I will borrow the quotation from Aristotle’s Nicomachean
Ethics I found on p. 186 of Gary Paul Morson’s extraordinary new study of
the ethics if Russian literature:
Our discussion will be adequate if it achieves clarity within the limits of the subject matter. For precision cannot be expected in the treatment of all subjects alike, any more than it can be expected in all manufactured articles… Therefore in a discussion of such subjects [the just, the good]… we must be satisfied to indicate the truth with a rough and general sketch… For a well-schooled man is one who searches for that degree of precision in each kind of study which the nature of the subject at hand admits: it is obviously just as foolish to accept arguments of probability from a mathematician as to demand strict demonstrations from an orator. (Bk I, Ch 3, tr. Martin Ostwald – Morson uses a different translation)
Aristotle will be surprised, and highly interested, in
advances in mathematics that invalidate his last example, but aside from that
what strikes me here is how Aristotle’s approach is so different than Socrates’s. No pursuit of the perfect definition for Aristotle. Close enough is good enough, even if the
definition does not cover every weird edge case. How much of philosophy is debate over weird
edge cases? Don’t waste your time, is
Aristotle’s advice. He has more
interesting things to do than push fat people in front of trains.
I see one reason I have trouble writing this piece. Aristotle is the philosopher of the moderate
and the ordinary. His ethical system is
an extended argument for moderation in almost all things. His arguments are too complex to label them
common sense, but they are generally commonsensical. He rarely says anything too strange or wildly
imaginative. He is not the philosopher to
argue that nothing exists or to write a proto-novel about the pre-historic war
between Athens and Atlantis.
In other words, I find Aristotle a little boring, in part
because I am mostly sympathetic.
The material world exists. It exists pretty much as you perceive it –
close enough. The epistemological problems that bothered so many philosophers
are nonsense. Pleasure is real, so enjoy
it, but don’t overdo it. True happiness and
true friendship are founded on virtue and contemplation, but other kinds of
happiness and friendship are valuable, too.
Sounds good to me.
Someday I will read the hard stuff, Metaphysics and so
on. Not this time round.
The philosophers for “next month,” which is now, are the Cynics. I have been enjoying a surprisingly
well-written guide for students, Cynics (2008) by William Desmond, and
enjoying even more the writing of Lucian, the great, unique 2nd Century satirist. The fragments of my hero Diogenes the Cynic
will fit in there somewhere.
Then we will turn to Epicureanism and its sublime poetic
exposition The Nature of Things (or whatever title your translator
chooses) by Lucretius.
