The Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle — Aristotle — John Shaqi
The Nicomachean ethics of Aristotle
Aristotle · en
Eudoxus[40] too is thought to have advanced a sound argument in support
of the claim of pleasure to the highest prize: for the fact that,
though it is one of the good things, it is not praised, he took for an
indication of its superiority to those which are subjects of praise: a
superiority he attributed also to a god and the Chief Good, on the
ground that they form the standard to which everything besides is
referred. For praise applies to virtue, because it makes men apt to do
what is noble; but encomia to definite works of body or mind.[41]
However, it is perhaps more suitable to a regular treatise on encomia
to pursue this topic with exactness: it is enough for our purpose that
from what has been said it is evident that Happiness belongs to the
class of things precious and final. And it seems to be so also because
of its being a starting-point; which it is, in that with a view to it
we all do everything else that is done; now the starting-point and
cause of good things we assume to be something precious and divine.
Chapter XI.
Moreover, since Happiness is a kind of working of the soul in the way
of perfect Excellence, we must enquire concerning Excellence: for so
probably shall we have a clearer view concerning Happiness; and again,
he who is really a statesman is generally thought to have spent most
pains on this, for he wishes to make the citizens good and obedient to
the laws. (For examples of this class we have the lawgivers of the
Cretans and Lacedæmonians and whatever other such there have been.)
But if this investigation belongs properly to πολιτικὴ, then clearly
the enquiry will be in accordance with our original design.
Well, we are to enquire concerning Excellence, _i.e._ Human Excellence
of course, because it was the Chief Good of Man and the Happiness of
Man that we were enquiring of just now.
And by Human Excellence we mean not that of man’s body but that of his
soul; for we call Happiness a working of the Soul.
And if this is so, it is plain that some knowledge of the nature of the
Soul is necessary for the statesman, just as for the oculist a
knowledge of the whole body, and the more so in proportion as πολιτικὴ
is more precious and higher than the healing art: and in fact
physicians of the higher class do busy themselves much with the
knowledge of the body.
So then the statesman is to consider the nature of the Soul: but he
must do so with these objects in view, and so far only as may suffice
for the objects of his special enquiry: for to carry his speculations
to a greater exactness is perhaps a task more laborious than falls
within his province.