Nichomanean Ethics Aristotle Flashcards

Question

The mean that is determined by reason/thinking

Answer 1

Now, that one should act in accordance with the correct prescription (orthôs logos) is a shared view let it stand as a basic assumption; there will be a discussion about it later, both about what ‘the correct prescription’ is, and about how it is related to the other kinds of excellence

Answer 2

The phronimos - the wise person - possesses the intellectual virtue called phronêsis Phronêsis - excellence or virtue in Deliberation

Answer 3

Action - praxis Decision/Choice (prohairesis) Deliberation (boulesis) Starting from ends/goals, deliberations is the process whereby one works out how to achieve those ends or goals (Deliberations is not about which ends/goals to have) Can think of this as represented by a “practical” syllogilism/deduction Wisdoms, practical intelligence, prudence Intellectual virtue that has to do with action (praxis) What determines the right way to act as it pertains to the virtues is decided by phronesis Ends are being determined by deliberation

Answer 4

General or universal premise - I want to heal the sick Particular premise - eg. doing this or that will lead to this goal Conclusion: decision (or action), eg. do this or that

Answer 5

Again, the ‘product’ is brought to completion by virtue of a person’s having wisdom and excellence of character for excellence makes the goal correct, while wisdom makes what leads to it correct In our decisions there is this division of labour

Answer 6

UP (universal premise) X is to be done/avoided \PP (Particular Premise) This is X Conclusion (Decision/Action) Do/Avoid X Character virtue, developed by practice, sets the ends/goals Phonesis, developed by experience, gives the means to those ends (moral perception, eye of the soul)

Answer 7

Cleverness (deinoeteta): ability to engage in means-ends reasoning. The ability to “hit the mark” If the mark be noble, the cleverness is laudable, but if the mark be bad, the cleverness is mere smartness Phronesis requires character virtue - it is impossible to be wise without possessing excellence Phronesis vs cleverness Cleverness: ability to engage in means-ends reasoning. The ability to hit the mark

Answer 8

…just as in the case of that part of the soul that forms opinions there are two kinds of thing, cleverness and wisdom, so with the character bearing part there are also two, one being natural virtue and the other virtue in the primary sense—and of these, the latter does not come about unless accompanied by wisdom.” Virtue in the primary sense/full character virtue - needs wisdom Character virtue requires phonesis it is not possible to possess excellence in the primary sense without wisdom Impossible to be wise without excellence of character

Answer 9

- Socrates thought that all the excellences are kinds of wisdom, but in so far as they are always accompanied by wisdom - Socrates was in a way right and in a way not right when he said that the virtues were all accompanied by wisdom or knowledge

Answer 10

Is it possible to have one virtue but not others this is possible in relation to the ‘natural’ excellences, but in relation to those that make a person excellent without qualification, it is not possible, since if wisdom, which is one, is present, they will all be present along with it

Answer 11

Why these notions are relevant to this study virtue/excellence as a disposition state Is a disposition state that has to do with decisions - how are our choices related to who we are Virtue/excellence and vice/badness Are objects of blame and praise - can we blamed for the characters we have - if so, it seems like we are responsible for them These notions are often used but require conceptual clarification in order to resolve some puzzles

Answer 12

- Asking about whether ot not an action voluntary leadas to the question on when does an action reflect a persons character and when does it not - Because virtues and vices are voluntary they are praise or blameworthy - A lot of people like socrates used these notions but they require conceptual clarification in order to resolve some puzzle

Answer 13

- Oedipus kills father, not knowing it is his father - You do X, not knowing X is bad for you. (Alternatively: You do X, not knowing X is wrong.) - Forced (false) confession

Answer 14

the “origin” (archê – principle) is “in” the agent. (Not by force) the agent knows the particulars. (Not because of ignorance) Whether or not we think something is voluntary depends on the nature of the case If it is something serious then it is less likely that one will be blamed for having given in Eg. if one’s loved ones are threatened However, if the nature of teh case is not that serious then one might be balmed for having given in Force is when the origins are external “mixed” cases - for example: what is done because of fear of the greater evils Doing such things, then, is voluntary, but just in themselves they are presumably counter-voluntary; for no one would choose anything of this sort for itself.

