This post features the first five chapters of Book III of the Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle. Those chapters take up the following subjects.
- Chapter I. The voluntary and involuntary (ἑκούσιος and ἀκούσιος).
- Chapter II. Choice (also called intention, preference, and rational or deliberate choice: προαίρεσις).
- Chapter III. The deliberated (βουλευτός).
- Chapter IV. The wished-for (βουλητός).
- Chapter V. Vice (κακία) as being voluntary.

Public space in Maslak, Sarıyer
“One of the main business districts of Istanbul”
September 19, 2023
After some general remarks about what I am doing and about the chapters themselves, I summarize them section by section (they are divided into 27, 17, 20, 6, and 23 sections respectively). Then comes Aristotle’s text itself, in Greek, with line breaks and bullets intended to show the structure of the thought (and thus aid my own understanding), along with my comments after some sections.
Technicalities
I am continuing what I have done with Book I and Book II of the Ethics. While reading Book III, I have revised the posts on the earlier books. I am likely to do the same to the present post.
I summarized Books I and II only by chapter. Now in Book III, it seems worthwhile to summarize by section, at least in the first five chapters. I am leaving to a later post or posts the remaining seven chapters of the book, which concern the particular virtues of
- courage (vi–ix) and
- temperance (x–xii).
Meanwhile, I have made the sections of the first five chapters into sections of this page; they are not just list items as sections of the previous two books started out being – now I have changed them too. For the record, I establish my text as follows.
- Obtain a Greek text by cutting and pasting from Project Perseus into a
txtfile, opened in theemacseditor. - Include Bekker numbers as links to Perseus.
- Convert the contemporary colon (:) that Perseus uses to the older form (·), the “middle dot” (στιγμὴ μέση) described on Wikipedia and used in Bywater’s Oxford Classical Text (which I have in facsimile on paper, accompanying a Turkish translation).
- Insert
- a double line break after each middle dot, low dot, or question mark;
- a single line break, enforced with backslash (\), after each comma;
- section and chapter numbers as given in the Oxford Classical Text.
- Make bold any instances of μέν and δέ.
- Read the Greek text, trying to bring out the structure as I said, with bullets and additional line breaks.
I make constant use of
- existing translations, in order to make sense of the Greek text;
- the
pandocprogram, in order to- convert the
txtfile to anhtmlfile; - clean up the
txtfile (by converting either itself or thehtmlfile to it).
- convert the
I have been referring to the chapters assigned roman numerals in Bywater’s Greek text. These chapters are used by most of the translators whom I consult (Bartlett and Collins; Crisp; Rackham; Reeve; and Ross), but Apostle uses the arabic chapters, which correspond to the roman thus:
| roman | arabic |
|---|---|
| i | 1, 2, and 3 |
| ii | 4 |
| iii | 5 |
| iv | 6 |
| v | 7, 8, and 9 (first section) |
On Translation and Meaning
Translations of Aristotle are inevitably interpretations, adding a lot of words in English in order to clarify what is only adumbrated in the original spare text. However, the added clarity may be misleading. In his Preface, Apostle writes:
The principles used in the translation of the Ethics are the same as those in the translations of the Physics and the Metaphysics, and their main function is to help the reader get Aristotle’s meaning as accurately as possible.
Is there really something that we can call “Aristotle’s meaning”? If there is, then Apostle well describes the difficulty of getting it. He does this in the Preface of his first Aristotle translation, of the Metaphysics; there, Apostle also says,
The success of a translation depends, of course, largely on the extent to which the translator understands the thought, especially in the case of Aristotle’s works, which, though condensed and difficult, are fortunately highly consistent.
Since Apostle does not seem to say otherwise, perhaps he believes he does understand Aristotle’s thought, at least as well as anybody else. However, what can serve as evidence for this understanding?
In his Ethics Preface, Apostle says,
Difficulties arise from some allied terms or terms close in meaning, e.g., the terms φαῦλος, κακός, μοχθηρός, and πονηρός, for the exact differences of their meanings are not ascertainable from the extant works. Each of these terms, however, seems to be used consistently, and we shall assume such consistency.
It is curious that Apostle thinks there are exact differences in the meanings of such words. Apostle’s glossary gives:
- φαῦλος
- bad
- κακός
- bad
- μοχθηρία
- evil habit
- πονηρός
- wicked
Apostle doesn’t include the adjective form μοχθηρός in his glossary, but does translate an occurrence of ὁ μοχθηρὸς as “evil man.” This is in § i.14 below, where I look more at the word (other translations are “wicked, corrupt,” and “depraved”).
In the Ethics at least, Aristotle would seem to be talking to ordinary people about what they ordinarily do. Ordinarily they do not speak in technical language. Therefore Aristotle should not be either. At any rate, I am not translating Aristotle myself. I need not decide whether φαῦλος, κακός, μοχθηρός, and πονηρός should be translated consistently as four different English words, whose shades of difference are not likely to match those of the Greek words.
Looking ahead to the discussion of courage, I wonder: is there any difference between this and bravery? Believing there ought to be a difference, somebody may be able to come up with one. It seems to me we are more likely to bid somebody
- “Courage!” than “Bravery!”
- “Be brave!” than “Be courageous!”
The reason would simply be syllable count.
What Aristotle Is Doing
A general theme of the first five chapters of Book III of the Ethics is that there is no excuse for shoddy behavior. If you think you’re doing your best, think again. Look at what the best people are doing, and do it yourself; don’t complain that you haven’t got their advantages.
I may be exaggerating, but I think we can see that theme in each of the five chapters in (at least) the following ways.
- There are ways that others can “make” us do stuff, but we are still the ones actually doing it (§ 6).
- Not everybody can actually make choices; but unless you are a child, you can (§ 2).
- Before choosing, you may or must deliberate, but this has to end some time (§ 16), and anyway there are many things, such as scientific truths (§ 9) and what is best for others to do (§ 6), that are not to be deliberated.
- You may act with the best intentions (§ 3), but still you should know what you are doing; after all, some people do (§ 4).
- If you want credit for your good deeds, you have to accept blame for your bad ones.
Aristotle takes evidence for his assertions from what we actually do. We occasionally give out praise and blame, prizes and punishments. We may not always do it rightly, but then we cannot always be wrong either.
The Philosopher is explicit that only madmen and fools try to deliberate everything (§ iii.2). Implicitly, it is those kinds of people who would engage in such a debate as was made into an article in Aeon (I looked at it also in “Antitheses”):
Can we be held morally responsible for our actions? Yes, says Daniel Dennett. No, says Gregg Caruso. Reader, you decide.
There’s nothing to deliberate, debate, or decide here. The fact is, we are held responsible for our actions; therefore, we can be. If this happens sometimes in error, this means in particular that it can happen correctly; otherwise the notion of error would be vacuous.
That virtue is a mean between vicious extremes was established in Book II, chapter vi. In Book III, Aristotle continues to seek the mean, so to speak, or perhaps the compromise, if not the synthesis:
- In chapter i, an act can be
- both voluntary (as means) and involuntary (as end);
- neither voluntary (because we don’t know what we are doing) nor involuntary (because we don’t care).
- In chapter iii, an object of deliberation is neither predictable (eternal) nor unpredictable (random).
- In chapter iv, what we wish for is not simply what is good or what seems good; it is good, provided we are.
Contents
- Chapter I. 27 §§, grouped as three chapters:
- Chapter 1.
- Action and passion as voluntary and involuntary (§ 1).
- The involuntary as by force or on account of ignorance (§ 2).
- Force (§§ 3–12).
- Chapter 2. Ignorance (§§ 13–9).
- Chapter 3. Desire and anger (§§ 20–7).
Those chapters, by sections:
- Chapter 1.
- Chapter 1 in Chapter I. Force.
- § 1. Key terms, most in pairs:
- Virtue concerns
- action and
- passion.
- To the
- voluntary (ἑκούσιον) comes
- praise or
- blame;
- involuntary (ἀκούσιον) may come
- forgiveness and
- pity.
- voluntary (ἑκούσιον) comes
- The legislator assigns
- honors and
- punishments.
- Virtue concerns
- § 2. The involuntary is
- by force (subject of the rest of chapter 1) or
- on account of ignorance (subject of chapter 2).
- § 3. The forced has cause outside the actor (or sufferer).
- § 4. Ambiguous case: acting
- out of fear or
- for the sake of something fine.
- § 5. Example: jettison during a storm.
- § 6. Such acts are voluntary, though not simply so.
- § 7. Indeed, for them we can be
- praised,
- blamed,
- pitied.
- § 8. They could be too bad to be forced.
- § 9.
- To weigh ends and means is hard,
- to stick to one’s conclusion is harder.
- § 10. Recap of 6 and 9.
- § 11. If what is sweet or fine were forcible, everything would be.
- § 12. Recap of 3.
- § 1. Key terms, most in pairs:
- Chapter 2 in Chapter I. Ignorance.
- § 13. What is done
- on account of ignorance is nonvoluntary (οὐχ ἑκούσιον);
- with regret, involuntary (ἀκούσιον).
- § 14. One may act
- on account of ignorance, and then be corrupt;
- merely ignorantly.
- § 15. It is the one ignorant of particulars who acts involuntarily.
- § 16. There are six particulars:
- who,
- what,
- to whom,
- with what,
- why,
- how.
- § 17. Examples of these (only the mad would be ignorant of the first).
- § 18. The ignorant of them, especially C and E, act involuntarily.
- § 19. However, they should also feel pain and regret.
- § 13. What is done
- Chapter 3 in Chapter I. Desire and anger.
- § 20. The voluntary
- originates in the actor,
- who knows what he or she is doing.
- § 21. It’s not good to say the involuntary is on account of
- anger (θυμός) or
- desire (ἐπιθυμία).
- § 22. For (1.) then animals and children would never act voluntarily.
- § 23. Moreover (2.),
- would nothing we did out of desire or anger be voluntary, or
- would
- the good act be voluntary,
- the bad act be involuntary?
- § 24. Both would be ridiculous –
- the latter, because the same person is the cause of both;
- the former, because doing what we ought would be involuntary.
- § 25. (3.) Doing
- the involuntary is painful,
- the desirable is pleasant.
- § 26. (4.) We ought [voluntarily] to avoid error, whether done according to
- reason (λογισμός) or
- anger.
- § 27. (5.) What is done from desire or anger is still human [thus voluntary].
- § 20. The voluntary
- Chapter II = Chapter 4. Choice.
- § 1. It tells us more than actions do.
- § 2. It is voluntary, but not the same as the voluntary.
- § 3. It is not
- desire,
- anger (for these two are shared with the irrational),
- wish,
- an opinion.
- § 4. (A.) The unrestrained act from desire, not choice; the restrained, otherwise.
- § 5. A desire can be opposed to a choice, but not another desire. Desire, but not choice, concerns the pleasant and painful.
- § 6. (B.) Even less is anger choice.
- § 7. (C.) The impossible, you
- can wish for, but
- cannot choose.
- § 8. Likewise, somebody else’s act.
- § 9. You
- wish for the end,
- choose the means.
- § 10. (D.) Opinion
- is too broad to be choice;
- is right or wrong, while a choice is good or bad.
- § 11. Neither is choice some opinion; for this would not make us who we are.
- § 12. We choose what to embrace or avoid, while having opinions about all.
- § 13.
- Choice is praised as right; opinion, as true.
- We choose what we know, opine about what we don’t.
- § 14. You can simultaneously
- opine what is better,
- choose what is worse.
- § 15. Opinion may nonetheless precede or accompany choice.
- § 16. The chosen is voluntary, but not conversely.
- § 17. Is choice (προαίρεσις) by prior deliberation (τὸ προβεβουλευμένον)?
