭卮 禺賵丕賴 亘丕卮賳丿... 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賳丕賴賲爻丕賳蹖 賴丕蹖賽 趩卮賲诏蹖乇蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貙.. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 賴丕貙 賳夭丿蹖讴 卮賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 禺乇丿貙 亘賴乇賴 賲蹖亘乇丿 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘賴鬲乇 毓賲賱 讴賳丿
**
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 讴賳卮 賴丕 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賴丕蹖賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 亘乇丕蹖 爻賵丿乇爻丕賳蹖 亘賴 丿賵爻鬲丕賳 賵 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賵 賲蹖賴賳卮 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕诏乇 賳蹖丕夭 亘丕卮丿貙 噩丕賳卮 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕賴 賮丿丕 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿
鈥庁з嗀池з嗁� 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 丕诏乇 亘丿丕賳丿 丿賵爻鬲卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 爻賵丿 賲蹖乇爻丿貙 丨丕囟乇 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘亘禺卮丿.. 夭蹖乇丕 亘丿蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲貙 丿賵爻鬲賽 丕賵 丿丕乇丕 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 禺賵丿卮 賳蹖夭 亘賴 鬲氐賵乇卮 亘丕 卮乇丕賮鬲 亘丕賯蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 賲丕賳丿... 丕賵 卮乇蹖賮 亘賵丿賳 乇丕 禺賵亘鬲乇 丕夭 丿丕乇丕 亘賵丿賳貙 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿
鈥庁з嗀池з嗁� 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵乇 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 趩賳丕賳趩賴 亘丕 卮乇丕賮鬲 亘賲蹖乇丿貙 禺賵亘蹖 賵 乇賵卮賳蹖賽 亘夭乇诏蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲
***
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕诏乇 卮禺氐蹖 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭卮 乇丕 賮丿丕蹖賽 禺賵卮蹖 賴丕蹖賽 噩賳爻蹖 讴賳丿貙 丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕卮 賲賳丕爻亘賽 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 丌賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲賳丕爻亘賽 趩賴丕乇倬丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲... 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕馗賴丕乇賽 賳馗乇蹖 毓噩蹖亘 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丨鬲蹖 蹖讴 亘乇丿賴 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 禺賵卮蹖 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖 賵 賱匕鬲 噩賳爻蹖 亘賴乇賴 賲賳丿 卮賵丿貙 丕賲賾丕 賴蹖趩讴爻 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕丿毓丕 讴賳丿 讴賴 蹖讴 亘乇丿賴貙 爻賴賲蹖 丕夭 卮丕丿蹖 丿丕乇丿
鈥庁� 丕蹖賳 丕馗賴丕乇賽 賳馗乇貙 丕乇爻胤賵 亘乇丿賴 乇丕 倬丕蹖蹖賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 賵 丌賳乇丕 丿乇 乇丿蹖賮賽 趩賴丕乇倬丕蹖丕賳貙 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖丿賴丿
***
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁� 賲賳貙 丕乇爻胤賵 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇丕 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴: 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 賴乇 賴賳乇 賵 蹖丕 賴乇 丿丕賳卮賽 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賵 賴乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳丿賴蹖 卮丿賴 賵 賴乇 讴賳卮 賵 诏夭蹖賳卮蹖貙 亘賴 爻賵蹖賽 亘乇禺蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賳卮丕賳賴 乇賮鬲賴 丕賳丿
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖禺賵丕賴丿 亘诏賵蹖丿 讴賴: 亘乇禺蹖 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 賵 讴賳卮 賴丕貙 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 禺賵亘 賵 賳蹖讴 賴爻鬲賳丿.. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 賴蹖趩 倬蹖丕賲丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿... 丕乇爻胤賵 賲孬丕賱蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖賽 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖賽 爻禺賳賽 丌睾丕夭蹖賳賽 讴鬲丕亘卮 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賳賲賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳 乇丕 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿鬲乇蹖賳 讴賳卮 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 讴賳卮 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賽 丕蹖夭丿蹖 讴賴 賳蹖讴亘禺鬲蹖賽 丌賳 亘乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 讴賳卮 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 賵 讴乇丿丕乇 賵 讴賳卮 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 賳夭丿蹖讴鬲乇蹖賳 禺賵蹖卮丕賵賳丿蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丌賳 丿丕乇丿貙 亘丕蹖爻鬲蹖 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱賽 禺賵卮賳賵丿蹖 亘丕卮丿... 賱匕丕 丕乇爻胤賵 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 爻鬲丕蹖卮 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 丕蹖夭丿 賵 蹖丕 丕蹖夭丿丕賳 乇丕 讴乇丿丕乇 賵 讴賳卮賽 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳賴 賵 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 賵 禺乇丿賲賳丿丕賳賴貙 亘乇賲蹖诏夭蹖賳丿.... 蹖毓賳蹖 賴乇趩賴 乇丕 讴賴 賲蹖 丌賲賵夭蹖賲貙 丿乇 丌賳 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲賽 毓賲蹖賯蹖 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 讴賴 賴賲丕賳 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
--------------------------------------------
鈥庁簇й屫� 亘禺丕胤乇 亘蹖丕賳 賴賲蹖賳 毓賯丕蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 毓丿賴 丕蹖 亘蹖禺乇丿 賵 賲鬲毓氐亘貙 丕乇爻胤賵 乇丕 讴丕賮乇 賳丕賲 賳賴丕丿賳丿 賵 丕賵 乇丕 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 賲乇诏 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 丕乇爻胤賵 賲噩亘賵乇 卮丿 鬲丕 亘賴 噩夭蹖乇賴贁 丕賵亘賵丌 亘诏乇蹖夭丿
鈥庁迟矩ж弛藏ж辟� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 乇丕 鬲丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 丿乇 噩賴鬲賽 卮賳丕禺鬲賽 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖賽 丕乇爻胤賵貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
鈥庁� 夭蹖乇 亘賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲賴賲鬲乇蹖锟斤拷 賳馗乇丕鬲 賵 毓賯丕蹖丿 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 賵 禺賱丕氐賴 丕蹖 丕夭 丌賳趩賴 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲賲 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 卮賲丕 禺乇丿诏乇丕蹖丕賳 賲蹖賳賵蹖爻賲
--------------------------------------
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁呚� 亘賴 胤賵乇賽 讴賱蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕氐乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 亘诏賵蹖丿: 丕禺賱丕賯 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳蹖賲 賴丿賮賽 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇丕 讴卮賮 讴賳蹖賲.. 亘丕蹖丿 亘賴 丿賳亘丕賱賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 賴丕 亘丕卮蹖賲 鬲丕 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 亘乇爻蹖賲... 倬爻 賴丿賮賽 丕氐賱蹖賽 丕蹖賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 乇爻蹖丿賳 亘賴 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 賵 亘乇丕蹖賽 讴爻亘賽 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖 亘丕蹖丿 丿丕乇丕蹖賽 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賵 丿丕賳丕蹖蹖 賵 丕賮夭賵賳蹖 亘丕卮蹖賲 賵 亘賻爻
鈥庁必驰屫� 亘賴 亘乇鬲乇蹖 賵 丿丕賳丕蹖蹖貙 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 賵丕爻胤賴贁 亘賴乇賴 亘乇丿賳 丕夭 禺乇丿 賵 毓賯賱貙 丕蹖噩丕丿 賲蹖卮賵丿
鈥庁з嗀池з� 亘乇丕蹖賽 丌賳讴賴 亘鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 卮讴賱賽 賲賲讴賳 丕夭 禺乇丿 亘賴乇賴 亘乇丿賴 賵 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕蹖丿 丿乇 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 賴賲賴 賳馗乇 亘乇丕蹖賽 夭賳丿诏蹖 讴乇丿賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲賳丕爻亘 亘賵丿賴 賵 丕夭 賲賵賴賵賲丕鬲 賵 亘蹖禺乇丿蹖 賴丕貙 倬丕讴 亘丕卮丿 賵 丌夭丕丿丕賳賴 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮丿
鈥庁й屬� 丕噩鬲賲丕毓 賵 賲丨蹖胤賽 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 賲賳丕爻亘 乇丕 鬲賳賴丕 丨讴賵賲鬲蹖 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 丕蹖噩丕丿 讴賳丿... 賴乇 丕賳爻丕賳賽 禺乇丿賲賳丿蹖 丕蹖賳 乇丕 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 讴賴
鈥庁ㄘ堎嗁� 鬲乇丿蹖丿 丨讴賵賲鬲 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖賳蹖 賵 賲匕賴亘蹖貙 鬲賵丕賳丕蹖蹖賽 丕蹖噩丕丿賽 趩賳蹖賳 賲丨蹖胤蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賳丿丕乇賳丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丌賳賴丕 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 丿乇 賴乇丕爻 賴爻鬲賳丿
