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.
having trouble reading this book as homework and this video helps me save almost 2 hours that I was supposed to struggle from understanding what Aristotle tried to say. This is amazing thank you!!
Watching this all the way from Saudi 🇸🇦. Loved it, it's very helpful and clear. I've been reading the Nicomachean Ethics and all kind of philosophy books, I was amazed of how well everything is written. The explanation you did in the video is just wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing!
@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
Thank you for this lecture. It is a wonderful explanation and analysis of Aristotle's Book 1. Other videos either sum it up too short and skip the key points you mentioned, or try to generalize all of the Nicomachean books as one simple statement. I really like how in the beginning you broke down the key point in Section 2, and "translated" the quote for modern terms. I kind of feel going through this book is like reading Shakespeare and you need notes and "translations" on the margins to figure out what is being said.
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.
@fI1cker 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.
Happiness is a warm gun - The Beatles' philosophy A lot less complicated than understanding Aristotle. Many thanks for these wonderful videos which are helping me to broaden my knowledge. I was terribly disappointed by my philosophy class in college as I was very interested in the subject but didn't have the good fortune of getting a teacher who could communicate the concepts in an interesting and meaningful way as you do.
Great with words, very much a help to understanding what it is to be human but differs from catholics (me) in key ideas of the Purpose of Life. What a great informational video!!
wow I got amused by this presentation so much cause It made me feel that I'm doing a rational thing to do and It felt morally right you know it meant to be some kind of practice of virtues for me .
Interesting and good talk! To me Aristotle seems more "modern" than several of the later (European) philosophers, both in acknowledging plant and animal souls of differing qualities, as well as his view on rationalism. Taken a bit further than examining humans as a homogenous group, it becomes easy to ascertain that leaders should lead, slaves should obey, and so on, simply arguing what is "logical", at least seen from leaders and free men, as the others were perhaps not given much of a voice. As I understand it, Aristotle defended slavery on exactly such grounds, talking about how traits and behaviours are "natural" to slaves, as well as masters.
Kinda hard to argue with some that writes on plexiglass & waving using color markers as samurai, wit & style facts an a book as he exclaims Aristotle's Ethics in a unique perspective, he shouldve wrote backwards & tossed the book at a lamp for surprise & flare effect Aristotle would've been proud
It's specious to say we don't want money for its own sake, because money serves various purposes, only one of which is spending in exchange for something else. Money is also a store of value (like gold), which we might want for its own sake, or for the status it confer on us, which we might also want for its own sake.
I like Aristotle's argument up to the point of answering what is happiness. Why can't it just be ALL of the things that are wanted for their own sake? Pleasure, Honor, Pursuit of Virtues, Love, Friendship, Health, etc.
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 agree with almost all of this but why can’t the human’s purpose be the same as an animal’s purpose? That assertion seems unfounded. The purpose of a pencil is the same as that of a pen: to write things.
I wanted something I could fall asleep to, but then this turned out to be too mentally stimulating. Gonna have to pause (even tho I really wanna keep watching) and find some other boring background noise cos at this rate I’m gonna stay awake and watch all your videos lol. Anyway, subscribed, can’t wait til I wake up to keep learning!
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
Happiness being the conclusion is very fitting. We all know that what happiness means is subjective, but there does have to be some universal truths or keys to happiness.
I think Jeffrey Kaplan is right-handed. On the videos he appears to be left-handed because the image is reversed, I think. The problem is I have failed to follow a lot of what he has said because I have been distracted with working out how he can write backwards with such apparent fluency. I suppose I am going to have to re-watch all the videos I have seen so far. Boo!hope
I’m confused does that not mean morality is subjective and differs according to each persons virtues then? Because it seems like it’s not accounting for the good of humankind and just for the good of the specific person
Great lecture, but in the intro, he mentioned many figures like Kant and Nietzche, I really can't see how is it appropriate to mention those when we are at Aristotle's. Nothing compares..
Feels like the biggest flaw in the argument comes from the reasoning for the dissmisal of Honour as Happinnes. Why would it follow just because it can be "taken away from you by others" that it is invalid. It is just stated as a fact "happiness must come from within" without any reason for why it should be so. So that it cannot be taken from you by others? Why is that important. Is Happiness something that is impervious from being taken away? If so then there would be no unhappiness at all. People are unhappy all the time which means something did take their happiness away - which would mean happiness is not impervious from being taken away. Social status is the obvious impetus for anything people do and much more so than "reason". People are vehemently willing to be completely unreasonable if acting reasonably will diminish their social status. If you have high social status you are happy, if you don't have high social status you are unhappy. Practically everything anybody does is to elevate their social status.
