Knowing Ourselves Through Nicomachean Ethics

Knowing Ourselves through Nicomachean Ethics

ACTC ConferenceP. Corrigan

April 2008

2 Modes of Self-Knowledge and 3 Audiences

3 April 2008

What is it to be thoughtful about oneself, to live an examined life? What does the NEtell us about this, and what does it show us about being thoughtful?

NE has something in it for everyone; it=s deceptively conventional. Aristotle feeds the prejudices= of each group, while also throwing out challenges to each of them. Sometimes, the challenge is the other group=s prejudices=, so that each is a challenge to the other. That is, Aristotle shows the validity and truth of each way of life / type of person to the other. At the same time, the NE points to fundamental perplexities that need to be dwelt upon and not explained away.

6 April 2008

Unfittings= and Thinking

Four types of contradictions=/ruptures in NE:

$between what NE says and how things appear/are

$between what is NE and what ought to be there (either according to how things are or according to how things are (are done) in other places.

$between what NE says in one place and what it says in another

$between what NE says and what it does

Why are there such ruptures in NE? Are they a sign of imperfection/failure or of an aiming for a different telos? Is the goal of the book to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truthCto give a complete account of human flourishing so that the reader will be able to have= it? Or, is the goal to help the reader achieve that flourishing?

The goal of human life is not to have= the truth in the way that a reader is given= words in a book. The goal of a helpful author, then is not to give= his reader the answers. If the goal of human life is to be attentive and thoughtful about the serious things, then what can a good book do to help us achieve our ultimate goal?

Thoughtfulness does not occur easily and right way. It needs a basis on which it can occur. So, NE gives lots of truth. It helps us to see better what we already have seenCvaguely and in a fragmented way. The NE helps us to pull together things so that we have a basis for further thinking.

But this re-confirmation in what we know is not the final goal. Rather, NE seeks to help us be thoughtful about human flourishing by perplexing us, pointing to other things which need to be thought about (its own incompleteness).

What is the relation between the thoughtfulness I say Aristotle is trying to prompt in us and what he says is the best kind of thinking, between perplexity and theoria? What is the kind of thoughtfulness present at a typical (ACTC) conference? We have hundreds of papers being given, papers which each of us recognize as not of the highest qualityCwe aren=t stars in our field, the papers are too short and the discussions too brief, and these papers are not our best work, etc. What is the relation between our thinking together and the best human achievement?

It is important to recognize that Aristotle=s account of theoria is too great for a human being=. Also, theoria is not some sort of extraordinary activity, achieved only by sages sitting on a mountain top. Rather, theoria is that insight into how things are that we achieve regularly, those aha!= moments that culminate our following up a good question. The best human activity happens when we are able to follow up a good question. But this does not settle things, rather asking a good question well leads us to being able to ask another question. Coming to understand something better, does not settle all questions, it enables one to ask more and better ones. It is important to recognize that every real question is raised upon the foundation of an insight into how things are; it is not the case that we never make any progress. Contrary to what NE 10.7 and Metaphysics 1.2 suggest, insight into the truth does not mean a cessation of questions. Figuring one=s way through one question opens up other questions that one didn=t recognize. Second-rate thinkers, if they are really perplexed, are active because they have glimpsed the eide, how things really are.

How can we account for different schools= of philosophy? Are the others= just mistaken and misguided, thoroughly cut off from the truth? Is it possible for thinkers to be so separated off from the truth, how things are? Are they really not understanding anything? This seems to be preposterous. This is presuming that sentences are either true or false, rather than a mixture of true and false or as between true and false as Phaedo (90a-d) suggests. Maybe human logos is not able to be simply true or falseCunless it is not the result of real thinking, honest perplexity. That=s why it=s worth hearing even student essays. They also are worthy of praise when they are the result of their own perplexity and wonder (not when they are putting together others= words together in a clear and novel way). Those I fundamentally disagree with can help me to see things that I=d missed before. Even if I continue to think that they are fundamentally off target.

This seems to be the case even in that paradigmatic example of human knowing, mathematics. A mathematician does not simply come to rest at the end of her proofs. Rather, it seems that on the basis of this proof, she is able to see where another question lies. Excellent human thinking is achieved in following the questions, not in resting in the answer.

Questions may be the principal way in which the eternal, universal and necessary appear to human beings. Being perplexed only occurs because the eide have been glimpsed.

What is the point of logos? Is the proper type of words a proposition which is either true or false? Or, is it not the case that words present things, they propose that we take things in a particular way (Phaedo 90a-d). It is difficult for logos to be fully true or wholly false; rather words share in both. They reveal how things are, partially; they cover over how things are a bit, too. The goal of words is to get us to see things; but no logos can disclose the full range of how something is. The goal of a book to prompt us to do the thinking that allows things to appear to us in their richness and complexity, and seeing how things are, at a certain point, causes wonder and perplexity, not just recollection.