*
鈥庁ж必池焚� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 鬲賵囟蹖丨丕鬲蹖 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 睾乇賵乇 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 賮乇賵鬲賳蹖 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 丕賲賾丕 乇賵卮 亘蹖丕賳 丌賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 噩丕賱亘 鬲賵噩賴 亘丕卮丿.... 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 亘丨孬賽 賲乇亘賵胤 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕貙 丕夭 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖" 爻禺賳 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿 賵 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖" 乇丕 蹖讴 賳賵毓 禺賵亘蹖 亘賴 丨爻丕亘 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴爻蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖 亘夭乇诏 丕爻鬲 賵 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 賴賲蹖賳胤賵乇 丕爻鬲.. 丕賵 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖賽 亘夭乇诏 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 ... 丨丕賱 丕蹖賳 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖 趩賴 賲蹖亘丕卮丿!! 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮"貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 <丿丕乇丕蹖蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖> 賲蹖亘丕卮丿.. 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 <丿丕乇丕蹖蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘蹖乇賵賳蹖>貙 丌亘乇賵 賵 丕毓鬲亘丕乇 丕爻鬲.... 倬爻 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮"貙 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌亘乇賵 賵 丕毓鬲亘丕乇賽 亘爻蹖丕乇 夭蹖丕丿蹖 亘乇禺賵乇丿丕乇 亘丕卮丿.. 賱匕丕 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕爻鬲貙 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 鬲賲丕賲蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕蹖賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 乇丕 蹖讴噩丕 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿... 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖"貙 鬲丕噩賽 卮丕賴丕賳賴贁 賴賲賴贁 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕爻鬲.... 丕賳爻丕賳賽 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕蹖賳 丨賯 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 趩乇丕讴賴 丕賵 鬲賲丕賲賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 倬賳丿丕乇賽 賳蹖讴 賵 丿乇爻鬲蹖 丕夭 丿蹖诏乇丕賳 賵 夭蹖乇丿爻鬲丕賳賽 禺賵丿 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿
鈥庁й屬嗀ж池� 讴賴 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖卮賵蹖賲 丕蹖賳 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 趩诏賵賳賴 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 卮丕诏乇丿賽 丿賵丕夭丿賴 爻丕賱賴 丕卮貙 <丕爻讴賳丿乇賽 賲賯丿賵賳蹖> 乇丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 賲賵噩賵丿蹖 讴賳丿 讴賴 鬲氐賵乇 賲蹖讴賳丿 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘乇 鬲賲丕賲賽 丕蹖賳 讴乇賴贁 禺丕讴蹖 丨讴賵賲鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 賴賲賴 乇丕 鬲亘丿蹖賱 亘賴 夭蹖乇 丿爻鬲賽 禺賵蹖卮 爻丕夭丿 賵 賴乇讴噩丕 亘乇賵丿 亘丕 禺賵丿 睾丕乇鬲 賵 賵蹖乇丕賳蹖 賵 讴卮鬲丕乇 乇丕 亘賴 丕乇賲睾丕賳 亘蹖丕賵乇丿 賵 禺賵丿 乇丕 蹖讴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 亘丿丕賳丿
鈥庂� 丕賲賾丕 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 丕蹖賳 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴賴 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 丕乇爻胤賵 丿丕乇丕蹖賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕爻鬲 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 賮乇賲丕賳乇賵丕蹖蹖 讴賳丿貙 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" ... 卮禺氐賽 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" 讴爻蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿爻鬲賽 讴賲 賲蹖诏蹖乇丿貙 賱匕丕 卮丕蹖爻鬲诏蹖賽 讴賲鬲乇 賵 丕乇夭卮賽 讴賲鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿... 賵 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 丕乇夭卮賽 乇丕爻鬲蹖賳賽 丕賵 亘丕賱丕 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕夭賴賲 丕賵 蹖讴 "賮乇賵 丕賳丿蹖卮" 丕爻鬲 .... 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖丕賳賴贁 禺賵亘蹖 亘丕 賮乇賵鬲賳蹖 賳丿丕乇丿 賵 賮乇賵鬲賳 乇丕 賱丕蹖賯賽 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 丕乇夭卮 賴丕 賳賲蹖丿丕賳丿
鈥庂嗂┴� 丕蹖 讴賴 亘爻蹖丕乇 噩丕賱亘 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕乇爻胤賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖貙 倬蹖卮讴卮 賵 賴丿蹖賴 丕蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮丕賳" 丕乇夭丕賳蹖 诏卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲 ... 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 丿丕乇丕 亘賵丿賳 賵 孬乇賵鬲賲賳丿 亘賵丿賳 賵 丌亘乇賵賲賳丿蹖貙 丕夭 禺氐賵氐蹖丕鬲賽 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 "賮乇丕 丕賳丿蹖卮" 亘丕卮賳丿貙 賱匕丕 丕卮乇丕賮 夭丕丿诏丕賳 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴贁 丕蹖賳 爻乇亘賱賳丿蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲賽 禺賵卮亘禺鬲蹖貙 丕乇夭丕賳蹖 诏卮鬲賴 丕爻鬲
**
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 讴卮賲讴卮 賵 賳亘乇丿貙 賲蹖丕賳賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賵 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賽 丕賵貙 丕夭 夭賳丿诏蹖 禺賵亘 賳卮兀鬲 賲蹖诏蹖乇丿
鈥庁� 賵噩賵丿 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇貙 賴賲 禺乇丿 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 賵 賴賲 卮賴賵鬲.. 丕賲丕 賴乇讴丿丕賲 亘噩丕 賵 亘禺賵亘蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖卮賵賳丿... 倬爻 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳 诏賮鬲: 丿乇 賵噩賵丿賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇貙 賴乇趩蹖夭蹖 亘丕 丌賵丕蹖賽 禺乇丿貙 丿乇 賴賲丕賴賳诏蹖賽 讴丕賲賱 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
鈥庁ж必池焚� 亘乇 丕蹖賳 亘丕賵乇 丕爻鬲 讴賴 爻乇趩卮賲賴贁 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 賳丕賴賲丕賴賳诏蹖 賴丕 賵 賳丕賴賲爻丕賳蹖 賴丕 丿乇 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 讴賵丿讴蹖 亘賴 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕 鬲賱賯蹖賳 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 夭蹖丕丿 禺賵丕賴 賳亘丕卮賳丿 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳 讴賲 丕乇夭卮 禺賵丕賴 亘丕卮賳丿... 讴賴 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 賳丕賴賲爻丕賳蹖 賴丕蹖賽 趩卮賲诏蹖乇蹖 乇丕 亘賴 賵噩賵丿 丌賵乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貙.. 丿乇 丕蹖賳 賲蹖丕賳 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 亘賴 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賵 賳蹖讴蹖 賴丕貙 賳夭丿蹖讴 卮賵丿 讴賴 丕夭 禺乇丿貙 亘賴乇賴 賲蹖亘乇丿 賵 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賽 丕禺賱丕賯蹖 亘賴鬲乇 毓賲賱 讴賳丿
**
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丕夭 讴賳卮 賴丕 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賴丕蹖賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳賽 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 亘乇丕蹖 爻賵丿乇爻丕賳蹖 亘賴 丿賵爻鬲丕賳 賵 爻乇夭賲蹖賳 賵 賲蹖賴賳卮 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 丕诏乇 賳蹖丕夭 亘丕卮丿貙 噩丕賳卮 乇丕 丿乇 丕蹖賳 乇丕賴 賮丿丕 禺賵丕賴丿 讴乇丿
鈥庁з嗀池з嗁� 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 丕诏乇 亘丿丕賳丿 丿賵爻鬲卮 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘賴 爻賵丿 賲蹖乇爻丿貙 丨丕囟乇 丕爻鬲 鬲丕 賲丕賱 賵 孬乇賵鬲 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘亘禺卮丿.. 夭蹖乇丕 亘丿蹖賳 氐賵乇鬲貙 丿賵爻鬲賽 丕賵 丿丕乇丕 賲蹖卮賵丿 賵 禺賵丿卮 賳蹖夭 亘賴 鬲氐賵乇卮 亘丕 卮乇丕賮鬲 亘丕賯蹖 禺賵丕賴丿 賲丕賳丿... 丕賵 卮乇蹖賮 亘賵丿賳 乇丕 禺賵亘鬲乇 丕夭 丿丕乇丕 亘賵丿賳貙 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿
鈥庁з嗀池з嗁� 丕禺賱丕賯 诏乇丕貙 丕蹖賳 鬲氐賵乇 乇丕 丿丕乇丿 讴賴 趩賳丕賳趩賴 亘丕 卮乇丕賮鬲 亘賲蹖乇丿貙 禺賵亘蹖 賵 乇賵卮賳蹖賽 亘夭乇诏蹖 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵蹖卮 亘乇诏夭蹖丿賴 丕爻鬲
***
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲毓鬲賯丿 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕诏乇 卮禺氐蹖 賴賲賴 趩蹖夭卮 乇丕 賮丿丕蹖賽 禺賵卮蹖 賴丕蹖賽 噩賳爻蹖 讴賳丿貙 丿蹖诏乇 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕卮 賲賳丕爻亘賽 夭賳丿诏蹖賽 蹖讴 丕賳爻丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘賱讴賴 丌賳 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲賳丕爻亘賽 趩賴丕乇倬丕蹖丕賳 丕爻鬲... 丕乇爻胤賵 丿乇 丕馗賴丕乇賽 賳馗乇蹖 毓噩蹖亘 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 丨鬲蹖 蹖讴 亘乇丿賴 賳蹖夭 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕夭 禺賵卮蹖 賴丕蹖 噩賳爻蹖 賵 賱匕鬲 噩賳爻蹖 亘賴乇賴 賲賳丿 卮賵丿貙 丕賲賾丕 賴蹖趩讴爻 賳賲蹖鬲賵丕賳丿 丕丿毓丕 讴賳丿 讴賴 蹖讴 亘乇丿賴貙 爻賴賲蹖 丕夭 卮丕丿蹖 丿丕乇丿