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.
Hmmm. Having taken antique philosophy and having the aristotelic 4 causes theory and all that bs allowed me to make explicit and/or explain a whole lot of things you didn't even mention or clarify. Weird feeling, but really rewarding.
Happines can be considered circular as well. Acting upon your virtues to achieve happiness will force you to seek further virtues. Won't this apply to the same infinite desire seeking loop Aristotle mentioned initially?
Well it's not for something else, it's for it's function. The function is the quality and livelihood of the engagement value with the things. Material or people. One spirit of livelihood, and fortune.
Great video! But a small comment on your mic, it seems to only record right channel for some reason, as an audiophile i didn't like the fact I was hearing your voice through the right speaker only xD. But awesome explanation nonetheless!
Aristotle speaks through intelligence. A genius. In today's world, he would have a dozen Ph. D.s in every subject. On the other hand, Nietzsche waits for someone to say something, then he rewrites or challenges it in the opposite, an anti-version. His is more of a psychological after-the-fact challenge to a genius who ( such as Aristotle) reflects and forms the thought in a logical philosophy.
Very engaging and illuminating as always, but I am not sure that one can simply equate virtue as Aristotle thinks of it is the equivalent of morality as we today think of it, at least in the Christian influenced west. There is also a problem of reading Nietzsche’s provocative reflections on morality in the way one normally tends to think of how philosophical thought usually functions in making arguments about morality and ethics. His thought needs to be seen within its specific assault of Bourgeois western Christian culture, for morality in his own time was chiefly equated with the coercive framework in which that society operated.
his link between the function and the good seems weak to me, and he says that the good is something that is desired for its own sake, does everything in the world desire?
It's the modulation pulse-evolution mechanics of e-Pi-i sync-duration generation of pure-math relative-timing empirical laws of Mathematical probabilities of metastable proportioning, Disproof Methodology of relevant significance.., including morality. Putting things together becomes a sum-of-all-histories sustainable survival process. Biologists who analyse Evolutionary traits, look at holistic contexts in ecological-economic practices, in general. The details tend to obscure the principles with cultural differences and environmental circumstances.
yes aristotle n d ethics, i read it, i get it, rationality, cool. his politics was a real eye opener for me tho ! i contrast this with machiavelli the prince. two opposite stances i would say. one for the beginning of a civilization and one to use during its ending. both have utility, just at diff points in d civilization life cycle. just n opinion. my opinion.
felt like this was maybe a bit too dumbed down for the college level? Difference between instrumental and intrinsic goods didn't warrant fifteen minutes
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.
Why is the statement, "the rational thing to do is to excercise virtue", justified? Or more accurately how is it justified, why should one reach that conclusion?
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.
Humans have a consciousness that can cause effects of their self image. Humans have this in varying degrees. Those individuals without this ability have very difficult times fitting in society. Murdering and stealling is not agreeable to most sucessful societies, so those types of people are often removed froom their society by some method. End is result. What a infant wants is very different than what a 10 year old wants. And as life continues, we change what we desire and at life's end, different people have different opinions of good and bad of theirs lives. Pleasure has nothing to do with happiness. Honor only be acheived by actions. Honorable thoughts don't count. Possesions are necessary to continue life. That is why stealing is so wrong. Virtue is acting morally. Wealth is having more than others. Can be knowledge, skills, items or attitude. Function is the wrong word. Purpose of life is the question most ask. Wise people say, make your life have a good purpose. Or one does not find a happy life you build it. To be reasonably happy and useful works too. There is no end to this. More can always be done. Being the best person one can be never ends.
Are reproduction and passing information to the next generation included anywhere in the group of nutrition and perception etc? I include reproduction as a condition because you must have someone to pass information and culture on to.
I was really looking forward to this lecture, until you said that Nietzsche believed morality is for losers. Nietzsche was against fake morality (virtue signaling, in the modern parlance), clearly explained the difference between “master” and “slave” morality, and how our modern morality is a contradictory mix of the two. He was an immoralist, not an amoralist. His philosophy was based on questioning the moral tenets of western civ, a priori judgments, and the conviction that truth is beautiful, and desired by most human beings. What could be more moral than the concept of self-overcoming? To summarize, his message to moralists was, “do better.”