- Chapter III = Chapter 5. Deliberation (βουλή).
- § 1. Is everything to be deliberated?
- § 2. We ask that about sensible people.
- § 3. Answer: No. Not the eternal, such as
- the cosmos,
- a theorem (as of the incommensurability of side and diagonal of a square).
- § 4. Nor what always moves the same way, whether by
- necessity,
- nature,
- something else.
- § 5. Nor what is always different:
- weather (droughts and rains),
- chance (striking gold).
- § 6. Nor what is best for others.
- § 7. We deliberate on what is
- on us and
- practicable,
since we have eliminated
- nature,
- necessity,
- chance.
- § 8. We deliberate what comes about
- through us,
- not always the same way.
- § 9. And not what is known scientifically.
- § 10. We deliberate about what happens
- for the most part,
- uncertainly,
- indeterminately.
We consult others on important matters.
- § 11. We deliberate not ends, but from ends to means, analytically.
- § 12. Deliberation is investigation (ζήτησις), but not conversely (the counterexample being mathematics).
- § 13. It continues to action or the impossibility thereof.
- § 14. More on what is investigated:
- instruments,
- how they are used,
- through what,
- how,
- through (or by) whom.
- § 15. Deliberation is of what is
- practicable for us,
- for the sake of some other action.
- § 16. One deliberates the means, not
- the end,
- the particulars,
- forever.
- § 17. Choice is after deliberation.
- § 18. Homer shows this.
- § 19. We desire what we choose.
- § 20. We have said roughly what choice is.
- Chapter IV = Chapter 6. Wishing.
- § 1. Wishing is for an end, said to be, respectively, something that
- is good or
- appears good.
- § 2. If A., then what mistaken people wish for is not actually desirable.
- § 3. If B., then nothing is desirable by nature.
- § 4. Mean position: As with food, so generally, what is desirable
- to the good (serious) person is good;
- to the bad (mean, common) person may not be.
- § 5. There are fine and pleasant things for each habit (hexis), but
- the good person best sees the truth;
- the hoi polloi are mislead by pleasure.
- § 6. They
- take the pleasant as if good,
- flee the painful as if bad.
- § 1. Wishing is for an end, said to be, respectively, something that
- Chapter V. 23 §§, grouped as
- Chapter 7. Vice is voluntary (§§ 1–20).
- Chapter 8. Recap: virtue, action, habit (§§ 21, 22).
- Chapter 9. Transition to courage (§ 23).
Those chapters, by sections:
- Chapter 7
- § 1. Wish being for the end, and deliberation and choice being of the means, relevant actions – such as virtues – are by choice and voluntary.
- § 2. So virtue is on us, and therefore so is vice. Reason: if we can do something, we can not do it, and vice verse.
- § 3. In particular, we can alike do or not do good or bad things.
- § 4.
- Not οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν πονηρὸς οὐδ᾽ ἄκων μακάριος –
- “None would be vile, and none would not be blest” (Rackham);
- “None is voluntarily wicked or involuntarily blessed” (Bartlett and Collins);
- but μακάριος μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄκων, ἡ δὲ μοχθηρία ἑκούσιον.
- Not οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν πονηρὸς οὐδ᾽ ἄκων μακάριος –
- § 5. Otherwise we are not the origin of our actions.
- § 6. The beginnings of our actions being in us, they are on us, that is, voluntary.
- § 7. That this is so is shown in private and public life when we
- honor or punish an act, but
- refrain when the act is not in the doer’s power.
- § 8. We can even hold people responsible for their ignorance, as when drunk or in legal matters.
- § 9. Also in negligence.
- § 10. If they are just that kind of person, they let themselves become it.
- § 11. See how people train themselves, as for contests.
- § 12. Habits arise from activities: only the insensible (“anaesthetic”) don’t know this.
- § 13. It’s irrational to think injustice and intemperance do not breed themselves. Knowingly do what will make you unjust, and you are voluntarily unjust.
- § 14. You cannot then stop being unjust, any more than you can stop an illness you willingly incurred.
- § 15. Some bodily vices are our responsibility.
- § 16. We censure those that are.
- § 17. If we all aim at what appears to be good, we are still responsible for that appearance. Otherwise, to be really good, we would have to be born that way, and virtue would be no more voluntary than vice.
- § 18. However their end is determined, both good and bad act accordingly.
- § 19. Vice then would be no less voluntary than virtue.
- § 20. Vices, like virtues, are voluntary.
- Chapter 8
- Chapter 9
- § 23. Lets talk about the virtues, courage first.
Starting [1109b]:
Chapter I
Chapter 1
§ i.1
Τῆς ἀρετῆς δὴ περὶ
- πάθη τε καὶ
- πράξεις
οὔσης, καὶ
- ἐπὶ μὲν τοῖς ἑκουσίοις
- ἐπαίνων καὶ
- ψόγων
γινομένων,
- ἐπὶ δὲ τοῖς ἀκουσίοις
- συγγνώμης,
- ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ ἐλέου,
- τὸ ἑκούσιον καὶ
- τὸ ἀκούσιον
- ἀναγκαῖον ἴσως διορίσαι
τοῖς περὶ ἀρετῆς ἐπισκοποῦσι, - χρήσιμον δὲ καὶ
τοῖς νομοθετοῦσι πρός τε- τὰς τιμὰς καὶ
- τὰς κολάσεις.
We are given the following pairs, some that we have already seen:
| τὸ πάθος, -ους | / | ἡ πρᾶξις, -εος | passion | / | action |
| ἑκών, ἑκοῦσα, ἑκόν | / | ἄκων, ἄκουσα, ἆκον | willing | / | unwilling |
| ἐπαινέω | / | ψέγω | to praise | / | to blame |
| συγγνώμων, -ον | / | ὁ ἔλεος, -ου | forgiving | / | pity |
| ἀναγκαῖος, -α, -ον | / | χρήσιμος, -η, -ον | necessary | / | useful |
| ἡ τιμή | / | ἡ κόλασις | honor | / | punishment |
Of these,
- praising or blaming;
- forgiving and pitying;
- honoring or punishing
are most immediately familiar to us. It is in the interest of doing them right that we are investigating the voluntary and involuntary, that is, the willed and unwilled.
I now look closer at some of the pairs.
- ἐπαινέω / ψέγω
-
I looked at ἐπαινέω in “Manliness.” As for ψέγω, according to Beekes,
Old words for ‘reproach, blame, revilement’ are ὄνειδος … and μέμφομαι … ψέγω seems to be a younger creation. No etymology exists … The word seems to be Pre-Greek …
- πάθος / πρᾶξις
-
It would be neat if there were an analogy,
πρᾶξις : πάθος :: ἑκών : ἄκων,
and § 3 below may give more evidence for this. However, πάθος / πρᾶξις may not correspond to the pair ποιεῖν / πάσχειν in the Categories – they are on the list of categories in chapter iv and are discussed briefly in chapter ix:
Ἐπιδέχεται δὲ
- καὶ τὸ ποιεῖν
- καὶ τὸ πάσχειν
- ἐναντιότητα
- καὶ
- τὸ μᾶλλον καὶ
- τὸ ἧττον.
Action and passion also admit contraries and greater and less.
Back in the Ethics, it’s not clear why Aristotle should mention now that virtue is concerned with passions and actions. However, see § 3 on ὁ πράττων ἢ ὁ πάσχων.
- ἑκών / ἄκων (= ἀέκων)
-
I find no English cognate of ἑκών. Neither does there seem to be any connection with ἕνεκα; however, different etymologists assign what seems to be the same Indo-European root to each of those two words.
- Beekes gives
- to ἑκών the Indo-European root *ueḱ-, but
- to ἕνεκα no root,
saying any relation between the words is “refuted by the Mycenaean form” of the latter.
- The folks at the Linguistics Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin
- give to ἕνεκα the Indo-European root *u̯ek̑- “want, wish,” but
- do not list ἑκών as having this root.
They give no English cognates.
- The LRC say
- the root of “will” and “voluntary” is *u̯el- “will, want, wish, choose,” and
- this in Greek is the root of ἐλπίς.
That is what was left in the jar at the house of Epimetheus after Pandora raised the lid, according to Hesiod in the Works and Days (line 96).
- Under ἔλπομαι, Beekes gives the root as *uelp- “expect.”
Briefly then, etymology here is not “settled science.”
Neither is any proper science. In “How Einstein Shattered the Myth of ‘Settled Science’” (Psychology Today, February 20, 2023), one Al Pittampalli writes,
… along with demonstrating that we can’t have settled science, the Einsteinian revolution showed that we don’t need settled science.
… It’s not science that is unsettled that is risky, unreliable, and insecure, but rather knowledge that is untested.
I have a disagreement with how Pittampalli continues:
Before modern science, knowledge-seekers frequently fooled themselves into thinking that their fatuous theories were true, even as they had little basis in reality. Some ancient societies, for instance, believed that human sacrifices could ward off natural disasters.
I would suggest that Pittampalli has fooled himself into believing what he says: that human sacrifice is based on a theory of the natural world that arises in a search for knowledge. On the contrary, it is not based on such a theory, any more than most of our habits are. See the discussion in “To Be Civilized” based on Collingwood’s observations of Javanese agriculture.
In terms of the present reading, human sacrifice may be a choice (chapter ii), made after deliberation (chapter iii).
We are investigating the adjectives ἑκών and ἄκων and what they denote, which is willingness and unwillingness. If we arrive at a “theory” of what is voluntary or not, this will not be a theory in the sense of modern science, or at least of modern physics; for, this science does not recognize our distinction in the first place. Nothing in the natural world is voluntary.
I don’t know to what extent anthropology treats us as belonging to the natural world in this way. There is a belief in “settled science” among the anthropologists who wrote on September 29, 2023,
We are writing in support of the American Anthropological Association’s decision to withdraw the “Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby” session from the Annual Meeting. The session itself makes a number of claims that are counter to much of the settled science within biological anthropology and evolutionary biology more generally, throwing vague insults at the concept of “gender” without defining it in a meaningful way.
I had followed one of the three writers by accident on Bluesky, because her name resembled that of Kate Clanchy. She posted on having collaborated on the “Letter of Support for AAA’s Withdrawal of Session from the Annual Meeting,” which I have just quoted; it includes also such statements as,
People are born with non-binary genitalia every day – we tend to call people who fall into this group intersex. People are born with sex chromosomes that are not XX or XY but X, XXY, XXXY and more, every day. The same is true with gonads.
I asked this anthropologist,
Sorry, I’m just a mathematician, but as far as I know, every human being is conceived by an egg from a female and a sperm from a male. Is this no longer considered true?
Her response was
- to delete her own post (and this caused the deletion of mine);
- to block me from seeing her other posts.
One of the other writers of the “Letter of Support” came to my attention when his editorial in Science (21 May 2021), called “‘The Descent of Man,’ 150 years on,” was sent me by a friend. Agustín Fuentes writes concerning Darwin’s work,
Some conclusions were innovative and insightful. His recognition that differences between humans and other animals were of degree, not of kind, was trailblazing. His focus on cooperation, social learning, and cumulative culture remains core to human evolutionary studies. However, some of Darwin’s other assertions were dismally, and dangerously, wrong. “Descent” is a text from which to learn, but not to venerate.
That last sentence would seem to be true of all texts; or is there a text that Fuentes does venerate? Meanwhile, what has Fuentes learned from the one called The Descent of Man? He says Darwin’s
… adamant assertions about the centrality of male agency and the passivity of the female in evolutionary processes, for humans and across the animal world, resonate with both Victorian and contemporary misogyny.
… Darwin was a perceptive scientist whose views on race and sex should have been more influenced by data and his own lived experience. But Darwin’s racist and sexist beliefs, echoing the views of scientific colleagues and his society, were powerful mediators of his perception of reality.