鈥庁� 丕蹖賳 丕馗賴丕乇賽 賳馗乇貙 丕乇爻胤賵 亘乇丿賴 乇丕 倬丕蹖蹖賳 鬲乇 丕夭 丕賳爻丕賳 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 賵 丌賳乇丕 丿乇 乇丿蹖賮賽 趩賴丕乇倬丕蹖丕賳貙 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖丿賴丿
***
鈥庁关槽屫藏з嗁� 賲賳貙 丕乇爻胤賵 讴鬲丕亘卮 乇丕 丕蹖賳诏賵賳賴 丌睾丕夭 賲蹖讴賳丿 讴賴: 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 賴乇 賴賳乇 賵 蹖丕 賴乇 丿丕賳卮賽 讴丕乇亘乇丿蹖 賵 賴乇 亘乇乇爻蹖 爻丕夭賲丕賳丿賴蹖 卮丿賴 賵 賴乇 讴賳卮 賵 诏夭蹖賳卮蹖貙 亘賴 爻賵蹖賽 亘乇禺蹖 禺賵亘蹖 賴丕 賳卮丕賳賴 乇賮鬲賴 丕賳丿
鈥庁ж必池焚� 賲蹖禺賵丕賴丿 亘诏賵蹖丿 讴賴: 亘乇禺蹖 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 賵 讴賳卮 賴丕貙 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 禺賵亘 賵 賳蹖讴 賴爻鬲賳丿.. 蹖毓賳蹖 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 丨鬲蹖 丕诏乇 賴蹖趩 倬蹖丕賲丿蹖 賳丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮賳丿... 丕乇爻胤賵 賲孬丕賱蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丕賳鬲賴丕蹖賽 讴鬲丕亘 亘乇丕蹖賽 爻禺賳賽 丌睾丕夭蹖賳賽 讴鬲丕亘卮 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿貙 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賳賲賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 乇賮鬲丕乇賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 禺賵丿蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 禺賵亘 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖丿賳 乇丕 丕乇夭卮賲賳丿鬲乇蹖賳 讴賳卮 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賽 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 賲蹖丿丕賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 讴賳卮 賵 讴乇丿丕乇賽 丕蹖夭丿蹖 讴賴 賳蹖讴亘禺鬲蹖賽 丌賳 亘乇 鬲賲丕賲蹖賽 讴賳卮 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿 賵 讴乇丿丕乇 賵 讴賳卮 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 讴賴 賳夭丿蹖讴鬲乇蹖賳 禺賵蹖卮丕賵賳丿蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丌賳 丿丕乇丿貙 亘丕蹖爻鬲蹖 亘夭乇诏鬲乇蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱賽 禺賵卮賳賵丿蹖 亘丕卮丿... 賱匕丕 丕乇爻胤賵 亘丕賱丕鬲乇蹖賳 爻鬲丕蹖卮 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 丕蹖夭丿 賵 蹖丕 丕蹖夭丿丕賳 乇丕 讴乇丿丕乇 賵 讴賳卮賽 賮蹖賱爻賵賮丕賳賴 賵 丿丕賳卮賲賳丿丕賳賴 賵 禺乇丿賲賳丿丕賳賴貙 亘乇賲蹖诏夭蹖賳丿.... 蹖毓賳蹖 賴乇趩賴 乇丕 讴賴 賲蹖 丌賲賵夭蹖賲貙 丿乇 丌賳 亘賴 氐賵乇鬲賽 毓賲蹖賯蹖 亘蹖丕賳丿蹖卮蹖賲貙 讴賴 賴賲丕賳 跇乇賮 丕賳丿蹖卮蹖 賲蹖亘丕卮丿
--------------------------------------------
鈥庁簇й屫� 亘禺丕胤乇 亘蹖丕賳 賴賲蹖賳 毓賯丕蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 毓丿賴 丕蹖 亘蹖禺乇丿 賵 賲鬲毓氐亘貙 丕乇爻胤賵 乇丕 讴丕賮乇 賳丕賲 賳賴丕丿賳丿 賵 丕賵 乇丕 賲丨讴賵賲 亘賴 賲乇诏 讴乇丿賳丿 賵 丕乇爻胤賵 賲噩亘賵乇 卮丿 鬲丕 亘賴 噩夭蹖乇賴贁 丕賵亘賵丌 亘诏乇蹖夭丿
鈥庁迟矩ж弛藏ж辟� 讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 乇丕 鬲丕 倬丕蹖丕賳 禺賵丕賳丿蹖丿 賵 丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 丿乇 噩賴鬲賽 卮賳丕禺鬲賽 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵 亘禺卮蹖 丕夭 丕賳丿蹖卮賴 賴丕蹖賽 丕乇爻胤賵貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
鈥�<倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖>
July 1, 2021
Nicomachean Ethics ~ Aristotle
First Impression of Aristotle
I first read Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics in college over twenty years ago. My first experience with Aristotle was reading from a scientific work of his that was perhaps only twelve pages long. Twelve pages, I thought, what a break! Normally our readings were much longer. I could take it easy this week, I thought. Big mistake! Twelve pages of Aristotle meant twelve hours of intense study to work out what he was saying as best I could, and in some spots to confess defeat and at least mark where my questions were. This is a common first experience with Aristotle, but one gets faster as one gets to know him.
Aristotle, or Plato?
In those early college days where students were far more interested in reading books and understanding what their authors were saying, and were not interested in cancelling anything, a frequent question among the studentry, used to better get to know another was Whom do you prefer, Plato or Aristotle? How could anyone prefer Aristotle, I thought. The writing is awful鈥撯€揾is defenders must apologize for it (the sloppy organization, the frequent repetitions, the extreme concision and the use of pronouns that makes it tough sometimes to keep track of antecedents) on the grounds that his books were meant merely to be his own personal lecture notes, and had no literary pretensions. Plato, on the other hand wrote so beautifully, and he crafts such artful dialogues, which reflect the nature of philosophical objects in the structure of his dramatic framework. Plato, one of the fathers of Greek prose style, not only writes beautiful prose, but places his art at the service of conveying philosophical truth.
In short, I was in love with Plato, because I was a lover of beauty, and the whole experience of reading Plato, of sitting in a dramatic scene to listen to the interesting conversations of Socrates and his friends or foils, was much more entertaining. The lovers of Aristotle, on the other hand, were not insensitive to beauty, but rather discovered beauty in the straightforwardness of Aristotle, who states how things are, and even states that though Plato is his friend, a greater friend is truth. This was the beauty that lies in the clarity and directness of truth stated and explained. Plato on the other hand forces the reader patiently to sit through the meandering course of a discussion in pursuit of truth, which at least leads to a better understanding of the questions. Aristotle, however, has already figured things out, and explains them directly to the reader. That is not to say that his material is for that reason easy. No, the reader must still figure out what Aristotle means. Plato, on the other hand, is more entertaining. The effort to understand either of them pays off well in the joyful experience of acquired understanding, but Plato can be enjoyable even if one has understood little, while Aristotle will never be enjoyable without the success in figuring him out. Put another way, I believe that Plato rejoices in the means to the end, and Aristotle only in the end achieved.
In my later, more mature years I thought that I had come to love Aristotle more than Plato. Perhaps, because I had been reading Aquinas, I had come to enjoy more of the hard philosophical stuff. Aquinas understood Aristotle well, and his use of Aristotle would mean that Aristotle should become much more influential on the future philosophical history of the west than Plato.
It is perhaps best to reflect that no matter how one feels about the two, Plato and Aristotle have been depicted by Raphael as the central focus of his School of Athens fresco, because the two of them, together with their teacher Socrates, reclining on the steps below them, are the foundation upon which the rest of western philosophy is built. So, why should one read Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics?
For whom is this book written?
Aristotle has written his Ethics with a practical end in mind. It is designed with the purpose of helping his audience to become better persons. If this were not possible it would all be a waste of time. That being said, it is not a book for those who do not like to read, think, deliberate, or use their intellect. If you are willing to do these things and you want to know how to discover happiness, and learn how you may live a good life, then this is a book for you. Perhaps the most beautiful part of the book involves friendship.