The idea has to be overly simple for a modern man. Long sentences will not convey it. Why can’t they just use venn diagrams to explain, without them we are just picking our minds.
@@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?
This lecture series has a flaw with this philosopher.. The four elements are the same as the elements in the periodic table. They are elemental FORCES. Quantum calls them the weak, strong ,electromagnetic, and gravitational. There is a fifth but it is a "no-thung." In India they call is Akasha. Simply put these are expansion, contraction, alternating or autonomous and static. If you contact me I could elaberate.. Dualism is also something different from what it is interpreted as by several philosophers in the series. This can be simply explained upon request.
Less than 3 minutes in, and I nearly spit out the ice cream I was eating and did a double-take at the screen... ""why should you do the morally right thing? NIETZSCHE SAYS DONT! BEING MORAL IS FOR LOSERS!" This guy either hasn't read Nietzsche, or couldn't understand his writings, or is being intellectually dishonest. Or all of the above. Regardless, he's absolutely wrong. Nietzsche doesn't say "don't be moral". He says there are different origins for different claims of moral goodness, and the two main origins are related to the human mindsets of slave or master... those who act, and those who react
How does Aristotle connect rationality to virtue? I see his argument that happiness is the core of human desire. I see human purpose is to perform functions unique to humans. But only one of human's functions is rational thinking, and only one of rational thinking's functions is to enable virtuous action. Humans are more than just rational thinkers. Rational thinking enables more than just virtuous action. It seems like there is an inheritance flaw in this logic. He has correlated things correctly, but assumes false causation. Aristotle assumes virtue exists first, then humans exist to be it's exemplars. However, it seems to me, that humans exist first, then virtue exists as an outcome of our rationality. Aristotle assumes too much!
he is saying love god. amazing really as it dosent say that in those words. but look at it carefully. i mean really carefully.; its more than amazing. look at the first phrase sentance whatever it says "do we love god" what does that idea mean? it helps me trying to understand
![[Full] 4 ต่อ 4 Celebrity EP.910 | 22 ก.ย. 67 | one31](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4TR3MVpOiw8/mqdefault.jpg)
You sir are able to express yourself in a manner most clear and without blown up discourse! Props to you!
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.
having trouble reading this book as homework and this video helps me save almost 2 hours that I was supposed to struggle from understanding what Aristotle tried to say. This is amazing thank you!!
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!
@@אהלןסהלןAristotle nicomachean ethics
Watching this all the way from Saudi 🇸🇦. Loved it, it's very helpful and clear. I've been reading the Nicomachean Ethics and all kind of philosophy books, I was amazed of how well everything is written. The explanation you did in the video is just wonderful. Thank you so much for sharing!
one. You're the man and perfect at explaining this to me like I am five.
two. I have now cleaned my air conditioner's filters. thank you
A full course on this book would be really interesting !
trying to learn but can't stop thinking about how the heck is he writing backwards
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
Please do a full course on all the books. Love the explanations
Thanks for explaining. Without examples, I had a hard time understanding what is meant with desire for its own sake and for something else.
One of the best explanations of the Nicomachean Ethics I've ever heard! Really enjoyed the one on Euthyphro too!
mere sapno ki rani kab ayegi tu
Thank you for this lecture. It is a wonderful explanation and analysis of Aristotle's Book 1. Other videos either sum it up too short and skip the key points you mentioned, or try to generalize all of the Nicomachean books as one simple statement. I really like how in the beginning you broke down the key point in Section 2, and "translated" the quote for modern terms. I kind of feel going through this book is like reading Shakespeare and you need notes and "translations" on the margins to figure out what is being said.
you are one smart dude, fantastic explanation, love your work
This is an incredibly helpful breakdown. Thank you!
I understood almost nothing from Aristotle's original text but you just explained it perfectly. Thank you!!
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.
@fI1cker 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.
it would be so cool to have a full course on this book!
On gunpoint?
Happiness is a warm gun - The Beatles' philosophy
A lot less complicated than understanding Aristotle. Many thanks for these wonderful videos which are helping me to broaden my knowledge. I was terribly disappointed by my philosophy class in college as I was very interested in the subject but didn't have the good fortune of getting a teacher who could communicate the concepts in an interesting and meaningful way as you do.
Who was your teacher? Were you at the Hillsdale?
