Faculty Undergraduate Reading List: Aristotle, Nicomachean Nicomachean Ethics (116/132)
The current description of these papers in undergraduate Course Handbooks is as follows: 116. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics: The purpose of this subject is to give you the opportunity to make a critical study of one of the most important works in the history of philosophy. Like Plato in the Republic, Aristotle is concerned with the question, what is the best possible sort of life? Whereas this leads leads Plato to pose grand questions questions in metaphysics and political theory, it leads Aristotle to offer close analyses of the structure of human action, responsibility, the virtues, the nature of moral knowledge, weakness weakness of will, pleasure, friendship, and other related issues. Much of what Aristotle has to say on these is ground breaking, highly perceptive, perceptive, and still of importance in contemporary debate in ethics and moral psychology. You are expected expected to study the t he work in detail; the examination contains a question requiring comments on chosen passages, as well as a choice of essay questions.
J. L. Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher, ch. 10. Set translation: Aristotle: Nicomachean Ethics translated and with notes by T.H. Irwin nd (Hackett). [Note that the set translation is the 2 edition.] 132. Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (in Greek) The Nicomachean Ethics is one of the four treatises in the Aristotelian Corpus (the others are the Eudemian Ethics, the Magna Moralia and the Politics) that examine the moral and political questions discussed in Plato’ Plato ’s Republic and Laws. Like Plato in the Republic, Aristotle is concerned with the question, what is the best possible sort of life? In the Ethics he answers this question by examining s the structure of human action, responsibility, the virt ues, the nature of moral knowledge, weakness of will, pleasure, friendship, and other related issues. Much of what Aristotle has to say on these is ground-breaking, highly perceptive, and still important in contemporary debate in ethics and moral psychology. The examination includes a compulsory question requiring comments comments on passages in English translation, as well as essay questions. You will be expected to have read books I-III, VI-VII, VI-VII, X in Greek, and the rest in translation. There will be a compulsory question containing passages for translation and comment comment from the books read in Greek; any passages for comments from the remaining books will be accompanied by a translation. There will also be essay questions.
Text: Bywater (Oxford Classical Text). Translation: Irwin (Hackett), 2nd edn. J. L. Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher (Oxford), ch. 10.
The Examination Regulations contain no additional information. Asterisks below mark works likely l ikely to be especially helpful. The readings on particular topics are divided into two sections: assume that the first section is asterisked. Publication details given for books are usually for first editions; later editions are often available.
"
Other translations
It can be helpful to refer to other translations, especially for key passages. These contain introductions, and Ross and Rowe have useful notes. R. Crisp (CUP, 2000) W.D. Ross, rev. L. Brown (OUP, 2009) C. Rowe (OUP, 2002) J. Thomson, rev. H. Tredennick (Penguin, 1976) Commentaries
