Talk:Nicomachean Ethics

Please start a new section for any new discussion.

To do list

• pleasure, honor & reason as ways of achieving happiness (NEEDS WORK under the separate virtues.)
• golden mean (NEEDS WORK in The Golden Mean: it seems to be getting long--perhaps some bits could be moved to specific virtues)
• justice (NEEDS WORK in Justice)
• a summary

WhiteC 20:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• I suggest there be a re-write around chapter 7 books 1-10. The principle concern of this section is not exactly "evil" but rather "akrasia" or incontinence, a Socratic problem on why 'good' people can do 'bad'.

stevesawalker —Preceding undated comment added 06:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC).

To do, discussion

If you want some help, I can write something on the Nicomachean Ethics. Let me know - TM

Thanks for the offer, TM. If you want to add something to the existing introduction, go ahead. Or, if you want to start on a particular section, go ahead. Of course, if you are impatient, you could just start writing the article. If you want to write a large part yourself, I'll probably put in several additions to it. Let me know which bits you are working on, if you want to work together on this. I want to have some headings in there to give the article some structure, so it doesn't spend forever on one point and neglect others.

I am still thinking about sections/points that I want to make about the Nicomachean Ethics. The reason this is taking a while is that although I have read many summaries/commentaries of the NicEth, I hadn't actually read the entire thing before... I just started and it will take a few days more to finish, and then I will start putting these headings into the article and actually doing some writing on them. WhiteC 20:46, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I've added a few points to your plan, I don't know if you consider them relevant at all, let me know Tom M 01:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They look good in general.. I agree that we need to put in a bit about friendship, since it is covered quite a bit in the NicEth. I assume a 'bovine' life means an unexamined one (not just physically lazy). I finished reading NicEth (finally), so now I feel ready to start writing. WhiteC 16:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Different sections are being put in now, or edited. I'm still using this list (thanks for helping, Tom) to do it, but I'm a pretty slow writer. I'm still not sure which sections will lead into which other ones. I suspect different bits will get reordered as they are completed. IF ANYONE WANTS TO WORK ON A SECTION FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN. WhiteC 00:34, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I had a note on this page. On the last section there is the quote, "Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim. - 1094a (Book I, Ch. 1)." While this is an important quote, it is also logically shaky. I think there should be some sort of acknowledgement of this fact.

Bekker numbers

In the article, I added the bekker number for the quote you wrote in, so that people can find the quote if they have a copy of the Nicomachean Ethics. - Tom M

Actually that quote was in the stub when I started looking at it. Thanks for finding it; I added the book & chapter numbers. I also put in the source w/ the bekker numbers copied in from the Aristotle page.

Perhaps a small note in the article on what bekker numbers are as well. Not sure if that belongs here or under Aristotle, though.

I've just created a stub on Bekker numbers - I'd be interested to find out exactly why they're called 'Bekker', I've always assumed it was the name of the editor. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekker_numbers Tom M 01:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

'Discussion' section was added

I see someone added stuff (from the Aristotle article?) into a section called 'Discussion' in the article. That was a very confusing title, since I consider this to be the discussion section. Although the material is good, in my opinion it needed better organization; the subtitles weren't very helpful either. I made some minor modifications to it, but so far just in the section names. WhiteC 16:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes it was from Aristotle. It was removed from there and copied here. It needs work though. I like what you've done so far. Happy editing ;-) Paul August ☎ 19:13, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I was the one who moved it as part of the editing of Aristotle. I deliberately chose a poor title to get someone else, who knew more about the subject than I, to edit it :-) Thanks for doing so... I was out of my element. Alba 19:16, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

By the way, related to this move, I copied some content in the other direction. I copied the lead section of this article to Aristotle to serve as an introduction to the Ethics. Feel free to edit that as appropriate. Paul August ☎ 20:11, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Definition of being human

In the section "The essence and function of being human", there is a quote attributed to Aristotle: "Now we take the human’s function to be a certain kind of life, and take this life to be the soul’s activity and actions that express reason. Hence the excellent man’s function is to do this finely and well. Each function is completed well when its completion expresses the proper virtue. Therefore the human good turns out to be the soul’s activity that expresses virtue."

This does seem to reflect Aristotle's opinions pretty well, but I can't find the quote in the NicEth--not in Book I, Ch 7 anyway, which is where I would expect it to be. Does anyone know where it comes from? If we can't find it in a week, I'll replace it. WhiteC 20:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Look at 1098a 5-10. Terence Irwin's 1999 translation gives ""We must take [a human being's special function to be] life as activity, since this seems to be called life more fully. We have found, then, that the human function is activity of the soul in accord with reason or requiring reason". Paul August ☎ 21:42, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I think the quoted passage is from: Nichomachean Ethics, translated by Terence Unwin Irwin (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1985), and it should probably be cited and mentioned in the references section. Paul August ☎ 21:50, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Many thanks. I will add that reference to the article, and the citations. As far as quotes in general... (see next section) WhiteC 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, both the 1985 and the 1999 texts were translations by Terence Irwin. I've fixed the reference in the article. Paul August ☎ 02:14, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

The first para (of this section), some preliminary sentences to explain the quote better--feel free to comment, or give suggestions for developing this idea...

People have the ability to reason, which makes us different from animals, and so good or virtuous people should use this reasoning ability well. <need an explicit definition of virtue/arete or a link to it somewhere too, perhaps in a section before this one> WhiteC 02:34, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Quotes from the Nicomachean Ethics

Can someone more versed in Aristotle help me out here? Obviously it helps if any new quotes have some reference to where they came from (any reference is better than none), but ideally...