Some concepts covered in The Nicomachean Ethics
What is virtue, can it be taught? With words such as these 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 Meno had begun. By the end of that dialogue, we had come to understand perhaps that an example of virtue might be given, which others may learn to follow, but we still weren鈥檛 very sure what virtue was. In the Protagoras we also come to wonder why, though Pericles is such a great and virtuous man, his sons are worthless louts.
In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle actually defines and explains virtue. Virtue is a state of the soul. The soul, like 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 model of the soul, has three parts, but they are not the same three. There is a vegetative / nutritive part of the soul which is involved with absorption of nutrients necessary for life. That part of the soul does what it needs to do automatically, and there is no more need to elaborate upon it. The two remaining parts are the part with reason, and the part without reason, which involves appetite and desire. This last part without reason, still participates in reason, however, in that it is able to listen to reason and is open to persuasion.
Aristotle considers why people act. Every action is undertaken with a view to the pursuit of some perceived good. The final aim of all action is happiness. There are, however, many complications, e.g. distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are considered to be such either when the cause of the action is external, or when it is owing to ignorance. There is then a distinction between an action performed in ignorance, and through ignorance. I鈥檓 wandering about on the terrain here, merely to give you an idea of some of the complexity you will encounter, but now back to virtue.
Aristotle describes virtue as a mean existing between two extremes, one of deficiency, and another of excess. This is perhaps easiest to see with the examples of courage and temperance. Courage is defined as the mean existing between cowardice (a deficiency of courage) and rashness (in appearance, an excess of courage). A human being, however, can not actually have more of the quality of courage than what exists at that mean point. For any departure from the mean, either in the direction of deficiency or excess, is less of courage, so that the means are actual superlative states of the virtues in question (temperance, courage, generosity, and so forth). It is necessary to mention that my example here relates to that part of the soul 鈥渨ithout reason,鈥� which has its respective virtues relating to appetite, desire, and the experience of the human being in relation to pain and pleasure. There are other virtues belonging properly to the part of the soul 鈥渨ith reason鈥� and these are the intellectual virtues. All of them are essential to leading a good and happy life.
So, Aristotle says that virtue is a mean, but he also defines virtue as a state of the soul. What state your soul is in with respect to courage is observed by others with the sudden emergence of an unexpected danger, for there will be no time to deliberate at that moment about what to do. When the wild beast emerges from the edge of the forest and attacks your family picnic, do you turn and run or stand to fight to defend the young and old? So, what if you lack courage? What if as a result of poor training, poor education, and bad experience, you have never developed courage? How can you improve? The short answer is by performing courageous acts, and slow habituation. One trains oneself in virtuous action. Well, I fear I should make a bad job of it were I to attempt to summarize the 200 pages of Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics, but there is much more of interest: the idea of the great-souled man, justice, both distributive and corrective, reciprocity and the r么le of money (a unit of convertibility between disparate things), the difference between self-control and temperance, friendship, and happiness, "an activity of the soul in accordance with reason.鈥�
But is it all true, supposing I actually took the time to figure it out?
I believe it is, though I鈥檓 not sure about the vegetative soul. The system of Aristotle鈥檚 moral ethics is practical but perhaps, like the laws of Physics, it breaks down at a quantum level and is no longer viable. For example, if an ethical courageous act, involves a deliberate choice to risk everything for the attainment of an end, then cowardice is no longer admissible, and there can be no question of rashness. There are no longer extremes, there is only the courageous ethical act. If this is so, it means that there is not really a sliding scale upon which to place cowardice, courage, and rashness, as though they each represented different quantities of the same quality. In other words, when virtue the mean is discovered, the extremes vanish. We have here something analogous to the set of laws in physics that are true for velocities lower than C, the speed of light, where discovering the mean is equivalent to surpassing C. If the analogy works, there may be more to discover, refinements or revisions to be made, but for practical purposes, given human experience鈥撯€搘e don鈥檛 have experience of the speed of light either鈥撯€搕he system works, and working through the treatise will make you more aware of all these things and set you on the path towards "an active life of the soul in accordance with reason.鈥�
I recommend patience in reading, working it out, and digesting it slowly. Don鈥檛 attempt to read it in only three weeks, as I had to for a recent seminar, but plan instead for a long, slow, deliberate read. It will be best to have interested friends with whom you can discuss it as you go, for friends are essential to the happy life. 馃檪
See also:
笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 Republic
First Impression of Aristotle
I first read Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics in college over twenty years ago. My first experience with Aristotle was reading from a scientific work of his that was perhaps only twelve pages long. Twelve pages, I thought, what a break! Normally our readings were much longer. I could take it easy this week, I thought. Big mistake! Twelve pages of Aristotle meant twelve hours of intense study to work out what he was saying as best I could, and in some spots to confess defeat and at least mark where my questions were. This is a common first experience with Aristotle, but one gets faster as one gets to know him.
Aristotle, or Plato?
In those early college days where students were far more interested in reading books and understanding what their authors were saying, and were not interested in cancelling anything, a frequent question among the studentry, used to better get to know another was Whom do you prefer, Plato or Aristotle? How could anyone prefer Aristotle, I thought. The writing is awful鈥撯€揾is defenders must apologize for it (the sloppy organization, the frequent repetitions, the extreme concision and the use of pronouns that makes it tough sometimes to keep track of antecedents) on the grounds that his books were meant merely to be his own personal lecture notes, and had no literary pretensions. Plato, on the other hand wrote so beautifully, and he crafts such artful dialogues, which reflect the nature of philosophical objects in the structure of his dramatic framework. Plato, one of the fathers of Greek prose style, not only writes beautiful prose, but places his art at the service of conveying philosophical truth.
In short, I was in love with Plato, because I was a lover of beauty, and the whole experience of reading Plato, of sitting in a dramatic scene to listen to the interesting conversations of Socrates and his friends or foils, was much more entertaining. The lovers of Aristotle, on the other hand, were not insensitive to beauty, but rather discovered beauty in the straightforwardness of Aristotle, who states how things are, and even states that though Plato is his friend, a greater friend is truth. This was the beauty that lies in the clarity and directness of truth stated and explained. Plato on the other hand forces the reader patiently to sit through the meandering course of a discussion in pursuit of truth, which at least leads to a better understanding of the questions. Aristotle, however, has already figured things out, and explains them directly to the reader. That is not to say that his material is for that reason easy. No, the reader must still figure out what Aristotle means. Plato, on the other hand, is more entertaining. The effort to understand either of them pays off well in the joyful experience of acquired understanding, but Plato can be enjoyable even if one has understood little, while Aristotle will never be enjoyable without the success in figuring him out. Put another way, I believe that Plato rejoices in the means to the end, and Aristotle only in the end achieved.
In my later, more mature years I thought that I had come to love Aristotle more than Plato. Perhaps, because I had been reading Aquinas, I had come to enjoy more of the hard philosophical stuff. Aquinas understood Aristotle well, and his use of Aristotle would mean that Aristotle should become much more influential on the future philosophical history of the west than Plato.
It is perhaps best to reflect that no matter how one feels about the two, Plato and Aristotle have been depicted by Raphael as the central focus of his School of Athens fresco, because the two of them, together with their teacher Socrates, reclining on the steps below them, are the foundation upon which the rest of western philosophy is built. So, why should one read Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics?
For whom is this book written?
Aristotle has written his Ethics with a practical end in mind. It is designed with the purpose of helping his audience to become better persons. If this were not possible it would all be a waste of time. That being said, it is not a book for those who do not like to read, think, deliberate, or use their intellect. If you are willing to do these things and you want to know how to discover happiness, and learn how you may live a good life, then this is a book for you. Perhaps the most beautiful part of the book involves friendship.
Some concepts covered in The Nicomachean Ethics
What is virtue, can it be taught? With words such as these 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 Meno had begun. By the end of that dialogue, we had come to understand perhaps that an example of virtue might be given, which others may learn to follow, but we still weren鈥檛 very sure what virtue was. In the Protagoras we also come to wonder why, though Pericles is such a great and virtuous man, his sons are worthless louts.
In his Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle actually defines and explains virtue. Virtue is a state of the soul. The soul, like 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 model of the soul, has three parts, but they are not the same three. There is a vegetative / nutritive part of the soul which is involved with absorption of nutrients necessary for life. That part of the soul does what it needs to do automatically, and there is no more need to elaborate upon it. The two remaining parts are the part with reason, and the part without reason, which involves appetite and desire. This last part without reason, still participates in reason, however, in that it is able to listen to reason and is open to persuasion.
Aristotle considers why people act. Every action is undertaken with a view to the pursuit of some perceived good. The final aim of all action is happiness. There are, however, many complications, e.g. distinctions between voluntary, involuntary, and non-voluntary actions. Involuntary actions are considered to be such either when the cause of the action is external, or when it is owing to ignorance. There is then a distinction between an action performed in ignorance, and through ignorance. I鈥檓 wandering about on the terrain here, merely to give you an idea of some of the complexity you will encounter, but now back to virtue.