I wonder whether Fuentes agrees with a thesis considered by Mary Midgley:
scientists ought to be so impartial that they either do not have anything so unprofessional as a world-picture at all, or, if they have one, do not let it affect their work.
Midgley disagrees with that thesis in Evolution as a Religion – where, in a way Fuentes might agree with, she also objects to some conclusions drawn from Darwin, such as the following, attributed to “the sociobiologist M. T. Ghiselin”:
The evolution of society fits the Darwinian paradigm in its most individualistic form. The economy of nature is competitive from beginning to end … No hint of genuine charity ameliorates our vision of society, once sentimentalism has been laid aside. What passes for cooperation turns out to be a mixture of opportunism and exploitation.
According to Midgley, Ghiselin is wrong both in his facts and in his “world-picture.” I think Midgley means something like the following, which I would say for myself anyway:
- Genuine charity does exist, since otherwise we would have no conception of it. If you had never seen water, you could never mistake a mirage for it.
- If you won’t recognize cooperation when it happens, you are working with a world-picture that doesn’t allow it.
Merely having a world-picture is not the problem:
An enquirer with no such general map would only be an obsessive – someone who had a special motive for collecting facts indiscriminately … Merely to pile up information indiscriminately is an idiot’s task.
Good scientists do not approximate to that ideal at all. They tend to have a very strong guiding imaginative system … they do their best work not by being neutral but by having strong preferences, being aware of them, criticizing them carefully, expressing them plainly and then leaving their readers to decide how far to share them.
Fuentes said Darwin could be “dangerously wrong.” Midgley refers to danger too, but then explains what she means:
Facts will never appear to us as brute and meaningless; they will always organize themselves into some sort of story, some drama. These dramas can indeed be dangerous. They can distort our theories, and they have distorted the theory of evolution perhaps more than any other. The only way in which we can control this kind of distortion is, I believe, to bring the dramas themselves out into the open, to give them our full attention, understand them better and see what part, if any, each of them ought to play both in theory and in life.
In “Biological Science Rejects the Sex Binary, and That’s Good for Humanity” (Sapiens, May 11, 2022), Fuentes writes:
Most 19th- and 20th-century evolutionary theories (and theorists) asserted that evolution created two kinds of creatures – male and female – and individuals’ behavior and nature reflected this biological binary.
Today … In the political and legal realms, the belief that biology creates two types of humans is invoked in a range of attempts to mandate and enforce how humans should behave.
These assertions and beliefs are wrong.
I think either one of us is seriously misinformed or confused, or else Fuentes is simply lying. He does back up the following statement:
Starting at the most basic level of animal biology, there are multitudes of ways to be female or male or both.
However, this would seem to presume that there is a binary distinction between male and female in the first place. Fuentes says,
Sex, biologically, is not simply defined or uniformly enacted.
Sex is not “uniformly enacted,” sure. But nowhere does Fuentes betray any awareness – even for the sake of rejecting it – of the simple definition of sex whereby
- males produce many, small, motile gametes;
- females produce few, large, immotile gametes.
Fuentes has a world-picture that is cheered by what he describes as
massive evidence that the genus Homo (humans) evolved complex cooperative caretaking more than a million years ago, changing the patterns and pressures of our evolution.
Yes, and throughout those million years, the organisms in question had gonads that were either ovulating or seminiferous – or possibly neither, but then their genes weren’t passed on. I cannot see how it helps to deny this. In closing his essay, Fuentes says,
… instead of listening to people who are misogynistic, sexist, or homo/transphobic; incels; or politicians who base their ideologies on a biological sex binary and myths about its evolution, we can and should be open to a serious understanding of biology and its better options for human flourishing.
I should think that, for the sake of this “serious understanding,” the proper scientist would be open to listening to anybody who speaks seriously on matters of interest. Perhaps however Fuentes supports what Agnes Callard calls “messaging culture”:
What makes speech truly free is the possibility of disagreement without enmity, and this is less a matter of what we can say, than how we can say it. “Cancel culture” is merely the logical extension of what we might call “messaging culture,” in which every speech act is classified as friend or foe, in which literal content can barely be communicated, and in which very little faith exists as to the rational faculties of those being spoken to. In such a context, even the cry for “free speech” invites a nonliteral interpretation, as being nothing but the most efficient way for its advocates to acquire or consolidate power.
That “nonliteral interpretation” of free speech sounds like the interpretation of evolution by Ghiselin that Midgley decried:
What passes for cooperation turns out to be a mixture of opportunism and exploitation.
Does Fuentes then share the world-picture that produces such a claim, or not?
We are back at our main subject, because Callard’s essay is “Should We Cancel Aristotle?” (New York Times, July 21, 2020). I looked at this also in “Map of Art.”
- Beekes gives
§ i.2
δοκεῖ δὴ ἀκούσια εἶναι τὰ
- βίᾳ ἢ
- δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν
γινόμενα·
[1110a]
There are two ways to do something involuntarily:
- By force – the subject of the remainder of chapter 1.
- On account of ignorance – the subject of chapter 2.
§ i.3
βίαιον δὲ οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἔξωθεν,
τοιαύτη οὖσα ἐν ᾗ μηδὲν συμβάλλεται
- ὁ πράττων ἢ
- ὁ πάσχων,
οἷον εἰ
- πνεῦμα
κομίσαι ποι ἢ
- ἄνθρωποι κύριοι ὄντες.
In writing ὁ πράττων ἢ ὁ πάσχων, does Aristotle mean to refer to
- two different occasions?
- one, considered in two ways?
Translators go both ways.
-
Bartlett and Collins:
That which is forced is something whose origin is external, since it is the sort of thing to which the person who is acting or undergoing something contributes nothing.
-
Rackham:
an act is compulsory when its origin is from without, being of such a nature that the agent, who is really passive, contributes nothing to it.
The first examples of being forced or compelled are physical: one’s body can be carried away, by a wind or a person.
§ i.4
ὅσα δὲ
- διὰ φόβον μειζόνων κακῶν πράττεται ἢ
- διὰ καλόν τι,
οἷον εἰ τύραννος προστάττοι αἰσχρόν τι πρᾶξαι
κύριος ὢν
- γονέων καὶ
- τέκνων,
καὶ
- πράξαντος μὲν σῴζοιντο
- μὴ πράξαντος δ᾽ ἀποθνήσκοιεν,
ἀμφισβήτησιν ἔχει πότερον
- ἀκούσιά ἐστιν ἢ
- ἑκούσια.
- ἀμφισβήτησις “dispute”;
- ἀμφισβητέω “stand apart, disagree”; from
- βαίνω “walk; (in perfect) stand”
An example of force is given by John Donne, who in “Womans constancy” suggests that his lover might leave him with the excuse that the two of them are now different persons,
Or, that oathes made in reverentiall feare
Of Love, and his wrath, any may forſweare.
See the whole poem in “Donne’s Undertaking.”
§ i.5
τοιοῦτον δέ τι συμβαίνει καὶ
περὶ τὰς ἐν τοῖς χειμῶσιν ἐκβολάς·
- ἁπλῶς μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἀποβάλλεται ἑκών,
- ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ δ᾽
- αὑτοῦ καὶ
- τῶν λοιπῶν
ἅπαντες οἱ νοῦν ἔχοντες.
Now the subject is what we would seem to do, albeit for the sake of some other end, which is
- alleviation of fear or
- achievement of something fine.
§ i.6
- μικταὶ μὲν οὖν εἰσιν αἱ τοιαῦται πράξεις,
- ἐοίκασι δὲ μᾶλλον ἑκουσίοις·
- αἱρεταὶ γάρ εἰσι τότε
ὅτε πράττονται, - τὸ δὲ τέλος τῆς πράξεως
κατὰ τὸν καιρόν ἐστιν.
- αἱρεταὶ γάρ εἰσι τότε
καὶ
- τὸ ἑκούσιον δὴ καὶ
- τὸ ἀκούσιον,
ὅτε πράττει,
λεκτέον.
πράττει δὲ ἑκών·
καὶ γὰρ ἡ ἀρχὴ τοῦ κινεῖν τὰ ὀργανικὰ μέρη
ἐν ταῖς τοιαύταις πράξεσιν
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐστίν·
ὧν δ᾽ ἐν αὐτῷ ἡ ἀρχή,
ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ
- καὶ τὸ πράττειν
- καὶ μή.
- ἑκούσια δὴ τὰ τοιαῦτα,
- ἁπλῶς δ᾽ ἴσως ἀκούσια·
οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἂν ἕλοιτο καθ᾽ αὑτὸ τῶν τοιούτων οὐδέν.
Tentative conclusion: We can will something quâ means without willing it quâ end; or we can will bad means to a good end.
§ i.7
- ἐπὶ ταῖς πράξεσι δὲ ταῖς τοιαύταις ἐνίοτε καὶ
ἐπαινοῦνται,
ὅταν- αἰσχρόν τι ἢ
- λυπηρὸν
ὑπομένωσιν ἀντὶ
- μεγάλων καὶ
- καλῶν·
- ἂν δ᾽ ἀνάπαλιν,
ψέγονται·
τὰ γὰρ αἴσχισθ᾽ ὑπομεῖναι ἐπὶ μηδενὶ- καλῷ ἢ
- μετρίῳ
φαύλου.
- ἐπ᾽ ἐνίοις δ᾽
- ἔπαινος μὲν οὐ
γίνεται,- συγγνώμη δ᾽,
ὅταν διὰ τοιαῦτα πράξῃ τις
- ἃ μὴ δεῖ,
- ἃ
- τὴν ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν ὑπερτείνει καὶ
- μηδεὶς ἂν ὑπομείναι.
Evidence for that conclusion is that we can be praised, blamed, or pitied for doing something bad for a good end (or some end).
§ i.8
ἔνια δ᾽ ἴσως οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναγκασθῆναι,
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἀποθανετέον
παθόντι τὰ δεινότατα·
καὶ γὰρ τὸν Εὐριπίδου Ἀλκμαίωνα γελοῖα φαίνεται
τὰ ἀναγκάσαντα μητροκτονῆσαι.
Some acts are so bad that they can be willed,
- never as means,
- only as ends.
Thus they cannot be necessitated or forced.
§ i.9
ἔστι δὲ
- χαλεπὸν ἐνίοτε διακρῖναι
- ποῖον ἀντὶ ποίου αἱρετέον καὶ
- τί ἀντὶ τίνος ὑπομενετέον,
- ἔτι δὲ χαλεπώτερον
ἐμμεῖναι τοῖς γνωσθεῖσιν·
ὡς γὰρ ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ ἐστι
- τὰ μὲν προσδοκώμενα λυπηρά,
- ἃ δ᾽ ἀναγκάζονται αἰσχρά,
ὅθεν
- ἔπαινοι καὶ
- ψόγοι
γίνονται περὶ τοὺς
- ἀναγκασθέντας ἢ
- μή. [1110b]
There is hardness or difficulty in
- doing some things,
- deciding to do them,
- sticking to the decision.
§ i.10
τὰ δὴ ποῖα φατέον βίαια; ἢ
-
ἁπλῶς μέν, ὁπότ᾽ ἂν
- ἡ αἰτία ἐν τοῖς ἐκτὸς ᾖ καὶ
- ὁ πράττων μηδὲν συμβάλληται;
-
ἃ δὲ
- καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μὲν ἀκούσιά ἐστι,
- νῦν δὲ καὶ ἀντὶ τῶνδε αἱρετά, καὶ
ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν τῷ πράττοντι,
- καθ᾽ αὑτὰ μὲν ἀκούσιά ἐστι,
- νῦν δὲ καὶ ἀντὶ τῶνδε ἑκούσια.
