Can We Start a Book Club?

**Strike For The South** · 07-20-2012, 07:10

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** · 07-20-2012, 07:14

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 07-20-2012, 07:17

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** · 07-20-2012, 07:33

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

**rory_20_uk** · 07-20-2012, 08:11

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?

**HopAlongBunny** · 07-20-2012, 09:27

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

In :)

**Csargo** · 07-25-2012, 05:55

Originally Posted by 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.

You had me at buy. Must obey.

**HopAlongBunny** · 07-29-2012, 07:19

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** · 07-31-2012, 13:35

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!