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 February 2011|
|PDF File Size:||11.39 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.91 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
As for the EN reading an initial oddity is why one of the two things to discuss is the question about the distributor and the haver, since it was not raised before whereas the question about whether one can wrong oneself was raised before ab1and answered before b They will not suffer damage from excess, for they will never misuse it, and there is no need for any balancing out, for goods will never be limited. The next ones to be discussed concern substance of doctrine.
No keywords specified fix it. Individual passages will still have to be examined, of course, because scribal error cannot be excluded in advance. These readings moreover do 8 Ashburner seems to be a careful and reliable collater, as a partial comparison of his collations for the common books against a review of Laur.
Kb maverick here anyway combines the readings and does not make sense. The view that no EE mss. No categories specified categorize this paper.
The case is raised in effect in the later discussion of a judge who makes a wrong award ba4: Those in between are then said to be victory, honor, and wealth. One case in point, which Ashburner mentions but strangely does not weigh,14 is at b8, where the text from EN mss. If a wrong is done involuntarily, he has said, it is not really a case of wronging save incidentally b First, however, must come discussion of a passage that gives good grounds to think that the EE mss.
Since Kb and the EE mss. The answer, if there is one, would seem to be precisely that the EE version is not considering the voluntariness or involuntariness of being wronged by itself, but rather the relation of its voluntariness or involuntariness to the voluntariness or involuntariness of wronging.
Catalog Record: Magna moralia ; Ethica eudemia ; De | Hathi Trust Digital Library
Simpson – – Classical Quarterly 63 2: Ethica eudemia I, 5: He draws two general judgments from this evidence. Is all being wronged involuntary, as all wronging is involuntary? Note then a further passage in the same context, at b2, which in both EN and EE versions reads: Find it on Scholar. But it says nothing, or nothing expressly, about the relation of the involuntariness of being wronged to the involuntariness or voluntariness of wronging.
And is it all this way or all that way as also wrong doing is, or all voluntary, or etuica the one voluntary and the other involuntary?
Ethica Eudemia – Aristotle – Oxford University Press
Request removal from index. Are both being wronged and wronging tehica or involuntary sc. But EN, unlike EE, then descends back into politics Hence too we call beasts neither moderate nor licentious. As to his treatment of C, he was following his own view of its relative worth, as well as his sense that, where A and B agreed, the chances of C disagreeing were slim.
Allan after his death in the late seventies, and more recently has been helped in her work by the suggestions of Professor D. Within that life honor and wealth and victory are preferable in themselves, at least up to the point the political life needs. But if so which of these is in error, for both can make sense?
If so we should, as a result, consider all the options listed in the EE version in the same way. As for the EE reading, the two things to discuss are perhaps a reference back to the list at the very beginning, which was about voluntariness on the part both of being wronged and of wronging. Accordingly we should perhaps print modern texts of EE and EN each with the common books according to their separate traditions. It seems to be a group for whom, unlike the first group but like the following two with which the wording of the text associates itthe questions of excess and deficiency and justice do not arise, or no more arise than they do for the gods and the incurably wicked.
That the EE version adds nothing of legislative relevance is clear also from the fact that the discussion in the eudemai 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.
That is why it is a human thing.
Now EN in its last book returns to the question of regimes and ends with a discussion of legislation and becoming a legislator that leads ethicw the Politics. A first thing to note here is that since Harlfinger has A deriving from Urb. But we do not have to suppose error here, for eudeima passage, like the previous two, display the same feature, namely a de- emphasizing of the political and legislative interest.
They still draw a ehica between necessary things and non-necessary things that cause pleasure, but, unlike the EN version, they do not identify these non-necessary things victory, honor, wealth, and the like with things preferable in themselves. The difficult question is deciding what is an error and what is not but a legitimate reading.
Hence too neither do we call beasts moderate and licentious.