Great with words, very much a help to understanding what it is to be human but differs from catholics (me) in key ideas of the Purpose of Life. What a great informational video!!
wow I got amused by this presentation so much cause It made me feel that I'm doing a rational thing to do and It felt morally right you know it meant to be some kind of practice of virtues for me .
you have no idea how much this helped me, thank you so so much!!
Excellent analysis and explanation of these arguments and conclusion.
Dude - love your construction and deconstruction - masterful
love this ! clear and concisely taught. thank you!
Interesting and good talk! To me Aristotle seems more "modern" than several of the later (European) philosophers, both in acknowledging plant and animal souls of differing qualities, as well as his view on rationalism.
Taken a bit further than examining humans as a homogenous group, it becomes easy to ascertain that leaders should lead, slaves should obey, and so on, simply arguing what is "logical", at least seen from leaders and free men, as the others were perhaps not given much of a voice. As I understand it, Aristotle defended slavery on exactly such grounds, talking about how traits and behaviours are "natural" to slaves, as well as masters.
Kinda hard to argue with some that writes on plexiglass & waving using color markers as samurai, wit & style facts an a book as he exclaims Aristotle's Ethics in a unique perspective, he shouldve wrote backwards & tossed the book at a lamp for surprise & flare effect Aristotle would've been proud
Love your teachings Jeff. You really help philosophy. May all of your dreams come true.
Thank you for helping US by simple english
Excelente introduction to Nicomacos. Congrats.
Brasil
It's specious to say we don't want money for its own sake, because money serves various purposes, only one of which is spending in exchange for something else. Money is also a store of value (like gold), which we might want for its own sake, or for the status it confer on us, which we might also want for its own sake.
Wow! So wonderfully explained. Thanks a lot 👍👍
I like Aristotle's argument up to the point of answering what is happiness. Why can't it just be ALL of the things that are wanted for their own sake? Pleasure, Honor, Pursuit of Virtues, Love, Friendship, Health, etc.
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 expected book II video from you. Thank you so much!!!
I agree with almost all of this but why can’t the human’s purpose be the same as an animal’s purpose? That assertion seems unfounded. The purpose of a pencil is the same as that of a pen: to write things.
I wanted something I could fall asleep to, but then this turned out to be too mentally stimulating. Gonna have to pause (even tho I really wanna keep watching) and find some other boring background noise cos at this rate I’m gonna stay awake and watch all your videos lol. Anyway, subscribed, can’t wait til I wake up to keep learning!
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
Happiness being the conclusion is very fitting.
We all know that what happiness means is subjective, but there does have to be some universal truths or keys to happiness.
Aristotle doesn't believe it is subjective, and indeed there are universal and objective grounds for drawing conclusions about it.
I think Jeffrey Kaplan is right-handed. On the videos he appears to be left-handed because the image is reversed, I think. The problem is I have failed to follow a lot of what he has said because I have been distracted with working out how he can write backwards with such apparent fluency. I suppose I am going to have to re-watch all the videos I have seen so far. Boo!hope
I’m confused does that not mean morality is subjective and differs according to each persons virtues then? Because it seems like it’s not accounting for the good of humankind and just for the good of the specific person
Great lecture, but in the intro, he mentioned many figures like Kant and Nietzche, I really can't see how is it appropriate to mention those when we are at Aristotle's. Nothing compares..
Feels like the biggest flaw in the argument comes from the reasoning for the dissmisal of Honour as Happinnes. Why would it follow just because it can be "taken away from you by others" that it is invalid. It is just stated as a fact "happiness must come from within" without any reason for why it should be so. So that it cannot be taken from you by others? Why is that important. Is Happiness something that is impervious from being taken away? If so then there would be no unhappiness at all. People are unhappy all the time which means something did take their happiness away - which would mean happiness is not impervious from being taken away.
Social status is the obvious impetus for anything people do and much more so than "reason". People are vehemently willing to be completely unreasonable if acting reasonably will diminish their social status. If you have high social status you are happy, if you don't have high social status you are unhappy. Practically everything anybody does is to elevate their social status.
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?
Lucid.Love from India
Dude you helped me so much, Aristotle don't make sense sometimes. Thank you so much
Hmmm. Having taken antique philosophy and having the aristotelic 4 causes theory and all that bs allowed me to make explicit and/or explain a whole lot of things you didn't even mention or clarify. Weird feeling, but really rewarding.