What is the appropriate method for referring to a quote? The Bekker number is precise, and I want to keep the book and chapter numbers in so that people unfamiliar with Bekker numbers will have a better idea where to look. Should each quote mention the translation too (if we know it), or is it enough to just list different translations at the bottom of the article? WhiteC 22:55, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll put in as much info as possible with each quote. As a sidenote, I will also eventually add references to where each subject is discussed in the NicEth (Book, Ch) somewhere in each section. WhiteC 04:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I changed a couple of quotes to better reflect the version I have in front of -- some of what was cited seems to move a little far away from the Aristotelian text itself (e.g. the removal of the conditional from the citation of 1.7/1098a14-15). Could someone maybe point me to where, more precisely, 3.2 says "choice or purpose implies calculation and reasoning" -- I don't doubt its there, I just couldn't find anything similar in two translations (and am loathe to pick through the Greek myself without a Bekker number... it just takes a while). Even though you're last comments are old, I think the style you suggest i.e. (Book, Ch.) is good, but supplemented with (approximate) Bekker numbers (since this is the traditional method of citing Aristotle, and is helpful for those who may read the text in a foreign languge (and also helps to compare translations quicker). Ig0774 07:29, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleted bits that might be useful

I cut this out of the Essence and function of being human. I'm pasting it in here in case it comes in useful in some other part of the article. "Only through man's ability to recognize and accept his own attributes and limitations can any one man excel. The measure of a man is not to be found according to the abilities useful to peers or a particular society/culture; rather, one could argue that a man can only be excellent when the internal activity is fully understood. Aristotle’s virtue cannot be achieved through habit; a person cannot just be virtuous for one day, for to be such would imply an internal contradiction between natural thoughts and the urge to conform one's natural pattern to one determined by others." WhiteC 04:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aristotle's Father also called Nicomachus

Aristotle's father and his son were both called Nicomachus. The article states that "The Nicomachean Ethics were either edited by or named after Aristotle's son." A later paragraph states that this is only a supposition, since the work itself does not contain any reference to a Nicomachus.

I removed the comment that the works may refer to Aristotle's father rather than his son, because it seems unlikely and I have seen no historical arguments to support this view. The NicEth was based upon lectures given by Aristotle at the Lyceum (Aristotle's academy where he taught). Aristotle's son was head of the Lyceum while the NicEth were being compiled, so other members of the Lyceum may have dedicated the work to him if he was not an editor himself. Aristotle himself did not compile these lectures, and did not refer to his father in any of his philosophical works (as far as I know). WhiteC 09:39, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have added some of this information into the article, since this keeps cropping up via edits. Enquiring minds want to know! WhiteC 05:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

There needs to be SOMETHING that mentions the name. Surely someone else has figured this out?

If not, at least just write "wikipedia editors could not find out the reason for the name, but note that [info about relativies having the same name]. CrickedBack (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Good work

Thumbs up to WhiteC for his good work on this article :). Thue | talk 19:28, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good to know I have readers, thanks. :) WhiteC 06:33, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excellent Article!

I just wanted to leave a brief note here saying that I was surprised to come across such an extensive, well-written article on the Nicomachean Ethics. The people on this page have done excellent work. --Todeswalzer|Talk 17:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Ordering by Book, Chapter

Many thanks for putting this in, Arcadian. Particularly the links the Perseus project.

What follows is some changes I will probably put in, which are relatively minor (compared to getting the order in in the 1st place), but feel free to yell if you disagree with any of them. I'm not sure whether books 2 thru 6 (various types of virtue) each merit individual sections--I think there should be an overview of virtue in general, and then perhaps subsections under that. Book 2 is moral virtue only. Book 10 should be divided into pleasure, then politics. Book 7 should be divided into evil, then pleasure (which Aristotle inconveniently put into 2 separate areas of the Ethics). WhiteC 06:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Sounds good. And thank you for all the hard work you've put into this page. While I'm here, I had a couple more thoughts, but I wanted to run them past you guys before proceeding. First, I think the quotes section should be either at the bottom, or in its own WikiQuote page. (I know most of the Aristotle quotes are under one big WikiQuote page, but for other authors like Jane Austen each book has its own quote page, and that seems a little cleaner.) Second, I wonder if the Three Ethical Treatises section should either go to the Aristotle page, or into its own new article. --Arcadian 13:03, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • I moved the quotes down to the bottom. I think the Three Ethical Treatises section belongs here, rather than somewhere else--the Eudemian Ethics only has a stub, and the Magnus Moralia doesn't have an article at all. Most discussions of Aristotle's ethics center on the Nicomachean Ethics, and briefly talk about the other works, so I feel fairly happy with the way it is here. Perhaps a copy or summary of it could go off to the main Aristotle page, though. WhiteC 03:14, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

stuff added from the Eudaimonia article

The eudaimonia article had, as a part of it, a list of bullet points which summarized how to achieve eudaimonia according to Aristotle's ethics. I copied in some of the arguments from it.

Note that some parts were not directly related to eudaimonia, and were more related to Aristotle's ethical arguments generally. Some parts have gone into "The essence and function of being human", others into "Eudaimonia" (which was split off from the former section which was getting quite long), and other parts have gone into different sections of the article (such as intellectual virtue).

