Viacom International Inc. All Rights Reserved. Teennick and all related titles, logos and characters are trademarks of Viacom International Inc.
Bud's Windows Troubleshooter Tricks & Tips For a Better MIDI & Karaoke Experience, Download Vanbasco MIDI-Karaoke Player, This Player Is portalfinanciero.info Click On The.
In particular, his views on the connection between the well-being of the political community and that of the citizens who make it up, his belief that citizens must actively participate in politics if they are to be happy and virtuous, and his analysis of what causes and prevents revolution within political communities have been a source of inspiration for many contemporary theorists, especially those unhappy with the liberal political philosophy promoted by thinkers such as John Locke and John Stuart Mill.
However, like the other ancient philosophers, it was not the stereotypical ivory tower existence. His father was court physician to Amyntas III of Macedon, so Aristotle grew up in a royal household. It is noteworthy that although Aristotle praises the politically active life, he spent most of his own life in Athens, where he was not a citizen and would not have been allowed to participate directly in politics although of course anyone who wrote as extensively and well about politics as Aristotle did was likely to be politically influential.
As a scholar, Aristotle had a wide range of interests. He wrote about meteorology, biology, physics, poetry, logic, rhetoric, and politics and ethics, among other subjects. His writings on many of these interests remained definitive for almost two millennia. They remained, and remain, so valuable in part because of the comprehensiveness of his efforts. The question of how these writings should be unified into a consistent whole if that is even possible is an open one and beyond the scope of this article.
This is because Aristotle believed that ethics and politics were closely linked, and that in fact the ethical and virtuous life is only available to someone who participates in politics, while moral education is the main purpose of the political community.
We are likely to regard politics and politicians as good way to get a girls number at ignoble, selfish ends, such as wealth and power, rather than the "best end", and many people regard the idea that politics is or should be primarily concerned with creating a particular moral character in citizens as a dangerous intrusion on individual freedom, in large part because we do not agree about what the "best end" is.
In fact, what people in Western societies generally ask from politics and the government is that they keep each of us safe from other people through the provision of police and military forces so that each of us can choose and pursue our own ends, whatever they may be.
This has been the case in Western political philosophy at least since John Locke. Development of individual character is left up to the individual, with help from family, religion, and other non-governmental institutions. The reader is also cautioned against immediately concluding from this that Ar istotle was wrong and we are right. This entry will make use of the Bekker pagination system, good way to get a girls number, and will also follow tradition and refer to Nicomachean Ethics as simply Ethics.
There is also a Eudemian Ethics which is almost certainly by Aristotle and which shares three of the ten books of the Nicomachean Ethics and a work on ethics titled Magna Moralia which has been attributed to him but which most scholars now believe is not his work. The translation is that of Martin Ostwald; see the bibliography for full information.
Some of the reasons for this should be mentioned from the outset. Aristotle did write for general audiences on these subjects, probably in dialogue form, but only a few fragments of those writings remain.
Many topics in the texts are discussed less fully than we would like, and many things are ambiguous which we wish were more straightforward. But if Aristotle was lecturing from these writings, he could have taken care of these problems on the fly as he lectured, since presumably he knew what he meant, or he could have responded to requests for clarification or elaboration from his students. Secondly, most people who read Aristotle are not reading him in the original Attic Greek but are instead reading translations.
This leads to further disagreement, because different authors translate Aristotle differently, and the way in which a particular word is translated can be very significant for the text as a whole. There is no way to definitively settle the question of what Aristotle "really meant to say" in using a particular word or phrase. Third, the Aristotelian texts we have are not the originals, but copies, and every time a text gets copied errors creep in words, sentences, or paragraphs can get left out, words can be changed into new words, and so forth.
It may be clear from the context that a word has been changed, but then again it may not, and there is always hesitation in changing the text as we have it.
This, too, complicates our understanding of Aristotle. These controversies cannot be discussed here, but should be mentioned.