Answer 15

If not, we say it is non-voluntary Obviously, nothing done because of ignorance is done voluntarily In asking about whether something was done voluntarily or not, we’re asking about the connection between the action and the person’s character This distinction helps to make clear why not all cases of actions done because of ignorance automatically show no connection between the character and the action

Answer 16

- the person who has done whatever it is because of ignorance, if he feels nothing by way of discomfort at his action, has not acted voluntarily - in so far as it was something he didn’t know he was doing, but he has not acted counter-voluntarily, as he is not distressed by it

Answer 17

nor is ignorance at the level of the universal a cause of the counter- voluntary but rather ignorance at the level of particular things, which are where action is located and what action is about Eg. plagiarizing because ignorant that this counts as plagiarism vs. because ignorant that plagiarism is wrong Aristotle thinks that if you’ve done something out of ignorance but have regretted then that is a condition for an action to count as counter voluntary But the kind of ignorance matters It must be ignorance of the particulates not the universals for it to be less blameworthy When you’re ignorant about the universals then that type of ignorance does not get you off the bnook

Answer 18

actions done according to your will Actions that belong to you so they can be praise or blameworthy Actions done voluntarily reflects one’s characters

Answer 19

Not according to or against your will For these actions the person has ingrained but does not have any pain or regret after the action committed that goes against their will

Answer 20

Acting against what you care about and your will Actions you were forced to do or out of ignorance The person must be sad or had regret that they did the deed against their will

Answer 21

You are doing ana ction in a state in which you do not know all the things you need to know Being drunk For aristotle, this is not enough to exonerate someone from blame because it is in one’s control to be in that state or not Because of ignorance actions: The world decieves you and it makes it not your own action Eg. a medical tratement that has some harmful side effects but due to scientidic knowledfe of that day they do not know all the facts to have known whether or not it was harmful or not Negligence Things that people should do or know about the situation The action does reflect one’s character Ignorance is only excsuable when we could not have expected the individual to know

Answer 22

Virtue is not a feeling and is not a capacity You don’t have a virtue because you feel a certain thing It involves feelings however (to feel emotions in the right way to not overreact of underreact) It is a disposition in which you have an inclination to do a certain thing It is a character trait (ingrained part of your character)

Answer 23

Mean is relative to us The mean is in accordance with the correct reason (phronesis) We make a practical judgement that is correct and virtue means to hit that judgement Eg. the courageous person judges how courageous they should be The virtues are united in this correct judgement of choosing what is most right to do Aristotle doesn't believe that the right action can be covered in advance in a way in which it determine for all

Answer 24

who is acting, what he is doing, in relation to what or affecting what Sometimes also with what, what the action is for, and how it’s done the person who was ignorant of any one of these things has acted counter-voluntarily Ignorance of particulars - Typically exonerating (provided there is regret) For such cases, instruction, rather than punishment or blame, is appropriate. Ignorance of universals - Typically not exonerating Exceptions: when ignorance of the particulars is blameworthy Acting because of ignorance also appears to be distinct from acting in ignorance for the person who acts while drunk or angry does not seem to act because of ignorance but because of one of the things just mentioned, though not knowing what he is doing, but in ignorance of it

Answer 25

We make judgements about the behaviour of other people Actions that are voluntary - is a minimal condition of whether something is subject to praise or blame

Answer 26

Things that children or animals do are voluntary, but children and animals don’t engage in reason - decision is not something that is shared in children and animals Aristotle characterised virtues as ‘states that decide’ - has to do with decisions

Answer 27

Vs. appetite/desire (epithumia) Decision and apptite can conflict, e.g. in the strong-willed person They make decisions but the appeteites conflict with decisions

Answer 28

What we intend is not always what we want We can wish for the impossible, but not decide to do or achieve it Further, wish is more for the end Wish is not an action, but a goal/the end, and a decision is what promotes the end Vs. belief/judgement It will not, then, be judgement either, since objects of judgement can be eternal or impossible, and neither are up to us

Answer 29

It is a deliberation desire - for things that depend on us/are in our control We deliberate, not about ends, but about what forwards those ends You need to have an end then examine how to get there - eg. you don’t deliberate whether to cure a patient, when you’re a doctor, as that’s the end, you deliberate how to cure the patient What distinguishes choice and intention from voluntary actions is that the thing you’ve decided is something that is deliberate and based on reasoning What is wished for is the end, while what we deliberate about and decide on are the things that forward the end Is the thing that we want, is it actually good or does it just appear good to us If we say what we all really want is the good, then it seems like a whole lot of people don’t know what it is that they wish for and that what they wish for is wrong

Answer 30

For the person of excellence the object of wish is the one that is truly so, just as on the physical level too the things that are truly healthful are healthful for people in good condition

Answer 31

- Given that we praise and vlame people for being virtuous or vicious, then yes, they must be “up to us” - if we are held responsible for them, then we should actually be responsible for it - it can’t be something we’re just stuck with, it has to be voluntary - the bad states that people get blamed for will be ones that depend on us Ignorance of hte universal - the things that you think you should do, you are wrong about - The vicious person has a wish that organises all their deliberation - that is for something bad - so all of their actions correspondingly will be vicious

