What do you think?
Rate this book
The Eudemian Ethics
A major treatise on moral philosophy by Aristotle, this is the first time the Eudemian Ethics has been published in its entirety in any modern language. Equally important, the volume has been translated by Sir Anthony Kenny, one of Britain's most distinguished academics and philosophers, and a leading authority on Aristotle. In The Eudemian Ethics, Aristotle explores the factors that make life worth living. He considers the role of happiness, and what happiness consists of, and he analyzes various aspects that contribute to it: human agency, the relation between action and virtue, and the concept of virtue itself. Aristotle classifies and examines the various moral and intellectual virtues, and he considers the roles of friendship and pleasure in a life well lived. Kenny's superb translation is accompanied by a fine introduction, in which he highlights the similarities and differences between this book and the better-known Nicomachean Ethics, with which it holds three books in common. There are also many useful explanatory notes which clarify the arguments and allusions that Aristotle makes.
195 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 323
About the author
Aristotle
3,436 books4,803 followers384 BC–322 BC
Greek philosopher Aristotle, a pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great, authored works on ethics, natural sciences, politics, and poetics that profoundly influenced western thought; empirical observation precedes theory, and the syllogism bases logic, the essential method of rational inquiry in his system, which led him to see and to criticize metaphysical excesses.
Empirical, scientific, or commonsensical methods of an Aristotelian, also Aristotelean, a person, tends to think. Deductive method, especially the theory of the syllogism, defines Aristotelian logic. The formal logic, based on that of Aristotle, deals with the relations between propositions in terms of their form instead of their content.
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës ibn Rushd of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.
German religious philosopher Saint Albertus Magnus later sought to apply his methods to current scientific questions. Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle within a context of Christianity.
Aristotle numbers among the greatest of all time. Almost peerless, he shaped centuries from late antiquity through the Renaissance, and people even today continue to study him with keen, non-antiquarian interest. This prodigious researcher and writer left a great body, perhaps numbering as many as two hundred treatises, from which 31 survive. His extant writings span a wide range of disciplines from mind through aesthetics and rhetoric and into such primary fields as biology; he excelled at detailed plant and animal taxonomy. In all these topics, he provided illumination, met with resistance, sparked debate, and generally stimulated the sustained interest of an abiding readership.
Wide range and its remoteness in time defies easy encapsulation. The long history of interpretation and appropriation of texts and themes, spanning over two millennia within a variety of religious and secular traditions, rendered controversial even basic points of interpretation.
Greek philosopher Aristotle, a pupil of Plato and the tutor of Alexander the Great, authored works on ethics, natural sciences, politics, and poetics that profoundly influenced western thought; empirical observation precedes theory, and the syllogism bases logic, the essential method of rational inquiry in his system, which led him to see and to criticize metaphysical excesses.
Empirical, scientific, or commonsensical methods of an Aristotelian, also Aristotelean, a person, tends to think. Deductive method, especially the theory of the syllogism, defines Aristotelian logic. The formal logic, based on that of Aristotle, deals with the relations between propositions in terms of their form instead of their content.
Commentaries of well known Arab philosopher, jurist, and physician Averroës ibn Rushd of Spain on Aristotle exerted a strong influence on medieval Christian theology.
German religious philosopher Saint Albertus Magnus later sought to apply his methods to current scientific questions. Philosophy of Saint Thomas Aquinas, the most influential thinker of the medieval period, combined doctrine of Aristotle within a context of Christianity.
Aristotle numbers among the greatest of all time. Almost peerless, he shaped centuries from late antiquity through the Renaissance, and people even today continue to study him with keen, non-antiquarian interest. This prodigious researcher and writer left a great body, perhaps numbering as many as two hundred treatises, from which 31 survive. His extant writings span a wide range of disciplines from mind through aesthetics and rhetoric and into such primary fields as biology; he excelled at detailed plant and animal taxonomy. In all these topics, he provided illumination, met with resistance, sparked debate, and generally stimulated the sustained interest of an abiding readership.
Wide range and its remoteness in time defies easy encapsulation. The long history of interpretation and appropriation of texts and themes, spanning over two millennia within a variety of religious and secular traditions, rendered controversial even basic points of interpretation.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews
November 1, 2015
An under appreciated gem.
After reading Henry Veatchs "Rational Man - a modern interpretation of aristotelian ethics" I got interested in going to the main sources in order to answer the question: Can Aristotle offer a real alternative ethical theory from Kant or Bentham? After reading EE my answer is yes and let me explain why.
