The Mean

In chapter 7 of Book Two of the Nic Ethics, Aristotle talks about different kinds of emotions and feelings and states that there is a mean between the two.

For example, on page 31 line 10 he says "Concerning giving and taking money, the mean condition is generosity" and line 20 "And concerning honor and dishonor, the mean condition is greatness of soul."

I am confused by what Aristotle is saying by these things. My interpretation of it, is that Aristotle believes that we all have certain innate feelings and emotions, and by choice we can choose to act upon these innate feelings for good or bad purposes (ex. giving and taking money respectively). Almost all of chapter 7 is devoted to Aristotle talking about these means, and what actions are connected to them. I could be completely wrong, but as I was reading this chapter and noticed the repetition of his writing I thought it was important enough to bring up.

What do you think Aristotle is trying to say in this chapter?

Do we need to be taught, or do we already know?

In the first couple lines of Nic. Ethics, book II chapter 1, Aristotle speaks of the two sorts of virtue. He says, "...excellence of thinking is for the most part, both in its coming to be and in its growth, a result of teaching, for which reason it has need of experience and time...". This reminded me of when we read the Meno, and Socrates spoke of learning simply being recollection, and we arent actually taught anything. "As a result, its being able to recollect what pertains to virtue and other things is nothing to be wondered at, since it also knew them previously" (Meno pg 107 line 81c). To me, this two ways of thinking are contradictory. Aristotle claims virtue can be learned through teaching, yet Socrates states we don't need to be taught, we just need to remember. Do you believe these are contradictory, or do they have the same point? Which do you agree/disagree with?

Happiness: How the Meaning Has Changed

In class we have been talking about how the meaning of the word 'happiness' used by Aristotle in the Nicomachean Ethics is different from how we use the word 'happiness' today. As I have understood from class discussions, Aristotle's use of the word is more "all-encompassing" and speaks to the fullness of one's life as a whole rather than the meaning of momentary pleasure or enjoyment that we use today.
However, in Book I, Chapter 10, it seems as though Aristotle momentarily switches to the way we use the word when he writes, "For it is clear that, if we were to follow along with the fortunes, we would often call the same person happy and miserable in turns, making the happy person out to be a kind of chameleon or a structure built on rotten foundations" (1100b). I got confused because if Aristotle means ultimate happiness and fullness of life when he uses the word happy, wouldn't the people around a person not know if they were happy or miserable until their life was over?

"The Self-Numbing Stingray"

In "Meno," there is a point in the text where Meno refers to Socrates as being "like that well-known stingray of the sea"(80b) due to the fact that everyone who he comes in contact with "feels numb"(80b) (or, more simply, perplexed). He claims that Socrates has worked this same magic on him and and accuses him of intentionally trying to confuse him on the subject they are addressing. To this accusation Socrates responds that he is only like a stingray "if the stingray makes itself numb while it numbs others,"(80d) due to the fact that as he befuddles other people, he does the same to himself.

I find that this exchange speaks volumes about Socrates' method of thinking. It shows that throughout their discussion, Socrates has been thinking and discovering things about virtue as he goes and is not just spouting out his opinion to Meno or simply asking random questions to distract him. As he tries to help Meno find enlightenment, he too is searching for his own understanding of virtue.

Alex Wade