Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics book 2 | Criticism of Platonic Form of Good | Philosophy Core Concepts
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 มิ.ย. 2024
- Check out the Aristotle on the Moral Virtues class (starting April 13) - reasonio.teachable.com/p/aris...
Request personal videos on Cameo - www.cameo.com/gregorybsadler
Get Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics - amzn.to/2g9t0UU
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
This is a video in my new Core Concepts series -- designed to provide students and lifelong learners a brief discussion focused on one main concept from a classic philosophical text and thinker.
This video focuses on Aristotle's work, the Nicomachean Ethics, and discusses his criticism of the Platonic conception of the Form of the Good in book 1.
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Aristotle! - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
We also offer affordable, content-packed, on-demand courses on Philosophy in the ReasonIO Academy - reasonio.teachable.com/
This video is one component in a set of online courses covering Aristotle's entire Nicomachean Ethics. These include 94 lecture videos, 45 downloadable handouts and worksheets, 10 quizzes, 39 lesson pages, and other resources. Check it out in the ReasonIO Academy here - reasonio.teachable.com/p/arist...
I was stumped for a good while trying to write my philosophy paper on the theory of forms. You helped me get past my writer's block and paint a clearer picture. Great professor!
Glad it was useful for you
Thank you, professor Sadler.
You're welcome!
Fantastic lecture
Thanks!
Gregory B. Sadler you bet
Thanks for your videos, professor Sadler!
I might be wrong, but it seems to me that Aristotle had a conception of what the 'Good' really is that is closer to our modern intepretation of such an abstract concept. Nowadays, we usually consider that there could not be an universal 'Good' because it is an idea that exists relatively inside of every human being; that is, what is good for you is not necesarilly good for me or someone else. This, of course, is tied to issues such as the temporal and geographic contexts on which the problem of the 'Good' is studied. However, Plato's, and, therefore, Socrate's argument on the existence of the universal 'Good' might be trying to point out to a deeper understanding of the term, which is not even dependent on the existence of humanity.
It's a mind-boggling discussion, but, nonetheless, it's wonderful to see that such different opinions on philosophy arose within a few centuries between teachers and apprentices.
I'd avoid generalizing overmuch about "our modern interpretation"
I don’t understand Aristotle’s prior and posterior argument in book 1 chapter 6. Why can’t the platonists have a form for priority and posteriority?
Re-read it. Pretty sure that’s not what he’s saying
If I got it right Aristotle is simply pointing out a core idea of the Theory of the Forms. I.e that they were/are prior to that which exist in the material world. It doesn’t have anything to do with ’the form of priority’
yup. Since every thing aims at some good, the good is that which all things aim. How does one reconcile the particular goods for many different things under numerically one real Good? "that which is common to all, but not limited to each". okay, I am glad you have identified the criteria that the Good would have to have, but WHAT (positively) meets that criteria? Being( esse) I suppose...except as it is indeterminate, it is nothing...the universal is a secondary substance in Aristotle, and I need to know if universals have real being or not....the one discipline that treats of the one good would be theology ( let's all make a litany of Anslem's Monologium), Why not apply the same sort of argument that A uses for the uncaused argument for the third man.?To compare the man to the idea of the man, we need a third man to compare the concrete man to the first man (Platonic idea) . But to compare the the concrete man to the third man, we need a fourth, fifth etc. But we do compare the concrete man to the first man. Thus there must be an ultimate idea of man by which all of them are compared, and that would be the platonic idea. (if its good for Aristotle it may be good for Aristotle's account of Plato.) got to go again! I will review this again.
+Mark Trumble It's not about "criteria" here
Would it be right in thinking that Plato is an idealist and Aristotle is a materialist?
No. And wherever you got those oversimplifications from, get rid of them and don’t rely on that source
sir can I know the which book with you that has been taught by you in this video?
No idea what you're asking. Try rewriting it
@@GregoryBSadler they mean the title of the book at 12:40
@@realDominik586 Let them answer for themself
Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society
Fake quote.