WhiteC 20:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Aristotelian ethics

I moved the general information to a new article on Aristotelian ethics. It makes more sense to have this be a subset of that, a more general topic that includes Aristotle's other works and ideas on ethics. Uriah923 05:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree (now that I've had time to look at it) that this presents the appropriate levels of detail more clearly. I copied some of the information about the name 'Nicomachean Ethics' back across into a new Naming section. I put Aristotelian ethics into the See Also section, but I think that the intro here should be tweaked so that it is obvious that Aristotelian ethics is now the place to go for a general summary. WhiteC 16:06, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I added a little blurb in the first paragraph. I think that helps some, but if you want to edit further, go for it. Uriah923 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Disagreement about Eudaimonia

In regards to the previous paragraph, Aristotle actually defines Eudamonia (Happiness) as "an activity of the soul, in accordance with virtue, and if there are many virtues, with the highest and most complete virtue." (Nichomachean Ethics I.7) Therefore, happiness is by definition living in accordance with the virtues. Luck has no bearing on happiness whatsoever. If you are researching on the Nichomachean Ethics, go somewhere else, this is NOT a good resource. Most of the above information is incorrect. Krizaz 01:39, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

I think the previous paragraphs' reference to luck is at least implied by the text in the Nicomachean Ethics. I'm sorry I didn't put the reference in the paragraph. I will look it up and get back to you as soon as I can.

While I appreciate the fact that you didn't delete the paragraph you disagreed with, I don't think that placing personal opinions (even if they turn out to be correct) or user names directly into the article is a good idea. But I'll be happy to see them here. WhiteC 15:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I do thank you for finding that definition in I.7 though. I appreciate your finding that, and agree that I should have put more emphasis on the central role of virtue in this paragraph of the article.

OK, found it in Nicomachean Ethics, I.9 ... "And of the remaining goods [other than happiness itself], some must be present as necessary conditions, while others are useful aids and useful instruments to happiness." Later (also in I.9 at the end)... "For our circumstances are liable to many changes and to all sorts of chances, and it is possible that he who is now most prosperous will in his old age meet with great disasters, as is told of Priam in the tales of Troy; and a man who is thus used by fortune and comes to a miserable end cannot be called happy." So, fortune is a precondition for happiness. I will put a refence to I.9 in the article, along with your bit from I.7

Please let me know if you disagree with this interpretation of these lines, though. And if there are any other parts you think are dubious, or that may need better references/citations, please tell me. I'll make the change in a couple of days, assuming no disagreement. WhiteC 15:46, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Now I look closer, your quote is cited in the previous section (The essence and function of being human). WhiteC 12:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Quick thought on my edit: I deleted the word luck. The Greek word used is τυχή which is not precisely the same as luck, since it refers more specifically to a fortunate birth (i.e. being born to well-off, noble parents — and, thus, on the right side of fate). Maybe I'm nitpicking too much, though, so feel free to revert it. Ig0774 07:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I had assumed luck and fortune were synonyms, but was probably a bit too hasty. WhiteC 20:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Very minor tidbit, I changed the parenthesized (e.g. we desire food because we want to be healthy) to (e.g. we desire money because we want to buy other things). I think the money example illustrates most clearly that what one would want for the sake of something else. Heath of the body has a much closer affiliation with ultimate happiness, and by some could be viewed as something to be desired for itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.162.219.140 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Excessive knowledge seeking?

Since it is an editorial comment, added by IP 69.69.80.89, I've removed the following text from the article and copied it here for discussion:

[I find the following questionable: A person who seeks honor through knowledge must find the mean between ignorance and seeking knowledge to excess.] According to Aristotle, "not every action nor every passion admits a mean." Theft and unjust actions are always bad, as temperance and courage are always good. In light of that, I would suggest that seeking knowledge is never excessive; what is there to praise about the mean between ignorance and wisdom?

I think there may be some merit the the anon's argument, but I am not an expert on the Ethics. Did Aristotle write that wisdom was the mean between ignorance and excessive knowledge seeking? Can the claimed Aristotelian quote: "not every action nor every passion admits a mean." be sourced?

Paul August ☎ 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This is in fact in the NicEth, Bekker# 1107a, toward the end of Bk2, Ch6. Aristotle argues that bad things are easy to do, while hitting the golden mean is like hitting a target which can be missed in many ways. He goes on to say (at the start of Bk2, Ch7) "But it is not enough to make these general statements: we must go on and apply them to particulars... It is with particulars that conduct is concerned."

Prudence, or practical wisdom, is attained through experience according to Aristotle--which may show things like the golden mean between foolhardiness and cowardice is (virtuous) courage. Wisdom/sophia is how to be an expert at something requiring knowledge, and Aristotle (in Bk6, Ch7) doesn't describe it using the golden mean.

24.164.251.118 (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC) (WhiteC, looking back at this long after he forgot his password. It has improved, particularly the built in references.)

Machiavelli comparison

I have an issue with the following:

"The excellent archer will find the mean between the two extremes when trying to hit the target, and he will not aim with force in excess like Machiavelli states to do in his book The Prince, “Let him act like the clever archers who, designing to hit the mark which yet appears too far distant, and knowing the limits to which the strength of their bow attains, take aim much higher than the mark, not to reach by their strength or arrow to so great a height, but to be able with the aid of so high an aim to hit the mark they wish to reach.” A follower of Aristotle will seek to find the mean in every action whether it deals with pleasure, honor, or expression of reason because they will understand that virtue is a mean. In order to seek the good they must also use reason as a guide to seek the virtue/mean."

