Small Assignment 2: Navigating Perplexities in Aristotle’s Ethics
Due: April 8 at 11:59 pm
In reading Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, you have seen him identify many questions as “perplexing.” The ancient Greek word for perplexity, aporíā, had its roots in the notion of a place that was literally “without passage” (i.e. a place that was impossible or at least very difficult to get to). The extended meaning of an idea or question that was “perplexing” therefore suggested that such a question might be something reasoning minds struggled to find a satisfactory answer or solution to, as the apparent alternatives identified by reason posed difficulties we could not accept or find our way around.
A familiar modern example of such a perplexity would be our understanding of light according to quantum mechanics: certain experiments and observable phenomena suggest to us that light behaves like a wave; other experiments seem to show that light is a discrete particle. Therefore, quantum theory says that light must be sometimes a particle, sometimes a wave and sometimes both, but this is “perplexing” since light as a wave and as a particle are contradictory phenomena. Physics tells us light has this “duality”, but it doesn’t give a clear explanation of how this is even possible.
Aristotle describes our experience when we encounter such difficulties as situations where “one’s thinking is tied up in knots whenever, on account of its being dissatisfied with the conclusion reached, it does not wish to stay put but at the same time is unable to proceed because it is unable to refute the argument.”(1146a25-27). But he also wrestles with many such perplexities in the Ethics and says that we “ought to do away with some but leave others remaining,” because “the resolution of a perplexity is a discovery.”(1146b7)
Choose one of the following perplexing questions identified in the Ethics, explain the perplexity Aristotle is identifying in your own words (be sure to briefly explain both alternative sides to the perplexity), and reflect on Aristotle’s discussion of this perplexity. (You need not attempt a full treatment of Aristotle’s response/resolution to this perplexity; instead, engage with something you find interesting in his discussion pertaining to the perplexity and provide your own reflections about why this perplexity is important to the overall investigation into human action that Aristotle is undertaking in the Ethics.) This assignment should be written in the style of a thoughtful 1.5-3 page journal entry rather than a formal essay. I am not looking for you to try to settle or “solve” the perplexity you have chosen to discuss, but rather for evidence that you are grappling with the complexities of Aristotle’s text and thinking about what might be at stake in the questions he raises.
“Perplexities” you may choose to discuss:*
- Book I, Chapter X – whether we should only call a human being happy by looking at the end of his/her life
- Book V, Chapter IX (& XI) – whether it is possible to do injustice to oneself
- Book V, Chapter X – how “the equitable” can be praiseworthy if it is different than “the just”
- Book VI, Chapter XII – why prudence is needed for just/noble action
- Book VII, Chapter II – whether someone who knows what is best to do could act without self-restraint
- Book IX, Chapter III – whether or not to dissolve friendships with those who do not remain the same as they were
- Book IX, Chapter IX – whether or not the happy person will need friends
*Aristotle identifies other perplexities as well. If there is a different perplexity identified in the Ethics that you would like to discuss, please contact me in advance for approval.