For more detail consult the works listed in the "Suggestions for further reading" below. It is possible that Aristotle never finished writing it; more likely there is material missing as a result of damage to the scrolls on which it was written. The extent and content of any missing material is a matter of scholarly debate. Fortunately, the beginning student of Aristotle will not need to concern themselves much with these problems. It is, however, important to get a quality translation of the text, which provides an introduction, footnotes, a glossary, and a bibliography, so that the reader is aware of places where, for example, there seems to be something good way to get a girls number from the text, or a word can have more than one meaning, or there are other textual issues.
These will not always be the cheapest or most widely available translations, but it is important to get one of them, from a library if need be. Several suggested editions are listed at the end of this article. Put simply, these kinds of knowledge are distinguished by their aims: theoretical knowledge aims at contemplation, productive knowledge aims at creation, and practical knowledge aims at action.
The productive and practical sciences, good way to get a girls number, in contrast, address our daily needs as human beings, and have to do with things that can and do change.
Productive knowledge means, roughly, know-how; the knowledge of how to make a table or a house or a pair of shoes or how to write a tragedy would be examples of this kind of knowledge.
This entry is concerned with practical knowledge, which is the knowledge of how to live and act. According to Aristotle, it is the possession and use of practical knowledge that makes it possible to live a good life. Ethics and politics, which are the practical sciences, deal with human beings as moral agents. Ethics is primarily about the actions of human beings as individuals, and politics is about the actions of human beings in communities, although it is important to remember that for Aristotle the two are closely linked and each influences the other.
The fact that ethics and politics are kinds of practical knowledge has several important consequences. First, it means that Aristotle believes that mere abstract knowledge of ethics and politics is worthless. Practical knowledge is only useful if we act on it; we must act appropriately if we are to be moral. Aristotle believes that women and slaves or at least those who are slaves by nature can never benefit from the study of politics, and also should not be allowed to participate in politics, about which more will be said later.
Aristotle adds that young men will usually act on the basis of their emotions, rather than according to reason, and since acting on practical knowledge requires the use of reason, young men are unequipped to study politics for this reason too. So the study of politics will only be useful to those who have the experience and the mental discipline to benefit from it, and for Aristotle this would have been a relatively small percentage of the population of a city.
Athenian citizenship was limited to adult males who were not slaves and who had one parent who was an Athenian citizen sometimes citizenship was further restricted to require both parents to be Athenian citizens. Aristotle does not think this percentage should be increased - if anything, it should be decreased.
Third, Aristotle distinguishes between practical and theoretical knowledge in terms of the level of precision that can be attained when studying them.
Political and moral knowledge does not have the same degree of precision or certainty as mathematics. Therefore, in a discussion of such subjects, which has to start with a basis of this kind, we must be satisfied good way to get a girls number indicate the truth with a rough and general sketch: when the subject and the basis of a discussion consist of matters that hold good only as a general rule, but not always, the conclusions reached must be of the same order.
However, the principles of geometry are fixed and unchanging. The definition of a point, or a line, or a plane, can be given precisely, and once this definition is known, it is fixed and unchanging for everyone. However, the definition of something like justice can only be known generally; there is no fixed and unchanging definition that will always be correct.
This means that unlike philosophers such as Hobbes and Kant, Aristotle does not and in fact cannot give us a fixed set of rules to be followed when ethical and political decisions must be made. Instead he tries to make his students the kind of men who, when confronted with any particular ethical or political decision, will know the correct thing to do, will understand why it is the correct choice, and will choose to do it for that reason, good way to get a girls number.
Such a man will know the general rules to be followed, but will also know when and why to deviate from those rules. I will use "man" and "men" when referring to citizens so that the reader keeps in mind that Aristotle, and the Greeks generally, excluded women from political part icipation. A discussion of this concept and its importance will help the reader make sense of what follows.
According to Aristotle, everything has a purpose or final end. If we want to understand what something is, it must be understood in terms of that end, which we can discover through careful study. If you wanted to describe a knife, you would talk about its size, and its shape, and what it is made out of, among other things.