The author of this paragraph misinterprets Machiavelli. Machiavelli does not suggest an excess of force, like using a cannon to knock down a straw hut. This particular passage reflects Machiavelli's beliefs that we often fall short of our aims, just as an archer falls short of a distant target. Machiavelli suggest that to correct for this tendency by aiming to use excessive force, as this will result in moderate and appropriate force.

Also, the rest of the paragraph is redundant in light of the rest of the article, and the example of the archer is not particularly illustrative.

24.17.211.229 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Peter Comerford

The two accounts of pleasure

I think it should be mentionned that the two accounts of pleasure found in EN is an argument that parts of EE (Ethics to Eudem) were copied within EN. Richard Bodeus, for example, in the latest French edition of EN (GF Flammarion) argues for this opinion.

Golden Mean

Can the epithet 'golden' be dropped from references to 'the mean' in this article? It suggests that Aristotle invented/used such a terminology where he does not - 'golden' is a later addition to the concept. 82.32.198.119 (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Full Summary

Can we work on a full summary of all the books? For example book 1 is only summarized up to chapter 6. Dirtbike spaceman (talk)

Yes, I think that is the aim.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that is the aim, right now, for book one at least, there isn't a summary of the chapters, there is just a really lame overall views of the central ideas. Dirtbike spaceman (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added on 20:40, 24 February 2009 (UTC).

Yes, the article needs work. I have not had time recently myself, but it definitely needs work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

"Friendliness"

There appear to be a couple of errors in the section on 'Friendliness'. First, the mean is given as 'philia'. It surely is not philia, else Aristotle would have called it that. Instead he states that the mean has no name (though it resembles friendship). Second, the mean is supposed to require, "Sometimes being able to share in the pleasure of one's companions at some expense to oneself, if this pleasure not be harmful or dishonorable." I cannot find any basis for this in the Nicomachean Ethics, even reading between the lines. Kinsaku —Preceding undated comment added 21:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Maybe it can be improved but please consider carefully first and then respond perhaps further....

1. As per the footnote in the Loeb edition "At 2.7.13 it was actually termed φιλία, Friendliness." Rememnber when he says there is no exact word he is talking about Greek, making this fine detail not necessarily true in English.

2. Rackham trans: "in designing either to give pain or to contribute pleasure he will be guided by considerations of honor and of expediency. [7] For he seems to be concerned with pleasure and pain in social intercourse. He will disapprove of pleasures in which it is dishonorable or harmful to himself for him to join, preferring to give pain2; and he will also disapprove of and refuse to acquiesce in a pleasure that brings any considerable discredit or harm to the agent, if his opposition will not cause much pain."

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately I don't have the Loeb edition, but I do find that reference surprising: Aristotle devotes two entire chapters to friendship (philia) elsewhere in the same book and it clearly isn't the same thing. I don't think Aristotle meant that there is no exact word for the virtue, only the less precise 'philia'; he meant that they had no word for it at all - including philia - just as they had no word for the mean between ambition and unambitiousness. Hopefully, I've convinced you to take it out.

You have provided the source for the point I questioned. I think I see where you draw support from: "He will...refuse to acquiesce in a pleasure that brings any considerable discredit or harm to the agent if his opposition will not cause much pain". The implication being that if his opposition does cause much pain then he will acquiesce in the pleasure.

I believe the 'agent' in question, though, is not the 'Aristotelian agent' but the person enjoying the pleasure. Ross translates it:

"...if his acquiescence in another's action would bring disgrace, and that in a high degree, or injury, on that other, while his opposition brings a little pain, he will not acquiesce but will decline"

The italics are actually there in the Oxford edition. So it reads that if someone else's enjoyment is highly disgraceful and opposition to it brings only a little pain, the virtuously 'friendly' person will oppose it.

I personally don't think it is worth salvaging anything from the original point and would just remove it.

Best regards Kinsaku —Preceding undated comment added 12:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC).

Kinsaku, the Loeb edition is in effect online http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.01.0054%3Abekker%20page%3D1126b . Please have a look and see if it helps. I do not so far see your point, but perhaps you have not fully understood mine. Aristotle gives a pre-discussion about what he will discuss. That is the 2.7.13 I mentioned above. In that description he refers to this subject matter as being about philia. The box I put at the head of this section was actually originally a summary of the discussion in book II but I broke it up and put the bits at the head of each section discussion. What I can do is tweak that box wording to imply some doubt about whether philia is the right word, which is reasonable. But as a principle I would be against any editing which removed removed reference to things that were Aristotle's own work, just because they are hard to understand. We just report the stuff. We don't interpret here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Andrew - I hadn't understood it. I see your point about philia having been used in the 'pre-discussion' in Book 2; I hadn't realised that, and I can see why you faithfully reproduced it here. Your amendment would normally be a fair compromise, which I should like to accept. However, the fact remains that in the actual discussion of 'friendliness' Aritotle states that the mean has no name and explains how 'friendliness' is different from 'friendship' (the subject of Books 8&9):

"But to [the mean of friendliness] no special name has been assigned, though it very closely resembles friendship [philia]. It differs from [philia] in not possessing the emotional factor of affection for one's associates..." [From the section you referred me to.]

The Wiki article goes on to acknowledge this. So I'm afraid that stating philia as the mean in the heading will just confuse the reader. I will make the slightest of changes to your amendment, which will make it quite agreeable, but I will not argue if you change it back.

You didn't respond to my second point about "sharing in the pleasure of one's companions at some expense to oneself". I hope I've said enough to persuade you to remove that bullet; in the light of what I have said I can't see any support for it.