Answer 32

You become a sick person who cannot become well If you think that somebodys character is up to them and they build their character on what they do - since they become bad, it seems like they cannot help but become more and more bad Like the sick person who cannot become better, it was their fault at first but there’s nothing they can do about it now It seems weird to say that they are sick voluntarily

Answer 33

With actions, we’re in control from beginning to end, we know all the parrticulars involved However, it’s not that somebody is just excused If we want to say about the vicious person, that they are not responsible for their vicious character, because no one would have chosen that, then Arisotlte thinks that you have to be willing to say the same about the virtuous person, that is the vicious person does not deserve blame, then the virtous person does not deserve praise Are we responsible for out character Yes and no We are jointly responsible

Answer 34

Eg. pointless acts of aggression are to be avoided or harming people is bad Determined by our character, our virtuous or vicious disposition or state, which is developed by habituation or practice

Answer 35

This action is pointlessly aggressive ; this would do harm A quasi-perceptual ability, developed through experience and over time F is better than G, but people do G anyways because they are overcome by the pleasure of G Knowledge is a strong thing for Socrates To Plato, it seemed that people weren’t unified agents

Answer 36

incontinence, weakness of will, lack of self-control If we can solve the difficult issues about a subject and leave people’s views on it undisturbed, it will have been clarified well enough Aristotle thinks that there is something right about this endoxa

Answer 37

Undesirable states in relation to character are of three kinds: badness, lack of self-controlm and brutishness Vice, akrasia, beastliness The contaties of two of these are clear enough: virtue, enkrateia, super-human In many cases, we want to distinguish the wicked and the akratic - the akratic is not wicked, just weak-willed

Answer 38

It’s important to distinguish these, because Aristotle argues that friendship plays an important role in the happy life, they are needed for the good life, we need to be good judges of peoples characters The enkratic person makes a decision and sticks to it, they may have th ebase appteites, but stick to what they should be doing The incontinent person makes a decision then abandons it It is a lack of self-control

Answer 39

this is not why people behave in certain ways Aristotle does not deny the possibility, he wants to preserve the endoxa, he just says people act against their beliefs about what’s best, but does not want to reject that knowledge, that it cannot be dragged around by our emotions First distinction: having vs using knowledge For both the man who has knowledge but is not using it and he who is using it are said to know When you are drunk or sick, you would have knowledge, but you are not using it - you know that pointless acts of aggression are not good, but you do not know that when you are drunk Distinction: knowledge of universals and knowledge of particulars Since there are two types of premise, there is nothing to prevent someone from acting contrary to his knowledge when has both premisses but is using only the universal one, not the particular one Universal premises Carinogengs should be avoided Pleasant things should be pursued Particular premises This is a carcinogen This is a pleasant thing

Answer 40

The akratics person problem is not that they don’t know, they just can’t stick to it The particular knowledge is not active in cases of akrasia Again, people call the moderate type self-controlled and resistant, while some call anyone of this sort moderate, some do not The moderate person takes pleasure in moderation, not the self-controlled

Answer 41

Happiness = highest end It’s going to require a certain amount of external goods (wealth, health, friends) - they are necessary ingredients to be happy, but not sufficient - you can still be miserable with this What else you need is happiness Chosen for its own sake, it’s desirable in itself Activity - energeia Happiness is not lacking in anything but is self-sufficient

Answer 42

Why can’t it always be pleasure that we pursue for its own sake? Pleasure is not the sort of thing that we achieve something else by Maybe the highest good is pleasant amusement This is not what the good life could be Happiness does not lie in amusement, to apply to oneself to serious things, for the sake of amusement appears silly and childish You don’t work for the weekend, you relax on the weekend, so you can work in the week We amuse ourselves to relax so we can pursue more serious things It’s activity of the soul that expresses virtue - that is what happiness is and to achieve eudaimonia

Answer 43

It is reasonable that this should be activity in accordance with the highest kind of excellence

Answer 44

It is the kind that corresponds to something divine within us

Answer 45

It is also the thing in whose object are also the highest and best kind Further, it is the most continuous, since we can engage in reflection continuously more than we can in getting things fone ehwtever they mat be It is the most pleasant kind of activity It is the most complete, not chosen for the sake of anything else

Answer 46

The courageous person need not be powerless The moderate will need the opportunity of indulging himself The life of contemplation/study is the ultimate best life for humans Human life is lived in common with other humans In so far as he is a human being, and shares his life with others, he chooses to do the deeds that accord with excellence, and so he wil need such things for the purposes of living a human life

Answer 47

Conceptions of happiness Exclusive (intellectualist): happiness consistsics ecvlusively in virtuous theoretical activity Inclusive (comprehensive): happiness includes both practical and theoretical activity The life of study would be the highest kind of life in a time of complete peace and leisure, that is what we would ultimately do But given the situation, since we live in a world that is imperfect, there are wars, there is sickness, it is important to cultivate these character virtues, otherwise we won’t be happy.