μᾶλλον δ᾽ ἔοικεν ἑκουσίοις·
αἱ γὰρ πράξεις
ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστα,
ταῦτα δ᾽ ἑκούσια.
ποῖα δ᾽ ἀντὶ ποίων αἱρετέον,
οὐ ῥᾴδιον ἀποδοῦναι·
πολλαὶ γὰρ διαφοραί εἰσιν
ἐν τοῖς καθ᾽ ἕκαστα.
I think we are repeating what we said in §§ 6 and 9.
§ i.11
εἰ δέ τις
- τὰ ἡδέα καὶ
- τὰ καλὰ
φαίη βίαια εἶναι
(ἀναγκάζειν γὰρ ἔξω ὄντα),
πάντα ἂν εἴη αὐτῷ βίαια·
τούτων γὰρ χάριν
πάντες πάντα πράττουσιν.
καὶ
- οἱ μὲν βίᾳ καὶ ἄκοντες λυπηρῶς,
- οἱ δὲ διὰ τὸ ἡδὺ καὶ καλὸν μεθ᾽ ἡδονῆς·
γελοῖον δὲ τὸ αἰτιᾶσθαι
- τὰ ἐκτός, ἀλλὰ
- μὴ αὑτὸν
εὐθήρατον ὄντα
ὑπὸ τῶν τοιούτων, καὶ
- τῶν μὲν καλῶν ἑαυτόν,
- τῶν δ᾽ αἰσχρῶν τὰ ἡδέα.
We may be dealing with the puzzle that, the better you know the world, the more your hand is forced.
However, we are starting on a simpler level, as with the person who can resist everything but temptation.
§ i.12
ἔοικε δὴ τὸ βίαιον εἶναι
οὗ ἔξωθεν ἡ ἀρχή,
μηδὲν συμβαλλομένου τοῦ βιασθέντος.
Chapter 2
§ i.13
τὸ δὲ δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν
- οὐχ ἑκούσιον μὲν ἅπαν ἐστίν,
- ἀκούσιον δὲ τὸ
- ἐπίλυπον καὶ
- ἐν μεταμελείᾳ·
ὁ γὰρ δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν πράξας ὁτιοῦν,
μηδέν τι δυσχεραίνων ἐπὶ τῇ πράξει,
- ἑκὼν μὲν οὐ πέπραχεν,
ὅ γε μὴ ᾔδει, - οὐδ᾽ αὖ ἄκων,
μὴ λυπούμενός γε.
τοῦ δὴ δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν
- ὁ μὲν ἐν μεταμελείᾳ ἄκων δοκεῖ,
- ὁ δὲ μὴ μεταμελόμενος,
ἐπεὶ ἕτερος,
ἔστω οὐχ ἑκών·
ἐπεὶ γὰρ διαφέρει,
βέλτιον ὄνομα ἔχειν ἴδιον.
The noun μεταμέλεια is from the verb μεταμέλομαι “repent, regret,” compounded from the verb μέλω “be an object of care.” In this text (chapters III.i-v), the compounds are used only
- the three times in this section,
- once more in § i.19 (still in chapter 2).
The verb δυσχεραίνω “be unable to endure” is from the adjective δυσχερής “hard to take in hand,” compounded from the noun χείρ “hand.”
At the beginning of the §, the three terms
- ἑκούσιον (voluntary),
- οὐχ ἑκούσιον (nonvoluntary), and
- ἀκούσιον (involuntary, or for Reeve “contra-voluntary”)
are like
- white,
- not white, and
- black
as used by Collingwood in § 97 of Chapter XXX, called “War as the Breakdown of Policy,” of The New Leviathan (1942):
Peace and war are not contradictories like white and not white; they are contraries like white and black. Now dialectic is not between contraries, it is between contradictories … There is no dialectic, therefore, between peace and war.
As far as I know now, the terminology goes back to Chapter VII of De Interpretatione, where Aristotle says that, to the proposition “Every man is white” (πᾶς ἄνθροπος λευκός),
- “No man is white” (οὐδεὶς ἄνθροπος λευκός) is contrary (ἐναντίος);
- “Not every man is white” (οὐ πᾶς ἄνθροπος λευκός) is contradictorily (ἀντιφατικῶς) opposed.
Aristotle doesn’t seem to use the adjective form ἀντιφατικός “contradictory.”
At the end of the present paragraph, Aristotle seems to reserve nonvoluntary for that which is neither voluntary nor involuntary. This agrees with the “conversational implicature” whereby, since initially “involuntary” is stronger than “nonvoluntary,” you wouldn’t use the latter unless the former did not apply.
§ i.14
ἕτερον δ᾽ ἔοικε καὶ
- τὸ δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν πράττειν
- τοῦ ἀγνοοῦντα·
ὁ γὰρ
- μεθύων ἢ
- ὀργιζόμενος
οὐ δοκεῖ
- δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν
πράττειν
ἀλλὰ
- διά τι τῶν εἰρημένων,
- οὐκ εἰδὼς δὲ
- ἀλλ᾽ ἀγνοῶν.
-
ἀγνοεῖ μὲν οὖν πᾶς ὁ μοχθηρὸς
- ἃ δεῖ πράττειν καὶ
- ὧν ἀφεκτέον,
καὶ διὰ τὴν τοιαύτην ἁμαρτίαν
- ἄδικοι καὶ
- ὅλως κακοὶ
γίνονται·
The adjective μοχθηρός “suffering hardship, miserable” is from the verb μοχθέω “to be worn with toil” and is perhaps a new synonym for ἀέθλιος as used in Book I; however, “wicked” (Rackham), “corrupt” (Bartlett and Collins) and “depraved” (Reeve) are also translations.
As for the distinction that Aristotle is making, between doing something
- δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν “on account of ignorance” and
- ἀγνοῶν “being ignorant” (some say “in ignorance”),
recall from the commentary on Book I the quotation of Smyth, “διά with accus. is used of a person, thing, or state beyond our control.” I’m not actually sure this clears things up. The point seems to be that ignorant acts may be performed by a person who is not ignorant generally, but is momentarily incapacitated, as by drink or anger.
The second part of the section continues the thought of the first, while being contrasted with the next section. Being ignorant in a thoroughgoing way, the corrupt person does act on account of ignorance. However, ignorance here is ἁμαρτία “error,” from ἁμαρτάνω “miss the mark.” (“The word has no known cognates,” according to Beekes, who nonetheless judges it to be Indo-European.)
§ i.15
- τὸ δ᾽ ἀκούσιον βούλεται λέγεσθαι
οὐκ εἴ τις ἀγνοεῖ τὰ συμφέροντα·- οὐ γὰρ ἡ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει ἄγνοια
αἰτία τοῦ ἀκουσίου
ἀλλὰ τῆς μοχθηρίας, - οὐδ᾽ ἡ καθόλου
(ψέγονται γὰρ διά γε ταύτην) - ἀλλ᾽ ἡ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα,
- ἐν οἷς καὶ
- περὶ ἃ
ἡ πρᾶξις· [1111a]
ἐν τούτοις γὰρ- καὶ ἔλεος
- καὶ συγγνώμη·
ὁ γὰρ τούτων τι ἀγνοῶν ἀκουσίως πράττει.
- οὐ γὰρ ἡ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει ἄγνοια
The notion of προαιρέσις was introduced in Book II, chapter iv, § 3.
There are four kinds of things to be ignorant of, but the first two are connected, if not the same:
- τὰ συμφέροντα, the useful things, from συμφέρω “bring together,” hence “be useful.”
- τὰ ἐν τῇ προαιρέσει, the things rationally chosen.
- τὰ καθόλου, the universals.
- τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, the particulars.
If you are ignorant of
- the first two, you are corrupt;
- universal principles, you are blamed (perhaps for not being brought up right?);
- the particulars of your act, you are
- pitied (by others) and
- repentant (of yourself),
because you have indeed acted involuntarily.
Next, we enumerate the particulars.
§ i.16
ἴσως οὖν οὐ χεῖρον διορίσαι αὐτά,
- τίνα καὶ
- πόσα ἐστί,
- τίς τε δὴ καὶ
- τί καὶ
-
- περὶ τί ἢ
- ἐν τίνι
πράττει,
ἐνίοτε δὲ καὶ
- τίνι,
οἷον ὀργάνῳ, καὶ - ἕνεκα τίνος,
οἷον σωτηρίας, καὶ - πῶς,
οἷον ἠρέμα ἢ σφόδρα.
We would seem to be enumerating τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, the particulars of the previous §. In correlation with the examples in the next section, I follow Rackham in numbering these particulars (his terms are in parentheses):
- who (agent),
- what (act),
- to whom or what (thing affected, or sphere of the act),
- with what (instrument),
- why (effect),
- how (manner).
Thus there would seem to be six particulars. Reeve counts seven, but 3A and 3B above are for him 3 and 4, so that 3 below is for him 3–4. Note that περὶ τί ἢ ἐν τίνι will come back in the plural in § 18.
§ i.17
- ἅπαντα μὲν οὖν ταῦτα
οὐδεὶς ἂν ἀγνοήσειε
μὴ μαινόμενος,
δῆλον δ᾽ ὡς οὐδὲ τὸν πράττοντα·
πῶς γὰρ ἑαυτόν γε;
μαίνομαι “be mad.”
-
ὃ δὲ πράττει ἀγνοήσειεν ἄν τις,
οἷον- †λέγοντές φασιν ἐκπεσεῖν αὐτούς,† ἢ
- οὐκ εἰδέναι ὅτι ἀπόρρητα ἦν,
ὥσπερ Αἰσχύλος τὰ μυστικά, ἢ - δεῖξαι βουλόμενος ἀφεῖναι,
ὡς ὁ τὸν καταπέλτην.
- οἰηθείη δ᾽ ἄν τις
- καὶ τὸν υἱὸν πολέμιον εἶναι
ὥσπερ ἡ Μερόπη,
- καὶ τὸν υἱὸν πολέμιον εἶναι
- καὶ
- ἐσφαιρῶσθαι τὸ λελογχωμένον δόρυ, ἢ
- τὸν λίθον κίσηριν εἶναι·
- καὶ ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ πίσας ἀποκτείναι ἄν·
- καὶ θῖξαι βουλόμενος,
ὥσπερ οἱ ἀκροχειριζόμενοι,
πατάξειεν ἄν.
§ i.18
περὶ πάντα δὴ ταῦτα τῆς ἀγνοίας οὔσης,
ἐν οἷς ἡ πρᾶξις,
ὁ τούτων τι ἀγνοήσας
ἄκων δοκεῖ πεπραχέναι,
καὶ μάλιστα ἐν τοῖς κυριωτάτοις·
κυριώτατα δ᾽ εἶναι δοκεῖ
- ἐν οἷς ἡ πρᾶξις καὶ
- οὗ ἕνεκα.
Of the two uses of ἐν οἷς “in which” here,
- the first (being part of περὶ πάντα ταῦτα ἐν οἷς “concerning all these in which”) seems to refer to all six particulars;
- the second, to the third particular (περὶ τί ἢ ἐν τίνι), because
- it shouldn’t refer to all again, since the point is to name which of all of them are the most important;
- it resembles the third particular, except for being plural;
- the next-named particular uses ἕνεκα like the fifth (this is evidence that Aristotle does indeed mean to allude to the list of six particulars).
This explains my labelling of the list of the two most important particulars. I have chosen the numbers of the chief components on grammatical grounds, but Rackham takes the first to be “the nature of the act itself,” which seems like 2, the “what” (for him, “the act”). He has a note in § 16, pointing to lines of column 1111a (the §§ are 15, 18, 18, 20):
ἐν τίνι seems to bear a more limited sense than ἐν οἷς ll. 1, 16, 19, 24, which covers the circumstances of all sorts.