Many thanks for the discussion, and for producing a great resource. I shall bow out for now and allow other readers to comment if they would like to see things changed. Best regards Kinsaku —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.70.231 (talk) 12:00, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your further tweaking. I think the "compromise" was a good call.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Date when written

Does anyone have a good source on the date or time in Aristotle's life when Nicomachean Ethics were written. The article is blank on this and I think it would be a useful addition to the article. What do scholars say? N2e (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

This needs work, I am going to start a draft

Remarks on this talk page show that others must surely agree with me that this article needs a lot of work. But probably like me others find it difficult to start, because there is already a lot of material, not all of which is all that bad, but it is such a hopeless state of mixed up confusion that in the end a lot of it will need to be removed, if only in order to avoid "keeping bits of the old" becoming a major distraction to the higher priority of making the best possible article. Massive deleting is not a nice thing to do, and is likely to get reactions from people assuming arrogant intentions. So in order to help I am setting up a draft at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/Drafts/Nicomachean_Ethics. I invite others to work on it also. It means we can work on big blocks without shocking people too much, hopefully.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

In the case of Book VI, which was virtually undiscussed, I have of course edited directly into the article. Something is better than nothing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I agree that the article needs a lot of work. I have removed substantial sections of the Book 7 section, that have been fact-tagged for nearly two years. This stuff might be true, or might not. But without verifiable, reliable secondary-source citations, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Much more of the existing article should be deleted, unless it is cited. The draft you are working on should have all material correctly cited before bringing it back in to the main page. Alternatively, if there is a particular claim you think is correct but you just haven't located citation support for it, you should integrate it back with properly dated (as originally dated) {{citation needed}} so that all the uncited material does not get a free date reset. Good luck on your project. Cheers. N2e (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It is taking time, and other things have interrupted. Any comments at the draft might be helpful. I have started with an intro and book 1 summary. My approach to the individual books is to make neutral compressed summaries which can therefore uncontroversially be sourced. I am aware that citing secondary commentators for this particular work is a bit of a landmine. At the very least it must come after at least having a skeletal outline, which do not yet have.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Have pushed ahead and completed the intro and book 1 summary, and then transferred them. The summary for Book I may seem long, but it is an extremely important passage in terms of all literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll delete the material in the draft that has been moved, but keep the page open for writing other sections. People wanting to edit what has been moved should edit here on the article now, as I will also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Have been working directly on the main article, Book 2. I have deleted most of what was there originally when I reached the point that everything really in Book 2 was covered. I think the rest also has to be deleted. Much of the article as it now stands is someone's personal commentary, without sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the urgency of the work needed, the fact that I might otherwise loose track and need to give up, I have been editing straight into the article, trying to make sure each saved version still makes as much sense as possible. I apologize that I have not been very consistent about marking edits. I am hoping the aim and need for the edits is always pretty self evident.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I've had to take a few long breaks which has unfortunately left things undone. I've therefore spent some time getting tags in place at least as a reminder to myself about what section is in what state. Until now I have not completed my basic aim of trying to summarize the main parts of the book, and so compressing it back down, which is more difficult and controversial, is still even more steps away.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

We are approaching 100kb and I want to mention before anyone gets too critical about it that this article will eventually need to be compressed and split in some way. I would suggest that some areas of Aristotle's thinking deserve their own articles, or perhaps major sections within existing articles such as Justice, Happiness etc, but:

• Most such required articles or sections do not yet exist. (They should exist and that is a fact which does not depend upon the length of this article.) So this is a separate job, while this article is itself not yet anywhere near finished.
• I have been focusing on trying to make this article "complete" and coherant first because summarizing Nic Eth is always very dangerous and likely to distort it. It will be a project in itself.

Hope that makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Aristotelian Ethics is probably also an article which needs a lot of work and could eventually take some weight off of this article (thus also allowing the Eudemian Ethics to be handled better).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

In addition to eventually using Aristotelian Ethics to take some of this material, maybe the creation of a Justice (Aristotle) article is justified?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Remark on how this is working: first attempts to complete a skeletal summary, which has long been the basic implied structure of this incomplete article, are always long, so as I do each section the size goes up but then later often starts to go back down. Finding ways to compress and split Aristotle neutrally takes time to do without creating problems. So as a rough guide I am telling myself to stay under 150kb in the first round, and then to aim later at getting it back under 100kb. (See WP:SPLIT.) Tertiary sources are also a desirable aim eventually, which may actually help to find ways to compress and split in some cases, but while some are already being used here and there the skeleton comes first. I remain to other ideas of course, but for now seem to be working on this more or less alone, so I just record my ideas for everyone.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally I have a relatively neutral, but primary-source dominated, skeleton, which is about 125k. That is theoretically a bit big for one article, but it is to be hoped that this structure now allows the introduction of more secondary and tertiary source material, that might help compress in places, basically I think by identifying themes and trying to reduce repetition. (I have avoided doing that fairly rigorously because of WP:SYNTH.) For those not familiar with the problem however, many if not every such attempt by commentators to bring together and synthesize concerning similar-looking, repetitive-looking parts of what Aristotle said can be accused of changing what he said, because it is often said that his way of building up positions is part of his message so to speak. There are also so many interpretations of him. This is in a sense one of the oldest big systematic works in the whole western tradition of scholarship leading up to today and nobody ever stopped writing about it. What I've been doing in practice though is inserting other sources already when I think one would fit non-controversially. It would be interesting at this point in the work to ask if anyone is watching this, and whether my on-going ideas make sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Delphic Oracle question

