Can We Start a Book Club?

[Strike For The South]

I'm bored.

Some suggestions

The Third Chimpanzee By Jared Diamond
The Last Thousand Days Of the British Empire By Peter Clarke
Nicomachean ethics By Aristotle

I'll admit these are books I have on hand and by that I mean I am looking right at them.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I'm bored.

Some suggestions

The Third Chimpanzee By Jared Diamond
The Last Thousand Days Of the British Empire By Peter Clarke
Nicomachean ethics By Aristotle

I'll admit these are books I have on hand and by that I mean I am looking right at them.

I will buy nicomachean ethics by Aristotle and follow along, but it will probably take me longer to digest the info and you guys will probably move forward with the conversation faster than I can come up with my opinions.

[Strike For The South]

Please buy it. I promise, I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am

But seriously, buy it, this is happening.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Alright, give me a few days to either find my nearest book store or have amazon deliver it.

[rory_20_uk]

Could we have something a bit more structured, such as a time to complete reading a section then discussion on it, rather than some being a lot further ahead than others?

~:smoking:

[HopAlongBunny]

I have The Nicomachean Ethics; haven't cracked it since Uni, might even have some commentaries still...

In :)

[HoreTore]

There are no russians on that list.

This is not a proper book club.

[Kralizec]

I'm interested, but I don't know if I'll have the time to acquire or read any of the books listed for the next 1-2 weeks or so. I'll definitely tag along later, though.

Or you could just pick a book that I've already read, and we can still discuss it ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aristotle?

Totally in.

We should set a time to Finish Book One, then. Say a week today? That should allow everyone enough time to at least have a good crack at digesting it.

[Strike For The South]

Do we want to read it all at once or do we want to go chapter by chapter?

I don't particularly have a preference, I just want everyone on the same page (EAT THAT GREGOSHI, IM RIGHT IN YOUR WHEELHOUSE,COME AT ME BRO)

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would prefer chapter by chapter. It would help those that read slower.

[ajaxfetish]

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

This what we're talking about?

Ajax

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

This what we're talking about?

Ajax

Nice, I guess I can get started on my kindle immediately.

[Kralizec]

To borrow a phrase from the gameroom:

In.

[HoreTore]

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.html

This what we're talking about?

Ajax

Ah, nice. I'm changing my stance from "not a proper book club" to "in".

So, Book 1(or chapter 1 or whatever) within next friday? I guess sfts will have to make the executive decision, being head tyrant and all...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, nice. I'm changing my stance from "not a proper book club" to "in".

So, Book 1(or chapter 1 or whatever) within next friday? I guess sfts will have to make the executive decision, being head tyrant and all...

The Ethics is divided into "Books" so Book One by next Friday, it's not too long.

If we do it chapter by chapter we'll only be doing about 400 words per month!

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Ethics is divided into "Books" so Book One by next Friday, it's not too long.

If we do it chapter by chapter we'll only be doing about 400 words per month!

Yeah, my bad, by chapter I meant book.

I think I will have book one read by the 27th of July in my personal timezone, at which point I think we can spend a week to discuss and read book two etc....

EDIT: I think people can discuss it as soon as it is the 27th in their time zone.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Yeah, my bad, by chapter I meant book.

I think I will have book one read by the 27th of July in my personal timezone, at which point I think we can spend a week to discuss and read book two etc....

EDIT: I think people can discuss it as soon as it is the 27th in their time zone.

:whip:

[Csargo]

Please buy it. I promise, I'm not nearly as smart as I think I am

But seriously, buy it, this is happening.

You had me at buy. Must obey.

[HopAlongBunny]

The first book lets Aristotle define terms and set the stage.

For the most part I like his approach; dividing functions we cannot control from those we can and giving primacy to the function we control most completely.

It is in his consideration of exogenous factors where I have a quibble. Happiness as living and faring well is beyond the scope of what a person can control; a person could live well according to all the criteria, yet still be dealt a lot in life more akin to tragedy.

Aristotle further limits. Who may be happy? Certainly not one of ill-birth, nor one who is ugly. So we exclude people from consideration based on class and aesthetics.

I think Aristotle is playing a bit of a rhetorical game here. “All good things go together”; if I don't agree with him, is it because I'm not of good birth? Am I ugly? Likewise, does my agreement with his sketch pad my ego? “Well I'm of a good family and certainly not ugly! Play on wise bard! Play on!”

So Aristotle’s account is not for all of us. Is this then nothing more than a treatise on pleasing the very sort of people that Aristotle hopes to be compensated by?

[naut]

I'd join, but not for Aristotle. It is with him that the flawed philosophical notion of action for purpose was born. "Eudaimonia" as the ultimate "goal" in a "life", and through actions we reach this mythical happiness. He misses the whole point, he misses the magic.