But Aristotle believes that you would also, as part of your description, have to say that it is made to cut things. This is true not only of things made by humans, but of plants and animals as well. Suppose you were to describe an animal, like a thoroughbred foal. You would talk about its size, say it has four legs and hair, and a tail.
Eventually you would say that it is meant to run fast. If nothing thwarts that purpose, the young horse will indeed become a fast runner. What is it that human beings are meant by nature to become in the way that knives are meant to cut, acorns are meant to become oak trees, and thoroughbred ponies are meant to become race horses? According to Aristotle, we are meant to become happy. After all, people find happiness in many different ways. However, Aristotle says that living happily requires living a life of virtue.
Someone who is not living a life that is virtuous, or morally good, is also not living a happy life, no matter what they might think. They are like a knife that will not cut, an oak tree that is diseased and stunted, or a racehorse that cannot run.
In fact they are worse, since they have chosen the life they lead in a way that a knife or an acorn or a horse cannot. Someone who does live according to virtue, who chooses to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do, is living a life that flourishes; to borrow a phrase, they are being all that they can be by using all of their human capacities to their fullest. Human beings alone have the ability to speak, and Aristotle says that we have been given that ability by nature so that we can speak and reason with each other to discover what is right and wrong, what is good and bad, and what is just and unjust.
Note that human beings discover these things rather than creating them. We do not get to decide what is right and wrong, but we do get to decide whether we will do what is right or what is wrong, and this is the most important decision we make in life.
So too is the happy life: we do not get to decide what really makes us happy, although we do decide whether or not to pursue the happy life. And this is an ongoing decision. It is not made once and for all, but must be made over and over again as we live our lives. Aristotle believes that it is not easy to be virtuous, and he knows that becoming virtuous can only happen under the right conditions.
The community brings about virtue through education and through laws which prescribe certain actions and prohibit others. And here we see the link between ethics and politics in a different light: the role of politics is to provide an environment in which people can live fully human, ethical, and happy lives, and this is the kind of life which makes it possible for someone to participate in politics in the correct way.
It is in this that a good constitution differs from a bad one. The translation we will use is that of Carnes Lord, which can be found in the list of suggested readings. Again, the reader is encouraged to investigate the list of suggested readings. Doing so requires him to explain the purpose of the city. Aristotle says that "It is clear that all partnerships aim at some good, good way to get a girls number, and that the partnership that is most authoritative of all and embraces all the others does so particularly, and aims at the most authoritative good of all.
It is important to remember that the city was not subordinate to a state or nation, the way that cities are today; it was sovereign over the territory that it controlled. Notice that Aristotle does not define the political community in the way that we generally would, by the laws that it follows or by the group that holds power or as an entity controlling a particular territory.
Instead he defines it as a partnership. The citizens of a political community are partners, and as with any other partnership they pursue a common good. In the case of the city it is the most authoritative or highest good. The most authoritative and highest good of all, for Aristotle, is the virtue and happiness of the citizens, and the good way to get a girls number of the city is to make it possible for the citizens to achieve this virtue and happiness.
Indeed, it is the shared pursuit of virtue that makes a city a city. Doing so would require far more governmental control over citizens than most people in Western societies are willing to allow. These opinions the Greek word is endoxahowever, are not completely true. They must be systematically examined and modified by scholars of politics before the truths that are part of these opinions are revealed.
In many cases he is setting out an argument in order to challenge it. In this case, Aristotle takes up the popular opinion that political rule is really the same as other kinds of rule: that of kings over their subjects, of fathers over their wives and children, and of masters over their slaves. This opinion, he says, is mistaken. In fact, each of these kinds of rule is different, good way to get a girls number.
Here Aristotle tells the story of how cities have historically come into being. There are two pairs of people for whom this is the case.
One pair is that of male and female, for the sake of reproduction. This seems reasonable enough to the modern reader. Here Aristotle is referring to slavery. By "preservation" good way to get a girls number means that the naturally ruling master and naturally ruled slave need each other if they are to preserve themselves; slavery is a kind of partnership which benefits both master and slave. We will see how later. Good way to get a girls number now, he simply says that these pairs of people come together and form a household, which exists for the purpose of meeting the needs of daily life such as food, shelter, clothing, and so forth.