§ i.19
τοῦ δὴ κατὰ τὴν τοιαύτην ἄγνοιαν ἀκουσίου λεγομένου
ἔτι
δεῖ τὴν πρᾶξιν
- λυπηρὰν εἶναι καὶ
- ἐν μεταμελείᾳ.
After all of the discussion of ways to be ignorant, the criterion or differentia of being involuntary (and not just non-voluntary) is pain and regret.
Chapter 3
§ i.20
ὄντος δ᾽ ἀκουσίου τοῦ βίᾳ καὶ δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν,
τὸ ἑκούσιον δόξειεν ἂν εἶναι
- οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐν αὐτῷ
- εἰδότι
τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα
ἐν οἷς ἡ πρᾶξις.
There’s a double condition for an act to be voluntary:
- It originates in the actor (otherwise it might be nonvoluntary),
- who knows what she or he is doing (otherwise the act would be involuntary).
§ i.21
ἴσως γὰρ
οὐ καλῶς λέγεται ἀκούσια εἶναι
τὰ διὰ
- θυμὸν ἢ
- ἐπιθυμίαν.
Here are the nonrational parts of the soul, according to Socrates, though not Aristotle in I.xiii.
- θυμός has been mentioned only once before, in Book II (iii.10), as being not so hard to fight as ἡδονῇ, though Heraclitus says it’s hard;
- ἐπιθυμία was first on the list of passions (πάθη), also in Book II (v.2).
One may translate θυμός as “spirit” (Crisp) or “spiritedness” (Bartlett and Collins), but perhaps an angry spirit should be understood. Is there really any other kind? The Concise Oxford Dictionary (6th edition, 1976) gives one meaning of “spirit” as that of “high spirit,” namely “courage, self-assertion, vivacity, energy, dash”; but I think we want to understand spirit as that which may exhibit the virtue of courage. I also recall the Fawlty Towers episode “The Builders,” in which Sybil says of O’Reilly,
He’s shoddy, he doesn’t care, he’s a liar, he’s incompetent, he’s lazy, he’s nothing but a half-witted thick Irish joke!!!
Reilly explains his smiling by saying,
Well, to be perfectly honest, Mrs Fawlty, I like a woman with spirit.
Aristotle will be more explicit about getting angry in § 24.
§ i.22
πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ
- οὐδὲν ἔτι τῶν ἄλλων ζῴων
ἑκουσίως πράξει, - οὐδ᾽ οἱ παῖδες·
We think animals and children are capable of voluntary action, even if not reason. Thus is not the case that no act from desire or anger is voluntary.
§ i.23
εἶτα
- πότερον οὐδὲν ἑκουσίως
πράττομεν τῶν δι᾽- ἐπιθυμίαν καὶ
- θυμόν,
- ἢ
- τὰ καλὰ μὲν ἑκουσίως
- τὰ δ᾽ αἰσχρὰ ἀκουσίως;
Neither does it make sense to say that precisely the good (fine, virtuous, praiseworthy) acts from desire or anger are voluntary. The point may be that the acts are judged from the outside, but the voluntary is from the inside.
§ i.24
- ἢ γελοῖον
ἑνός γε αἰτίου ὄντος; - ἄτοπον δὲ ἴσως
ἀκούσια φάναι
ὧν δεῖ ὀρέγεσθαι·
δεῖ δὲ-
καὶ ὀργίζεσθαι ἐπί τισι
-
καὶ ἐπιθυμεῖν τινῶν,
οἷον- ὑγιείας καὶ
- μαθήσεως.
-
§ i.25
δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ
- τὰ μὲν ἀκούσια λυπηρὰ εἶναι,
- τὰ δὲ κατ᾽ ἐπιθυμίαν ἡδέα.
§ i.26
ἔτι δὲ τί διαφέρει τῷ ἀκούσια εἶναι τὰ κατὰ
- λογισμὸν ἢ
- θυμὸν
ἁμαρτηθέντα;
φευκτὰ μὲν γὰρ ἄμφω, [1111b]
§ i.27
δοκεῖ δὲ οὐχ ἧττον ἀνθρωπικὰ εἶναι
τὰ ἄλογα πάθη,
ὥστε καὶ αἱ πράξεις τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
αἱ ἀπὸ
- θυμοῦ καὶ
- ἐπιθυμίας.
ἄτοπον δὴ τὸ τιθέναι ἀκούσια ταῦτα.
Chapter II
Chapter 4
§ ii.1
διωρισμένων δὲ
- τοῦ τε ἑκουσίου καὶ
- τοῦ ἀκουσίου,
περὶ προαιρέσεως ἕπεται διελθεῖν·
- οἰκειότατον γὰρ εἶναι δοκεῖ τῇ ἀρετῇ καὶ
- μᾶλλον τὰ ἤθη κρίνειν
τῶν πράξεων.
We saw προαίρεσις above in i.15.
Translations of ἡ προαίρεσις include
- choice (Ross; Bartlett and Collins),
- choice or preference (Rackham)
- intention or deliberate choice (Apostle),
- rational choice (Crisp),
- deliberate choice (Reeve).
§ ii.2
ἡ προαίρεσις δὴ
- ἑκούσιον μὲν φαίνεται,
- οὐ ταὐτὸν δέ,
ἀλλ᾽ ἐπὶ πλέον τὸ ἑκούσιον·
- τοῦ μὲν γὰρ ἑκουσίου
- καὶ παῖδες
- καὶ τἆλλα ζῷα
κοινωνεῖ,
- προαιρέσεως δ᾽ οὔ,
καὶ τὰ
- ἐξαίφνης ἑκούσια μὲν λέγομεν,
- κατὰ προαίρεσιν δ᾽ οὔ.
ἐξαίφνης “suddenly.”
§ ii.3
οἱ δὲ λέγοντες αὐτὴν
- ἐπιθυμίαν ἢ
- θυμὸν ἢ
- βούλησιν ἤ
- τινα δόξαν
οὐκ ἐοίκασιν ὀρθῶς λέγειν.
-
οὐ γὰρ κοινὸν ἡ προαίρεσις καὶ τῶν ἀλόγων,
-
- ἐπιθυμία δὲ καὶ
- θυμός.
§ ii.4
-
καὶ
- ὁ ἀκρατὴς
- ἐπιθυμῶν μὲν πράττει,
- προαιρούμενος δ᾽ οὔ·
- ὁ ἐγκρατὴς δ᾽ ἀνάπαλιν
- προαιρούμενος μέν,
- ἐπιθυμῶν δ᾽ οὔ.
- ὁ ἀκρατὴς
§ ii.5
καὶ
- προαιρέσει μὲν ἐπιθυμία ἐναντιοῦται,
- ἐπιθυμία δ᾽ ἐπιθυμίᾳ οὔ.
καὶ
- ἡ μὲν ἐπιθυμία
- ἡδέος καὶ
- ἐπιλύπου,
- ἡ προαίρεσις δ᾽
- οὔτε λυπηροῦ
- οὔθ᾽ ἡδέος.
§ ii.6
-
θυμὸς δ᾽ ἔτι ἧττον·
ἥκιστα γὰρ τὰ διὰ θυμὸν κατὰ προαίρεσιν εἶναι δοκεῖ.
§ ii.7
-
ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ βούλησίς γε,
καίπερ σύνεγγυς φαινόμενον·- προαίρεσις μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἀδυνάτων,
καὶ εἴ τις φαίη προαιρεῖσθαι,
δοκοίη ἂν ἠλίθιος εἶναι· - βούλησις δ᾽ ἐστὶ καὶ τῶν ἀδυνάτων,
οἷον ἀθανασίας.
- προαίρεσις μὲν γὰρ οὐκ ἔστι τῶν ἀδυνάτων,
ἠλίθιος “idle, vain.” One who is so – the fool – comes back in § iii.2 as somebody whose deliberations are discounted.
§ ii.8
καὶ
- ἡ μὲν βούλησίς ἐστι καὶ
περὶ τὰ μηδαμῶς δι᾽ αὑτοῦ πραχθέντα ἄν,
οἷον ὑποκριτήν τινα νικᾶν ἢ ἀθλητήν· - προαιρεῖται δὲ τὰ τοιαῦτα οὐδείς,
ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα οἴεται γενέσθαι ἂν δι᾽ αὑτοῦ.
§ ii.9
ἔτι δ᾽
- ἡ μὲν βούλησις τοῦ τέλους ἐστὶ μᾶλλον,
- ἡ δὲ προαίρεσις τῶν πρὸς τὸ τέλος,
οἷον
- ὑγιαίνειν βουλόμεθα,
- προαιρούμεθα δὲ δι᾽ ὧν ὑγιανοῦμεν,
καὶ
- εὐδαιμονεῖν βουλόμεθα μὲν καὶ φαμέν,
- προαιρούμεθα δὲ λέγειν οὐχ ἁρμόζει·
ὅλως γὰρ ἔοικεν ἡ προαίρεσις περὶ τὰ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν εἶναι.
This is the first of
- two uses of πρὸς τὸ τέλος “means [to the end]” – the other, in § v.1, will say that deliberation too (as well as choice) is of the means – πρὸς τὰ τέλη is used likewise in §§ iii.11, 16, and 20, to say respectively that deliberation, deliberation, and choice are of the means;
- many uses of ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν, which will perhaps be distinguished from ἐν ἡμῖν in § v.6.
§ ii.10
-
οὐδὲ δὴ δόξα ἂν εἴη·
- ἡ μὲν γὰρ δόξα δοκεῖ περὶ πάντα εἶναι, καὶ
- οὐδὲν ἧττον περὶ
- τὰ ἀίδια καὶ
- τὰ ἀδύνατα
- ἢ
- τὰ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν·
καὶ
- τῷ
- ψευδεῖ καὶ
- ἀληθεῖ
διαιρεῖται,
- οὐ τῷ
- κακῷ καὶ
- ἀγαθῷ,
- οὐδὲν ἧττον περὶ
- ἡ προαίρεσις δὲ τούτοις μᾶλλον. [1112a]
- ἡ μὲν γὰρ δόξα δοκεῖ περὶ πάντα εἶναι, καὶ
§ ii.11
- ὅλως μὲν οὖν δόξῃ
ταὐτὸν ἴσως οὐδὲ λέγει οὐδείς. - ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ τινί·
- τῷ γὰρ προαιρεῖσθαι
- τἀγαθὰ ἢ
- τὰ κακὰ
ποιοί τινές ἐσμεν,
- τῷ δὲ δοξάζειν οὔ.
§ ii.12
καὶ
- προαιρούμεθα μὲν
- λαβεῖν ἢ
- φυγεῖν ἤ
- τι τῶν τοιούτων,
- δοξάζομεν δὲ
- τί ἐστιν ἢ
- τίνι συμφέρει ἢ
- πῶς·
- λαβεῖν δ᾽ ἢ
- φυγεῖν
οὐ πάνυ δοξάζομεν.
§ ii.13
καὶ
- ἡ μὲν προαίρεσις
ἐπαινεῖται- τῷ εἶναι οὗ δεῖ μᾶλλον ἢ
- τῷ ὀρθῶς,
- ἡ δὲ δόξα
- τῷ ὡς ἀληθῶς.
καὶ
- προαιρούμεθα μὲν ἃ μάλιστα ἴσμεν ἀγαθὰ ὄντα,
- δοξάζομεν δὲ ἃ οὐ πάνυ ἴσμεν·
Rackham brackets both ἢ τῷ ὀρθῶς and ἀληθῶς, translating the § as
Also we praise
- a choice rather for choosing the right thing, but
- an opinion for opining in the right way.
