Just finished Nicomachean Ethics and let me tell you, Aristotle is a damn genius; it left me in an emotional stupor

Just finished Nicomachean Ethics and let me tell you, Aristotle is a damn genius; it left me in an emotional stupor.

Let me guess, you read it for plot...Pleb

im reading plato first, looking forward to when the time for aristotle comes

Oh boy, you'll fucking love him, his writing style is smooth!

What do you make of the final book and his prizing of the intellectual life over the practical life? Do you agree with the notion that the telos of a practical existence is to eventually reach leisure and thought?

>Do you agree with the notion that the telos of a practical existence is to eventually reach leisure and thought?
As an Absurdist(See Camus)(Especially The Stranger :-) I put no value on a practical existence, user. Once you reach a certain point of enlightenment the end goal should not be leisure and thought, but activity and thoughtlessness. Contemplation only leads to a life of inactivity and isolation. These types of people can do things "in theory" but not in practice.

>Contemplation only leads to a life of inactivity and isolation. These types of people can do things "in theory" but not in practice.

Contemplation is activity, and the only worthwhile kind. Thoughtlessness is isolation from the Logos. There can be no practice without theory - that theory can either be well-conceived and thought out, or hazy and based on unexamined pre-conceptions.

Contemplation to a certain point is worthwhile. To say that it is the only worthwhile activity is flawed and quite lonely. Once a person has reached an acceptable level of contemplation it is advisable that they put themselves on "autopilot" so to speak. At a certain point values and ethics are indoctrinated into a person and (for the most part) a person is incapable of significant change. This is why further contemplation leads to social confusion and quite possibly a less cohesive household. Surely you wouldn't expect a family unit to be strong if the ideal you held to be the most worthwhile was contemplation? While unqualified thoughtlessness is indeed isolation from the logos, my form of thoughtlessness is qualified, and therefore not isolated from the logos. Your shouldn't view the world in absolutes.

>Don't be too brave or too little
>find the mean

Really, this is what left you in emotional stupor?

You clearly didn't pick up on the subtleties of his writing, did you?

Plato is 10 times more enjoyable to read. Though I really liked Aristotle's Politics.

I find it weird considering how much he emphasizes the role of acting. Ari seems to disdain armchair philosophyzing yet accompanies his master Plato in that the purest form of virtue is to engage in philosophy... or rationality which is inherently human.

>when should you be angry
at the right time
>towards whom
towards the right object
>for what reason
the right reason
Thanks!

Also,
>ethical knowledge comes from experience
...

Redpill me senpai what are the benefits to reading this over rhetoric or even ethics in regards to general useful knowledge such as applied to plays, Greek or otherwise, everyday reading, etc? His work on legal oratory and the usefulness of oratory art is dense but not all that hard to understand. If I really wanted something useful, what should I read?

He gives you a particularly unique understanding of the world and how it works. His ethical system is the first of it's kind and his "theory of forms" is completely mind-blowing. Just dive right in, user. You'll find peace once you learn how Aristotle teaches that vice as the only evil and that virtue is to be upheld at all costs, and to always avoid pain AND pleasure. Aristotelians only put value on what is within their control.

>Ari seems to disdain armchair philosophyzing yet accompanies his master Plato in that the purest form of virtue is to engage in philosophy... or rationality which is inherently human.

I didn't really get that vibe from him. A lot is made of Aristotle's dependence on sense perception and proto-empiricism but even this is dependent on a kind of rationalism that stresses pure deduction prior to induction. See his principle of non-contradiction in Metaphysics, his analysis of literally every natural concept he explores in Physics, and his insistence on focusing on the "most familiar" and general concepts prior to the specification of the particulars that instantiate them in Topics.

Yes, only those 10 words by themselves independent of any context left him in emotional stupor.

Veeky Forums really needs to break the habit of being difficult on purpose, acting like a petulant fucking preteen should be as bannable as outright announcing that youre a preteen.

OP here.
The other user was right, it was essentially those 10 words independent of context that left me in an emotional stupor. Thanks for sticking up for me though.

>Contemplation to a certain point is worthwhile

Who or what is to distinguish what that point is?

>Once a person has reached an acceptable level of contemplation it is advisable that they put themselves on "autopilot"

This 'autopilot' state of mind is antithetical to philosophy. As Marcus Aurelius quotes Heraclitus as saying, "We ought not to act and speak as if we were asleep". (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, IV, 46.) Living on 'autpilot' is living the unexamined life, which is not worth living at all.

>t a certain point values and ethics are indoctrinated into a person and (for the most part) a person is incapable of significant change.

All is habit, as Aristotle demonstrates in his Nicomachean ethics. This is also effectively shown by Epictetus in Book II, Chapter XVIII of his Moral Discourses. Shakespeare sums it up beautifully in Hamlet:

“Assume a virtue, if you have it not.
That monster, custom, who all sense doth eat,
Of habits devil, is angel yet in this,
That to the use of actions fair and good
He likewise gives a frock or livery
That aptly is put on. Refrain tonight,
And that shall lend a kind of easiness
To the next abstinence; the next more easy;
For use almost can change the stamp of nature.”

Further, as Aurelius notes in his Meditations, "change is nature's delight". Man is always capable of change.