Contrary to modern ethical philosophers Aristotle often starts his inquiry by looking at what people actually tend to value and from there builds his theory. His main point is that humans value happiness above everything else and that this is the only thing which has intrinsic value. By happiness he does not mean pleasure but rather the state of flourishing. We should pursue the goals which bring us happiness in the long run and be critical towards short term kicks.
Aristotle believes that the state of flourishing comes from living a virtuous life and that we should reflect on the aim of our actions: do we behave in a way in order to get other peoples approval or do we actually have a 'noble' aim in mind? This approach emphasizes the use of reason and our ability to understand the world we live in. This approach raises the question of what Aristotle exactly means by 'noble': how can we tell whether we have acted in accordance with reason? What one might think is that our notions of virtue and noble actions arise from our social environment - this however is not how Aristotle has in mind. I interpret Aristotle has believe that every human has a telos, a natural goal, which we should try to strive towards.
In order to reach this natural state of flourishing we need to constantly balance between different emotional states. We should be neither too proud nor too modest but seek the middle ground. To me this seems like common sense: the world is so complex that no theory can a-priori explain how an agent should behave in every given situation. Self-reflection and introspection is needed to constantly adjust ones actions so that one arrives at the middle ground.
I see Aristotles ethical theory as more of a framework rather than an exact science for how we should behave. This can be viewed both as a advantage and a disadvantage but personally his views enrich my understanding of who I am in the world and how I should behave.
After reading Henry Veatchs "Rational Man - a modern interpretation of aristotelian ethics" I got interested in going to the main sources in order to answer the question: Can Aristotle offer a real alternative ethical theory from Kant or Bentham? After reading EE my answer is yes and let me explain why.
Contrary to modern ethical philosophers Aristotle often starts his inquiry by looking at what people actually tend to value and from there builds his theory. His main point is that humans value happiness above everything else and that this is the only thing which has intrinsic value. By happiness he does not mean pleasure but rather the state of flourishing. We should pursue the goals which bring us happiness in the long run and be critical towards short term kicks.
Aristotle believes that the state of flourishing comes from living a virtuous life and that we should reflect on the aim of our actions: do we behave in a way in order to get other peoples approval or do we actually have a 'noble' aim in mind? This approach emphasizes the use of reason and our ability to understand the world we live in. This approach raises the question of what Aristotle exactly means by 'noble': how can we tell whether we have acted in accordance with reason? What one might think is that our notions of virtue and noble actions arise from our social environment - this however is not how Aristotle has in mind. I interpret Aristotle has believe that every human has a telos, a natural goal, which we should try to strive towards.
In order to reach this natural state of flourishing we need to constantly balance between different emotional states. We should be neither too proud nor too modest but seek the middle ground. To me this seems like common sense: the world is so complex that no theory can a-priori explain how an agent should behave in every given situation. Self-reflection and introspection is needed to constantly adjust ones actions so that one arrives at the middle ground.
I see Aristotles ethical theory as more of a framework rather than an exact science for how we should behave. This can be viewed both as a advantage and a disadvantage but personally his views enrich my understanding of who I am in the world and how I should behave.
November 28, 2022
The good as virtue and wisdom. Books 4-6 are also in the Nicomachean Ethics, which is better as it shows philosophy is superior to politics.
Read
February 25, 2024really makes you think
April 25, 2015
This is a wonderful philosophical text that engages and stirs up the depth and breadth of human capacity for eudaimonia. It challenges our cultural, thin notions of happiness and promotes human agency toward activities (breathing--living function) and embodiment of mean internal goods (virtues) to include moral virtues, justice, intellectual, pleasure, and friendship.
Today Eudemian Ethics offers and supports a virtue/strengths/character framework (the good or noble life )and development above (work [ergon], action [energeiai] awareness [nous]) and perhaps against the deficit models of abnormal psychology and a society that barrages us daily with scripts of crime, violence, greed, illness, stupidity, ignorance and other meaninglessness messages and propaganda of everyday conventional forces that dumb down and blind the populace, for “the darkness around us is deep” (William Stafford).
Today Eudemian Ethics offers and supports a virtue/strengths/character framework (the good or noble life )and development above (work [ergon], action [energeiai] awareness [nous]) and perhaps against the deficit models of abnormal psychology and a society that barrages us daily with scripts of crime, violence, greed, illness, stupidity, ignorance and other meaninglessness messages and propaganda of everyday conventional forces that dumb down and blind the populace, for “the darkness around us is deep” (William Stafford).