Answer 48

Understanding is a basic human desire This non practical use of our rationality that is distinctively human, we saw in some conception is the highest part of a happy, flourishing human life consists of Posterior analytics - this work is roughly about scientific methodology and knowledge - what is knowledge, the supergood kind of knowledge and how do we get it

Answer 49

when we think we know of hte explanation because of which the object holds that it is its explanation, and also that it is not possible for it to be otherwise We have such knowledge through demonstrations

Answer 50

Here we assert that we do know things through demonstrations. By a demonstration I mean a scientific deduction, and byt scientific deduction by possessing which we understand something Deduction, syllogism 2 premises and a conclusion 3 terms, middle, major, and minor Syllogism is a discourse in which certain premises are precedent, and something different from these premises follow All mammals are moratak, mortal is predicted of every mammal All cows are mammals, mammal is predicated of ebery cow Hence all cows are mortal, Hence mortal is predicated of every cow

Answer 51

A - universal affirmative (affirm) E - universal negative (nego) I - particular affirmative (affirmo) O - particular negative (nego) Contraties vs contradictories Using these four types of propositions we can create a square of opposition If every S is P, then some S is P is also true And for some contraries, only one of them can be false, but both could also be true For the I proposition, if you do not know if some S is P, you can look at another proposition, you could look at proposition A, every S is P, then you would know if proposition I is true

Answer 52

A holds of no B -> B holds od no A A holds of some B -> B holds of some A A holds of every B -> B holds of some A

Answer 53

First figure AxM MxB AxB Second figure MxA MxB AxB Third figure AxM BxM AxB X = unspecigied relationship between the subject and the predicate, which cen be replaced by A, E, I or O M = middle term A = major term B = minor term Four moods of the first figure syllogilism The moods of the three figures

Answer 54

Premises of demonstration True Primitive and immediate More familiar Prior Explanatory These things are demonstrative

Answer 55

the premises have to be true, have to express what is the case, not what is false

Answer 56

aristotle thinks that scientific demonstrations, are explanatory, they connect things and explain why these things are connected Suppose you have a syllogism that is All vines are broad-leaved All broad-leaved plants are deciduous Therefore, all vines are deciduous First figure, valid syollogism - barbara is the name of that It’s the fact that decideouseness is the cause of the plants being decideousness Compare it with this All vines are are dedcideous All dcideous plants are broad-leveled Therefore, all vines are broad-leaved It shows that it is the case, not why it is a case Explanatory All planets are nearby All nearby things are non-twinklers Therefore, all plants are non-twinklers Non-explanatory All plants are non-twinklers All non-twinklers are nearby Therefore, all planets are nearby This does not explain why they are nearby Its not the reason why they are nearby, they may be how to prove it, but not explaining why it is the case

Answer 57

Demonstration is of “the why” It is not because they don’t twinkle that they are near, but because they are near that they don’ twinkle This helps us understand that premises are prior, more familiar, and better known

Answer 58

Things are prior or more familiar in two ways To us and by nature He associates being the better known to us are things being perceived And things better known by nature are far away and not as able to be perceived When we are saying that premises of a demonstrative are better known prior to a explanatory, he means as a matter of fact, not just to us

Answer 59

All vines are broad-leaved plants All borad-leaved plants are leaf-shedders Therefore, all vines are leaf-shedders There is an explanation for why all broad-leaved plants shed, that is because they are all sap-coagulators, and sap-coagulation leads to the leaves falling If that last premise, is just a definition, aristotle would say that these kinds of premises are primitive and immediate Immediate means that it lacks a middle It is the kind of proposition in which there is no other term which will explain why the terms are connected

Answer 60

We think we understand somedthing simpliciter It is not even posible for what we know in this sense to be otherwise What is known systematically therefore is by necessity Everything that is by necessity, without qualification, is eternal, and what is eternal is subject neither to coming into being nor to passing out of being Like character virtues, these intellectual virtues are states or dispositions Being in these states, we can engage in these rational activities well Knowing what is necessary or eternal - we only have knowledge in this sense about eternal truths, like 2+2=4, not things like the sky is blue today Understanding is through demonstrations Episteme is connected with the ability to give or understand demonstrations Demonstrations are syllogisms or deductions, whos premises have certain features, true, primitive, immediate, more familiar, prior to and explanatory of the conclusions