And
- we choose only things that we absolutely know to be good,
- we opine things we do not quite certainly know to be true.
Note then that Rackham has introduced that last phrase, “to be true,” which could be left off. Bartlett and Collins have,
Choice is also praised more for being directed at what it ought to be or for being correctly made,* whereas opinion is praised for how true it is. And we choose what we know most of all to be good, whereas we opine about what we do not know at all well.
* This first clause could also be translated: “And choice is praised more for being directed at what it ought to be than for being correctly made:”
§ ii.14
δοκοῦσι δὲ οὐχ οἱ αὐτοὶ
- προαιρεῖσθαί τε ἄριστα καὶ
- δοξάζειν,
ἀλλ᾽ ἔνιοι
- δοξάζειν μὲν ἄμεινον,
- διὰ κακίαν δ᾽ αἱρεῖσθαι οὐχ ἃ δεῖ.
§ ii.15
εἰ δὲ
- προγίνεται δόξα τῆς προαιρέσεως ἢ
- παρακολουθεῖ,
οὐδὲν διαφέρει·
- οὐ τοῦτο γὰρ σκοποῦμεν,
- ἀλλ᾽ εἰ ταὐτόν ἐστι δόξῃ τινί.
§ ii.16
τί οὖν ἢ ποῖόν τι ἐστίν,
ἐπειδὴ τῶν εἰρημένων οὐθέν;
- ἑκούσιον μὲν δὴ φαίνεται,
- τὸ δ᾽ ἑκούσιον οὐ πᾶν προαιρετόν.
§ ii.17
ἀλλ᾽ ἆρά γε τὸ προβεβουλευμένον;
ἡ γὰρ προαίρεσις μετὰ
- λόγου καὶ
- διανοίας.
ὑποσημαίνειν δ᾽ ἔοικε καὶ τοὔνομα ὡς ὂν πρὸ ἑτέρων αἱρετόν.
Chapter III
Chapter 5
§ iii.1
βουλεύονται δὲ
- πότερον περὶ πάντων,
καὶ πᾶν βουλευτόν ἐστιν, - ἢ περὶ ἐνίων οὐκ ἔστι βουλή;
We saw βούλησις “wish” in § ii.3 as one of four things that were not choice. We shall return to it in chapter iv. Meanwhile, we take up related words. Etymologically speaking, we have a line of succession:
- βουλόμαι “want, wish”;
- βουλή “will, counsel, council, deliberation”;
- βουλεύω “take council, deliberate” (hence βουλευτός “what is to be deliberated”);
- βουλευτικός “of the council” (used below in § 19).
The Indo-European root “must have been *gwel-/gwol-,” according to Beekes; but if this is what the folks at the LRC in Austin spell as *gu̯hel-, they take this to be the root of ἐθέλω, for which Beekes gives the root *h2gwhel-.
§ iii.2
λεκτέον δ᾽ ἴσως βουλευτὸν
- οὐχ ὑπὲρ οὗ βουλεύσαιτ᾽ ἄν τις
- ἠλίθιος ἢ
- μαινόμενος,
- ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὲρ ὧν ὁ νοῦν ἔχων.
Just because some people want to debate everything doesn’t mean it’s debatable. I wonder whether Aristotle’s “fool or madman” might describe a professional philosopher today. The fool was mentioned in § ii.7 as claiming to choose what was impossible.
§ iii.3
- περὶ δὴ τῶν ἀιδίων
οὐδεὶς βουλεύεται,
οἷον περὶ
- τοῦ κόσμου ἢ
-
- τῆς διαμέτρου καὶ
- τῆς πλευρᾶς,
ὅτι ἀσύμμετροι.
We begin a list (continued in the next three §§) of things that nobody seriously debates.
§ iii.4
- ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ περὶ
- τῶν ἐν κινήσει,
- ἀεὶ δὲ κατὰ ταὐτὰ γινομένων,
- εἴτ᾽ ἐξ ἀνάγκης
- εἴτε καὶ
- φύσει ἢ
- διά τινα αἰτίαν ἄλλην,
οἷον τροπῶν καὶ ἀνατολῶν.
§ iii.5
- οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν ἄλλοτε ἄλλως,
οἷον αὐχμῶν καὶ ὄμβρων. - οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν ἀπὸ τύχης,
οἷον θησαυροῦ εὑρέσεως.
§ iii.6
- ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων ἁπάντων,
οἷον πῶς ἂν Σκύθαι ἄριστα πολιτεύοιντο οὐδεὶς Λακεδαιμονίων βουλεύεται.
οὐ γὰρ γένοιτ᾽ ἂν τούτων οὐθὲν δι᾽ ἡμῶν.
Rackham moves the first part here, ἀλλ᾽ οὐδὲ … βουλεύεται, into the next §, after the list the ends, πᾶν τὸ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου; but it does fit where it is. In any case, it seems like a warning against being a busybody. People do love to talk about what other people should do.
§ iii.7
βουλευόμεθα δὲ περὶ
- τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ
- πρακτῶν·
ταῦτα δὲ καὶ ἔστι λοιπά.
αἰτίαι γὰρ δοκοῦσιν εἶναι
- φύσις καὶ
- ἀνάγκη καὶ
- τύχη,
ἔτι δὲ
- νοῦς καὶ
- πᾶν τὸ δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου.
τῶν δ᾽ ἀνθρώπων ἕκαστοι βουλεύονται
περὶ τῶν δι᾽ αὑτῶν πρακτῶν. [1112b]
§ iii.8
καὶ περὶ μὲν τὰς
- ἀκριβεῖς καὶ
- αὐτάρκεις
τῶν ἐπιστημῶν οὐκ ἔστι βουλή,
οἷον περὶ γραμμάτων (οὐ γὰρ διστάζομεν πῶς γραπτέον)·
ἀλλ᾽ ὅσα γίνεται
- δι᾽ ἡμῶν,
- μὴ ὡσαύτως δ᾽ ἀεί,
περὶ τούτων βουλευόμεθα,
οἷον περὶ τῶν κατ᾽
- ἰατρικὴν καὶ
- χρηματιστικήν,
καὶ περὶ
- κυβερνητικὴν μᾶλλον
- ἢ γυμναστικήν,
ὅσῳ ἧττον διηκρίβωται,
It’s not clear to me why Aristotle would refer to some sciences as
- ἀκριβής “exact, precise” (and in this connection διακριβόω “examine minutely”),
- αὐτάρκης “self-sufficient,”
when the example is spelling; Rackham has “matters fully ascertained and completely formulated as sciences.”
§ iii.9
καὶ ἔτι περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ὁμοίως,
μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ περὶ τὰς τέχνας ἢ τὰς ἐπιστήμας·
μᾶλλον γὰρ περὶ ταύτας διστάζομεν.
As Rackham notes:
- the sciences here must be practical, since debate in theoretical science has been precluded by §§ 3 and 4 above; therefore,
- in place of τέχνας, a reading of δόξας, albeit “less well attested,” is more sensible, since “Aristotle does not usually distinguish sharply between the arts and crafts and the practical sciences.”
§ iii.10
τὸ βουλεύεσθαι δὲ
- ἐν τοῖς
- ὡς ἐπὶ τὸ πολύ,
- ἀδήλοις δὲ πῶς ἀποβήσεται, καὶ
- ἐν οἷς ἀδιόριστον.
συμβούλους δὲ παραλαμβάνομεν εἰς τὰ μεγάλα,
ἀπιστοῦντες ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς ὡς οὐχ ἱκανοῖς διαγνῶναι.
We deliberate on things in the middle, neither always the same nor different.
§ iii.11
βουλευόμεθα δ᾽
- οὐ περὶ τῶν τελῶν
- ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν πρὸς τὰ τέλη.
- οὔτε γὰρ ἰατρὸς βουλεύεται εἰ ὑγιάσει,
- οὔτε ῥήτωρ εἰ πείσει,
- οὔτε πολιτικὸς εἰ εὐνομίαν ποιήσει,
οὐδὲ τῶν λοιπῶν
οὐδεὶς περὶ τοῦ τέλους·
ἀλλὰ θέμενοι τὸ τέλος
τὸ
- πῶς καὶ
- διὰ τίνων
ἔσται σκοποῦσι·
καὶ
- διὰ πλειόνων μὲν φαινομένου γίνεσθαι
διὰ τίνος- ῥᾷστα καὶ
- κάλλιστα
ἐπισκοποῦσι,
- δι᾽ ἑνὸς δ᾽ ἐπιτελουμένου
- πῶς διὰ τούτου ἔσται
- κἀκεῖνο διὰ τίνος,
ἕως ἂν ἔλθωσιν ἐπὶ- τὸ πρῶτον αἴτιον,
- ὃ ἐν τῇ εὑρέσει ἔσχατόν ἐστιν.
ὁ γὰρ βουλευόμενος ἔοικε
- ζητεῖν καὶ
- ἀναλύειν
τὸν εἰρημένον τρόπον
ὥσπερ διάγραμμα
πρὸς τὰ τέλη “means” occurs again in §§ 16 and 20.
§ iii.12
(φαίνεται δ᾽
- ἡ μὲν ζήτησις οὐ πᾶσα εἶναι βούλευσις,
οἷον αἱ μαθηματικαί, - ἡ δὲ βούλευσις πᾶσα ζήτησις),
καὶ τὸ
- ἔσχατον ἐν τῇ ἀναλύσει
- πρῶτον εἶναι ἐν τῇ γενέσει.
§ iii.13
-
κἂν μὲν ἀδυνάτῳ ἐντύχωσιν,
ἀφίστανται,
οἷον εἰ χρημάτων δεῖ, ταῦτα δὲ μὴ οἷόν τε πορισθῆναι· -
ἐὰν δὲ δυνατὸν φαίνηται,
ἐγχειροῦσι πράττειν.
δυνατὰ δὲ
ἃ δι᾽ ἡμῶν γένοιτ᾽ ἄν·
τὰ γὰρ διὰ τῶν φίλων
δι᾽ ἡμῶν πως ἐστίν·
ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ ἐν ἡμῖν.
§ iii.14
ζητεῖται δ᾽
- ὁτὲ μὲν τὰ ὄργανα
- ὁτὲ δ᾽ ἡ χρεία αὐτῶν·
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς λοιποῖς
- ὁτὲ μὲν δι᾽ οὗ
- ὁτὲ δὲ
- πῶς ἢ
- διὰ τίνος.
§ iii.15
ἔοικε δή,
καθάπερ εἴρηται,
ἄνθρωπος εἶναι
ἀρχὴ τῶν πράξεων·
- ἡ δὲ βουλὴ περὶ τῶν αὑτῷ πρακτῶν,
- αἱ δὲ πράξεις ἄλλων ἕνεκα.
§ iii.16
-
οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴη βουλευτὸν τὸ τέλος
-
ἀλλὰ τὰ πρὸς τὰ τέλη·
-
οὐδὲ δὴ τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, [1113a]
οἷον εἰ- ἄρτος τοῦτο ἢ
- πέπεπται ὡς δεῖ·
αἰσθήσεως γὰρ ταῦτα.
εἰ δὲ ἀεὶ βουλεύσεται,
εἰς ἄπειρον ἥξει.
ἥξει: future of ἥκω “have come.”
§ iii.17
- βουλευτὸν δὲ καὶ
- προαιρετὸν
τὸ αὐτό,
πλὴν ἀφωρισμένον ἤδη τὸ προαιρετόν·
τὸ γὰρ ἐκ τῆς βουλῆς κριθὲν
προαιρετόν ἐστιν.