October 16, 2023
Excellent new translation of Aristotle's shorter treatment of ethics. The NE begins with 'Every art and inquiry aims at some good, therefore,...the good is that at which things aim."
This begins with "Our first concern is to investigate what constitutes a good life and how it is to be attained." It does not seem to me to be less theoretical or more practical than the NE. It does nevertheless skip a discussion of contemplation. Nice introduction.
This begins with "Our first concern is to investigate what constitutes a good life and how it is to be attained." It does not seem to me to be less theoretical or more practical than the NE. It does nevertheless skip a discussion of contemplation. Nice introduction.
August 30, 2012
People seldom ask "what's your favorite Aristotelian ethics", but if someone ask me I would probably rate this one as the best. It addresses the central questions on how to live a good and rewarding life in a way that's, I think, far clearer than the Nicomachean Ethics. The translation is also quite readable. To read and enjoy.
August 5, 2021
Denna bok försöker beskriva vad kärnan i glädjeskapande dygd är. Det är en längre förklaring av den gyllene medelvägen, och avslutas med att beskriva dygderna som vägar till en bakomliggande excellens. Har man läst resten av Aristoteles moraliska verk innehåller den inte mycket nytt.
June 19, 2015
"O Homem Magnânimo
O homem magnânimo deseja ocupar-se de poucas coisas, e estas têm de ser verdadeiramente grandes aos seus próprios olhos, e não porque outros assim pensem. Para o homem dotado de uma alma grande, a opinião solitária de um único homem bom conta mais que a opinião de uma multidão. Foi o que disse Antífon, após a sua condenação, quando Agatão o cumprimentou pelo brilho de sua autodefesa".
O homem magnânimo deseja ocupar-se de poucas coisas, e estas têm de ser verdadeiramente grandes aos seus próprios olhos, e não porque outros assim pensem. Para o homem dotado de uma alma grande, a opinião solitária de um único homem bom conta mais que a opinião de uma multidão. Foi o que disse Antífon, após a sua condenação, quando Agatão o cumprimentou pelo brilho de sua autodefesa".
November 11, 2015
I guess I'd have to a rate it somewhere in the middle...If you know what I MEAN!
August 9, 2020
Aristotle on ethics, again. His teleology runs throughout all his writing. And he is right to doing so. I know no one who does it as much or as convincingly as Aristotle. “And it is well to criticise separately the explanation and the conclusion both because of what has just been said, viz. that one should attend not merely to what is inferred by argument, but often attend more to the phenomena—whereas now when men are unable to see a flaw in the argument they are compelled to believe what has been said—and [15] because often that which seems to have been shown by argument is true indeed but not for the cause which the argument assigns; for one may prove truth by means of falsehood, as is clear from the Analytics.”
Aristotle on different viewpoints on logical demonstrations and syllogisms. The former are explicit and obvious whilst the latter are covert and require more require to bring out the consequences. And the philosopher is spot on here. And it is strange when his views sounds remarkably familiar to member's of my family... “And it is well to criticise separately the explanation and the conclusion both because of what has just been said, viz. that one should attend not merely to what is inferred by argument, but often attend more to the phenomena—whereas now when men are unable to see a flaw in the argument they are compelled to believe what has been said—and [15] because often that which seems to have been shown by argument is true indeed but not for the cause which the argument assigns; for one may prove truth by means of falsehood, as is clear from the Analytics.”
Aristotle has an incorrect view about human happiness. It is beatific to be blessed in the heavenly sense. Of this happiness, earthly one's cannot compare. Aristotle on types of happiness. “We find confirmation also in the common opinion that we cannot ascribe [5] happiness to an existence of a single day, or to a child, or to each of the ages of life; and therefore Solon’s advice holds good, never to call a man happy when living, but only when his life is ended. For nothing incomplete is happy, not being whole.” Some earthly and sensible advice, that is all.
As ever, it is shaped at Aristotle's teleology, “What choice, then, or possession of the natural goods—whether bodily goods, wealth, friends, or other things—will most produce the contemplation of god, that choice or possession is best; this is the noblest standard, but any that through deficiency or excess hinders one from the contemplation and service of god is bad; [20] this a man possesses in his soul, and this is the best standard for the soul—to perceive the irrational part of the soul, as such, as little as possible.”
There is a wealth of advice and reflections on friendships and their manifestations.
Overall, the argumentation is compelling but is not as consistent and strong as the Nichomacaen Ethics. What aims do you have in life?