Over time, the family expands, and as it does it will come into contact with other families. Eventually a number of such families combine and form a village. Villages are better than families because they are more self-sufficient.
Because villages are larger than families, people can specialize in a wider array of tasks and can develop skills in things like cooking, medicine, building, soldiering, and so forth which they could not develop in a smaller group, good way to get a girls number. So the residents of a village will live more comfortable lives, with access to more goods and services, than those who only live in families. The significant change in human communities, however, comes when a number of villages combine to form a city.
A city is not just a big village, but is fundamentally different: "The partnership arising from [the union of] several villages that is complete is the city. Although the founders of cities create them for the sake of more comfortable lives, cities are unique in making it possible for people to live well. Today we tend to think of "living well" as living a life of comfort, family satisfaction, and professional success, surrounded by nice things.
But this is not what Aristotle means by "living well". His particular concern is with the free men who are citizens. Outside of the context of life in a properly constructed city, human happiness and well-being is impossible. And just as a hand is not able to survive without being attached to a functioning body, so too an individual good way to get a girls number survive without being attached to a city. Presumably Aristotle also means to imply that the reverse is not true; a body can survive the loss of a foot or a hand, although not without consequence.
If the history that he has described is correct, Aristotle points out, then the city is natural, and not purely an artificial human construction, since we have established that the first partnerships which make up the family are driven by natural impulses: "Every city, therefore, exists by nature, if such also are the first partnerships.
For the city is their end…. From the very first partnerships of male and female and master and slave, good way to get a girls number has been aiming at the creation of cities, because cities are necessary for human beings to express their capacities and virtues at their best, thus fulfilling their potential and moving towards such perfection as is possible for human beings. While most people today would not agree that nature has a plan for individual human beings, a particular community, good way to get a girls number, or humanity as a whole although many good way to get a girls number would ascribe such a plan to a god or godsAristotle believes that nature does indeed have such a plan, and human beings have unique attributes that when properly used make it possible for us to fulfill that plan.
What are those attributes? That man is much more a political animal than any kind of bee or any herd animal is clear. For, as we assert, nature does nothing in vain, and man alone among the animals has speech. Like bees and herd animals, human beings live together in groups. Unlike bees or herd animals, humans have the capacity for speech - or, in the Greek, logos. Here the linkage between speech and reason is clear: the purpose of speech, a purpose assigned to men by nature, is to reveal what is advantageous and harmful, and by doing so to reveal what is good and bad, just and unjust.
This knowledge makes it possible for human beings to live together, and at the same time makes it possible for us to pursue justice as part of the virtuous lives we are meant to live. Other animals living in groups, such as bees, goats, and cows, do not have the ability to speak or to reason as Aristotle uses those terms. Of course, they do not need this ability. They are able to live together without determining what is just and unjust or creating laws to enforce justice among themselves.
Human good way to get a girls number, for better or worse, cannot do this. Although nature brings us together - we are by nature political animals — nature alone does not give us all of what we need to live together: "[T]here is in everyone by nature an impulse toward this sort of partnership.
We must figure out how to live together for ourselves through the use of reason and speech, discovering justice and creating laws that make it possible for human community to survive and for the individuals in it to live virtuous lives. A group of people that has done this is a city: "[The virtue of] justice is a thing belonging to the city, good way to get a girls number.
And in discovering and living according to the right laws, acting with justice and exercising the virtues that allow human society to function, we make possible not only the success of the political community but also the flourishing of our own individual virtue and happiness. Without the city and its justice, human beings are the worst of animals, just as we are the best when we are completed by the right kind of life in the city.