<moved from above> Just a small point about the article's reference to the inscription at the Delphic Oracle in the section on the Golden Mean. You suggest that it says "nothing to excess" but I always thought it said "Know thyself". Which is correct? RS

Answer: the Delphic oracle said more than one thing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Doubts about the pronunciation

From a user talk page:

Copy of discussion do not edit in this box

== How would you pronounce Nicomachean? == I would be interested in your opinion. I know Greek does sometimes get strangely Anglicised (I have included mention of such a pronunciation in the Nous article), but I do not think I ever heard anyone say the "i" in Nicomachus or Nicomachean anything like the way the brand "Nike" is pronounced, only the way people say "Nicholas", i.e. something like the original Greek. But the first line of Nicomachean Ethics has a source for such a diphthong pronunciation. (I wonder if the source really mentions the Ethics or just gives a general remark that Greek I often becomes "ai".) Is this something people say in American academia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I wouldn't go with /naɪ kɒməˈkiːən/, either. I've always heard it like Nicholas, as well. Pearson is a good publisher, but I wonder if Longman didn't just mechanically transcribe the name according to some rule. My copies of the Ethics are in my office, so I can't check to see if any of them say how to pronounce it. RJC TalkContribs 14:25, 10 November 2011 (UTC) UPDATE: Or, we could go with this website as a reliable source. RJC TalkContribs 14:29, 10 November 2011 (UTC) OK, let's move this discussion to the article talk page and if we get no responses, we should change it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

So I would like to call for remarks. Obviously sometimes good sources can be wrong, and we do not have to use them. On the other hand I do not even know if the source is being used correctly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been asked to comment. I just wrote the following, and realized it's a very long-winded way of saying 'I don't know'.

If you read our traditional English pronunciation of Latin article (and Greek names are pronounced according to the rules for Latin), you'll find that while the final stressed syllable takes a long vowel (if it's open, as here), the previous stressed syllable generally takes a short vowel. Now the unstressed vowel before that, when it's the first syllable in the word, is variable, especially when it's a i as it is here (see initial unstressed syllables). But the greater difference between the two refs is in which syllables are stressed. The rule is vowel length: long vowel → penult, short vowel → antepenult. That works for both stress positions. You count back from the end of the word, and then again from that syllable. Now, in Nikomacheiōn, the ei counts as a long vowel, so the stressed /ˈkiːən/ is correct. The o, however, is short: in an omicron, not an omega. So it should be stressed on the preceding Nic: /ˈnɪkəməˈkiːən/. That's what RJC's ref has. However, some people just stress two syllables before the last stressed syllable regardless of what the vowel is. (We don't cover that in the article, but I've read it somewhere.) I don't know if that's an optional rule that Wells is following, or if the word's been assimilated into English that way. Nicomachus, however, would be stressed on the o, so maybe we're just inheriting the stress pattern of the noun? People tend to do that when they're more familiar with the nominal than with the adjectival form. So it seems to me that both pronunciations are perfectly reasonable; the question is whether one is more established, and that I can't help you with. — kwami (talk) 02:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia (1911) gives Wells' stress pattern.[1] The image at GBooks is too blurry to be sure of the first vowel, however. I'm suspicious, however: they give the o as the only stressed vowel, which suggests they merely took Nicomachus as-is and tacked on the derivation. — kwami (talk) 02:55, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Kwami. I am thinking we should change it. I am guessing that the ref which was used is indeed also based on typical word evolutions, but in this case we have a word which has been used amongst "international" educated people for thousands of years, and so general rules do not help. Both RJC and I have heard the word being used. Anyone else out there? (Ideally clear sources would be better than personal experiences of course, but I think common sense plays a role in minor questions like this.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

As we can find no satisfactory source, I see only two options:-

• Remove the pronunciation, on the technicality that we can not source it well. I think that this is likely to be re-inserted eventually by one of the hard-working people who go around inserting this type of thing.
• Treat this pronunication as part of our language, at least for some Wikipedian editors (like a technical word, which is I suppose what it is), and therefore not subject to normal sourcing requirements mentioned in WP:V and WP:NOR. See WP:BLUE and of course WP:IAR and WP:BOLD.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wait, isn't /naɪˌkɒməˈkiːən/ what the ref has? We can always give alts, but should stick to the ref if we're going to use it. (And that vowel change is a very common one, so it's not unreasonable to hear one instead of the other. Maybe even a UK / US thing?) — kwami (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the ref, but I am thinking it could be that this pronunciation was interpreted out of the reference, or in other words SYNTH, for example based on the theory of what normally happens to Greek words in English? (Otherwise I find it odd. I would be happy to hear from someone who has the reference, but of course we should not wait for ever.) Concerning UK/US, that was also my question to RJC. RJC is from the US and I am Australian. Both of us know the same pronunciation and have heard no other.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Priam picture

• Priam picture and discussion: seems to be the opposite of what Aristotle explicitly says. Frippo (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Could you explain what you mean? Aristotle says of Priam (in the relevant place) that he lived a happy life, but also that his last year was unhappy. The picture shows the unhappy part. Is that the opposite?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I think the format of the excess and the mean in the graph examples needs to be resituated.

I have made an example of this in the section marked 4.4.8 Being Witty or Charming. I find this format to be much more pleasing and easier to understand, and I am not an incredibly intelligent person, so that's saying something. If anyone has the time, please go and reformat the rest of the examples. I think it makes these concepts much easier to understand from a visual learning standpoint. Feel free to fix the error I made by leaving part of the graph jutting out, or leave it in the rest of the examples, I honestly don't care. My thanks will go to anyone who takes up this little task of mine, I'd do it myself but I just don't have the time or knowledge to make them aesthetically pleasing.