Some of the secondary literature on Aristotle assumes knowledge of Greek by the reader. Though a reader without Greek can often understand it, it may be worth such readers learning the Greek alphabet so as to be able to recognize key terms (which are transliterated in e.g. the notes in Irwin’s translation). *S. Broadie, Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics (with trans. by Rowe) (OUP, 2002) [no knowledge of Greek assumed] J. Burnet, The Ethics of Aristotle (Methuen, 1900) R. Gauthier & J. Jolif, L Ethique a Nicomaque (Publications Universitaires, 1958) H. Joachim, Nicomachean Ethics (Clarendon Press, 1951) J.A. Stewart, Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (Clarendon Press, 1892) C.C.W. Taylor, Nicomachean Ethics, bks. II-IV (Clarendon Press, 2006) [Greek not assumed] M. Pakaluk, Nicomachean Ethics, bks. VIII-IX (Clarendon Press, 1998) [Greek not assumed] ’
Works on Aristotle
J.L. Ackrill, Aristotle the Philosopher (OUP, 1981) *J. Barnes, Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction (OUP, 2000) [prev. published as a Past Master] T. Irwin, Aristotle s First Principles (Clarendon Press, 1988) *C. Shields, Aristotle (Routledge) ’
Basic Introductions to the Ethics
*D.S. Hutchinson, ‘Ethics’, in J. Barnes (ed.), Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (CUP, 1995) *R. Kraut, ‘Aristotle’s Ethics’, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy [online in the Oxford domain] *F. Miller, ‘Aristotle: Ethics and Politics’, in C. Shields, Blackwell Guide to Ancient Philosophy (Blackwell, 2003)
#
Books
*D. Bostock, Aristotle s Ethics (OUP, 2000) S. Broadie, Ethics with Aristotle (OUP, 1991) W. Hardie, Aristotle s Ethical Theory, 2nd edn. (Clarendon Press, 1980) *G. Hughes, GuideBook to Aristotle on Ethics (Routledge, 2001) M. Pakaluk, Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics: An Introduction (Cambridge, 2005) *J.O. Urmson, Aristotle s Ethics (Blackwell, 1988) ’
’
’
’
Collections
*J. Barnes, M. Schofield, & R. Sorabji (ed.), Articles on Aristotle, vol. 2 (Duckworth, 1977) *R. Kraut (ed.), Blackwell Guide to Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics (Blackwell, 2006) *A. Rorty, Essays on Aristotle s Ethics (UCal. Press, 1980) *N. Sherman (ed.), Aristotle s Ethics: Critical Essays (Rowman and Littlefield, 1999) ’
’
’
Essay questions are not provided here. Consult your tutor and/or recent examination papers. After each title, references to some key passages are offered. Note that short reference is frequently made to the works cited above in this list. 1. Methodology (VII.1, 1145b2-7)
Bostock, ch. 10 J. Barnes, ‘Aristotle and the Methods of Ethics’, Revue Internationale de Philosophie 1981 T. Irwin, ‘The Metaphysical and Psychological Basis of Aristotle’s Ethics’, in Rorty (ed.) C. Reeve, Practices of Reason (Clarendon Press, 1992), ch. 1 G.E.L. Owen, ‘Tithenai ta phainomena’, repr. in his Logic, Science, and Dialectic (Duckworth, 1986) +++++ T. Irwin, Aristotle s First Principles, chs. 1-2 D.W. Hamlyn, ‘Aristotle on Dialectic’, Philosophy 1990 R. Smith, ‘Aristotle on the Uses of Dialectic’, Synthese 1993 G.E.L. Owen, ‘Tithenai ta phainomena’, repr. in his Logic, Science, and Dialectic (Duckworth, 1986) S. Klein, ‘An Analysis and Defense of Aristotle’s Method in EN I and X’, Ancient Philosophy 1988 W. Sinnott-Armstrong, ‘Moral Skepticism and Justification’, in W. Sinnott-Armstrong & M. Timmons (ed.), Moral Knowledge? (OUP, 1996) ’