Aristotle on different viewpoints on logical demonstrations and syllogisms. The former are explicit and obvious whilst the latter are covert and require more require to bring out the consequences. And the philosopher is spot on here. And it is strange when his views sounds remarkably familiar to member's of my family... “And it is well to criticise separately the explanation and the conclusion both because of what has just been said, viz. that one should attend not merely to what is inferred by argument, but often attend more to the phenomena—whereas now when men are unable to see a flaw in the argument they are compelled to believe what has been said—and [15] because often that which seems to have been shown by argument is true indeed but not for the cause which the argument assigns; for one may prove truth by means of falsehood, as is clear from the Analytics.”
Aristotle has an incorrect view about human happiness. It is beatific to be blessed in the heavenly sense. Of this happiness, earthly one's cannot compare. Aristotle on types of happiness. “We find confirmation also in the common opinion that we cannot ascribe [5] happiness to an existence of a single day, or to a child, or to each of the ages of life; and therefore Solon’s advice holds good, never to call a man happy when living, but only when his life is ended. For nothing incomplete is happy, not being whole.” Some earthly and sensible advice, that is all.
As ever, it is shaped at Aristotle's teleology, “What choice, then, or possession of the natural goods—whether bodily goods, wealth, friends, or other things—will most produce the contemplation of god, that choice or possession is best; this is the noblest standard, but any that through deficiency or excess hinders one from the contemplation and service of god is bad; [20] this a man possesses in his soul, and this is the best standard for the soul—to perceive the irrational part of the soul, as such, as little as possible.”
There is a wealth of advice and reflections on friendships and their manifestations.
Overall, the argumentation is compelling but is not as consistent and strong as the Nichomacaen Ethics. What aims do you have in life?
March 28, 2024
Aristotle's writing is very boring.
Although not explicitly, he seems to reject the 4 cardinal Virtues and instead offers his own much more complex classification of Virtues. I believe this is a mistake.
He is obsessed with means. He describes Virtue as a mean between an excess and a deficiency, but in reality this is just a description of the cardinal Virtue of Temperance.
In addition, he considers Virtue and Wisdom to be different things. According to him, Wisdom is much more theoretical and contemplative. Here I also disagree with him. Instead, I follow the Socratic tradition of the 4 cardinal Virtues, of which Wisdom is one.
The most interesting thing from the Eudemian Ethics is "incontinence", which means acting irrationally although one is aware of the rational way to act.
Although not explicitly, he seems to reject the 4 cardinal Virtues and instead offers his own much more complex classification of Virtues. I believe this is a mistake.
He is obsessed with means. He describes Virtue as a mean between an excess and a deficiency, but in reality this is just a description of the cardinal Virtue of Temperance.
In addition, he considers Virtue and Wisdom to be different things. According to him, Wisdom is much more theoretical and contemplative. Here I also disagree with him. Instead, I follow the Socratic tradition of the 4 cardinal Virtues, of which Wisdom is one.
The most interesting thing from the Eudemian Ethics is "incontinence", which means acting irrationally although one is aware of the rational way to act.
April 19, 2024
Aristotle’s delineation of the soul into four parts was particularly striking
As part of my philosophy curriculum at the University of Oxford, I read Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics. Unlike my prior engagements with ancient texts, which often felt dense and challenging, I found Aristotle's exposition in the Eudemian Ethics more accessible, although still complex in its ideas.
Aristotle’s delineation of the soul into four parts was particularly striking, a concept that diverges interestingly from the more familiar tripartite model discussed in other works. This aspect piqued my curiosity and enriched my understanding of Aristotelian moral psychology, offering a fresh perspective on his ethical considerations.
As part of my philosophy curriculum at the University of Oxford, I read Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics. Unlike my prior engagements with ancient texts, which often felt dense and challenging, I found Aristotle's exposition in the Eudemian Ethics more accessible, although still complex in its ideas.
Aristotle’s delineation of the soul into four parts was particularly striking, a concept that diverges interestingly from the more familiar tripartite model discussed in other works. This aspect piqued my curiosity and enriched my understanding of Aristotelian moral psychology, offering a fresh perspective on his ethical considerations.
May 23, 2018
I did enjoy this book a lot. It was easier to read that I was anticipating. Some of the notions discussed in the book are still modern, only showing how little we've changed in the last 2,350 years. But, some things seem very inappropriate today, in our inclusive Western European culture.
I'm happy I picked it off the shelf.
Full review on Coffee & Books
I'm happy I picked it off the shelf.
Full review on Coffee & Books
November 19, 2020
Esse livro basicamente é o mesmo do Ética a Nicômaco, com várias passagens idênticas. Os temas são tratados com mais profundidade no Ética a Nicômaco, embora sejam basicamente os mesmos daqui, a virtude, os vícios, a amizade, trechos pequenos de Política, como Aristóteles a enxerga.
