Massimo, do you plan to do the same for Plato's dialogues? I'm currently reading Phaedo, and as a materialist, I'm finding it difficult to engage with. It's hard to see what can be learned from it.
Victor, I have been doing some of Plato’s dialogues. Check the site’s index. I find there is a lot to be learned from them, even though I am a materialist.
In section 2 of the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says:
‘If, therefore, there is some end of our actions that we wish for on account of itself, the rest being things we wish for on account of this end, and if we do not choose all things on account of something else—for in this way the process will go on infinitely such that the longing involved is empty and pointless—clearly this would be the good, that is, the best.’
The description of the infinite regress in goals, and how it makes the pursuit 'empty and pointless’ reminded me of the section in Ecclesiastes. After denouncing everything as meaningless, at one point the author says there is nothing better for people than to ‘eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil’.
Is this characterisation of the goal of life in line with Epicureanism? While eating and drinking can be classified as kinetic pleasures, they can be done sparingly, in a minimalistic way.
‘Aristotle’s solution’ is threefold:
The greatest good lies in seeking the good of the polis, for three reasons:
1. It makes use of all other sciences (technes, arts, pursuits…)
3. It assigns tasks to the other arts/sciences
2. It takes the needs of all people into account simultaneously
In the first point, does the ‘making use of’ all other arts to any extent make the political art the end of all these others?
Plutarch, in How to Be a Leader, says that the practice of philosophy is like that of politics. It seems to me that philosophy is most important for engaging in politics. Is it also the case that political involvement is the best situation in which to apply philosophy?
Lots of good questions! The bit about eating and drinking sounds more Cyrenaics than Epicureans to me. The Cyrenaics looked for physical pleasures in the present, while the goal of the Epicureans was tranquillity (ataraxia) achieved through lack of pain (aponia).
Yes, for Aristotle engagement in politics (understood broadly as working for the benefit of the polis, not narrowly as partisanship) is the *second* highest pursuit for a human being, because we are social animals. The highest is contemplation, because our highest ability is rational thinking.
As for your last question, if by “political involvement” one means to work for the betterment of the polis, yes, that’s the highest calling for a philosopher. At least one who follows the Socratic tradition. (Or, for that matter, Buddha, or Confucius.)
Thanks. In any consideration of ethics or moral standards, Aristotle stands solid. I realizwpebCuceronwas read through rather muddle ages to present so, Aristotle. St Thomas AquinUs may have gleaned truths.
My fifteen year old has found an eagerness to learn Biblicall reasoning,…a delightful girlfriend. I cautioned him to be open, b or criticizebthose who may criticize you. One grows, often even to maturity and venturing to understand all, even pagans is a worthy goal
Massimo, do you plan to do the same for Plato's dialogues? I'm currently reading Phaedo, and as a materialist, I'm finding it difficult to engage with. It's hard to see what can be learned from it.
Victor, I have been doing some of Plato’s dialogues. Check the site’s index. I find there is a lot to be learned from them, even though I am a materialist.
Yes, for sure. Phaedo is the first one that I’m having this clash. Thank you ☺️
Well, to be fair, the Phaedo is the least friendly to a materialist viewpoint, so I hear you!
In section 2 of the first book of the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle says:
‘If, therefore, there is some end of our actions that we wish for on account of itself, the rest being things we wish for on account of this end, and if we do not choose all things on account of something else—for in this way the process will go on infinitely such that the longing involved is empty and pointless—clearly this would be the good, that is, the best.’
The description of the infinite regress in goals, and how it makes the pursuit 'empty and pointless’ reminded me of the section in Ecclesiastes. After denouncing everything as meaningless, at one point the author says there is nothing better for people than to ‘eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil’.
Is this characterisation of the goal of life in line with Epicureanism? While eating and drinking can be classified as kinetic pleasures, they can be done sparingly, in a minimalistic way.
‘Aristotle’s solution’ is threefold:
The greatest good lies in seeking the good of the polis, for three reasons:
1. It makes use of all other sciences (technes, arts, pursuits…)
3. It assigns tasks to the other arts/sciences
2. It takes the needs of all people into account simultaneously
In the first point, does the ‘making use of’ all other arts to any extent make the political art the end of all these others?
Plutarch, in How to Be a Leader, says that the practice of philosophy is like that of politics. It seems to me that philosophy is most important for engaging in politics. Is it also the case that political involvement is the best situation in which to apply philosophy?
Lots of good questions! The bit about eating and drinking sounds more Cyrenaics than Epicureans to me. The Cyrenaics looked for physical pleasures in the present, while the goal of the Epicureans was tranquillity (ataraxia) achieved through lack of pain (aponia).
Yes, for Aristotle engagement in politics (understood broadly as working for the benefit of the polis, not narrowly as partisanship) is the *second* highest pursuit for a human being, because we are social animals. The highest is contemplation, because our highest ability is rational thinking.
As for your last question, if by “political involvement” one means to work for the betterment of the polis, yes, that’s the highest calling for a philosopher. At least one who follows the Socratic tradition. (Or, for that matter, Buddha, or Confucius.)
I’ve had a hard time reading Aristotle. Look forward to this . Hopefully this will help.
Let me know! Keep in mind that there are nine more books to go, eventually I’ll get to them, fate permitting.
Thanks. In any consideration of ethics or moral standards, Aristotle stands solid. I realizwpebCuceronwas read through rather muddle ages to present so, Aristotle. St Thomas AquinUs may have gleaned truths.
My fifteen year old has found an eagerness to learn Biblicall reasoning,…a delightful girlfriend. I cautioned him to be open, b or criticizebthose who may criticize you. One grows, often even to maturity and venturing to understand all, even pagans is a worthy goal
Good morning, the links do not appear to be working. This is on my iPad and also on my phone. Thanks
Charles, sorry about that, I fixed the problem!
No worries, thanks so much. I always enjoy your material.
Eudaimonia for all, eudaimonia forever. Thanks, Massimo.