παύεται γὰρ ἕκαστος ζητῶν πῶς πράξει,
ὅταν
- εἰς αὑτὸν ἀναγάγῃ τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ
- αὑτοῦ εἰς τὸ ἡγούμενον·
τοῦτο γὰρ τὸ προαιρούμενον.
§ iii.18
δῆλον δὲ τοῦτο καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχαίων πολιτειῶν,
ἃς Ὅμηρος ἐμιμεῖτο·
οἱ γὰρ βασιλεῖς ἃ προείλοντο ἀνήγγελλον τῷ δήμῳ.
§ iii.19
ὄντος δὲ τοῦ προαιρετοῦ βουλευτοῦ ὀρεκτοῦ τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν,
καὶ ἡ προαίρεσις ἂν εἴη βουλευτικὴ ὄρεξις τῶν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν·
ἐκ τοῦ βουλεύσασθαι γὰρ κρίναντες
ὀρεγόμεθα κατὰ τὴν βούλευσιν.
§ iii.20
- ἡ μὲν οὖν προαίρεσις τύπῳ εἰρήσθω,
καὶ- περὶ ποῖά ἐστι καὶ
- ὅτι τῶν πρὸς τὰ τέλη.
Chapter IV
Chapter 6
§ iv.1
- ἡ δὲ βούλησις
- ὅτι μὲν τοῦ τέλους ἐστὶν εἴρηται,
- δοκεῖ δὲ
- τοῖς μὲν τἀγαθοῦ εἶναι,
- τοῖς δὲ τοῦ φαινομένου ἀγαθοῦ.
It was said in § ii.9, ἡ … βούλησις τοῦ τέλους ἐστὶ μᾶλλον, in comparison with προαίρεσις.
§ iv.2
συμβαίνει δὲ
- τοῖς μὲν τὸ βουλητὸν τἀγαθὸν λέγουσι
μὴ εἶναι βουλητὸν
ὃ βούλεται
ὁ μὴ ὀρθῶς αἱρούμενος- (εἰ γὰρ ἔσται βουλητόν,
καὶ ἀγαθόν· - ἦν δ᾽,
εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχε,
κακόν),
- (εἰ γὰρ ἔσται βουλητόν,
This seems to mean as follows, line by line:
For those who say the desirable is the good,
that is not desirable
which is desired by
the one who does not choose rightly
- (for if it is going to be desirable,
[then it is] also [going to be] good;- but it was,
if it thus happened,
bad).
§ iv.3
- τοῖς δ᾽ αὖ τὸ φαινόμενον ἀγαθὸν βουλητὸν λέγουσι
- μὴ εἶναι φύσει βουλητόν,
- ἀλλ᾽ ἑκάστῳ τὸ δοκοῦν·
ἄλλο δ᾽ ἄλλῳ φαίνεται,
καὶ εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχε,
τἀναντία.
§ iv.4
εἰ δὲ δὴ ταῦτα μὴ ἀρέσκει,
ἆρα φατέον
- ἁπλῶς μὲν καὶ
κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν
βουλητὸν εἶναι
τἀγαθόν, - ἑκάστῳ δὲ
τὸ φαινόμενον;
- τῷ μὲν οὖν σπουδαίῳ
τὸ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν εἶναι, - τῷ δὲ φαύλῳ
τὸ τυχόν,
ὥσπερ καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σωμάτων
- τοῖς μὲν εὖ διακειμένοις ὑγιεινά ἐστι τὰ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν τοιαῦτα ὄντα,
- τοῖς δ᾽ ἐπινόσοις ἕτερα,
ὁμοίως δὲ
- καὶ πικρὰ
- καὶ γλυκέα
- καὶ θερμὰ
- καὶ βαρέα
- καὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἕκαστα·
ὁ σπουδαῖος γὰρ ἕκαστα κρίνει ὀρθῶς,
καὶ ἐν ἑκάστοις τἀληθὲς αὐτῷ φαίνεται.
§ iv.5
καθ᾽ ἑκάστην γὰρ ἕξιν
ἴδιά ἐστι
- καλὰ καὶ
- ἡδέα,
καὶ διαφέρει πλεῖστον ἴσως
-
ὁ σπουδαῖος
τῷ τἀληθὲς ἐν ἑκάστοις ὁρᾶν,ὥσπερ
- κανὼν καὶ
- μέτρον
αὐτῶν ὤν.
-
ἐν τοῖς πολλοῖς δὲ
ἡ ἀπάτη
διὰ τὴν ἡδονὴν
ἔοικε γίνεσθαι·
οὐ γὰρ οὖσα
ἀγαθὸν φαίνεται. [1113b]
ἀπάτη “trick, fraud.”
§ iv.6
- αἱροῦνται οὖν τὸ ἡδὺ ὡς ἀγαθόν,
- τὴν δὲ λύπην ὡς κακὸν φεύγουσιν.
Chapter V
Chapter 7
§ v.1
- ὄντος δὴ βουλητοῦ μὲν τοῦ τέλους,
- βουλευτῶν δὲ καὶ προαιρετῶν τῶν πρὸς τὸ τέλος,
- αἱ περὶ ταῦτα πράξεις
- κατὰ προαίρεσιν ἂν εἶεν καὶ
- ἑκούσιοι.
- αἱ δὲ τῶν ἀρετῶν ἐνέργειαι περὶ ταῦτα.
§ v.2
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν δὴ
- καὶ ἡ ἀρετή,
ὁμοίως δὲ - καὶ ἡ κακία.
ἐν οἷς γὰρ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
- τὸ πράττειν, καὶ
- τὸ μὴ πράττειν,
καὶ
- ἐν οἷς τὸ μή,
- καὶ τὸ ναί·
ὥστ᾽
-
- εἰ τὸ πράττειν καλὸν ὂν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐστί,
- καὶ τὸ μὴ πράττειν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἔσται αἰσχρὸν ὄν, καὶ
-
- εἰ τὸ μὴ πράττειν καλὸν ὂν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν,
- καὶ τὸ πράττειν αἰσχρὸν ὂν ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν.
§ v.3
εἰ δ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν
- τὰ καλὰ πράττειν καὶ
- τὰ αἰσχρά,
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ
- τὸ μὴ πράττειν,
τοῦτο δ᾽ ἦν τὸ
- ἀγαθοῖς καὶ
- κακοῖς
εἶναι,
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἄρα τὸ
- ἐπιεικέσι καὶ
- φαύλοις
εἶναι.
§ v.4
τὸ δὲ λέγειν ὡς
- οὐδεὶς ἑκὼν πονηρὸς
- οὐδ᾽ ἄκων μακάριος
ἔοικε
- τὸ μὲν ψευδεῖ
- τὸ δ᾽ ἀληθεῖ·
- μακάριος μὲν γὰρ οὐδεὶς ἄκων,
- ἡ δὲ μοχθηρία ἑκούσιον.
Everything that matters is voluntary, though that’s not quite how it was in Book I. The saying:
- “no one is voluntarily wicked nor involuntarily happy” (Ross);
- “None would be vile, and none would not be blest” (Rackham);
- “No one is willingly wicked nor unwillingly blessed” (Apostle);
- “No one is voluntarily wicked, nor involuntarily blessed” (Crisp);
- “None is voluntarily wicked or involuntarily blessed” (Bartlett and Collins);
- that no one “is voluntarily wicked or involuntarily blessed” (Reeve)
§ v.5
ἢ τοῖς γε νῦν εἰρημένοις ἀμφισβητητέον,
καὶ τὸν ἄνθρωπον
- οὐ φατέον ἀρχὴν εἶναι
- οὐδὲ γεννητὴν τῶν πράξεων ὥσπερ καὶ τέκνων.
Another derivative of ἀμφισβητέω “dispute” was used in §i.4, where it was debatable whether things done out of fear were voluntary.
§ v.6
εἰ δὲ
- ταῦτα φαίνεται καὶ
- μὴ ἔχομεν
εἰς ἄλλας ἀρχὰς ἀναγαγεῖν
παρὰ τὰς ἐν ἡμῖν,
ὧν καὶ αἱ ἀρχαὶ ἐν ἡμῖν,
καὶ αὐτὰ
- ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ
- ἑκούσια.
If I understand the Greek correctly, the translation would be something like the following:
If
- these are evident, and
- we cannot
- trace to other beginnings
than those in us
those of which the beginnings are in us,then these are
- on us and
- voluntary.
For this not to be tautological, we have to distinguish
- “in us” ἐν ἡμῖν (used before, in this book, only in § iii.13) and
- “on us” ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν (first used in § ii.9, and then several times).
There is also, in §§ iii.6, 8, and 13,
- “through us” δι᾽ ἡμῶν (not δι᾽ ἡμᾶς; this doesn’t occur)
(also δι᾽ ἀνθρώπου in § iii.7, and διὰ τῶν φίλων in § iii.13).
§ v.7
τούτοις δ᾽ ἔοικε μαρτυρεῖσθαι
- καὶ ἰδίᾳ ὑφ᾽ ἑκάστων
- καὶ ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν τῶν νομοθετῶν·
-
- κολάζουσι γὰρ καὶ
- τιμωροῦνται
τοὺς δρῶντας μοχθηρά,
ὅσοι μὴ- βίᾳ ἢ
- δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν
ἧς μὴ αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι,
- τοὺς δὲ τὰ καλὰ πράττοντας τιμῶσιν,
ὡς
- τοὺς μὲν προτρέψοντες
- τοὺς δὲ κωλύσοντες.
καίτοι ὅσα
- μήτ᾽ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐστὶ
- μήθ᾽ ἑκούσια,
οὐδεὶς προτρέπεται πράττειν,
ὡς οὐδὲν πρὸ ἔργου ὂν τὸ πεισθῆναι μὴ
- θερμαίνεσθαι ἢ
- ἀλγεῖν ἢ
- πεινῆν ἢ
- ἄλλ᾽ ὁτιοῦν τῶν τοιούτων·
οὐθὲν γὰρ ἧττον πεισόμεθα αὐτά.
§ v.8
καὶ γὰρ ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τῷ ἀγνοεῖν κολάζουσιν,
ἐὰν αἴτιος εἶναι δοκῇ τῆς ἀγνοίας,
οἷον τοῖς μεθύουσι διπλᾶ τὰ ἐπιτίμια·
ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ ἐν αὐτῷ·
κύριος γὰρ τοῦ μὴ μεθυσθῆναι,
τοῦτο δ᾽ αἴτιον τῆς ἀγνοίας.
καὶ τοὺς ἀγνοοῦντάς τι τῶν ἐν τοῖς νόμοις,
ἃ δεῖ ἐπίστασθαι καὶ μὴ χαλεπά ἐστι, [1114a] κολάζουσιν,
The abstract noun ἐπιτιμία seems to be originally for the condition implied by the adjective ἐπίτιμος, applying to somebody who has the rights and responsibilities of a citizen; thus
- the verb ἐπιτιμάω (used below in §§ 15 and 16) has opposite meanings: honor and censure, and
- ἐπιτιμία can mean punishment, as apparently here.
§ v.9
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἄλλοις,
ὅσα δι᾽ ἀμέλειαν ἀγνοεῖν δοκοῦσιν,
ὡς ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς ὂν τὸ μὴ ἀγνοεῖν·
τοῦ γὰρ ἐπιμεληθῆναι κύριοι.
§ v.10
ἀλλ᾽ ἴσως τοιοῦτός ἐστιν ὥστε μὴ ἐπιμεληθῆναι.