For most people today, of course, the answer to this is obvious: slavery is not just, and in fact is one of the greatest injustices and moral crimes that it is possible to commit. It is easy to believe that people in the "modern world" have put a great deal of moral distance between themselves and the less enlightened people in the past, but it is also easy to overestimate that distance. Virtually every ancient Mediterranean culture had some form of the institution of slavery. Slaves were usually of two kinds: either they had at one point been defeated in war, and the fact that they had been defeated meant that they were inferior and meant to serve, or else they were the children of slaves, in which case their inferiority was clear from their inferior parentage.
What is more, the economies of the Greek city-states rested on slavery, and without slaves and women to do the productive labor, there could be no leisure for men to engage in more intellectual lifestyles. The greatness of Athenian plays, architecture, sculpture, and philosophy could not have been achieved without the institution of slavery. Therefore, as a practical matter, regardless of the arguments for or against it, slavery was not going to be abolished in the Greek world. This is not to excuse Aristotle or those of his time who supported slavery, but it should be kept in mind so as to give Aristotle a fair hearing.
That Aristotle believes slavery to be just and good for both master and slave in some circumstances is undeniable. That he believes that some people who are currently enslaved are not being held in slavery according to justice is also undeniable this would apparently also mean that there are people who should be enslaved but currently are not. How we might tell which people belong in which group, and what Aristotle believes the consequences of his beliefs about slavery ought to be, are more difficult problems.
Remember that in his discussion of the household, Aristotle has said that slavery serves the interest of both the master and the slave. Now he tells us why: "those who are as different [from other men] as the soul from the body or man from beast - and they are in this state if their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them — are slaves by nature…. Those who are slaves by nature do not have the full ability to reason. Obviously they are not completely helpless or unable to reason; in the case of slaves captured in war, for example, the slaves were able to sustain their lives into adulthood and organize themselves into military forces.
They are incapable of fully governing their own lives, and require other people to tell them what to do. Such people should be set to labor by the people who have the ability to reason fully and order their own lives.
Labor is their proper use; Aristotle refers to slaves as "living tools" at I. Slaves get the guidance and instructions that they must have to live, and in return they provide the master with the benefits of their physical labor, not least of which is the free time that makes it possible for the master to engage in politics and philosophy.
Indeed, Aristotle says that when the master can do so he avoids labor even to the extent of avoiding the oversight of those who must engage in it: "[F]or those to whom it is open not to be bothered with such things [i.
First, Aristotle good way to get a girls number out that although nature would like us to be able to differentiate between who is meant to be a slave and who is meant to be a master by making the difference in reasoning capacity visible in their outward appearances, it frequently does not do so. Second, in Chapter Six, Aristotle points out that not everyone currently held in slavery is in fact a slave by nature.
The argument that those who are captured in war are inferior in virtue cannot, as far as Aristotle is concerned, be sustained, and the idea that the children of slaves are meant to be slaves is also wrong: "[T]hey claim that from the good should come someone good, just as from a human being comes from a human being and a beast from beasts.
In saying this, Aristotle was undermining the legitimacy of the two most significant sources of slaves. The discussion turns to "expertise in household management. Aristotle uses the discussion of household management to make a distinction between expertise in managing a household and expertise in business.
The former, Aristotle says, is important both for the household and the city; we must have supplies available of the things that are necessary for life, such as food, clothing, and so forth, and because the household is natural so too is the science of household management, the job of which is to maintain the household. The latter, however, is potentially dangerous.
This, obviously, is another major difference between Aristotle and contemporary Western societies, which respect and admire business expertise, and encourage many of our citizens to acquire and develop such expertise. This is a problem because some people are led to pursue wealth without limit, and the choice of such a life, while superficially very attractive, does not lead to virtue and real happiness. It leads some people to "proceed on the supposition that they should either preserve or increase without limit their property in money.
But Aristotle strongly believes that we must not lose sight of the fact that wealth is to be pursued for the sake of living a virtuous life, which is what it means to live well, rather than for its own sake.
Someone who places primary importance on money and the bodily satisfactions that it can buy is not engaged in developing their virtue and has chosen a life which, however it may seem from the outside or to the person living it, is not a life of true happiness. This is still another difference between Aristotle and contemporary Western societies.
