Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics - Book I 

He's repeating what he was taught and not what he's understood. Aristotle never had such a shallow message. Aristotle suggested we constantly re-evaluate the greatest and highest frame of reference good we can think of at the time, and we will gain new frames as we grow wiser. Virtue and eudaemonia are the pursuit of transcendence. Flourishing for a human being means growth, literally. Not achievement or nirvana like a place that's attained, it's the pursuit that is good, which means suggesting Aristotle said "this is like that" is fundamentally missing all of Aristotle when read holistically. The genius of the ancients isn't their perfection of ideals, it's their emphasis on the evolutionary process of refining the purest ideals... This completely misses the point and is just teaching the literal words written without grander scope of context - which has been, and was always, the point of philosophy and treatise. Its like saying "real hiking is standing at the top of a remote mountain". It's not. There's nature, expérience, commoraderie, health, mindfulness, self sufficiency, appreciation, etc etc. Hiking isn't just a selfie on a peak to Instagram. That's a metaphor, not a point to be taken literally like "well, Aristotle didn't have Instagram" 😜

​@@paxdriver yes but the point of this crash course is to get a grip on what this book is about. It's more of an intro than a true understanding of it. It's an appetiser for further reading into this philosophy. I think it does it really well and sums up the book very efficiently. I believe the only truth is God and every thought might change when presented with new information.

Glad it helped!

Do you have videos on the other 9 Books of the Ethics?

@@paxtonanthonymurphy3733 What are the books you are refering to?

Same!

@@user-wl2rb3rh5cAristotle nicomachean ethics

lmfao yoooo same

Practice.

Because he use nichomachean ethics 😅

its glass

​@MoytheboyTech does that mean he's right-handed not left-handed? And it's all just the post editing? Edit: ahhh yes, I see the wedding band on his 'right-hand' so yea that all adds up

mere sapno ki rani kab ayegi tu

On gunpoint?

This is absolutely normal. Aristotle is to philosophy what Bach is to music. The more you study philosophy, the more interest and understanding you will find in Aristotle. It just takes time and patience

@@efstratiosanagnostopoulos6636 It doesn't help that none of the information we have about Aristotle comes directly from the man, himself. Unlike Socrates, Aristotle actually did write down his thoughts in dialogues similar to what we read in Plato and other philosophers, but unlike Plato, all of Aristotle's formal works have been lost to time. That's really unfortunate, because the works of some of those who did read Aristotle report that the philosopher's dialogues were profoundly lucid and well written. What we do have, more than 2,300 years later, are a bunch of working notes for Aristotle's lectures, as well as notes from students who attended those lectures, all bundled together. The polished works Aristotle wrote for publication and distribution were all written on papyrus, and none of them survived the passage of time.

​@@efstratiosanagnostopoulos6636 Finally someone, whom does not start hating on aristotle. For being wrong abt some things.

@@fliksn I don't think he was "wrong" at anything. His thought process was limited by the evidence and technology of his time. In this manner, his physics is "wrong" and other items closely related to natural science. Today we have a better understanding and much more knowledge on these subjects. We know of DNA, of microbes, of electricity etc. that was not known to him. On the other hand, his work is a great read today on mattera such as ethics, politics and art. The text is very dense in meaning, but also very deep. You will find a ton of smart ways to see the world through his texts. Especially Ethics in my opinion.

Who was your teacher? Were you at the Hillsdale?

Ah, yes, here is the video about Friedrich Nietzsche: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-e2F-T0sJfMQ.html

That is, ultimately, his view. All of the things we desire for its own sake are aspects of the whole that is Eudaimonia. But then, he points out that there is a sense in which they are wanted for the sake of something else - Eudaimonia, just not in a productive sense (as a means to an end), but rather because they in part constitute that something else. That is, he distinguished between doing Y to get X in the sense of producing X, and doing Y to get X because Y is an X. Eating an apple in order to eat food is different in this way from planting an apple tree. In this sense then he said that things like pleasure, honor, friendship, etc, are means to Eudaimonia in this different sense, but Eudaimonia being the whole of all such things, is not so desired.

@@markvictor8776 The function of the DNA is to replicate the DNA. The function of the phenotype is to perform the characteristic actions that got it selected for, not to replicate DNA. That the phenotype exists has "helps organisms replicate DNA" as its efficient cause, not its final cause. You are not human DNA, you are a human phenotype. Your purpose is to do those things the doing of which got your nature selected for. But "get my genes selected for" wasn't what they were selected for, but rather why one thing over another was selected. It's like you are saying that the purpose of chairs is to be constructed by humans.

I fell asleep to one of his videos and had the most interesting dreams about Aristotle's philosophy and something like the function of tomatoes and trees

Aristotle doesn't believe it is subjective, and indeed there are universal and objective grounds for drawing conclusions about it.

I agree that just because something can be taken away by others, is an odd reason for disqualifying it as happiness. Being thrown unjustly in jail, not being able to exercise your "natural" virtues, would certainly ruin the day for most individuals. To me, talking about virtues coming from within, and exercising those, can be read as finding happiness in your current situation, which obviously must have been what the upper classes, including philosophers, would prefer, as it preserves the status quo. However, I don't believe happiness is directly linked to social standing or class. What probably matters to most, is a feeling os security and safety. This can be attributed to having money, which in turn may correlate to social class, but neither necessarily so. The society one lives in defines the intrinsic value of social status, and as Nietzsche demonstrated, Western morality is the morality of the weak and meek, thanks to Christianity, which has greatly evened out or flattened the otherwise strict hierarchies of earlier times. Although I don't believe in any gods, I accept that Christianity has greatly shaped our world, and in many cases to the better, compared to "might makes right" of older times.

Wow! Do you think your way into a twisted mess with everything you do?

Pleasure is for animals.... ok

Intrinsic stable contentment v. momentary excitement by an external thing

Because it leads to happiness

His ethics is grounded on his metaphysics. Aristotle's moral theory is founded upon his ontology in the sense that his conception of nature is thoroughly teleological. Everything in nature has an ultimate end, I.e., a final cause (telos), towards which it aims. The telos of the human being is flourishing, or happiness, which Aristotle defines as the complete practice of the mental and moral virtues. Thus, the metaphysical end-goal of the human species is the same as the end-goal of ethics.

Thought the same thing. I hope it is not due to the quality of college students these days. Almost came across as "spoon feeding". If they did not understand the first example, they would probably not understand the second.

With some training it's just as trivial as writing forwards

He just mirrors the video.

They do

@@jackwebb3757 Is that really an excuse made up to absolve you of your responsibility to the greater imagined community to be helpful towards those in need?

​@@gristly_knuckleNo, it doesn't absolve him of those duties, but he isn't wrong about Aristotle's view.

@@gristly_knuckle That is another topic