Answer 61

To proceed from primitives is to proceed from appropriate principles (I call the same things primitives and principles). A principle of a demonstration is an immediate proposition, and a proposition is immediate if there is no other proposition prior to it

Answer 62

Episteme is going to have this structure Follows from grasp of first principles that are not demonstrated From them all of the necessary facts within a domain will follow Science is about kinds, abstract things like that Is understanding possible If you have some understanding that S is P, because S is R, and R is P, don’t you also have to have understanding of those premises Starting points of explanation are known, but they can’t be demonstrated, because then they wouldn’t be indemonstrable Is all knowledge demonstrable It would seeme that knowledge is not possible because we can’t get a grasp of these first principles Aristotle says that knowledge is not demonstrable, they are known in a different way Aristotle shows us that he is aware of this problem If I know that it follows from the fact that triangles have interior angles equal to 180 That’s not an indemonstrable fact The question is about the status of those first principles, and he things everybody would agree that if you don’t have knowledge on the definition of a triangle, your knowledge following from it is in a sense conditional If you can’t grasp the primitives, you can’t follow what precedes from them No circular demonstrations It is impossible for the same thing at the same time to be both prior and posterior to something Not all knowledge is demonstrable These immediate items must be indemonstrable What is the state of disposition of the soul that knows the immediate, first principles There will be comprehension (nous) of the principles

Answer 63

intellect, intuition, intelligence, insight, comprehension We have a different kind of grasp of these There is some innate capacity that we have that begins with perception and eventually culminates in the grasp of these first principles Perception comes about memory, and from memory we gain experience, and frome xperience, this universal comes to rest in the soul, and there it becomes a kind of principle Talking about scientific knowledge, this is the principle of understanding, a starting point These principles are states/dispositions of the soul by which one grasps universals They come about from perception, as in battle, when a route has occurred, first one man makes a stand, then another does, and then another, until a position of strength is reached Undifferentiated, unclear items that take a stand, we know these premises from epagoge, which is induction/inductive reasoning

Answer 64

types of predication, ways of being Gives us the tools or instruments for thinking about other things and organising our thoughts

Answer 65

Objects Properties Essential - couldn’t be the object without that property Accidental - are not essential Property - I am a human, if I lose that property, I cease to exist Property - I change my hair, it is a property that I persist through it

Answer 66

to predicate X of Y: to “charge” or “accuse” Y of being X Things said - forms of speech Things said with combination Aristotle is not just making linguistic points, but talking about what the words refer to Cateogireis focus on things that can be combined and how they can be combined

Answer 67

What kinds of things can be said What are the classes of things Professor (JG) is a human, an animal, a living thing, and most general, a substance/a being Accuse her of being 5’5 - some height - a quantity of some sort pale - a colour - quality A sister - a sibling - related to someone - a relation In this room - in a building - in a place - somewhere Here now, this afternoon - some time Standing - in a position These 10 categories are predicates, they are different ways of being

Answer 68

different predicates correspond with different beings Non-substantial beings - beings/predicates in non-substance categories

Answer 69

Said of a subject Socrates is human, socrates izz - human is the kind of thing that socrates is What it is Preset in a subject Socrates is pale - socrates hazz pallor - pale is a property that socrates has What it’s like Said of - izzing - when you say socrates is human, human is said of socrates Transitive (animal said of human said of socrates) Both the name and the definition (logos) apply Said in - hazing - what is in something Not as a part No separate existence When talking about something being in you, you aren’y saying something is ‘in’ you like in your stomach, it is not separate - if X is in Y, Y has to be a substance The only thing that are subjects for this said in way are going to be substances Somethings that you might predicate, accuse something else of being, say what that thing is essentially, and sauy what you accuse something else of being, say what it is like

Answer 70

Said of Y classifies x Y says what X izz Y is the essence of X Present in Y categorizes A Y says what X hazz Y is a property that X has Two distinctions Said of vs present in Essences and accidents/attributes particular/individual vs universal Universal: prediable of several subjects; particulars Properties depends on individual substances No property like green exists, if not in a subject Secondary substaances, like kinds and species that people belong to depend on the individuals, it is not prior to them Primary substances are subjects for all the other things Other things are predicated of them or are in them Aristotle takes the predication relations as corresponiding to ontological ones The framework here, and when we turn to the physics, is a bunch of ways to be Only substances are able to receive contraries

Nichomanean Ethics Aristotle Flashcards

(94 cards)