Your's is the philosophy course I wanted to take in university!!
Loved the lecture. Thanksss
Love me some Jeffrey Kaplan❤️. Helping learners worldwide 🇰🇪🇰🇪
Happines can be considered circular as well. Acting upon your virtues to achieve happiness will force you to seek further virtues. Won't this apply to the same infinite desire seeking loop Aristotle mentioned initially?
Nietzsche? Aristotle? Why not both?
Well it's not for something else, it's for it's function.
The function is the quality and livelihood of the engagement value with the things.
Material or people.
One spirit of livelihood, and fortune.
Great video! But a small comment on your mic, it seems to only record right channel for some reason, as an audiophile i didn't like the fact I was hearing your voice through the right speaker only xD. But awesome explanation nonetheless!
I’m begging you to make one for every book🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
Thanks for explaining! Also where’s the video on book 2?
actual legend
Aristotle speaks through intelligence. A genius. In today's world, he would have a dozen Ph. D.s in every subject.
On the other hand, Nietzsche waits for someone to say something, then he rewrites or challenges it in the opposite, an anti-version. His is more of a psychological after-the-fact challenge to a genius who ( such as Aristotle) reflects and forms the thought in a logical philosophy.
Man is not morally obliged to live but if he wants to live, he should be moral.
I’m so thankful to you ❤
Very engaging and illuminating as always, but I am not sure that one can simply equate virtue as Aristotle thinks of it is the equivalent of morality as we today think of it, at least in the Christian influenced west. There is also a problem of reading Nietzsche’s provocative reflections on morality in the way one normally tends to think of how philosophical thought usually functions in making arguments about morality and ethics. His thought needs to be seen within its specific assault of Bourgeois western Christian culture, for morality in his own time was chiefly equated with the coercive framework in which that society operated.
Ethics. Eta. H. Happiness.
Thanks for this video 🍻
From all the people in these comments saying they didn't get it at all, I'm feeling pretty good about picking up on like...two thirds of it maybe
The potential for more books here :)
You are amazing
correction: 'performing the *good* activities unique to people well'
his link between the function and the good seems weak to me, and he says that the good is something that is desired for its own sake, does everything in the world desire?
Aristotle:
Eat your Veggies. It's good for you!
Nietzsche:
Broccoli is for loosers! Have your Cake, and Eat it Too!
I was not able to find the second video you talked about near the end of this video, with "Niche". Could you please send the link!
Ah, yes, here is the video about Friedrich Nietzsche: th-cam.com/video/e2F-T0sJfMQ/w-d-xo.html
Thanks so much
It's the modulation pulse-evolution mechanics of e-Pi-i sync-duration generation of pure-math relative-timing empirical laws of Mathematical probabilities of metastable proportioning, Disproof Methodology of relevant significance.., including morality.
Putting things together becomes a sum-of-all-histories sustainable survival process.
Biologists who analyse Evolutionary traits, look at holistic contexts in ecological-economic practices, in general. The details tend to obscure the principles with cultural differences and environmental circumstances.
yes aristotle n d ethics, i read it, i get it, rationality, cool.
his politics was a real eye opener for me tho !
i contrast this with machiavelli the prince.
two opposite stances i would say.
one for the beginning of a civilization
and one to use during its ending.
both have utility, just at diff points
in d civilization life cycle.
just n opinion.
my opinion.
Please also cover the Politics by Aristotle , and some more books
Coffee brings me happiness without the other steps. That doesn't change your point, but I felt you slighted coffee somehow.
felt like this was maybe a bit too dumbed down for the college level? Difference between instrumental and intrinsic goods didn't warrant fifteen minutes
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.
27:00 Great sales pitch for the next video :)
So money does make you happy or money does buy end of things that makes us happy?
Why is the statement, "the rational thing to do is to excercise virtue", justified? Or more accurately how is it justified, why should one reach that conclusion?
Because it leads to happiness
You made the book I of Nicomachean ethics so understandable. I really appreciate it sir. That was amazing 👏🧡
what's the relationship between aristotle's metaphysics and his ethics?
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.
