Book Review: "Nicomachean Ethics" by Aristotle

The only reason I was re-reading this was because I was listening to a podcast about the book and thought 'hey, I don't really remember this' and so I picked it up again. I was kind of thanking the heavens that it was shorter than I was trying to remember, but I wasn't thanking the heavens because this was another difficult read that, for some reason I decided to read next to reading Heresy by Catherine Nixey. The great text which happened to be a huge middle finger to Plato's Republic, Aristotle's philosophies have always interested me as the foundations for emotional criticisms and artistic criticisms. So, let's dive in.

Aristotle argues that all human actions aim at some good, but there must be an ultimate good that is desired for its own sake, which he calls eudaimonia (happiness or flourishing). This is the highest good because it is self-sufficient and complete, making life worth living. Eudaimonia is not merely a feeling of pleasure but an activity of the soul in accordance with virtue over a complete life. This reminds me of when I read The Better Angels of Our Nature by Steven Pinker (which if you haven't read it, I will highly recommend). Life can only be worth living if we are doing some fort of good or meaningful work is something that you might think is obvious, but so many people do not know of it that you'd think it was the most uncommon philosophy out there.

Aristotle distinguishes between two kinds of virtue: intellectual virtues, which arise from teaching (such as wisdom and understanding), and moral virtues, which result from habit and practice (such as courage and temperance). Intellectual virtue involves reasoning, while moral virtue involves character and behaviour. Though I enjoy the sentiment, I think that all morality (especially nowadays) has to be taught purely because I have seen the wholehearted lack of empathy that people have for each other in the modern world. We are ruining our children if we do not impart explicit knowledge about empathy upon them.

Aristotle examines moral responsibility by differentiating between voluntary and involuntary actions. Voluntary actions are those done with knowledge and deliberate choice, and one can be praised or blamed for them. Involuntary actions, on the other hand, result from ignorance or force and are not subject to moral judgment in the same way. He explores this distinction to clarify when a person can be held morally accountable. My main question is that the person who was committing these actions would know, but how would anyone else become aware of this if they were not told? Therefore, if someone else could not know then how is 'moral judgement' being imparted? It's shady but I think the answer can be found in Aristotle's understanding of the soul.

While moral virtues are necessary for the good life, Aristotle concludes that the highest form of happiness is found in contemplation (theoria). Contemplation, which involves intellectual activity in line with the highest part of human nature (reason), is the most self-sufficient and enduring form of happiness. It is the activity of the divine and the philosopher’s ideal pursuit. This, I can get on board with since contemplation makes us more than ourselves and helps us understand ourselves. One of the reason that people do not understand themselves or pursue intellectual activities nowadays is because they are constantly trying to distract themselves instead of contemplate via meditation or reading or learning or...anything apart from media consumption.

Aristotle acknowledges that external goods (such as wealth, health, and friends) are necessary to some extent for achieving eudaimonia, as they provide the conditions for practicing virtue. However, he warns that the excessive pursuit of these goods can lead one away from the virtuous life. External goods are instrumental, not ultimate, in the attainment of happiness. This is probably one of the most common pieces of the knowledge of what is humanly good: every good can be considered good in moderation but every good can be considered bad in excess. The argument against excess is strong in this book.

Aristotle's book might be riddled with a couple of holes here and there, but there are definitely some philosophies that everyone can get on board with and understand. What we can see in our world is the excess of media consumption which means empathy, understanding, self and intellect is at an all time low - maybe we need to return to this book to bring us back to what we were all meant to do.