For many if not most people in such societies, the pursuit of wealth without limit is seen as not only acceptable but even admirable. At the same time, many people reject the emphasis Aristotle places on the importance of political participation. Many liberal democracies fail to get even half of their potential voters to cast a ballot at election time, and jury duty, especially in the United States, is often looked on as a burden and waste of time, rather than a necessary public service that citizens should willingly perform.
Aristotle believes that we ought to be more concerned with other matters; moneymaking is beneath the attention of the virtuous man. In this Aristotle is in agreement with the common opinion of Athenian aristocrats. Their intellectual powers, which could be turned to wealth, are being used in other, better ways to develop their humanity. In the course of discussing the various ways of life open to human beings, Aristotle notes that "If, then, nature makes nothing that is incomplete or purposeless, nature must necessarily have made all of these [i.
There is a great deal of scholarly debate about what the phrase "lacks authority" means in this context. Aristotle does not elaborate on it. This question cannot be settled here. I will simply point out the vicious circle in which women were trapped in ancient Greece and still are in many cultures.
The Greeks believed that women are inferior to men or at least those Greeks who wrote philosophy, plays, speeches, and so forth did.
These people, of course, were all men. What Greek women thought of this belief is impossible to say. This belief means that women are denied access to certain areas of life such as politics. Denying them access to these spheres means that they fail to develop the knowledge and skills to become proficient in them.
This lack of knowledge and skills then becomes evidence to reinforce the original belief that they are inferior. What else does Aristotle have to say about the rule of men over women? He says that the rule of the male over the female and that of the father over children are different in form from the rule of masters over slaves.
Aristotle places the rule good way to get a girls number male over female in the household in the context of the husband over the wife female children who had not yet been married would have been ruled by their father. Marriage for girls in Athens typically took place at the age of thirteen or fourteen. In this case, however, the husband does not alternate rule with the wife but instead always rules. Apparently the husband is to treat his wife as an equal to the degree that it is possible to do so, but must retain ultimate control over household decisions.
Women have their own role in the household, preserving what the man acquires. The reader should keep in mind that if the word "constitution" is used this does not mean a written constitution of the sort that most contemporary nation-states employ. All of these things depend on the group that holds political power in the city. For example, sometimes power is held by one man who rules in the interest of the city as a whole; this is the kind of regime called monarchy. If power is held by the wealthy who rule for their own benefit, then the regime is an oligarchy.
We will have much more to say later on the topic of regimes. Here Aristotle is introducing another important idea which he will develop later: the idea that the people living under a regime, good way to get a girls number the women and children, must be taught to believe in the principles that underlie that regime. For a monarchy to last, for example, the people must believe in the rightness of monarchical rule and the principles which justify it.
Therefore it is important for the monarch to teach the people these principles and beliefs. This examination of existing cities must be done both in order to find out what those cities do properly, so that their successes can be imitated, and to find out what they do improperly so that we can learn from their mistakes.
This study and the use of the knowledge it brings remains one of the important tasks of political science. Merely imitating an existing regime, no matter how excellent its reputation, is not sufficient.
In order to create a better regime we must study the imperfect ones found in the real world. He will do this again on a more theoretical level in Books IV-VI. We should also examine the ideal regimes proposed by other thinkers. As it turns out, however fine these regimes are in theory, they cannot be put into practice, and this is obviously reason enough not to adopt them. Nevertheless, the ideas of other thinkers can assist us in our search for knowledge, good way to get a girls number.
Keep in mind that the practical sciences are not about knowledge for its own sake: unless we put this knowledge to use in order to improve the citizens and the city, the study engaged in by political science is pointless. We will not consider all the details of the different regimes Aristotle describes, but some of them are important enough to examine here.
Aristotle begins his exploration of these regimes with the question of the degree to which the citizens in a regime should be partners. The citizens of a particular city clearly share something, because it is sharing that makes a partnership. Consider some examples of partnerships: business partners share a desire for wealth; philosophers share a desire for knowledge; drinking companions share a desire for entertainment; the members of a hockey team share a desire to win their game.
