BLWith new text and full apparatus criticusThe Eudemian Ethics was one of two ethical treatises which Aristotle wrote on the subject of ethica or `matters to do. Donor challenge: Your generous donation will be matched 2-to-1 right now. Your $5 becomes $15! Dear Internet Archive Supporter,. I ask only. Note: Ethica eudemia and de virtutibus et vitiis are translated by J. Solomon. Physical Description: xxiii, p. ; 23 cm. Locate a Print Version: Find in a library .
|Published (Last):||3 September 2018|
|PDF File Size:||3.17 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||7.87 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
That this puzzle requires no different answer does not deprive it of the philosophical interest. The listing reflects his sense of their worth. So similarly a thing could be by nature preferable without being by nature naturally preferable.
As to style, then, the differences between the text of the common books in EN mss.
Aristotle – Ethica Eudemia [Hardback]
So is the equitable man not a case of someone who wrongs eudemla In the other cases a balancing out by justice does not arise. Of the political just there is the natural and the legal: It thus recalls the puzzles raised in the original list of options about wronging and being wronged from the EE version. The EE division, then, read in this way, produces a reasonable logical sense.
The answer given is that being wronged is always ehdemia, which is the first option, or the first part of the first option, in both lists. Still it is clear after reflection. These readings moreover do 8 Ashburner seems to be a careful and reliable collater, as a partial comparison of his collations for the common books against a review of Laur.
In addition some are hardly extensive or consistent enough to wudemia independently significant: Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University’s proxy server Configure custom proxy use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy. But if so which of these is in error, for both can make sense?
The last group, which is the same as the first group in EN, seems, from the phrasing, now to be a further, and fourth, group. Not because they do not need a certain amount, but because, however much or little they happen to have, they act virtuously — neither debased if they have too little, nor elated if they have too much.
R. R. Walzer & J. M. Mingay (eds.), Ethica Eudemia – PhilPapers
The translator for the Loeb edition, Harris Rackham, states in the Introduction to that edition that “in some places The Eudemian Ethics is fuller in expression or more discursive than The Nicomachean Ethics. No categories specified categorize this paper.
Are both opposite sc. Such at any rate is the hope. They still draw a distinction between ethcia things and non-necessary things that cause pleasure, but, unlike the EN version, they do not identify these non-necessary things victory, honor, wealth, and the like with things preferable in themselves. This association seems bizarre because Aristotle has just argued that wronging is always voluntary.
They have, so to say, learnt in whatever state they are therewith to be content, for their aim is worship of the god and neither excess nor deficiency can impede such worship. So its de-emphasizing of politics and! This entry has no external links.
Click here to sign up. Because while preferable for most men most of the time, they are not preferable for the semi-divine philosopher, who prefers the contemplation of the god instead and limits all other eucemia goods to that purpose EE 8.
And it is answered. For the one is tehica and the other legal: That the EE version adds nothing of legislative relevance is clear also from the fact that the discussion in the next lines which are the same in both the EE and the EN versions answers the EE and EN list of options in one and the same way and without express discussion of the excluded members. Simpson – – Classical Quarterly 63 2: But why Aristotle would suddenly use ehdemia poetic Greek at this point in his text is hard to fathom had the scribe recently been copying or reading Eusemia and unconsciously lapsed into a Homeric word?
The Eudemian Ethics is less well-known than Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethicsand when scholars refer simply to the Ethics of Aristotle, the latter is generally intended.
So EE expressly draws attention to what the mind of etgica wrongdoer must be as well as, in the next line, to what the will of the wronged must be, while EN contents itself with drawing attention only to what the will of the wronged must be.
The likely answer will be that the shift of focus is to remind or ethjca for the reader that, in the list of options given earlier in the EE versionboth wronging and being wronged are at issue and not just being wronged as in the EN version.
And is it all this way or all that way as also wrong doing is, eidemia all voluntary, or is the one voluntary and the other involuntary? However, the EE version might answer the puzzle more directly because it also raises it again, if obliquely, while the EN version does not. The meaning in EE also seems clear.
Eudemian Ethics – Wikipedia
In general they tend to make the common books more like the rest of EE than less like it. The difficult question is deciding what is an error and what is not but a legitimate reading. Instead, they expressly deny that these non-necessary things are thus preferable. Help Center Find new research papers in: The incurably bad are beyond hope and should have nothing, for whatever they have they will abuse. They may indeed be such errors, but since they need not be, we are permitted, if only for the sake of argument, to pursue the question of what the point or purpose of the EE version is.
The next ones to be discussed concern substance of doctrine. Ashburner knew of Urb. Aristotle – – Oxford University Press. But it says nothing, or nothing expressly, about the relation of the involuntariness of being euremia to the involuntariness or ethia of wronging.