Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics bk 4 | The Virtue of Friendliness | Philosophy Core Concepts
Vložit
- čas přidán 23. 07. 2024
- Check out the Aristotle on the Moral Virtues class (starting April 13) - reasonio.teachable.com/p/aris...
Request personal videos on Cameo - www.cameo.com/gregorybsadler
Get Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics - amzn.to/2g9t0UU
Support my work here - / sadler
Philosophy tutorials - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
Take classes with me - reasonio.teachable.com/
This is a video in my new Core Concepts series -- designed to provide students and lifelong learners a brief discussion focused on one main concept from a classic philosophical text and thinker.
This Core Concept video focuses on book 4 of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics (and some parallel discussions in the Eudemian Ethics), where he discusses the Virtue of Friendliness, and its opposed vices of Obsequiousness (or Flattery) and Unfriendliness (or Quarrelsomeness).
If you'd like to support my work producing videos like this, become a Patreon supporter! Here's the link to find out more - including the rewards I offer backers: / sadler
You can also make a direct contribution to help fund my ongoing educational projects, by clicking here: www.paypal.me/ReasonIO
If you're interested in philosophy tutorial sessions with me - especially on Aristotle! - click here: reasonio.wordpress.com/tutori...
We also offer affordable, content-packed, on-demand courses on Philosophy in the ReasonIO Academy - reasonio.teachable.com/
This video is one component in a set of online courses covering Aristotle's entire Nicomachean Ethics. These include 94 lecture videos, 45 downloadable handouts and worksheets, 10 quizzes, 39 lesson pages, and other resources. Check it out in the ReasonIO Academy here - reasonio.teachable.com/p/arist...
new Core Concept video -- about a topic Aristotle discusses and many other moral theorists pass over
On saying no the the wrong things it frees you up to say yes to the right things. IT is odd, because I can see both obsequiousness and unfriendliness in different aspects in my life. The obsequiousness could be in keeping my words to myself at work, and my unfriendliness could be my isolating myself so that I may rest and learn as much philosophy as I can. I do not know if I am guided by honour, as honour cannot be the end, as it is not the most self-sufficient. IF compelled to be in a group, I will behave honourably. The reason to join a group of people is either the exchange of goods and services, or one is bored or lonely or perhaps one is trying to figure out who one is, and thus looks to others to copy or emulate ( or one may decide one may not want to be like a particular someone). I join groups to either learn something, or to earn a living. To try to escape boredom, or loneliness by joining any group is unwise. It is best to learn to manage oneself.
+Mark Trumble I get the impression that simply keeping one's thoughts to oneself isn't what Aristotle is calling "obsequiousness". That's more the person who is joining in on and approving things indiscriminately
Thus one must actively approve ( He yelled " that is a good idea!"), than passively approve ( says nothing, and lets the matter go as it does)
Mark Trumble It's not so rule-bound as that
Hey I am currently doing an essay on the difference and the relationship between friendliness and friendship. However I have some issues with the subject. I can see what are their differences but not what are their relationship. Could you explain what are their relationship
That's a complex topic - you might consider booking a tutorial session for that - reasonio.wordpress.com/tutorials/
A friend cheats on a test by copying from you, and you report him, or some example similar to that, does that constitute a virtuous act?Basically does justice demand that you report him OR because he's your friend you just don't let him do it(seeing that him cheating is wrong) but you also don't report him because that could hurt him and your friendship???
Or you just let him do it...?
Well, first off, let's get straight about what "a virtuous act" means for Aristotle. It's NOT JUST doing what the virtuous person would do in a similar situation. Rather, it means doing the act FROM virtue, i.e. from a settled, established habit, which leads the person to have the right sort of motivation, to attend to the right circumstances, etc. -- you'll want to look at Nicomachean Ethics book 2.
Justice could indeed require that you ought to report that person -- if you're the class for example. But reporting really has nothing to do with this set of virtue and vices.
To go along with bad actions is not, for Aristotle, an act characteristic or constitutive of any real friendship. In fact, what this virtue would require would be to confront the "friend", right?
Great video Dr. Sadler. However, here is a unique, yet hard question. What would you suggest if your friend came up to you and said that they wanted an abortion for a rape child? What do you think Aristotle would say on that?
Well, if you're talking about the historical Aristotle, back in his own time and culture, they weren't overly concerned about infanticide back then. If he had acquired some other sensibilities along the way, he'd probably be more inclined towards what I'd say in response.
Here's my response. One can always carry and birth the child and then allow it to be adopted. That's what my own mother did.
+Gregory B. Sadler Old comment I know, but I am studying this now. Why would you feel that adoption and the many ,many pains that all too often come with it is an appropriate life for an innocent child? This argument is not even considering the genetic implications of DNA coming from a rapist. That is another topic completely. I'm not trying to be rude. I just feel that abortion is preferable to throwing an innocent child into a cruel and unfair system for the vast majority of their early development. Why do you feel differently? I enjoy your videos, btw. This is the second one I've watched and they really helped to break down a couple of concepts I was having trouble with so thanks!
Many adoptive families don't fit the caricature you're using. Mine certainly didn't
That is true and I'm glad for that. I still feel that all too many do, though, very sadly. I can definitely see where you're coming from.
I am a Devil's Advocate, but that is usually because I want others to understand different perspectives. I'm the kind of person that ponders for a while before making decisions, and it really bothers me when others rush judgement without really giving any thought to how others may see things from a different perspective.
I'd say being devil's advocate is more of a virtue than a vice, usually.
I wouldn't
+Gregory B. Sadler Surely in the right settings it is. Sure if it's constant then it becomes a vice (Because it's excessive) but in a setting where there's debating and no certainty (as is the case with political and religious issues) then it's more of a virtue.
Robbie Crooks
It's not really the "settings" as you're calling them that make it a virtue in the sense that virtue ethics uses that term.
+Gregory B. Sadler Wrong word I guess. To an excess of which you want to annoy and irritate and to an deficiency of which you don't care. the middle ground is where you could play devils advocate in order to better analyse or put yourself in others perspective in order to find out what is a more logical or correct view. (aspect of practical wisdom ties into it?)
Well, the problem is, most "devil's advocates" tend to be on the side of annoying and irritating, even when they tell themselves and others they're really just doing something else. And, that's typical of vicious behavior, as Aristotle sees it -- the vicious usually don't realize they're vicious.
The term at this point has so much baggage due to the typical jerky behavior of most of those who invoke it, that it's probably not worth keeping.
I'd suggest giving up on the "devil's advocate" idea, if your real goal is to "better analyse or put yourself in others perspective in order to find out what is a more logical or correct view." There's a number of ways to do that in conversations or discussions. Why saddle yourself with what others have screwed up?