Aristotle describes virtue as a mean existing between two extremes, one of deficiency, and another of excess. This is perhaps easiest to see with the examples of courage and temperance. Courage is defined as the mean existing between cowardice (a deficiency of courage) and rashness (in appearance, an excess of courage). A human being, however, can not actually have more of the quality of courage than what exists at that mean point. For any departure from the mean, either in the direction of deficiency or excess, is less of courage, so that the means are actual superlative states of the virtues in question (temperance, courage, generosity, and so forth). It is necessary to mention that my example here relates to that part of the soul 鈥渨ithout reason,鈥� which has its respective virtues relating to appetite, desire, and the experience of the human being in relation to pain and pleasure. There are other virtues belonging properly to the part of the soul 鈥渨ith reason鈥� and these are the intellectual virtues. All of them are essential to leading a good and happy life.
So, Aristotle says that virtue is a mean, but he also defines virtue as a state of the soul. What state your soul is in with respect to courage is observed by others with the sudden emergence of an unexpected danger, for there will be no time to deliberate at that moment about what to do. When the wild beast emerges from the edge of the forest and attacks your family picnic, do you turn and run or stand to fight to defend the young and old? So, what if you lack courage? What if as a result of poor training, poor education, and bad experience, you have never developed courage? How can you improve? The short answer is by performing courageous acts, and slow habituation. One trains oneself in virtuous action. Well, I fear I should make a bad job of it were I to attempt to summarize the 200 pages of Aristotle鈥檚 Nicomachean Ethics, but there is much more of interest: the idea of the great-souled man, justice, both distributive and corrective, reciprocity and the r么le of money (a unit of convertibility between disparate things), the difference between self-control and temperance, friendship, and happiness, "an activity of the soul in accordance with reason.鈥�
But is it all true, supposing I actually took the time to figure it out?
I believe it is, though I鈥檓 not sure about the vegetative soul. The system of Aristotle鈥檚 moral ethics is practical but perhaps, like the laws of Physics, it breaks down at a quantum level and is no longer viable. For example, if an ethical courageous act, involves a deliberate choice to risk everything for the attainment of an end, then cowardice is no longer admissible, and there can be no question of rashness. There are no longer extremes, there is only the courageous ethical act. If this is so, it means that there is not really a sliding scale upon which to place cowardice, courage, and rashness, as though they each represented different quantities of the same quality. In other words, when virtue the mean is discovered, the extremes vanish. We have here something analogous to the set of laws in physics that are true for velocities lower than C, the speed of light, where discovering the mean is equivalent to surpassing C. If the analogy works, there may be more to discover, refinements or revisions to be made, but for practical purposes, given human experience鈥撯€搘e don鈥檛 have experience of the speed of light either鈥撯€搕he system works, and working through the treatise will make you more aware of all these things and set you on the path towards "an active life of the soul in accordance with reason.鈥�
I recommend patience in reading, working it out, and digesting it slowly. Don鈥檛 attempt to read it in only three weeks, as I had to for a recent seminar, but plan instead for a long, slow, deliberate read. It will be best to have interested friends with whom you can discuss it as you go, for friends are essential to the happy life. 馃檪
See also:
笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 Republic
October 8, 2008
Aristotle doesn't satisfy your whole soul, just the logical side, but here he is quite thorough. The Nicomachean Ethics is his most important study of personal morality and the ends of human life. He does little more than search for and examine the "good." He examines the virtue and vices of man in all his faculties. He believes that the unexamined life is a life not worth living; happiness is the contemplation of the good and the carrying out of virtue with solid acts. Among this book's most outstanding features are Aristotle's insistence that there are no known absolute moral standards and that any ethical theory must be based in part on an understanding of psychology and firmly grounded in the realities of human nature and daily life. Though the over 100 chapters (divided into ten books) flow and build upon each other, you can benefit from reading just one of them. One of my favorite philosophical reads, I cannot say enough for the depth of insight Aristotle has into living the "good" life.
November 21, 2019
November 20, 2019 - 5 stars
Aiiiiiii, look at me re-reading books in the same year. Definitely did not expect to be go back to this one so soon but glad I did. Context does amazing things for your understanding. Read this one as part of class instead of just 'cause and gained so much more out of it.
January 31st, 2019 Review - 4 stars
Dry but thought-provoking. Obviously, it is hard to rate someone like Aristotle. For the way it shaped Western thought, Ethics easily deserves 5 stars. Yet it also proved a dense and frequently uninteresting read, so in fairness to myself as an educated reader, I'm rating based on my personal understanding and appreciation. 4 stars it gets.
Aiiiiiii, look at me re-reading books in the same year. Definitely did not expect to be go back to this one so soon but glad I did. Context does amazing things for your understanding. Read this one as part of class instead of just 'cause and gained so much more out of it.
January 31st, 2019 Review - 4 stars
Dry but thought-provoking. Obviously, it is hard to rate someone like Aristotle. For the way it shaped Western thought, Ethics easily deserves 5 stars. Yet it also proved a dense and frequently uninteresting read, so in fairness to myself as an educated reader, I'm rating based on my personal understanding and appreciation. 4 stars it gets.
December 30, 2023
8.5/10.
An excellent book on how to live life well. The best section is on friendship, which really shined a light on my failed and successful friendships and why successful ones are so rare.
An excellent book on how to live life well. The best section is on friendship, which really shined a light on my failed and successful friendships and why successful ones are so rare.
December 24, 2011
Aristotle vs. Plato
Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.
Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 abstractions (from species to genus, from the individual instances to the common patterns, i.e. Idea or Form). This is the cause of the majority of his attacks against Plato, as 鈥減iety requires us to honour truth above our friends.鈥� How very noble of him!
I don't know whether the Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum charged their students fees. If not, there were no financial incentives in disparaging their rival. If it was purely intellectual rivalry, using straw man is often a sign of an inferior intellect or character. Since both Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellect was the best part of man or the true man, to attack and destroy another's ideas would be equivalent to murder (or Freudian parricide).
However, it could also be true that Aristotle was formulating his own philosophy through engagement with Plato's ideas, and intellectual competitions and debates help facilitate the development of sound ideas. Since this is the first book by Aristotle that I've read, it's very likely that I'm not giving him his due here. It may take some time to switch from Plato to Aristotle's way of thinking.
A Champion of Mediocrity
Aristotle's definitions of good, virtue and happiness are unsatisfactory to me. Good is "that at which all things aim". All people aim at happiness (or pleasure), therefore happiness is the supreme good. But, what exactly is happiness or pleasure? How can one hit his aim if he can't discern what he is aiming at? If virtue is "the mean between deficiency and excess", what is the difference between virtue and mediocrity?
"Pleasure perfects activity not as the formed state that issues in that activity perfects it, by being immanent in it, but as a sort of supervening [culminating] perfection, like the bloom that graces the flower of youth." How can a fleeting thing that lacks permanence be the object of a lifelong pursuit?
In the end, Aristotle agrees with Plato, perhaps begrudgingly as it was dictated by reason, that happiness is contemplation of the divine, which is pleasant, self-sufficient and continuous. He insists on making a distinction between activity and state, but in this instance the distinction is unclear to me.
An Acute Observer of Human Nature
There are a few things I do appreciate in this book. Aristotle's joie de vivre (his delight in learning, being alive and active), his insights into human nature, his clear and penetrating psychological portrayal of various character traits and the dynamic relationships or transactions between human beings. He also introduced me to Pythagorean's fascinating mathematical representation of equality, A:B = B:C and A-M = M -C.
Having just finished and enjoyed Plato's complete works, I find this book a bit annoying and uninspiring in comparison. Aristotle seems to take every opportunity to "correct" Plato, when in fact he is only attacking a strawman. His arguments, sometimes self-contradictory, often support and clarify Plato's ideas, albeit using his own terminology.
Aristotle seems to have great difficulty appreciating or understanding 笔濒补迟辞鈥檚 abstractions (from species to genus, from the individual instances to the common patterns, i.e. Idea or Form). This is the cause of the majority of his attacks against Plato, as 鈥減iety requires us to honour truth above our friends.鈥� How very noble of him!
I don't know whether the Academy and Aristotle's Lyceum charged their students fees. If not, there were no financial incentives in disparaging their rival. If it was purely intellectual rivalry, using straw man is often a sign of an inferior intellect or character. Since both Plato and Aristotle believed that the intellect was the best part of man or the true man, to attack and destroy another's ideas would be equivalent to murder (or Freudian parricide).
However, it could also be true that Aristotle was formulating his own philosophy through engagement with Plato's ideas, and intellectual competitions and debates help facilitate the development of sound ideas. Since this is the first book by Aristotle that I've read, it's very likely that I'm not giving him his due here. It may take some time to switch from Plato to Aristotle's way of thinking.
A Champion of Mediocrity
Aristotle's definitions of good, virtue and happiness are unsatisfactory to me. Good is "that at which all things aim". All people aim at happiness (or pleasure), therefore happiness is the supreme good. But, what exactly is happiness or pleasure? How can one hit his aim if he can't discern what he is aiming at? If virtue is "the mean between deficiency and excess", what is the difference between virtue and mediocrity?