>further contemplation leads to social confusion and quite possibly a less cohesive household

Contemplation informs you that social cohesion is not only necessary but important, just as it has informed you that 'social confusion' is an evil. To again quote Aurelius, "As thou thyself art a component part of a social system, so let every act of thine be a component part of social life. Whatever act of thine that has no reference, either immediately or remotely, to a social end, this tears asunder thy life, and does not allow it to be one, and it is of the nature of a mutiny, just as when in a popular assembly a man acting by himself stands apart from the general agreement." It is not possible that contemplation, which leads us to such conclusions, should undermine those same conclusions.

>While unqualified thoughtlessness is indeed isolation from the logos, my form of thoughtlessness is qualified

Qualified how? By what measure?

>Your shouldn't view the world in absolutes.

You don't have a problem with doing so yourself. "Contemplation only leads to a life of inactivity and isolation."

>Who or what is to distinguish what that point is?
That's the real question you should've been asking all along, user. That's part of the tricky part of philosophy, it's a bit abstract. I suppose that once you reach that certain point of enlightenment you will just "know" when to shut the ole brain down and coast.
>This 'autopilot' state of mind is antithetical to philosophy. As Marcus Aurelius quotes Heraclitus as saying, "We ought not to act and speak as if we were asleep". (Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, IV, 46.) Living on 'autpilot' is living the unexamined life, which is not worth living at all.
My autopilot analogy is not antithetical to philosophy, quite the contrary, user. Essentially it could be viewed in another light, consider this question "what is enough?" Once again we go back to your first point and we have to determine what constitutes "enough". I don't think Socrates would find fault in this manner of thinking at all. It's not living an examined life, it's living a reasonably examined life.

>Various Aurelius quotes...
While I love the Stoics, don't you find them to be a bit hypocritical...Aurelius was a murderous opium fiend with all the wealth of the world, Seneca, a glutinous billionaire by today's standards. You might say "well what about Epictetus" To that I would say, what choice did he really have? He was conditioned as a slave from the moment of conception. He lived a simple life because he had no opportunity to do so otherwise. Accepting wealth would expose him as a fraud. So you say that we are capable of change and quote me the Stoic masters, but ask yourself why weren't they capable of change? Why did they choose to live hypocritical lives?

>Qualified by what measure?
I don't think I was clear enough, when I say go on "autopilot" I mean you coast for the rest of your life at the particular point of contemplation where an individual decides to leave off at.

>That's the real question you should've been asking all along, user. That's part of the tricky part of philosophy, it's a bit abstract. I suppose that once you reach that certain point of enlightenment you will just "know" when to shut the ole brain down and coast.

That doesn't answer anything really. 'it's a bit abstract' and 'you'll just know' are entirely empty statements.

>it's living a reasonably examined life

Which is arrived at by means of contemplation. Wisdom and the other virtues are not achievements to be obtained and kept, but states of mind to be actively pursued and maintained. They were pursued via contemplation in the first place, that is how they are reached, and so that is how they are maintained.

>While I love the Stoics, don't you find them to be a bit hypocritical...

I don't think it's possible to know whether or not they were hypocritical. Stoicism preaches tranquility of mind and freedom from perturbation - only they themselves could know if they had those things. we cannot know what is in the mind of others.

Assuming they were hypocritical for the sake of argument, it would be irrelevant. it's not who says what that is important, but what is said and how it is said that is important. A successful nutritionalist can be obese. Question the argument, not the intentions or character of the proponent.

>So you say that we are capable of change and quote me the Stoic masters, but ask yourself why weren't they capable of change?

I don't need the example of others to know we are capable of great change when I am living proof. Not only have I underwent great change, but I have also to a great extent obtained what Stoic doctrine promises, and am a testament to it's efficacy.

this wu wei ass nigga

Honestly, user, I tip my hat to you. This entire thread is b8, and so are my replies. I figured nobody would take my "autopilot" stuff seriously, but I had fun. The Stoic doctrines are something I deeply appreciate as well, they too have changed me. (For the better) Cheers, m8.

b8 for what purposes?

To learn? to examine and test your preconceptions? to elicit particular kinds of responses from particular individuals? for entertainment?

Elaborate a little, I want to derive more benefit and enjoyment from my time ITT.

this merely pretending ass nigga

>b8 for what purposes?
To stimulate discussion tbqh. I wanted to hear various philosophical arguments I suppose. To what aim you ask? In retrospect, to learn as well as to be entertained, but primarily the former which is tied to the latter. Perhaps even to sharpen my wits a smidgen.

And your driving force, user?

>And your driving force, user?

Blind, unreasoning love for and ecstasy in reason. Pretty sure I've lost my marbles tbqh.

Reason is an unassailable citadel with unshakable walls. This citadel, the mind that inhabits it, and the space in which which both exist - all of these things are constituted in one thing: contemplation.

Contemplation is both the lamp and the flame it encases. it is the light cast by the lamp, and the path perceived by the light. It is the gate to the infinite, the absolute, and the sublime.

>Reason is an unassailable citadel with unshakable walls. This citadel, the mind that inhabits it, and the space in which which both exist - all of these things are constituted in one thing: contemplation.

>Contemplation is both the lamp and the flame it encases. it is the light cast by the lamp, and the path perceived by the light. It is the gate to the infinite, the absolute, and the sublime.

I dig it, user.