On the critique of Plato’s form of the good in I.6, see also Eudemian Ethics I.8 (trans. and comm. M. Woods (Clarendon Press, 1982)), and: Bostock, app. to ch. 1 J.L. Ackrill, ‘Aristotle on “Good” and the Categories’, in Barnes et al. (ed.) L.A. Kosman, ‘Predicating the Good’, Phronesis 1968 D. Wiggins, ‘On Sentence-sense, Word-sense, and Difference of Word-sense’, in D. Steinberg & L. Jakobovits, Semantics (CUP, 1971) $
2. Eudaimonia (I, esp. I.7; X.7-9)
Hughes, ch. 3 Bostock, chs.1, 9 J. Ackrill, ‘Aristotle on eudaimonia in Rorty (ed.) T. Nagel, ‘Aristotle on eudaimonia , in Rorty (ed.) P. Glassen, ‘A Fallacy in Aristotle’s Argument about the Good’, Phil. Qu. 7 (1957) T. Irwin, ‘The Structure of Aristotelian Happiness’, Ethics 1991 R. Kraut, ‘Aristotle on the Human Good: An Overview’, in Sherman (ed.) +++++ D. Devereux, ‘Aristotle on the Essence of Happiness’, in D.J. O’Meara (ed.), Studies in Aristotle (Catholic U. of America Press, 1981) D. Keyt, ‘Intellectualism in Aristotle’, Paideia Special Issue 2, 1978; repr. in J. Anton and A. Preus (ed.), Essays in Ancient Greek Philosophy (SUNY Press, 1971) D. Charles and D. Scott, exchange on ‘Aristotle on Well-being and Intellectual Contemplation’, Proc. Arist. Soc. Supp. 73 (1999) E. Wielenberg, ‘Egoism and Eudaimonia-Maximization in the Nicomachean Ethics’, Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2004 J. Whiting, ‘Aristotle’s Function Argument: A Defense’, Ancient Philosophy 1988 J. McDowell, ‘The role of Eudaimonia in Aristotle’s Ethics’, in Rorty (ed.) ’
’
3. The Doctrine of the Mean (II; III.6-12; IV)
Bostock, ch. 2 W. Hardie, ‘Aristotle’s Doctrine that Virtue is a Mean’, in Barnes et al. (ed.) J. Barnes, introduction to Thomson’s Penguin translation P. Losin, ‘Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean’, Hist. Phil. Q. 1987 J. Urmson, ‘Aristotle’s Doctrine of the Mean’, in Rorty (ed.) R. Hursthouse, ‘A False Doctrine of the Mean’, Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 1980-1 L. Brown, ‘What is the Mean Relative to Us?’, Phronesis 1997 +++++ Hughes, ch. 4 R. Hursthouse, ‘The Central Doctrine of the Mean’, in Kraut (ed.) H. Joseph, ‘Aristotle’s Definition of Moral Virtue and Plato’s Account of Justice in the Soul’, in his Essays on Ancient and Modern Philosophy (Clarendon Press, 1935), ch. 6 Broadie, 2.IX D. Pears, ‘Courage as a Mean’, in Rorty (ed.)
%
4. Responsibility and Character (II.1-4; III.1-5; V.8)
S.S. Meyer, ‘Aristotle on the Voluntary’, in Kraut (ed.) Bostock, ch. 5 M. Pakaluk, ch. 4 R. Sorabji, Necessity, Cause and Blame (Duckworth, 1980), ch. 16 T. Irwin, ‘Reason and responsibility in Aristotle’, in Rorty (ed.) J.L. Austin, ‘A Plea for Excuses’, Proc. Aristotelian Soc. 1956; repr. in J. Urmson & G. Warnock (ed.), J.L. Austin: Philosophical Papers (OUP, 1970) +++++ C. Taylor, commentary on bks. II-IV, esp. chs. 1, 5 W. Hardie, see index s.v. ‘Responsibility for Character ’ J. Roberts, ‘Aristotle on Responsibility for Action and Character ’, Ancient Phil. 1989 S. Broadie, ch. 3 D. Furley, ‘Aristotle on the Voluntary’, in Barnes et al. (ed.) T. Baldwin, ‘Foresight and Responsibility’, Philosophy 1979 5. Magnanimity, and the Fine (II.7-9; III.6-12; IV; IX.8)