Vale a pena ter só por compor o Corpus Aristotelicum, mas não acrescenta nada para quem já leu a outra obra.
Vale a pena ter só por compor o Corpus Aristotelicum, mas não acrescenta nada para quem já leu a outra obra.
November 22, 2022
There’s nothing memorable or noteworthy within this book. You talk to any random person on the street and ask their thoughts on ethics, I think that perhaps 25% or so would be able to produce a similar quality work than what this is.
Aristotle, in my opinion, here is getting credit by others based off of his reputation, than the actual work itself.
Aristotle, in my opinion, here is getting credit by others based off of his reputation, than the actual work itself.
April 20, 2018
So it's taken me a little over a year to finally finish this, and I love philosophy and philosophical ideas. But I forget how draining everything can be. I had to take a break (multiple breaks) to finish this. glad I finally got it over and done with tbh.
April 6, 2021
Aristotle answers the most important questions in life. Is life worth living. Aristotle also gives reasons why one should live a moral life. Reading Plato and Aristotle has changed my life for the better.
November 14, 2022
still dont like this man
July 7, 2013
Eudemian Ethics by Aristotle and translated by Anthony Kenny describes how one is to live a happy life. The reason why someone strives to live a virtuous life according to Aristotle has to due with the pursuit of happiness. The goal of life is to be happy but Aristotle defines happiness not by material means such as we often do today but instead by seeking either knowledge, virtue or pleasure. While pleasure is often given as the greatest cause of happiness Aristotle would say that this happiness is not true happiness. As to Aristotle virtue is the only true cause of happiness the majority of this book deals with the virtues which he believes cause happiness which is the greatest good. While I agree with most of his virtues some of his views are different than what I as a Christian could agree with. An example of this would be his views on pride which he states is a virtue but I believe is a vice. I did not read the middle three chapters as they were also included in Nicomachean Ethics which I also read and responded to. However the section on friendship has many elements which are important as he divides the ideas of friendship between friendship for utility, for pleasure, or for virtue. All of these are true friendship but we must realize which type of friendship we have with someone in order to know what to expect. The final section of the book draws the elements together to come to a conclusion. I would agree that the purpose of an ethical virtuous life is as Aristotle says, "Whatever choice or possession of natural goods -- bodily goods, wealth, friends, and the like -- will most conduce to the contemplation of God is the best." I agree with this and it presents a good framework for what we do in life and what is truly virtuous. Overall a good read which I would recommend it.
September 20, 2016
Nelle tre opere che compongono l'Etica di Aristotele ci si chiede "è possibile essere felici? se sì, come?". E il primo argomento affrontato, qui nell'Etica Eudemea, è l'amicizia. Cos'è l'amicizia? L'uomo felice ne ha bisogno?
Buona lettura.
Buona lettura.
April 18, 2016
This book of reflections on character by Aristotle has always gotten second billing to his Nicomachean Ethics. While this book has its defenders--primarily Anthony Kenny, the translator--it has never been studied or read as carefully. It has 3 of its 8 books in common with the NE, and it differs somewhat in its other 5 books. It has generally been considered Aristotle's earlier thoughts, but no one has ever made a convincing case. The ways in which it differs from NE are occasionally interesting, especially at the very end of Book 8--with its cryptic comments about god. But for the most part it is just somewhat different. For scholars, it is worth reading. I used it as suggested reading in a seminar on Aristotle's Ethics and Contemporary Virtue Theory. But for an undergraduate class, or just a person interested in Aristotle's reflections on character, this is not the book to read.
December 30, 2016
“Everyone who has the power to live according to his own choice should set up for himself some object for a noble life—whether honour, or reputation, or wealth, or culture—with a view to which he will govern all his conduct, since not to have one’s life organized with reference to some end is a mark of great folly. Above all, he must first determine in his own mind, with care and without haste, where in our human condition the good life resides, and what are the necessary conditions for people to possess it.”
June 29, 2015
Antique books are almost impossible to review. Aristotle was not some Classic author looking to sell millions of copies. He was interested, first and foremost, in his philosophy. Aristotle was the granddaddy of categories and this is the world's first compartmentalizer. His genius comes in being one of the first Western minds to attack a a problem by organizing it in a way that for 300 BC would have been unique.
October 10, 2016
I mean it's pretty important
Read
December 22, 2018globally much readable than Nicomacean ethics
Displaying 1 - 26 of 26 reviews