"Pleasure perfects activity not as the formed state that issues in that activity perfects it, by being immanent in it, but as a sort of supervening [culminating] perfection, like the bloom that graces the flower of youth." How can a fleeting thing that lacks permanence be the object of a lifelong pursuit?
In the end, Aristotle agrees with Plato, perhaps begrudgingly as it was dictated by reason, that happiness is contemplation of the divine, which is pleasant, self-sufficient and continuous. He insists on making a distinction between activity and state, but in this instance the distinction is unclear to me.
An Acute Observer of Human Nature
There are a few things I do appreciate in this book. Aristotle's joie de vivre (his delight in learning, being alive and active), his insights into human nature, his clear and penetrating psychological portrayal of various character traits and the dynamic relationships or transactions between human beings. He also introduced me to Pythagorean's fascinating mathematical representation of equality, A:B = B:C and A-M = M -C.
June 2, 2023
Such an impressive book that it's honestly hard to do it justice. The philosophical distinctions that Aristotle introduces here -- the three types of friendship, hexis as the key to understanding moral action, the vice/virtue distinction, the spoudaios, etc. etc. -- are impressive enough on their own that any one of them could be the basis of an entire philosophical school in any century.
But when you realize that Aristotle was literally the first writer in the Greek tradition to deeply consider any of these issues, his achievement becomes all the more difficult to comprehend; imagine being not only the inventor of a philosophical topic (ethics did not exist as a clearly demarcated field of study even in Plato), but also such a brilliant thinker that you're still deeply influential on all Western ethical thought, thousands of years later? (And that you also, incidentally, wrote 452 other works, basically invented natural science, etc. etc.)
But when you realize that Aristotle was literally the first writer in the Greek tradition to deeply consider any of these issues, his achievement becomes all the more difficult to comprehend; imagine being not only the inventor of a philosophical topic (ethics did not exist as a clearly demarcated field of study even in Plato), but also such a brilliant thinker that you're still deeply influential on all Western ethical thought, thousands of years later? (And that you also, incidentally, wrote 452 other works, basically invented natural science, etc. etc.)
July 24, 2017
"One lesson of our age is that barbarism persists under the surface, and that the virtues of civilized life are less deeply rooted than used to be supposed. The world is not too richly endowed with examples of perseverance and subtlety in analysis, of moderation and sanity in the study of human affairs. It will be a great loss if the thinker who, above all others, displays these qualities, is ever totally forgotten."
, author of , (Oxford 1952) about Aristotle (384 BC - 323 BC)
, author of , (Oxford 1952) about Aristotle (384 BC - 323 BC)
November 30, 2020
鬲賯乇蹖亘丕 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖 丕乇丿蹖亘賴卮鬲 丕賲爻丕賱 卮乇賵毓卮 讴乇丿賲 賵 亘丕 賲噩賲賵毓賴 氐賵鬲蹖 賲鬲賳 禺賵丕賳蹖 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 亘丕 丨囟賵乇 禺丕賳賲 丿讴鬲乇 丕賱賴丕賲 讴賳丿乇蹖 讴賴 趩賳丿 爻丕賱 倬蹖卮 丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 倬跇賵賴卮讴丿賴 賴丕蹖 毓賱賵賲 丕賳爻丕賳蹖 丕氐賮賴丕賳 亘乇诏夭丕乇 卮丿賴 亘賵丿 倬蹖卮 丌賲丿賲 丕賲丕 丿乇 賳蹖賲賴 乇丕賴 賲噩亘賵乇 卮丿賲 倬蹖卮 乇賮鬲賳 亘丕 賮丕蹖賱賴丕蹖 氐賵鬲蹖 乇丕 賲鬲賵賯賮 讴賳賲. 亘毓丿 丿蹖诏乇 禺賵丕賳丿賳賲 禺蹖賱蹖 卮賱禺鬲賴 卮丿 賵 賱丕夭賲 賲蹖丿丕賳賲 丿賵 賯爻賲鬲 丕夭 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 丨鬲賲丕 丿乇 丌蹖賳丿賴 亘丕夭 賲乇賵乇 讴賳賲. 鬲賯乇蹖亘丕 讴賱 讴鬲丕亘 乇丕 亘賴 禺丕胤乇 賴賲蹖賳 丿賵 亘禺卮 禺賵丕賳丿賲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 禺賵丿賲 禺蹖賱蹖 爻賵丕賱 亘乇丕賳诏蹖锟斤拷 亘賵丿賴 賵 賴爻锟斤拷:
丿乇亘丕乇賴 賳蹖讴亘禺鬲蹖
丿乇亘丕乇賴 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇蹖
亘賴 匕讴乇 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 丕讴鬲賮丕 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴賴 亘丕 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳蹖丿 賲爻丕卅賱 丕禺賱丕賯 丕夭 夭賲丕賳 丕乇爻胤賵 鬲丕 丨丕賱丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 賳讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 亘毓丿 倬蹖 賲蹖亘乇蹖丿 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕毓鬲丿丕賱 賵 賳讴鬲賴 爻賳噩蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 賳诏丕賴 亘卮乇 丕賲乇賵夭 讴賲丕讴丕賳 亘賴 賳诏丕賴 丕賵 賳夭丿蹖讴 亘丕卮丿. 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賴 讴賱蹖爻丕 賴賲 丌賳 乇丕 賯乇賳 賴丕 诏乇丕賲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 噩丕蹖 鬲毓噩亘 賳丿丕乇丿 丕诏乇 亘诏賵蹖蹖賲 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳蹖 賳爻亘鬲丕 丕乇爻胤賵蹖蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳蹖賲
丿乇亘丕乇賴 賳蹖讴亘禺鬲蹖
丿乇亘丕乇賴 倬乇賴蹖夭诏丕乇蹖
亘賴 匕讴乇 丕蹖賳 賳讴鬲賴 丕讴鬲賮丕 賲蹖讴賳賲 讴賴 亘丕 禺賵丕賳丿賳 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕賵賱 诏賲丕賳 賲蹖讴賳蹖丿 賲爻丕卅賱 丕禺賱丕賯 丕夭 夭賲丕賳 丕乇爻胤賵 鬲丕 丨丕賱丕 鬲睾蹖蹖乇蹖 賳讴乇丿賴 丕賳丿 亘毓丿 倬蹖 賲蹖亘乇蹖丿 讴賴 賵丕賯毓丕 賳賴丕蹖鬲 丕毓鬲丿丕賱 賵 賳讴鬲賴 爻賳噩蹖 丕乇爻胤賵 亘丕毓孬 卮丿賴 賳诏丕賴 亘卮乇 丕賲乇賵夭 讴賲丕讴丕賳 亘賴 賳诏丕賴 丕賵 賳夭丿蹖讴 亘丕卮丿. 讴鬲丕亘蹖 讴賴 讴賱蹖爻丕 賴賲 丌賳 乇丕 賯乇賳 賴丕 诏乇丕賲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 賵 噩丕蹖 鬲毓噩亘 賳丿丕乇丿 丕诏乇 亘诏賵蹖蹖賲 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 丿乇 噩賴丕賳蹖 賳爻亘鬲丕 丕乇爻胤賵蹖蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 賲蹖讴賳蹖賲
May 19, 2025
Seguramente, el mejor libro para empezar a leer filosof铆a como tal. La filosof铆a de Arist贸teles mola porque se pueden adaptar sus ideas de hace chorrocientos a帽os a la actualidad.
B谩sicamente, la 茅tica es filosof铆a sobre lo que se considera vivir bien (resumido muy mal y a pelo). Arist贸teles dice que la vida buena pasa por la contemplaci贸n, por encontrar el punto medio de las cosas (ni pasar hambre ni comer como un cerdo) y por predicar con el ejemplo (si dices que hay que ser buen amigo, se el primero en serlo).
B谩sicamente, la 茅tica es filosof铆a sobre lo que se considera vivir bien (resumido muy mal y a pelo). Arist贸teles dice que la vida buena pasa por la contemplaci贸n, por encontrar el punto medio de las cosas (ni pasar hambre ni comer como un cerdo) y por predicar con el ejemplo (si dices que hay que ser buen amigo, se el primero en serlo).
September 24, 2018
It is rare that a philosophical book about ethics can be so investigation-based and have so much common sense in it.
December 31, 2021
Kakva knjiga. Nakon 30-ak strana imao sam ose膰aj da sam ih pro膷itao nekoliko.
Erika vrline u centru (odsad se u svakoj situaciji pitam "艩ta bi uradio Aristotel?"), ali koliko toga je ovde. Sre膰a (zapravo eudamonia, 拧to i nije ba拧 samo sre膰a), intelektualne i prirodne vrline (i mane kao suvi拧e ili premalo toga), slobodna volja, krajnosti i umerenost, pravda kao dvosmislen pojam, jednakost, 拧est moralnih stanja i samokontrola, prijateljstvo (iz koristoljublja, zbog u啪ivanja i zbog vrline), ljubav prema sebi, u啪ivanje i vrednost razonode...
Napisano pre dva i po milenija. Ista vrednost i dandanas.