Pakaluk, ch. 5 W. Hardie, ‘Magnanimity in Aristotle’s Ethics’, Phronesis 1978 G.R. Lear, ‘Aristotle on Moral Virtue and the Fine’, in Kraut (ed.) D.J. Allan, ‘The Fine and the Good in the Eudemian Ethics’, in P. Moraux & D. Harlfinger (ed.), Untersuchungen zur Eudemischen Ethik (de Gruyter, 1971) T. Irwin, ‘Aristotle’s Conception of Morality’, Proc. Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 1985 K. Rogers, ‘Aristotle’s conception of to kalon’, Ancient Philosophy 1993 +++++ H. Curzer, ‘Aristotle’s Much-maligned Megalopsychos’, Aust. Jour. Phil. 1991 J. Stover & R. Polansky, ‘Moral Virtue and Megalopsuchia’, Ancient Phil. 2003 D.A. Rees, ‘Magnanimity in the Eudemian and Nicomachean Ethics’, in Moraux and Harlfinger (ed.) E. Schutrumpf, ‘Magnanimity, megalopsychia , and the System of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics’, Archiv fur Geschichte der Philosophie 1989 T. Tuozzo, ‘Contemplation, the Noble, and the Mean: The Standard of Moral Virtue in Aristotle’s Ethics’, in R. Bosley, R. Shiner, & J. Sisson (ed.), Aristotle,Virtue, and the Mean (Academic Press, 1995) ‘
’
6. Justice (V)
H. Jackson, Peri Dikaisonunes: The Fifth Book of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle (CUP, 1879) (commentary) C. Young, ‘Aristotle’s Justice’, in Kraut (ed.) Bostock, ch. 3 B. Williams, ‘Justice as a Virtue’, in Rorty (ed.) J. Urmson, see topic 3 above H. Curzer, ‘Aristotle’s Account of the Virtue of Justice’, Apeiron 1995 &
Pakaluk, ch. 6 H. Kelsen, ‘Aristotle’s Doctrine of Justice’, in J. Walsh and H. Shapiro (ed.), Aristotle s Ethics A. Harrison, ‘Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, Book V, and the law of Athens’, Jour. Hellenic Stud. 1957 D. Miller, ‘Justice’, in Miller et al. (ed.) , Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought A. Brown, Modern Political Philosophy ’
7. Phronesis (Prudence) (VI)
L. Greenwood, Nicomachean Ethics: Book VI (CUP, 1909) (commentary with helpful introduction) Bostock, ch. 4 C.C.W. Taylor, ‘Aristotle’s Epistemology’, in S. Everson (ed.), Epistemology (CUP, 1990) C. Reeve, ‘Aristotle on the Virtues of Thought’, in Kraut (ed.) M. Burnyeat, ‘Aristotle on Learning to be Good’, in Rorty (ed.) R. Sorabji, ‘Aristotle on the Rô1e of Intellect in Virtue’, in Rorty (ed.) D. Wiggins, ‘Deliberation and Practical Reason’, in Rorty (ed.) +++++ Hughes, ch. 5 Pakaluk, ch. 7 Hardie, ch. 11 Broadie, ch. 4 J. McDowell, ‘Virtue and Reason’, Monist 1979; repr. in R. Crisp & M. Slote (ed.), Virtue Ethics (OUP, 1997)
8. Akrasia (Incontinence) (VII.1-10, esp. 3)
Plato, Protagoras, 352-8 Commentaries (cited above) on VII.3, esp. Grant Bostock, ch. 6 R. Robinson, ‘Aristotle on akrasia’, in Barnes (ed.) A. Price, ‘Acrasia and Self-control’, in Kraut (ed.) D. Davidson, ‘How is Weakness of the Will Possible?’, in J. Feinberg (ed.), Moral Concepts (OUP, 1970); repr. in his Essays on Action and Events (Clarendon Press, 1980) D. Charles, Aristotle s Philosophy of Action (Duckworth, 1984), chs. 3-4 +++++ Hughes, ch. 7 Broadie, ch. 6 A. Kenny, ‘The Practical Syllogism and Incontinence’, Phronesis 1966 D. Wiggins, ‘Weakness of will, Commensurability, and the Objects of Deliberation and Desire’, in Rorty (ed.) C. Taylor, ‘Plato, Hare and Davidson on akrasia’, Mind 1980 A. Mele, ‘Aristotle on Akrasia, Eudaimonia, and the Psychology of Action’, in Sherman (ed.) ’
'
9. Friendship (VIII and IX)
