Your response to the question about eating was so keen oml, this is an awesome lecture.

Yeah pretty helpful

In book I of NE, he discusses whether he needs to have an account of "the Good" simpliciter, or if he can get away with "the good of a human" for the sake of the inquiry in NE. He ends up going with the latter option, and his explanation for why is interesting, and worth checking out. I'm not aware of anyplace that he does take on "the Good" without any qualification, and I'm not sure that any of his works are the worse for it. He seems content to leave these sorts of questions for the "friends of the Forms" at the Academy. Maybe this account exists and I don't know about it, or maybe it was written and has been lost. But I tend to see Aristotle's decision to not take this question up as intentional, and part of what makes Aristotle a different flavor of philosopher than Plato - one who is fundamentally more grounded in practical inquiry than off in some rarefied contemplation of the abstract.

Republic I & II? kzfaq.info/get/bejne/nt-HbLVzmsu7eHk.html

Good question! And perhaps a good virtue ethicist would note that all three ought to be pursued in moderation. - Perhaps we might claim that all are equally fundamental goods, and all equally essential to being a flourishing human being. - However, my sense is that someone like Aristotle might challenge this on at least two fronts. - The first would draw our attention to the occasional need to decide what to do when pursuing pleasure, honor, and rational contemplation are in conflict with one another. If some pursuit of pleasure would cost you some degree of honor, would you go for the pleasure, or the honor? If these are equally fundamentally valuable, then maybe this sort of dilemma takes us into the territory of "rational regret," but maybe there are better and worse ways of making decisions in these kinds of scenarios. - The second might challenge whether or not all of these things are *essential* to a flourishing human life, particularly in the sense of being the distinguishing characteristics of a flourishing human. Pleasure is enjoyed by non-human animals, so this makes it a poor candidate. If honor is something like the respect of others, then we might imagine a miserable, unjust person who has somehow fooled others into respecting them, and this suggests that maybe honor isn't essential to a flourishing human. Perhaps a good and flourishing human life includes these things, but that's not quite the same a being the distinguishing characteristics of such a life.

​@@adamrosenfeld9384 Your speedy and helpful reply surprises me: thanks. You make it obvious to me that I must study Aristotle's texts considerably more. I have no defense for those two fronts, and you've likely thought through those mental routes many times before now; however, this train of thought is still new for me. Maybe I can try to think more like that good virtue ethicist you mention. Thanks.

@@Paraselene_Tao I'm not entirely sure which approach is correct on this question, so please, do keep thinking (and talking to people!) about this. We could probably all benefit from studying not only Aristotle, but those with other perspectives on this issue a bit more. It seems like the big issue here is one of "value pluralism" or "value monism." Aristotle seems like a value monist, and he offers arguments for why, but there are plenty of folks who have compelling arguments for value pluralism as well. You might check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy entry on "Value Pluralism." It's a great lead for finding both sympathetic and critical perspectives on the very important question you've raised. plato.stanford.edu/entries/value-pluralism/

I'm not sure if I'd say that the mean is "subjective," but I suppose this hinges on what you mean by "subjective." If you mean that whatever you think your mean is is what your mean actually is, then no, the mean isn't subjective. You can be wrong about whether or not you have found a virtuous mean between two vicious extremes. However, the mean is *contextual,* and that context might very well vary from person to person. For example, whether an action is courageous or reckless or cowardly depends in part on whether I can handle something dangerous and frightening. What counts as courageous for a soldier might be reckless for a child. Also, whether a particular hexis finds the virtuous mean is a function of the agent's subjective feelings. If you don't feel the right way about your actions, then your actions might resemble virtuous actions outwardly, but they would be missing the right feeling. Again, this doesn't mean that your virtue is whatever you think it is. You can be wrong about it. But it does concern what you think and feel, and where the mean lies may differ from person to person.

I get this rhetorical question frequently. I'm not sure if I buy the premise it seems to assume, that all things can only be known through their opposites. I don't know what it's like to be dead, but it seems as if I know what it's like to be alive. How can I know what being alive is like if I don't know what being dead is like? Perhaps it's because knowing things through their opposites is not the only way to know them. Either way, I'm curious what the takeaway from this point would be if it were true. Ought we intentionally bring about bad feelings to make the good ones more vivid? Should I go punch someone in the face and then expect them to thank me for reminding them what not being punched in the face is like?

@@adamrosenfeld9384 Not at all Adam. Bad things/feelings will happen automatically in life. One does NOT need to experiement on this. You do not need to punch someone in the face. Bad things/feeling happen as soon as you exist. From a baby forward till U die. And remember if you do punch someone in the face that an equal and opposite reaction may occur....haha

@@adamrosenfeld9384 We have all experienced what being dead is. We have all been dead already. Basically before we were born we were dead.

​@@pinosantilli8297 Perhaps it's true that before we were born, we were dead (as Socrates seems to argue in Plato's "Phaedo"), but that doesn't necessarily mean that we've *experienced* being dead, particularly if experiences are only something that living things can have. I don't have any recollection of being dead. Do you? How would you describe the experience of being dead? Can you do so in a way that doesn't look suspiciously like having no experience at all?

@@adamrosenfeld9384 That's exactly what being dead is...no experience at all. But to have that experience one needs to be alive. So the two go hand in hand. We cannot know death without being alive. That's why life is so important and eternal (just like death) a perfect balance. Ying/Yang as they say? Life and Death are One. This is what people don't seem to understand. Why? Because most people are only concerned with their OWN life and not Life in general. So when U become completely SELFLESS then one understands the Life/Death Principle. But I in fact don't think its reasonable to be selfless all the time or that that should be the goal of our lives. It should just be understood. I actually believe that each person is unique and should fulfill that uniqueness in their lives. I think that is a very special thing and in fact the purpose of the individual.

Are these other things not constituent parts of happiness?

@@adamrosenfeld9384 Yes. But like you said the word happiness is not a good translation of what Aristotle means. It's the act of becoming and striving and actualizing the Will (not killing people of course with no reason) that bring about Virtue. Thanks for responding to me it is greatly appreciated! Like I mentioned I'm looking forward to ALL your lectures. After that time I would enjoy further dialogue with U.

Not with that attitude.

@@adamrosenfeld9384 Its true. I don't want to feel good "all the time" you would commit suicide (eventually) if that where to case. Twilight zone had a good episode on a man that wanted to win all the time, get whatever he wanted all the time....and eventually he realized that he actually wanted to lose again and be denied again.

@@pinosantilli8297 Maybe "winning all the time" and "being happy" aren't the same thing? Mightn't we read this episode of the twilight zone as someone who has a flawed idea of what will make him happy?

@@adamrosenfeld9384 I think that was the point of the episode.