For example, music. A band plays a song. Does the playing of this song (the action) have the purpose of reaching the final bar? Just play this collection of notes so we can get to that very last note and then we'll be happy? Of course not, otherwise the best and happiest band(s) would be those that could play the fastest. It's simply logically flawed. Is the purpose of dancing to get to a place in the dance hall? Ahaha.

Where did Aristotle think he was going? He was already there!

[Montmorency]

Hum, I don't believe that's what he said.

His point was that all actions are taken underfor some end, and the ultimate end is happiness.

He was, however, incorrect.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Now such a thing happiness, above all else, is held to be; for this we choose always for self and never for the sake of something else, but honour, pleasure, reason, and every virtue we choose indeed for themselves (for if nothing resulted from them we should still choose each of them), but we choose them also for the sake of happiness, judging that by means of them we shall be happy. Happiness, on the other hand, no one chooses for the sake of these, nor, in general, for anything other than itself. "

My problem with this is that when we "judge that by means of them we shall be happy" we are thinking of a state of mind, a certain pleasurable state. But clearly its a different pleasurable state for each thing. The pleasurable emotion you feel from, say, giving in and cheating on your diet is different from the one you feel when you decide to stick to it. So I don't get the attempt to logically tie it together. I think we choose pleasure for pleasure and honour for honour.


"A consideration of the prominent types of life shows that people of superior refinement and of active disposition identify happiness with honour; for this is, roughly speaking, the end of the political life. But it seems too superficial to be what we are looking for, since it is thought to depend on those who bestow honour rather than on him who receives it, but the good we divine to be something proper to a man and not easily taken from him. Further, men seem to pursue honour in order that they may be assured of their goodness; at least it is by men of practical wisdom that they seek to be honoured, and among those who know them, and on the ground of their virtue; clearly, then, according to them, at any rate, virtue is better. "
...
"Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so-and 'a good so-and-so' have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being idded to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.
...
"For pleasure is a state of soul, and to each man that which he is said to be a lover of is pleasant; e.g. not only is a horse pleasant to the lover of horses, and a spectacle to the lover of sights, but also in the same way just acts are pleasant to the lover of justice and in general virtuous acts to the lover of virtue. Now for most men their pleasures are in conflict with one another because these are not by nature pleasant, but the lovers of what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant; and virtuous actions are such, so that these are pleasant for such men as well as in their own nature."
...
"
Yet evidently, as we said, it needs the external goods as well; for it is impossible, or not easy, to do noble acts without the proper equipment. In many actions we use friends and riches and political power as instruments; and there are some things the lack of which takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless is not very likely to be happy, and perhaps a man would be still less likely if he had thoroughly bad children or friends or had lost good children or friends by death. As we said, then, happiness seems to need this sort of prosperity in addition; for which reason some identify happiness with good fortune, though others identify it with virtue. "


I think I would go for a "two stage theory of happiness". Another philosopher said:


"What we want is justified self confidence and self esteem...the substitute for self confidence is faith, the substitute for self esteem is vanity, and the substitute for individual balance is fusion with others into a compact group...in the chemistry of the soul a substitute is almost always explosive if for no other reason than that we can never have enough of it. We can never have enough of that which we really do not want. If we cannot have the originals we can never have enough of the substitutes. We can be satisfied with moderate confidence in ourselves and a moderately good opinion of ourselves, but the faith we have in a holy cause has to be extravagent and uncompromising, and the pride we derive from an identification with a nation, race, leader, or party is extreme and overbearing"--

It seems to me that "justified self confidence and self esteem" is pretty similar to "activity of the soul in accordance with virtue" that is determined rationally in accordance with man's nature. Once you have that you can simply look around and enjoy pleasures and the honours of public life or contemplative pursuits or what have you, all of which can get a bad rap when people are using them as a substitute.


Who may be happy? Certainly not one of ill-birth, nor one who is ugly. So we exclude people from consideration based on class and aesthetics.

He says:


and there are some things the lack of which takes the lustre from happiness, as good birth, goodly children, beauty; for the man who is very ugly in appearance or ill-born or solitary and childless is not very likely to be happy,

And it's a fact that being ugly can be quite a dampener (on what I would call the second stage).


So Aristotle’s account is not for all of us.

Yes...but not because he's unfairly excluding some people. He didn't decide to make being ill-born and ugly the way it was/is.

He actually excludes most people here:



most men, and men of the most vulgar type, seem (not without some ground) to identify the good, or happiness, with pleasure; which is the reason why they love the life of enjoyment.
...
Now for most men their pleasures are in conflict with one another because these are not by nature pleasant, but the lovers of what is noble find pleasant the things that are by nature pleasant;

Basically, people who go for substitutes will feel happy for a while, until the bubble bursts or some stress fractures show. It's the people who love what is noble or virtuous (or have justified self esteem) who will reach his standard of happiness.

************

Also, the rest of you apparently can't read a chapter in two weeks?