Erika vrline u centru (odsad se u svakoj situaciji pitam "艩ta bi uradio Aristotel?"), ali koliko toga je ovde. Sre膰a (zapravo eudamonia, 拧to i nije ba拧 samo sre膰a), intelektualne i prirodne vrline (i mane kao suvi拧e ili premalo toga), slobodna volja, krajnosti i umerenost, pravda kao dvosmislen pojam, jednakost, 拧est moralnih stanja i samokontrola, prijateljstvo (iz koristoljublja, zbog u啪ivanja i zbog vrline), ljubav prema sebi, u啪ivanje i vrednost razonode...
Napisano pre dva i po milenija. Ista vrednost i dandanas.
November 26, 2017
I'm way too dumb for this
October 29, 2024
The landmark text of virtue ethics. Aristotle's central argument is brilliant in its straightforwardness. To determine whether some thing is a good specimen of its type, we first have to ask what its purpose is. So to say what a good human life consists in, we have to figure out the purpose of a human life. And we can figure out what the purpose of any living being is by investigating its characteristic traits. The trait most characteristic of human beings is reason. It follows that to live a good or flourishing human life is to cultivate the kind of character that will allow us to do what is rational. I think there's a lot that goes wrong with Aristotle's account. As plausible as it might be as a guide for everyday living, its teleological underpinnings obviously fail, so we need something else to explain what makes the virtues good. Nonetheless, there's a lot to appreciate here. And there's no denying that the Nicomachean Ethics is a colossal achievement in the history of human thought.
October 17, 2012
丕亘乇夭 賲丕 噩丕亍 賮賶 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱賵爻胤 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯賶 賱兀乇爻胤賵貙 丕賱匕賶 兀胤賱賯 毓賱賷賴 丕賱賵爻胤 丕賱毓丕丿賱 丕賱賯丕卅賲 毓賱賶 鬲噩賳亘 丕賱廿賮乇丕胤 賵丕賱鬲賮乇賷胤貙 賮廿匕丕 賰丕賳鬲 禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱賮囟賷賱丞 賴賶 丕賱鬲賵爻胤貙 賮廿賳 禺氐丕卅氐 丕賱乇匕賷賱丞 賴賶 丕賱廿賮乇丕胤 兀賵 丕賱鬲賮乇賷胤貙 賷賳胤亘賯 賴匕丕 毓賱賶 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰 賵丕賱毓丕丿丕鬲貙 亘賱 賵毓賱賶 丕賱噩賲丕賱 丕賱丨爻賶貙 賮賮囟賷賱丞 賰賱 卮賷亍 賮賶 鬲丨賯賷賯 丕賱廿毓鬲丿丕賱貙 賮丕賱卮噩丕毓丞 賲鬲賵爻胤丞 亘賷賳 丕賱禺賵賮 賵丕賱鬲賯丨賲貙 賵丕賱爻禺丕亍 賵爻胤 亘賷賳 丕賱鬲亘匕賷乇 賵丕賱鬲賯鬲賷乇貙 賵賯賱 賲孬賱 賴匕丕 賮賶 丕賱丨賱賲 賵丕賱丨賷丕亍 賵睾賷乇 賴匕賴 賲賳 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵丕賱廿賳賮毓丕賱丕鬲 賵丕賱爻賱賵賰.
September 21, 2011
I think society would have progressed much faster if it weren't for guys like Aristotle being looked up to as much. He was extremely arrogant, and was obviously very good at expressing his ideas. Too bad his ideas weren't always backed by scientific reasoning, and should have been challenged.
I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and bitch-slap him.
I wish I had a time machine so I could go back and bitch-slap him.
April 18, 2025
袛胁械 锌褉懈褔懈薪懈 褔芯胁械泻 写邪 锌褉芯褔械褌械 "袧懈泻芯屑邪褏芯胁邪 袝褌懈泻邪":
1) 袟邪 写邪 屑芯卸械, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 屑褍 褋械 锌褉械锌芯褉褗褔邪 泻邪泻胁邪褌芯 懈 写邪 械 self help 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪, 写邪 泻邪卸械 "袧械, 斜谢邪谐芯写邪褉褟, 褔械谢 褋褗屑 芯褉懈谐懈薪邪谢邪."
2) 袣芯谐邪褌芯 懈屑邪 屑芯薪邪褉褏懈褔械褋泻懈 胁懈卸写邪薪懈褟 蟹邪 褍锌褉邪胁谢械薪懈械褌芯 写邪 屑芯卸械 写邪 泻邪卸械 "袣芯泄 褋褗屑 邪蟹, 写邪 褋锌芯褉褟 褋 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢?"
...
3) 袛邪 褋械 褏胁邪谢懈, 褔械 械 褔械谢 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢.
小褗胁褋械屑 褋械褉懈芯蟹薪芯, 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢 械 泻芯褉械薪褗褌 薪邪 蟹邪锌邪写薪邪褌邪 褑懈胁懈谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟, 褔械褌械薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪械谐芯胁懈褌械 褌褉褍写芯胁械 锌芯薪褟泻芯谐邪 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯, 芯褋芯斜械薪芯 袧懈褏芯屑邪褏芯胁邪 袝褌懈泻邪 -- "斜褗写懈 写芯斜褗褉 褔芯胁械泻, 薪械 锌褉械泻邪谢褟胁邪泄 懈 褌.薪.", 蟹邪褖芯褌芯 蟹邪 懈屑邪-薪褟屑邪 写胁械 褏懈谢褟写芯谢械褌懈褟 械 褎褍薪写邪屑械薪褌邪谢薪邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 泻褍谢褌褍褉邪褌邪 薪懈, 薪械蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯 写邪谢懈 褋懈 褎褉邪薪褑褍蟹懈薪, 邪薪谐谢懈褔邪薪懈薪, 斜褗谢谐邪褉懈薪, 褋褗褉斜懈薪 懈谢懈 蟹邪锌邪写薪芯斜褗谢谐邪褉懈薪. 孝芯胁邪, 褔械 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯, 褍胁械谢懈褔邪胁邪 薪褍卸写邪褌邪 写邪 褋械 褔械褌械 懈 写邪 褋械 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪, 蟹邪斜懈泄 谐谢邪胁邪 胁 薪械斜械褌芯 薪邪 '锌褉芯谐褉械褋邪', 蟹邪斜褉邪胁懈, 褔械 褋褌芯懈褕 胁褗褉褏褍 褉邪屑械薪械褌械 薪邪 胁械谢懈泻邪薪懈, 懈 褖械 胁懈写懈褕 泻芯谢泻芯 谢械褋薪芯 褖械 锌邪写薪械褕 芯褌 褌邪泻邪 锌褉懈褟褌薪邪褌邪 薪懈 胁懈褋芯褌邪. 袗谢褌械褉薪邪褌懈胁薪芯, 褖械 芯褌胁芯褉懈 芯褔懈褌械 褌懈, 褔械 薪褟泻芯懈 褏芯褉邪 邪泻褌懈胁薪芯 懈褋泻邪褌 写邪 锌芯写泻芯锌邪褟褌 褑褟谢邪褌邪 芯褋薪芯胁邪 薪邪 褑懈胁懈谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 薪懈, 蟹邪 写邪 褟 蟹邪屑械薪褟褌 褋 胁褋褟泻邪泻胁邪 屑芯写械褉薪邪 谐谢褍锌芯褋褌, 斜懈谢邪 褌褟 褎械屑懈薪懈蟹褗屑/屑邪泻褉褋懈蟹褗屑/锌褉芯谐褉械褋懈胁懈蟹褗屑 懈谢懈 薪邪泄-芯锌邪褋薪芯 懈 薪械芯斜褟褋薪懈屑芯 -- 懈褋谢褟屑懈蟹褗屑. 袣芯谐邪褌芯 薪械 蟹薪邪械褕 泻芯泄 械 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢 懈 蟹邪褖芯 械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 胁邪卸械薪 蟹邪 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪薪械褌芯 褌懈, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 薪褟泻芯泄 褌懈 泻邪卸械 "邪斜械, 褌械蟹懈 懈褋泻邪褌 写邪 谐芯 械泻褋褏褍屑懈褉邪褌 懈 懈蟹褏胁褗褉谢褟褌 胁 屑芯褉械褌芯" 屑芯卸械 懈 写邪 薪械 蟹邪斜械谢械卸懈褕, 褔械 褋谢械写胁邪褖懈褟褌 褖械 褋懈 褌懈.
1) 袟邪 写邪 屑芯卸械, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 屑褍 褋械 锌褉械锌芯褉褗褔邪 泻邪泻胁邪褌芯 懈 写邪 械 self help 谢懈褌械褉邪褌褍褉邪, 写邪 泻邪卸械 "袧械, 斜谢邪谐芯写邪褉褟, 褔械谢 褋褗屑 芯褉懈谐懈薪邪谢邪."