Signed,

Diligit scientiam (LB)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.96.67.86 (talk) 04:47, 11 March 2014 (UTC) 

To make sure I understand, you are proposing to move the "mean" in between the deficiency and the excess. Correct? I do not see how this is all that different, but I am not much opposed to it either. The current format is a bit more like how Aristotle writes, because he emphasizes the mean as the thing to talk about. Practical points though:

• your edit messed up the font formatting also
• we should not leave just one of these boxes changed; if no-one has time for it now, we should really revert until someone does?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:59, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the mean should be situated between the deficiency and excess as outlined in 4.4.8 although I am not quite sure how to make that formatting change. I'd be happy to take that on if someone could explain to me how to do it.

Wikiriker (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It would be good if you would have a go. It is relatively easy, after a few practices. I suggest copying from the edit box of a few such cases and then playing with it on your user space. Also, when editing something which could go wrong, remember to use the preview option.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

incomprehensible

"In chapter 11 Aristotle goes through some of the things said about pleasure and particularly why it might be bad, but in chapter 12 he says that none of these things does not show that pleasure is not good nor even the best thing can be shown two ways: first that what is good or bad need not be good or bad simply but can be good or bad for a certain person at a certain time, and secondly that a good or bad thing can either be a "being at work" (energeia) or else a stable disposition (hexis) and there are pleasures which come from being settled into a natural hexis, and also pleasures which come from being in a stable hexis already, such as contemplation; and thirdly, pleasures are ways of being at work, ends themselves, not just a process of coming into being aimed at some higher end."

Can someone who understands what the above is saying please reword it. --81.153.150.126

I will try. Of course sometimes Aristotle just says complicated things, but I enjoy the challenge!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems Solid

Doing a brief evaluation on this entry for a class. From what I can tell, this page seems fairly well fleshed out and I haven't found any flaws that a non-Aristotelian Scholar would find. Tone is neutral, sources are direct and unbiased, and links are still working. No obvious grammar or spelling mistakes either. Kudos people! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wahey24 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

If I were to best evaluate this entry I would say it does give a comprehensible insight into the world of Aristotle. The writing remains unbiased throughout, and I was unable to find any errors. The contributors to this article did a great job. As a person who previously knew little to nothing about Nicomachean ethics, I believe this entry was able to properly inform me about the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camille.dickerson231 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, as part of a class assignment, we are to evaluate this page and determine if anything needs to be edited. I am no expert on Aristotle by any means so I don't have a specific suggestion for changes. I did notice that there are suggestions on the "To-Do" list and was wondering if this is something we, as a class, should work on. Does anyone have any input on a specific area that we should focus on? Wikiriker (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The only critique that I would add to this article, is that as more information is added, it will be important to describe the weaker points of Aristotle's arguments. Possibly where his reasoning needs further development, and when, if at all, he contradicts himself within his writings. Wikiriker (talk 8:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zokusai (talk • contribs)

I think that would be more for the article on Aristotelian Ethics? Remember that this particular article is about one work only. But as a more general point the article has to work with a dilemma concerning secondary literature, in that there is so much. Like the bible (but much less so) every chapter has had commentaries written about it for literally 1000s of years. That is why it is for now more or less a summary, with the least controversial secondary types of comments only, which is a little unusual. Probably the article might one day have spin off articles, or arguably it already does. For example concerning Aristotle's understandings of pleasure, happiness, justice, knowledge etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Job With Nicomachean Ethics

@WhiteC:Good article it help me understand Aristotle's EthicsScottB10 (talk) 00:19, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nichomachean ethics

OVerall I believe "Nichomachean Ethics" has a good flow to it in respect to the subject matter. I liked that it included Aristotles written work such.Could not find any erros to the page.Tirsa.truji35 (talk) 01:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Excellent Structure

Breaking each section section down by book and the main theory in each section was excellent. The use of tables to describe the ideal virtues is helpful for the visual learners. A ceja1994 (talk) 19:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Editing Planned

I plan to edit this page as part of a class assignment.

Wikiriker (talk) 07:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Bibliography Sources to Date:

Kraut, Richard. "Aristotle's Ethics", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) URL = <http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2014/entries/aristotle-ethics/>.

Heineman, Robert. "Eudaimonia and Self-sufficiency in the Nicomachean Ethics", Phronesis. BRILL: 1998, 33.1. Print. URL = <http://www.jstor.org/stable/4182292>.

Nice start,Wikiriker!--Lejulelejule (talk) 20:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Good Job

Good job on all of the hard work everyone has put into this page. I know it took a lot of effort into making it. I was able to use it as a reference when I was writing something to post and don't have anything bad to say about it. Carissa Raines 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carissa.Raines512 (talk • contribs)

template removal discussion

Just to register a discussion at User talk:AndrewOne:

I removed your template on Nicomachean Ethics although I understand the point and want to make sure you realize that. I think however that the template is not quite right. First of all it advises that the articles should be expanded, which clearly does not fit the case quite well. I think your real point is not that the article is too short, but that it is not "secondary" enough? I agree with that to an extent, and the article overall could make more references to secondary works, though I think the template exaggerates the lack of them, and doing this is not quite as simple as the template suggests... Second you did not take the specific problems of this subject into account, and indeed these have been registered over the years on the talk page... Firstly, this is a work with thousands of years of complex and controversial secondary commentary. Every chapter of the book even has the same problem. For many points there are dozens of major positions that could not be ignored, and sometimes very much in conflict with each other.) To really deal with each of them well, I think the book's main article needs to be seen as a the main article, with specialized articles coming off it. But secondly it is hard to make a short main article concerning this book because the second problem is how complex it is, and how many different ways it is read. The summary is actually very compressed. (So to add more secondary material you would only make the article longer. You could not just remove all basic summary could you?) Inevitably then, there is a conflict between the two standard WP aims mentioned above (reasonable article length and based on secondary references). This is why, in order to at least get a core article which other articles can link to, a fairly detailed review has been needed, which explains in one place what the book contains at least, in a reasonably neutral way. Or at least this is the only solution anyone has proposed so far and frankly not many people are willing and able to work on an article like this without making it worse. Anyone proposing changes needs to grapple with this in detail, not just post a template, which could make the article worse. The way I see it in terms of the norms on Wikipedia, this is one of those compressed main articles we often have for a big subject - basically just used to link to the more detailed topics. The reason it does not look like it is because it is long. I suppose eventually other solutions can be tried but they will be a massive restructuring, not just a bit more sourcing? For example following the philosophy I have used, we could turn this article into one which really is short, and make articles for each book, moving something like the current sub sections to the new articles, making it more obvious that the article should be used as a starting point. But that could really go wrong and does not necessarily solve the problems mentioned on your template. (But currently, the main offshoot articles are more thematic, for example book 5 can and should be covered by an article on Aristotle's theory of justice, comparing it to his other known works for example. So arguably an article for every book would not be the right thing to do.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:39, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster,

As one who has read the work in question, its summary here does not appear to be "very compressed," and in fact clocks in at around 14,000 words (and there is no need for an individual article on each chapter). Also, I understand that this text has been the subject of extensive commentary by others; this doesn't mean that the page should just refrain almost entirely from discussing reception. It is instead all the more reason. Plato's Republic, for example, is both a lengthier text and an arguably better-known one, with a Wikipedia page that covers its influence on later scholars (from several centuries, I may add). The page for Nicomachean Ethics suffers from the same problem I mentioned before: it is virtually all summary. Therefore, I still see no reason for removing the template, and certainly no reason that the page is made "worse" by the presence of it. Yes, the article should indeed be expanded in certain ways, after compressing the summary. AndrewOne (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Easy to say that you read it and therefore you can say it is easy to compress. Easy to say it would be easy to integrate lots of secondary material and not split the article. But I have honestly been looking at such aims for a long time and found it difficult, and I have also read the book and a lot of secondary literature. If you compress more then you for example lose "small" points which have have had books and articles written about them. In fact even the question of how to translate certain sentences and words is a massive area of study. I think this is a work that is quite different from the Republic, which is a flowing story, not a tightly compressed theoretical lecture, which develops its own highly influential new jargon based on normal ancient Greek, where every sentence has had an influence on something or someone.

Anyway, in practical terms I think it is hard to really see if we disagree unless we have concrete edit proposals to discuss. Not even one example. Templates are not concrete edit proposals, and it is at least clear that the one you picked is not asking for what you really think is needed. (It asks for the article to be expanded.) Templates in general do not make articles better, but when used they should be very surgical and precise in my opinion. On the other hand, I think trying to compress and trying to add more secondary material are good aims, and I have no problem with them. But having worked on those aims a lot I think that it is not as simple as you think, and I think you should not dismiss that concern too quickly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I will go through the latest template you have added and show how it is not appropriate. It seems too much of a blunt weapon:

This article consists almost entirely of a plot summary. It should be expanded to provide more balanced coverage that includes real-world context. Please edit the article to focus on discussing the work rather than merely reiterating the plot.

• First, as mentioned already you do not want the article expanded, but you say the article should be expanded. That is a very basic problem.
• Second, the Ethics has no plot, and it is already about the real world and applicable to the real world and used by people in the real world doing real world things. It is not a work of fiction. This is not just a point of terminology because the template focuses on the distinction between the work and the "plot". What does that even mean in the case of a work like this? This particular work is known for its content, which is not a plot, and is about the real world and even very influential in the real world. Every little bit of it has a secondary corpus.
• The article is currently about that content, which forms a part of the Aristotelian corpus. Secondary works about that corpus tend to focus on little bits, and tend to connect up isolated passages in different works in the corpus. We can not explain every relevant Aristotelian concept in every article about an Aristotelian work, but if we do not do that, then we can not make a very sensible discussion of secondary debate in those particular articles.
• Without having a place in WP where the content is divided up and named, we can not latch any secondary material "about the content" on to the specific Aristotelian works. Somewhere in WP there therefore needs to be reference to the many different parts of the "plot" which have secondary literature. Secondary literature can be added to that, but makes no sense if we do not explain what it is talking about, and that is not simple in this corpus. The reason this is difficult and important might not be apparent if you have never tried making a simple summary of the secondary literature on any basic point in Aristotle. Aristotle's world view, though still extremely influential, was very different from anything most people can even understand. Later versions of his world view, including Roman era and medieval works, are all debatably twisted, but equally important and relevant to discussing this book. In order to explain it all, I have ended up focusing more effort on articles about the key concepts, many of which are very difficult, such as Nous, Common Sense and Energeia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Minor mistake

There seems to be a little error in this very helpful article: the term "eudamonia" is only introduced in I.4, and not in I.3 as is suggested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.131.64.47 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Intro to Technical Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 October 2024 and 23 October 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Deonte83 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Deonte83 (talk) 21:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)