So, Aristotle=s book is great because it helps us to ask better questions. It does this in two stages. First, it reminds us things that we already know. Because we are not clear even about this stuff, we have to struggle with the details of his text, taking care not to mistake what he says and trying to get the most we can out of what he says. This book is not easy, even in its most straightforward aspect; we need to struggle a bit to be reminded well.

Second, the NE helps us to ask great questions by more and less explicitly pointing to its own limitations, indicating where we need to leave it behind and pursue our own questions. It might do this by not always fitting well with itself.

4 April 08

A. Self-knowledge as Recollection (Aristotle as ancient sage=) To spark pulling together things one already knows to things anew

Being reminded of what one already sort of= knows. Having points brought to mind in an orderly and clear way so that what one had forgotten or overlooked or not recognized is able to be seen clearly as if for the first time. One now knows oneself in the sense of being re-minded of oneself.

A1.Young people: how does NE promote recollection? What would that mean for them?

$It seems that NE present arete as beautifulCit=s goal seems to be to make young people want to be excellent (practical or theoretical?)

$that I need to strive to be virtuous in character and mindCthat I need to be courageous, temperate, generous, just, etc., as well as prudent and wise.

$Somehow NE taps into a young person=s pre-disposition by showing virtue as beautiful; this moves a young person to want to be excellentCbeautiful and good.

$on basis of proper upbringing, one is moved to excellence and friendship.

A2.One Living the Practical Life (the citizen). Aristotle=s respect for common opinion, how things appear to most people, fits in here. He doesn=t seek to be novel, but to present Areflexions of common life methodized and corrected@ (EHU 12.3,2). Know myself better through NE by being reminded of goods and beliefs which constitute me.

$the need to be concerned about goods beyond those that are useful for acquiring the necessities of life and that are merely private experiences. The good life is not merely comfortable and pleasant (2.3).

$that excellence is a mean between extremes; all things in moderation= (2.6)

$the virtues of character (2.7) and intellect (6.3) that Aristotle notes and analyzes correspond to excellences that the citizen can acknowledge.

$Aristotle even notes how strange sophia is. (6.7; 10.7-8)

$that NE notes how important actions are in lifeCnot just talk (2.4);

$that one is responsible for the kind of person one ends up to be; responsibility for what one takes as good and for one=s character (3.4-5); one=s own choices make a difference in one=s life

$that habits and upbringing are very important (2.1); respect for parents and the polis.

$NE notes that pleasure is dangerous; need to have reason in control

$Akrasia is possible, lousy and pretty common

$Friends are possible and needed to live well

A3.One Living the Theoretical Life (the wise)

$Aristotle=s use of metaphysical principles such as act & potency confirm that the wise are able to make sense of and understand things better than those who are unfamiliar with these principles.

$that the life of knowing is superior to the political lifeCall of 10.7: that the life devoted to knowing is the best, most divine life: that it is the activity of the best part of us, that it is more pleasant, more for its own sake, more self-sufficient and more leisurely.

$(6.7) that the life of sophia is the goal of politics; politics is for the sake of sophia.

B. Self-knowledge as Being Perplexed (Aristotle as Socratic philosopher) To spark perplexity

The NE does not merely leave its reader where he began. It calls attention to fundamental aporia in what it is to be human, and therefore, about the telos of being human. The learning that the NE initiates is not only a confirmation of what one already believed. Self-knowledge, being thoughtful about oneself, goes beyond being confirmed in one=s opinions, beyond recollection (Areasons@ for one=s beliefs). It fosters perplexity; leads one to see what one doesn=t understand, what one needs to think some more about.

B1.Young people:

$which life should I follow: the practical or the theoretical? What kind of person do I want to be?

$can I achieve all of the virtues? What should I do?

$perhaps the proper perplexity for a young person is about the direction of his life

$

To adult readers, the NE presents each of the two ways of life as a challenge to the other. The practical life is shown to be in accord with human nature in such a way that it challenges the theoretical life=s prejudice that it alone is the proper life for a human being, and vice versa. For example, (to the prakitikates) being human is more than being concerned with the body and its goods, and more than the goods achieved in political life. To the theoretikes, the needs of the body and the goods achieved in actions are good and necessary. The NE disconcerts both parties; it does not leave either one simply where it began.

But the NE disconcerts and perplexes in more ways than that.

B2.Those living the practical life, the life of action; seeing that the things that I=d taken for granted may not suffice, may not be coherent and complete.