2) 袣芯谐邪褌芯 懈屑邪 屑芯薪邪褉褏懈褔械褋泻懈 胁懈卸写邪薪懈褟 蟹邪 褍锌褉邪胁谢械薪懈械褌芯 写邪 屑芯卸械 写邪 泻邪卸械 "袣芯泄 褋褗屑 邪蟹, 写邪 褋锌芯褉褟 褋 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢?"
...
3) 袛邪 褋械 褏胁邪谢懈, 褔械 械 褔械谢 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢.
小褗胁褋械屑 褋械褉懈芯蟹薪芯, 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢 械 泻芯褉械薪褗褌 薪邪 蟹邪锌邪写薪邪褌邪 褑懈胁懈谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟, 褔械褌械薪械褌芯 薪邪 薪械谐芯胁懈褌械 褌褉褍写芯胁械 锌芯薪褟泻芯谐邪 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯, 芯褋芯斜械薪芯 袧懈褏芯屑邪褏芯胁邪 袝褌懈泻邪 -- "斜褗写懈 写芯斜褗褉 褔芯胁械泻, 薪械 锌褉械泻邪谢褟胁邪泄 懈 褌.薪.", 蟹邪褖芯褌芯 蟹邪 懈屑邪-薪褟屑邪 写胁械 褏懈谢褟写芯谢械褌懈褟 械 褎褍薪写邪屑械薪褌邪谢薪邪 褔邪褋褌 芯褌 泻褍谢褌褍褉邪褌邪 薪懈, 薪械蟹邪胁懈褋懈屑芯 写邪谢懈 褋懈 褎褉邪薪褑褍蟹懈薪, 邪薪谐谢懈褔邪薪懈薪, 斜褗谢谐邪褉懈薪, 褋褗褉斜懈薪 懈谢懈 蟹邪锌邪写薪芯斜褗谢谐邪褉懈薪. 孝芯胁邪, 褔械 懈蟹谐谢械卸写邪 芯褔械胁懈写薪芯, 褍胁械谢懈褔邪胁邪 薪褍卸写邪褌邪 写邪 褋械 褔械褌械 懈 写邪 褋械 褉邪蟹斜懈褉邪, 蟹邪斜懈泄 谐谢邪胁邪 胁 薪械斜械褌芯 薪邪 '锌褉芯谐褉械褋邪', 蟹邪斜褉邪胁懈, 褔械 褋褌芯懈褕 胁褗褉褏褍 褉邪屑械薪械褌械 薪邪 胁械谢懈泻邪薪懈, 懈 褖械 胁懈写懈褕 泻芯谢泻芯 谢械褋薪芯 褖械 锌邪写薪械褕 芯褌 褌邪泻邪 锌褉懈褟褌薪邪褌邪 薪懈 胁懈褋芯褌邪. 袗谢褌械褉薪邪褌懈胁薪芯, 褖械 芯褌胁芯褉懈 芯褔懈褌械 褌懈, 褔械 薪褟泻芯懈 褏芯褉邪 邪泻褌懈胁薪芯 懈褋泻邪褌 写邪 锌芯写泻芯锌邪褟褌 褑褟谢邪褌邪 芯褋薪芯胁邪 薪邪 褑懈胁懈谢懈蟹邪褑懈褟褌邪 薪懈, 蟹邪 写邪 褟 蟹邪屑械薪褟褌 褋 胁褋褟泻邪泻胁邪 屑芯写械褉薪邪 谐谢褍锌芯褋褌, 斜懈谢邪 褌褟 褎械屑懈薪懈蟹褗屑/屑邪泻褉褋懈蟹褗屑/锌褉芯谐褉械褋懈胁懈蟹褗屑 懈谢懈 薪邪泄-芯锌邪褋薪芯 懈 薪械芯斜褟褋薪懈屑芯 -- 懈褋谢褟屑懈蟹褗屑. 袣芯谐邪褌芯 薪械 蟹薪邪械褕 泻芯泄 械 袗褉懈褋褌芯褌械谢 懈 蟹邪褖芯 械 褌芯谢泻芯胁邪 胁邪卸械薪 蟹邪 褋褗褖械褋褌胁褍胁邪薪械褌芯 褌懈, 泻芯谐邪褌芯 薪褟泻芯泄 褌懈 泻邪卸械 "邪斜械, 褌械蟹懈 懈褋泻邪褌 写邪 谐芯 械泻褋褏褍屑懈褉邪褌 懈 懈蟹褏胁褗褉谢褟褌 胁 屑芯褉械褌芯" 屑芯卸械 懈 写邪 薪械 蟹邪斜械谢械卸懈褕, 褔械 褋谢械写胁邪褖懈褟褌 褖械 褋懈 褌懈.
December 24, 2017
This is one of the more important of Aristotle's works; and, for me, one of the more practical and interesting ones. Here, Aristotle's pedantry does seem to yield better results. In any discussion of ethics, one should investigate as many facets and hypotheticals that may possibly be relevant and appropriate. Aristotle, to his credit, does the subject justice; and even if I may not totally agree with him in all of his conclusions, overall, I think I can assent to much that is here.
Prior to Aristotle, and even after, many philosophical schools (the Stoics especially) oversimplified the subject of ethics and/or morals. Pleasure itself was often seen as an evil that should be eradicated root and branch. Aristotle holds that this trivializes the nature of pleasure and treats all pleasures the same way. For Aristotle, there are pleasures that are healthy and some that are unhealthy. The most healthy is the pleasure that comes from contemplation and intellectual pursuits. The most unhealthy are those that come from fleshly lusts. I am mostly in agreement with Aristotle here. I think Aristotle trivializes the nature of anger though and does not recognize that it can be as bad, if not worse, than other so-called lusts of the flesh. I think it would be hard to argue against the assertion that most violence stems from anger in some manner. So I personally (counter to Aristotle) would list anger as one of the worst of the fleshly dispositions when it is not controlled.
Aristotle sees moderation as the key component of a healthy disposition. One needs to avoid extremes and find a happy medium. Indeed, Aristotle sees happiness as the goal of this moderation. One can only find this medium through a process of intellection. The mind must be actively engaged in the pursuit of ethics. Much of Aristotle's thought here presupposes a familiarity with his categories. So some acquaintance with Aristotle's logical works can help to understand Aristotle's approach to ethics.
The edition I read was from Dover and was translated by D. P. Chase. Chase left some important Greek terms untranslated, which I was very happy to see. He clarifies these Greek terms in the endnotes. His notes are incredibly illuminating; although, I am dissatisfied with the lack of proper footnoting. I would have rather that the Greek words, and other notable portions that are dealt with in the endnotes, were properly marked in the book so one could refer to the back as one reads. As it stands, I read the notes after I had finished the book. I encourage anyone who reads this edition to regularly refer to the endnotes while reading because they do offer some great insights into the text.
Nicomachean Ethics is definitely essential Aristotle and I do personally recommend it as a great philosophical work dealing with the subject of ethics. I personally feel that one can not approach this subject without love (agape/phileo) playing a more substantial role than it does for Aristotle, but one can certainly appreciate the insights Aristotle does offer regarding this subject.
Prior to Aristotle, and even after, many philosophical schools (the Stoics especially) oversimplified the subject of ethics and/or morals. Pleasure itself was often seen as an evil that should be eradicated root and branch. Aristotle holds that this trivializes the nature of pleasure and treats all pleasures the same way. For Aristotle, there are pleasures that are healthy and some that are unhealthy. The most healthy is the pleasure that comes from contemplation and intellectual pursuits. The most unhealthy are those that come from fleshly lusts. I am mostly in agreement with Aristotle here. I think Aristotle trivializes the nature of anger though and does not recognize that it can be as bad, if not worse, than other so-called lusts of the flesh. I think it would be hard to argue against the assertion that most violence stems from anger in some manner. So I personally (counter to Aristotle) would list anger as one of the worst of the fleshly dispositions when it is not controlled.
Aristotle sees moderation as the key component of a healthy disposition. One needs to avoid extremes and find a happy medium. Indeed, Aristotle sees happiness as the goal of this moderation. One can only find this medium through a process of intellection. The mind must be actively engaged in the pursuit of ethics. Much of Aristotle's thought here presupposes a familiarity with his categories. So some acquaintance with Aristotle's logical works can help to understand Aristotle's approach to ethics.
The edition I read was from Dover and was translated by D. P. Chase. Chase left some important Greek terms untranslated, which I was very happy to see. He clarifies these Greek terms in the endnotes. His notes are incredibly illuminating; although, I am dissatisfied with the lack of proper footnoting. I would have rather that the Greek words, and other notable portions that are dealt with in the endnotes, were properly marked in the book so one could refer to the back as one reads. As it stands, I read the notes after I had finished the book. I encourage anyone who reads this edition to regularly refer to the endnotes while reading because they do offer some great insights into the text.
Nicomachean Ethics is definitely essential Aristotle and I do personally recommend it as a great philosophical work dealing with the subject of ethics. I personally feel that one can not approach this subject without love (agape/phileo) playing a more substantial role than it does for Aristotle, but one can certainly appreciate the insights Aristotle does offer regarding this subject.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,083 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.