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 .
|Country:||Republic of Macedonia|
|Published (Last):||19 November 2007|
|PDF File Size:||13.70 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||6.54 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Eudemische Ethik Darmstadt, Note however that these features are also found in some EN mss. Certainly this answer resolves all the questions in the EN list, for that list is about whether being wronged is voluntary or involuntary and whether as always one of them or as sometimes one and sometimes the other.
But if these passages are found, after examination, to make a plausible sense, and a sense moreover that coheres with the contrasting character of EE and EN as otherwise discernible from books exclusive to each, then we have good reason to conclude that this plausible sense is genuine and belongs to a genuinely different tradition. Beyond that point, or where even the political life must ultimately be directed to what is beyond it the contemplation of the godthey take on a different complexion.
Aristotle – Ethica Eudemia [Hardback]
Nevertheless legislators can still rightly regard them as preferable in themselves in the context of legislation, and so in the context of EN, where the political life is a happy life, though a secondary one EN Are both being wronged and wronging voluntary or involuntary sc.
Is being wronged either all voluntary or all involuntary, as all wronging is voluntary? But neither in EE nor in EN is the political or legal just eidemia to be contrary to nature.
There is nevertheless a certain going up and down involved. For since it is possible to do a wrong incidentally or involuntarily and so to do it without wronging or without being unjustis it possible to suffer a wrong involuntarily that someone inflicted incidentally or involuntarily?
This result is confirmed by two related passages in the same overall context. There are three in the EN version about being wronged: So it would interest a philosophical audience but not, or not necessarily, an audience of legislators. 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.
Only in the third case do questions of justice arise, for only in this case can there be a too much or a too little that must be reduced to the mean by justice. As for the EN reading an initial ethiac is why one of the two things to discuss is the question about the distributor dthica the haver, since it was not raised before whereas the question about whether one can wrong oneself was raised before ab1and answered before b The next ones to be discussed concern substance of doctrine.
In the EN version the gods cannot have too much and the bad cannot have too little.
It also resolves all the questions in the EE list, at least to the same extent, namely ethca showing that being wronged is always involuntary. Kb then is plausibly seen as having here suffered a contamination ethhica traditions that properly are separate.
The main justification is the way the first option is stated being wronged is involuntary as wronging is involuntaryfor it associates being wronged and wronging in the same class of the 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. It is named for Eudemus of Rhodesa pupil of Aristotle who may also have had a hand in editing the final work. Adjecto de Virtutibus Et Vitiis Libello.
However, a couple of lines later, at a, honor with children and parents is listed among things naturally noble and good, which seems a better fit with EN.
For there are some for whom it is not possible to have an excess of them, as the gods perhaps, and others, the incurably bad, for whom no share can be of any benefit but it all harms them, and others for whom a share up to a point eueemia beneficial.
But it says nothing, or nothing expressly, about the relation of the involuntariness of being wronged to the involuntariness or voluntariness of wronging. But how must these words be taken in EE since EE has said in its first passage that these goods are not preferable in themselves? The sense must be analogous, that these things are in themselves and by nature among things preferable but not among things preferable in themselves.
Ethica eudemia I, 5: EN to legislators and EE to philosophers.
Here, next, are some longer passages containing simplification that, while clear in sense, is not immediately clear in grammar. This association seems bizarre because Aristotle has just argued that wronging is always voluntary.
But the change at the very end is in EE alone. But why the shift from constitutions to virtue in EE and not in EN?
R. R. Walzer & J. M. Mingay (eds.), Ethica Eudemia – PhilPapers
The fact, however, that Ashburner anticipated Harlfinger is not the real value of his articles, which is rather that they contain, first, reviews of the relative merits of the respective mss. This conclusion will, oddly, be strengthened and not weakened if some of the different readings in the EE mss. 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.
But we may assume that this possibility is meant to be included: We need not, then, dismiss the verbal differences between the EN and EE manuscripts as scribal error in one or other or both. The gods can have an excess did they need it for they are in bliss and there is no limit to what is freely available.
EN has not raised the question so the answer will not be applied to it.