Humans have a consciousness that can cause effects of their self image. Humans have this in varying degrees. Those individuals without this ability have very difficult times fitting in society. Murdering and stealling is not agreeable to most sucessful societies, so those types of people are often removed froom their society by some method. End is result. What a infant wants is very different than what a 10 year old wants. And as life continues, we change what we desire and at life's end, different people have different opinions of good and bad of theirs lives. Pleasure has nothing to do with happiness. Honor only be acheived by actions. Honorable thoughts don't count. Possesions are necessary to continue life. That is why stealing is so wrong. Virtue is acting morally. Wealth is having more than others. Can be knowledge, skills, items or attitude. Function is the wrong word. Purpose of life is the question most ask. Wise people say, make your life have a good purpose. Or one does not find a happy life you build it. To be reasonably happy and useful works too. There is no end to this. More can always be done. Being the best person one can be never ends.
2:50 Nietzsche is such a badass
Are reproduction and passing information to the next generation included anywhere in the group of nutrition and perception etc? I include reproduction as a condition because you must have someone to pass information and culture on to.
Are you writing everything backwards?
I was really looking forward to this lecture, until you said that Nietzsche believed morality is for losers. Nietzsche was against fake morality (virtue signaling, in the modern parlance), clearly explained the difference between “master” and “slave” morality, and how our modern morality is a contradictory mix of the two. He was an immoralist, not an amoralist. His philosophy was based on questioning the moral tenets of western civ, a priori judgments, and the conviction that truth is beautiful, and desired by most human beings. What could be more moral than the concept of self-overcoming? To summarize, his message to moralists was, “do better.”
The idea has to be overly simple for a modern man. Long sentences will not convey it. Why can’t they just use venn diagrams to explain, without them we are just picking our minds.
Ok, so am I the only one who wonders if Aristotle thinks that sad people lack virtue?
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
How a person who says that could be in favor of slavery?
did you do with the other chapters too?
No wonder then that Nietzsche went insane (thoroughly unhappy) ... because he tried to critique morality itself
Takes me back to college
Human beings are not the only animals that are rational
This lecture series has a flaw with this philosopher.. The four elements are the same as the elements in the periodic table. They are elemental FORCES. Quantum calls them the weak, strong ,electromagnetic, and gravitational. There is a fifth but it is a "no-thung." In India they call is Akasha. Simply put these are expansion, contraction, alternating or autonomous and static. If you contact me I could elaberate.. Dualism is also something different from what it is interpreted as by several philosophers in the series. This can be simply explained upon request.
No. The 5 elements aren't the 4 forces. You're just doing woo.
Thank you ❤
salute
Difference between hapiness and pleasure?
Pleasure is for animals.... ok
Intrinsic stable contentment v. momentary excitement by an external thing
Lovelovelove
Why do I have to obey traffic laws? You don't have to obey, but you will have to pay the consequences. Same is true for morality.
If the only reason you don't do something is because you fear being punished, that isn't morality....just cowardice.
Love and forgiveness both seem absent from A's system. Also, it seems not surprisingly very male, tho raising children is a good and virtuous action.
The view -expressed at the beginning - on Nietsche is very superficial and probably just wrong.
Less than 3 minutes in, and I nearly spit out the ice cream I was eating and did a double-take at the screen... ""why should you do the morally right thing? NIETZSCHE SAYS DONT! BEING MORAL IS FOR LOSERS!"
This guy either hasn't read Nietzsche, or couldn't understand his writings, or is being intellectually dishonest. Or all of the above. Regardless, he's absolutely wrong. Nietzsche doesn't say "don't be moral". He says there are different origins for different claims of moral goodness, and the two main origins are related to the human mindsets of slave or master... those who act, and those who react
How does Aristotle connect rationality to virtue? I see his argument that happiness is the core of human desire. I see human purpose is to perform functions unique to humans. But only one of human's functions is rational thinking, and only one of rational thinking's functions is to enable virtuous action.
Humans are more than just rational thinkers.
Rational thinking enables more than just virtuous action.
It seems like there is an inheritance flaw in this logic. He has correlated things correctly, but assumes false causation. Aristotle assumes virtue exists first, then humans exist to be it's exemplars. However, it seems to me, that humans exist first, then virtue exists as an outcome of our rationality.
Aristotle assumes too much!
Happiness is using a reasonable air conditioner.
I just realized you write backwards
What about survival? Is there a difference between the survival of many or the survival of one
@21:25 No, I don't. Im a lazy man 😅
he is saying love god. amazing really as it dosent say that in those words. but look at it carefully. i mean really carefully.; its more than amazing. look at the first phrase sentance whatever it says "do we love god" what does that idea mean?
it helps me
trying to understand