$If one thinks about the details of Aristotle=s accounts of the particular virtues, one might be led to wonder whether his account will lead to the same conclusions that one=s conventions do. Has Aristotle simply defended ordinary opinion or also given one the means by which to critique one=s conventions? Will Aristotle=s account which bases the virtues of character on aspects of us which share in logos functioning well really match up simply and neatly with our ordinary set of virtues?

$What accounts for one=s dissatisfaction with one=s current character/goals? What moves one to be motivated by the kalon? What effects the conversion that Aristotle seeks to achieve? To assist us in being virtuous and not merely conforming? What can parents and the city do to guarantee the excellence of the next generation?

$Is the list of virtues complete? Are there other excellences that are needed to be human well? (13 virtues of character and 5 virtues of intellect; 2.7 and 6.3)

$Is the mark of human excellence the mean (which tends to the middling) or the kalonCa concern for goods beyond those with which the city is concerned; should I be concerned with something more than the goods of the city?

$True friendship really is difficult and rareBmaybe those I call friends= aren=t really.

$if one thinks about the details of Aristotle=s accounts of the particular virtues, one might be led to wonder whether his account will lead to the same conclusions that one=s conventions doC???

B3.Those living the theoretical life, the life of knowing/episteme

$What are the relations among the parts= of the soul? Is the presentation of human soul presented in NE adequate? Would a more scientific= account of soul be able to support a teaching of a distinctly human telos? (Relation of De Anima to NE.)

$the role and status of the middle part of the human soul is particularly difficult to give a theoretical account ofBperplexing for a sophon

$Can the theoretical life be so unconcerned with the political? Is the disregard for the body and the polis truly in keeping with the truth about human being?

$Does my initial disparaging stance toward pleasure and the passions indicate a deficiency in me?

$If dianoia alone does not move (6.2: 1139a36), and nous is the true me and the highest aspect of me, can it rule (10.7)? And if so, how, since it does not seem that practical goods are its proper object? What kind of rule do I have over myself? Do I rule myself as God rules the cosmos?

CONCLUSION

Ultimately(?) the NE aims for us to live the life of the mind which is manifest in its presentation of things. Can we be mindful in the way that the NE is mindful?

The text challenges us to move beyond itself, and it even gives direction to what needs to be thought about. But that direction= is given by noticing what Aristotle does, not by looking for him to tell us what to do.

The contrast between looking to Aristotle for answers and looking to him for questions; Aristotle as wise and as philosophical. Is the goal of a thoughtful reading of NE to tie up any apparent loose ends and inconsistencies= into a neat system or to allow it to show some fundamental perplexities in being human?

Some of these points are the things that scholars, assuming that the goal of a philosophy text is systematic completeness, note and seek to explain away. Although it may be the case that this Homer does occasionally nod off, I believe that these often point to genuine perplexities about what it is to be human.

Is the goal of this text to tell us what to think about the most important things; is its goal to tell us what Aristotle believes (and therefore what he wants us to believe)? Perhaps his goal to help us achieve self-awareness, to recognize our ignorance, and to be thoughtful about ourselves. What Aristotle does (not just what he says) indicates what we to think more about.

$What is the distinctively human ergon? What is logos? And, what is its relation to those aspects of us which we share= with other animals? While at first I thought I knew what reason= was, after trying to fit all that NE says is distinctive to human beings, I no longer do.

$for example, 10.7 that which is most me ends up being what is more than meCnous is divine, not human! The distinctively human has disappeared into either the subhuman or the superhuman. What is one to make of this?

$What sort of completion=, self-sufficiency= and finality= (1.7) are possible for human beings?

$Why is it so difficult to get clear on what it is to be human well? We can get a sense of what it is for a rose to be thwarted or to be thriving; and for a giraffe to be living well as a giraffe or not. But we are much less able to do this for human beings. Why? What sort of complexity= is the problem? Ex., what sort of cognitive achievements are necessary?

$What is our relation to the divine? (1.9 and 10.8)

$Nature=s role in being human well

$To what extent are we in control of ourselves? Nature, nurture and luck

$Does the relation between one=s past actions/choices, one=s goals, and one=s present character indicate something more profound about the temporality of being human?

$All sorts of questions about intellectual virtues: how are they acquired? What role does the past play? What is their genus= and species= (arguments given about virtues of character in 2.5 and 2.6Csimilar arguments about intellectual virtues are missing)? What determines one=s intellectual character: what one can think well about? What questions can I raise and pursue? Why? What can I think well aboutCtechne, phronesis, episteme, nous?

$Lack of flexibility of mind= as one gets olderCespecially if one thinks a lot about things. As one becomes more proficient in the ways of thinking of one=s profession, for example, that way becomes easier, and other ways of thinking become more difficult. Is this correct? Is this a way in which there is a correspondence between character and intellect?