ἀλλὰ τοῦ τοιούτους γενέσθαι αὐτοὶ αἴτιοι ζῶντες ἀνειμένως,
καὶ τοῦ ἀδίκους ἢ ἀκολάστους εἶναι,
- οἳ μὲν κακουργοῦντες,
- οἳ δὲ ἐν
- πότοις καὶ
- τοῖς τοιούτοις
διάγοντες·
αἱ γὰρ περὶ ἕκαστα ἐνέργειαι τοιούτους ποιοῦσιν.
§ v.11
τοῦτο δὲ δῆλον ἐκ τῶν μελετώντων πρὸς ἡντινοῦν ἀγωνίαν ἢ πρᾶξιν·
διατελοῦσι γὰρ ἐνεργοῦντες.
§ v.12
- τὸ μὲν οὖν ἀγνοεῖν ὅτι
ἐκ τοῦ ἐνεργεῖν περὶ ἕκαστα
αἱ ἕξεις γίνονται,
κομιδῇ ἀναισθήτου.
§ v.13
- ἔτι δ᾽ ἄλογον
- τὸν ἀδικοῦντα μὴ βούλεσθαι ἄδικον εἶναι ἢ
- τὂν ἀκολασταίνοντα ἀκόλαστον.
εἰ δὲ μὴ ἀγνοῶν τις πράττει
ἐξ ὧν ἔσται ἄδικος,
ἑκὼν ἄδικος ἂν εἴη,
The manuscripts thus have εἰ δὲ … εἴη, but Rackham follows Rassow in putting it at the end of § 12.
§ v.14
οὐ μὴν ἐάν γε βούληται,
- ἄδικος ὢν παύσεται καὶ
- ἔσται δίκαιος.
οὐδὲ γὰρ ὁ νοσῶν ὑγιής.
καὶ εἰ οὕτως ἔτυχεν,
ἑκὼν νοσεῖ,
- ἀκρατῶς βιοτεύων καὶ
- ἀπειθῶν τοῖς ἰατροῖς.
- τότε μὲν οὖν ἐξῆν αὐτῷ μὴ νοσεῖν,
- προεμένῳ δ᾽ οὐκέτι,
ὥσπερ οὐδ᾽ ἀφέντι λίθον ἔτ᾽ αὐτὸν δυνατὸν ἀναλαβεῖν·
ἀλλ᾽ ὅμως ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ τὸ
- βαλεῖν καὶ
- ῥῖψαι·
ἡ γὰρ ἀρχὴ ἐν αὐτῷ.
οὕτω δὲ
- καὶ τῷ ἀδίκῳ
- καὶ τῷ ἀκολάστῳ
- ἐξ ἀρχῆς μὲν ἐξῆν τοιούτοις μὴ γενέσθαι,
διὸ ἑκόντες εἰσίν· - γενομένοις δ᾽ οὐκέτι ἔστι μὴ εἶναι.
§ v.15
- οὐ μόνον δ᾽ αἱ τῆς ψυχῆς κακίαι ἑκούσιοί εἰσιν,
- ἀλλ᾽ ἐνίοις καὶ αἱ τοῦ σώματος,
οἷς καὶ ἐπιτιμῶμεν·
-
τοῖς μὲν γὰρ διὰ φύσιν αἰσχροῖς οὐδεὶς ἐπιτιμᾷ,
-
τοῖς δὲ δι᾽
- ἀγυμνασίαν καὶ
- ἀμέλειαν.
ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ περὶ
- ἀσθένειαν καὶ
- πήρωσιν·
-
οὐθεὶς γὰρ ἂν ὀνειδίσειε τυφλῷ
- φύσει ἢ
- ἐκ νόσου ἢ
- ἐκ πληγῆς,
ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον ἐλεήσαι·
-
τῷ δ᾽ ἐξ
- οἰνοφλυγίας ἢ
- ἄλλης ἀκολασίας
πᾶς ἂν ἐπιτιμήσαι.
The verb ὀνειδίζω and the ὄνειδος mean reproach; thus the verb is here practically a synonym of ἐπιτιμάω.
§ v.16
τῶν δὴ περὶ τὸ σῶμα κακιῶν
- αἱ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἐπιτιμῶνται,
- αἱ δὲ μὴ ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν οὔ.
εἰ δ᾽ οὕτω,
καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν ἄλλων αἱ ἐπιτιμώμεναι τῶν κακιῶν
ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἂν εἶεν.
§ v.17
εἰ δέ τις λέγοι ὅτι
- πάντες
- ἐφίενται τοῦ φαινομένου ἀγαθοῦ,
- τῆς δὲ φαντασίας οὐ κύριοι, [1114b] ἀλλ᾽
- ὁποῖός ποθ᾽ ἕκαστός ἐστι,
τοιοῦτο καὶ τὸ τέλος φαίνεται αὐτῷ·
- εἰ μὲν οὖν ἕκαστος ἑαυτῷ τῆς ἕξεώς ἐστί πως αἴτιος, καὶ
- τῆς φαντασίας ἔσται πως αὐτὸς αἴτιος·
- εἰ δὲ μή,
- οὐθεὶς αὑτῷ αἴτιος τοῦ κακοποιεῖν, ἀλλὰ
- δι᾽ ἄγνοιαν τοῦ τέλους ταῦτα πράττει,
διὰ τούτων οἰόμενος αὑτῷ τὸ ἄριστον ἔσεσθαι, - ἡ δὲ τοῦ τέλους ἔφεσις οὐκ αὐθαίρετος, ἀλλὰ
- φῦναι δεῖ ὥσπερ ὄψιν ἔχοντα, ᾗ
- κρινεῖ καλῶς καὶ
- τὸ κατ᾽ ἀλήθειαν ἀγαθὸν αἱρήσεται, καὶ
- ἔστιν εὐφυὴς ᾧ τοῦτο καλῶς πέφυκεν·
- τὸ γὰρ
- μέγιστον καὶ
- κάλλιστον,
καὶ ὃ
- παρ᾽ ἑτέρου
μὴ οἷόν- τε λαβεῖν
- μηδὲ μαθεῖν,
- ἀλλ᾽
- οἷον ἔφυ
- τοιοῦτον ἕξει,
- καὶ
- τὸ εὖ καὶ
- τὸ καλῶς
τοῦτο πεφυκέναι ἡ
- τελεία καὶ
- ἀληθινὴ
ἂν εἴη εὐφυΐα.
εἰ δὴ ταῦτ᾽ ἐστὶν ἀληθῆ,
τί μᾶλλον ἡ ἀρετὴ τῆς κακίας ἔσται ἑκούσιον;
I have tried to number the consequences of the hypothesis that we are not responsible for our habits, but they do not exactly form a list.
§ v.18
ἀμφοῖν γὰρ ὁμοίως,
- τῷ ἀγαθῷ καὶ
- τῷ κακῷ,
- τὸ τέλος
- φύσει ἢ
- ὁπωσδήποτε
- φαίνεται καὶ
- κεῖται,
- τὰ δὲ λοιπὰ
πρὸς τοῦτο ἀναφέροντες
πράττουσιν ὁπωσδήποτε.
§ v.19
- εἴτε δὴ τὸ τέλος
- μὴ φύσει ἑκάστῳ φαίνεται οἱονδήποτε,
- ἀλλά τι καὶ παρ᾽ αὐτόν ἐστιν,
- εἴτε
- τὸ μὲν τέλος φυσικόν,
- τῷ δὲ τὰ λοιπὰ πράττειν ἑκουσίως τὸν σπουδαῖον
ἡ ἀρετὴ ἑκούσιόν ἐστιν,
οὐθὲν ἧττον καὶ ἡ κακία ἑκούσιον ἂν εἴη·
ὁμοίως γὰρ καὶ τῷ κακῷ ὑπάρχει
- τὸ δι᾽ αὐτὸν ἐν ταῖς πράξεσι καὶ
- εἰ μὴ ἐν τῷ τέλει.
The clause ἡ ἀρετὴ ἑκούσιόν ἐστιν seems to follow from either of the alternatives in εἴτε, even though grammatically (as the translators confirm) it belongs to the second one.
§ v.20
εἰ οὖν,
ὥσπερ λέγεται,
ἑκούσιοί εἰσιν αἱ ἀρεταί
(καὶ γὰρ
- τῶν ἕξεων συναίτιοί πως αὐτοί ἐσμεν, καὶ
- τῷ ποιοί τινες εἶναι τὸ τέλος τοιόνδε τιθέμεθα),
καὶ αἱ κακίαι ἑκούσιοι ἂν εἶεν·
ὁμοίως γάρ.
Chapter 8
§ v.21
- κοινῇ μὲν οὖν περὶ τῶν ἀρετῶν εἴρηται ἡμῖν τό τε γένος τύπῳ,
- ὅτι μεσότητές εἰσιν καὶ
- ὅτι ἕξεις,
- ὑφ᾽ ὧν τε γίνονται,
- ὅτι
- τούτων πρακτικαὶ καὶ
- καθ᾽ αὑτάς, καὶ
- ὅτι
- ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν καὶ
- ἑκούσιοι, καὶ
- οὕτως ὡς ἂν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος προστάξῃ.
There are questions about the correct reading; especially,
- ὅτι μεσότητές εἰσιν καὶ ὅτι ἕξεις could be singular, or just an interpolation (it doesn’t exactly fit, since while habit is the genus, mean is the differentia);
- καὶ οὕτως ὡς ἂν ὁ ὀρθὸς λόγος προστάξῃ perhaps should have been after καθ᾽ αὑτάς (for which there are other readings as well).
§ v.22
- οὐχ ὁμοίως δὲ
- αἱ πράξεις ἑκούσιοί εἰσι καὶ
- αἱ ἕξεις·
- τῶν μὲν γὰρ πράξεων
- ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς
- μέχρι τοῦ τέλους
κύριοί ἐσμεν,
εἰδότες τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστα, - τῶν ἕξεων δὲ
- τῆς ἀρχῆς, [1115a]
καθ᾽ ἕκαστα δὲ ἡ πρόσθεσις οὐ γνώριμος,
ὥσπερ ἐπὶ τῶν ἀρρωστιῶν·
ἀλλ᾽ ὅτι ἐφ᾽ ἡμῖν ἦν
- οὕτως ἢ
- μὴ οὕτω
χρήσασθαι,
διὰ τοῦτο ἑκούσιοι.
Chapter 9
§ v.23
ἀναλαβόντες δὲ
περὶ ἑκάστης εἴπωμεν
- τίνες εἰσὶ καὶ
- περὶ ποῖα καὶ
- πῶς·
ἅμα δ᾽ ἔσται δῆλον καὶ
- πόσαι εἰσίν.
καὶ πρῶτον περὶ ἀνδρείας.
Edited September 20 and 23 and October 8 and 9, 2023, and January 5, 2025
9 Trackbacks
[…] « Excuses […]
[…] of what to do with what one has. We have already seen the former vice, akolasia, described in § 10 of chapter v, whose burden is that vice in general is […]
[…] looked at ποιεῖν / πάσχειν in the context of § III.i.1. Perhaps now Aristotle means to say that “suitability” is relative to three […]
[…] Excuses […]
[…] Book III, § iii.19, that προαίρεσις is βουλευτικὴ ὄρεξις “deliberate […]
[…] as corruption, wickedness, or depravity. I talked about this very issue in the context of the first five chapters of Book III; but that was last September (of 2023), when I was just establishing a pattern for my […]
[…] ΙΙΙ, § v.15 (1114a). An example of pêrôsis and ἀσθενεία is blindness, which is culpable when […]
[…] my ongoing reading of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, I detected in each of the first five chapters of Book III the lesson, “No excuses.” Nonetheless, a page headed “Self-Love Day – February 13, 2025,” […]
[…] Aristotle suggests that last point in the Nicomachean Ethics, Book III, chapter iii, § 3: […]