Analysis Of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Aristotle’s book, Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is commenced with perhaps the utmost important segment of his novel: “Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action as well as choice, is held to aim at some good” (Nic. Ethics, 1094a1-2). Thereafter, it becomes evident that the ‘good’ that Aristotle is referring to is not synonymous with the word “good’s” contemporarily conventional definition; instead, Aristotle’s use of ‘good’ seems to have an unreachable, yet vastly desirable connotation. Therefore, the concept of a seemingly unattainable highest ‘good’ becomes undeniably manifest. Succeeding Aristotle’s opening statement, Aristotle introduces the concept of an end. Aristotle notes that there are two distinguishable kinds of ends …show more content…
Aristotle notes that most people agree that the highest ‘good’ is happiness, or eudaemonia, yet most people have trouble concurring to what prompts happiness. To uncover the path to happiness, “One must begin from what is known,” (Nic. Ethics 1095b2-3) which is extrapolated from Aristotle’s example of an immature young person. Recurrently, Aristotle has not lucidly defined how to confirm what a person knows. So, Aristotle explains that habituation fabricates what he has coined as the ‘that’ which is a principal, or a holistic understanding that does not require a given person to further question, or does not require a “why,” as Aristotle explained it. Moreover, Aristotle begins to list variants of lifestyles in an attempt to explain how one should or should not persevere towards happiness. He describes four specific ways of life: those who live lavishly, those who strive for honor, those who strive for pleasure, and those who are virtuous. Whereafter, Aristotle, not uncommonly, begins to dispute why these four lifestyles do not validly induce happiness. He claims that those who are wealthy and live luxuriously obtain revenue on an account for something else, i.e., money is used furthermore. Further, Aristotle explains that those who live in seek of honor are recognized as honorable by others; therefore, honor is not self-sufficient considering it is reliant upon …show more content…
Verbatim, Aristotle says, “for the good is spoken of in relation to what something is; as for what sort of thing something is, the good is spoken of as virtues; as for how much something is, it is spoken of as the measured amount; in its relation to something, as what is useful; as regards time, as the opportune moment; as regards place, as the right location; and other things of this sort“(Nic. Ethics 1096a19-23). In summary, Aristotle is providing his readers with evidence that the ‘good’ is circumstantial, and perhaps individually-based. Ergo, the ‘good’ is apparently complete; happiness is self-sufficient. Extrapolating from happiness existing as a complete end, Aristotle introduces the term ergon, which translates to “work,” in english. He then asserts that happiness must be a product of one’s work, or ergon. Anew, Aristotle begins to explain what work is worthy of happiness. Aristotle then constructs a diagram of what work, could be. Aristotle claims that everything alive consumes some sort of nutrition, specifically plants, so nutrition is unworthy. Thereafter, he claims that senses are likewise unworthy because most animals posses senses. The, Aristotle introduces the term logos, and spoudaios. He claims that it is a person’s logos, or reason, which is