Pakaluk, commentary on bks. VIII and IX J. Whiting, ‘The Nicomachean Account of Philia’, in Kraut (ed.) Bostock, ch. 8 J. Cooper, ‘Aristotle on Friendship’, in Rorty (ed.) J. Annas, ‘Plato and Aristotle on Friendship and Altruism’, Mind 1977 A. Price, Love and Friendship in Plato and Aristotle, chs. 4-5 R. Kraut, Aristotle on the Human Good , ch. 2 +++++ A. Walker, ‘Aristotle’s Account of Friendship in the Nicomachean Ethics’, Phronesis 1979 Hughes, ch. 8 N. Sherman, The Fabric of Character (OUP, 1991), ch. 4 C. Kahn, ‘Aristotle on Altruism’, Mind 1981 V. Politis, ‘The Primacy of Self-love in the Nicomachean Ethics’, Ox. Stud. Anc. Phil. 1993 10. Pleasure (VII.11-14; X.1-5)
Bostock, ch. 7 G. Owen, ‘Aristotelian Pleasures’, in Barnes (ed.) D. Frede, ‘Pleasure and Pain in Aristotle’s Ethics’, in Kraut (ed.) J. Ackrill, ‘Aristotle’s Distinction Between Energeia and Kinesis’, in R. Bambrough (ed.), New Essays on Plato and Aristotle (RKP, 1965); repr. in his Essays on Plato and Aristotle (Clarendon Press, 1997) J. Gosling and C. Taylor, The Greeks on Pleasure (Clarendon Press, 1982), ch. 15 A. Rorty, ‘The Place of Pleasure in Aristotle’s Ethics’, Mind 1974 +++++ Broadie, ch. 6 Hughes, ch. 9 J. Gosling, ‘More Aristotelian pleasures’, PAS 1973-4 Urmson, ch. 8 C. Taylor, ‘Pleasure: Aristotle’s Response to Plato’, in R. Heinaman (ed.), Plato and Aristotle s Ethics ’
Commentaries (‘Gobbets ‘)
Here is the relevant extract from the Lit. Hum. Undergraduate Handbook: Philosophy: The first requirement is to identify the argumentative context of the passage, e.g. ‘This passage occurs in Socrates’ response to Thrasymachus’ claim that the ruler properly so-called is expert in promoting his own advantage; in reply Socrates urges that all expertise aims to promote the advantage of that on which the expertise is exercised, hence the expert ruler must aim to promote, not his own advantage, but that of the subject’. You should then set out the specific contribution of the passage to the argumentative context, e.g. a sub-argument (in which case the steps of the argument should be set out), or a distinction (in which case you should (
clearly state what is being distinguished from what), or the introduction of some key concept, which should be clearly elucidated. Where appropriate, elucidation should be followed by criticism; thus if the passage contains a fallacious or unsound argument, or a faulty distinction, the flaw should be briefly identified. If the significance of the passage goes beyond the immediate argumentative context (e.g. in introducing a concept which is important for a wider range of contexts) that wider significance should be indicated. Wider significance may be internal to the work as a whole, or may extend beyond it, for instance by rela ting to some theme central to the thought of the author (such as Plato’s Theory of Forms or Aristotle’s Categories) or to some important topic in modern philosophy. Your primary focus in philosophy gobbets should be on argumentative and conceptual content. Details of sentence construction, vocabulary etc. should be discussed only in so far as they affect the content thus conceived. The same goes for the identification of persons etc. named in the passage; note that where the passage is taken from a Platonic dialogue it will usually be relevant to identify the speaker(s). It is vitally important to observe the time constraints imposed by the number of passages to be translated and commented on. Brevity, relevance and lucidity are crucial. It is especially important not to be carried away in expounding the wider significance of the passage (see above); a gobbet should not expand into an essay on the Theory of Forms or the problem of universals. Use your own judgement on how much you can afford to put in.
)