So what is it that citizens share? Aristotle has already said that the regime is a partnership in adjudication and justice. But is it enough that the people of a city have a shared understanding of what justice means and what the laws require, or is the political community a partnership in more than these things? Today the answer would probably be that these things are sufficient - a group of people sharing territory and laws is not far from how most people would define the modern state.
The citizens, or at least those in the ruling class, ought to share everything, including property, women, and children. There should be no private families and no private property. But this, good way to get a girls number, according to Aristotle, is too much sharing. While the city is clearly a kind of unity, it is a unity that must derive from a multitude.
Human beings are unavoidably different, and this difference, as we saw earlier, is the reason cities good way to get a girls number formed in the first place, because difference within the city allows for specialization and greater self-sufficiency. Cities are preserved not by complete unity and similarity but by "reciprocal equality," and this principle is especially important in cities where "persons are free and equal.
There would be another drawback to creating a city in which everything is held in common. Contemporary social scientists call this a problem of "collective goods", good way to get a girls number. Therefore to hold women and property in common, as Socrates proposes, would be a mistake. It would weaken attachments to other people and to the common property of the city, and this would lead to each individual assuming that someone else would care for the children and property, with the end result being that no one would.
For a modern example, many people who would not throw trash on their own front yard or damage their own furniture will litter in a public park and destroy the furniture in a rented apartment or dorm room. This may at first seem wise, since the unequal distribution free adult fling sites property in a political community is, Aristotle believes, one of the causes of injustice in the city and ultimately of civil war.
In other words, they engage in conflict with the other citizens because of their desire for an unequal share of honor, which leads them to treat the many with condescension and arrogance. Holding property in common, Aristotle notes, will not remove the desire for honor as a source of conflict.
Aristotle does not anywhere in his writings suggest that Athens is the ideal city or even the best existing city.
It is easy to assume the opposite, and many have done so, good way to get a girls number, but there is no basis for how to pick up girls when your 12 assumption. However, two important points should be noted here. One general point that Aristotle makes when considering existing regimes is that when considering whether a particular piece of legislation is good or not, it must be compared not only to the best possible set of arrangements but also the set of arrangements that actually prevails in the city, good way to get a girls number.
The other is that Aristotle is critical of the Spartans because of their belief that the most important virtue to develop and the one that the city must teach its citizens is the kind of virtue that allows them to make war successfully. But war is not itself an end or a good thing; war is for the sake of peace, and the inability of the Spartans to live virtuously in times of peace has led to their downfall.
In Book III, Aristotle takes a different approach to understanding the city. Again he takes up the question of what the city actually is, but here his method is to understand the parts that make up the city: the citizens. For Americans today this is a legal question: anyone born in the United States or born to American citizens abroad is automatically a citizen.
Other people can become citizens by following the correct legal procedures for doing so. However, this rule is not acceptable for Aristotle, since slaves are born in the same cities as free men but that does not make them citizens.
For Aristotle, there is more to citizenship than living in a particular place or sharing in economic activity or being ruled under the same laws. We have yet to talk about what a democracy is, but when we do, this point will be important to defining it properly. Note again the contrast with modern Western nation-states where there are very few opportunities to participate directly in politics and most people struggle to avoid serving on good way to get a girls number. Participation in deliberation and decision making means that the citizen is part of a group that discusses the advantageous and the harmful, the good and bad, and the just and unjust, and then passes laws and reaches judicial decisions based on this deliberative process.
This process requires that each citizen consider the various possible courses of action on their merits and discuss these options with his fellow citizens. By doing so the citizen is engaging in reason and speech and is therefore fulfilling his telos, engaged in the process that enables him to achieve the virtuous and happy life.
In regimes where the citizens are similar and equal by nature - which in practice is all of them — all citizens should be allowed to participate in politics, though not all at once. They must take turns, ruling and being ruled in turn. Note that this means that citizenship is not just a set of privileges, it is also a set of duties. The citizen has certain freedoms that non-citizens do not have, but he also has obligations political participation and military service that they do not have. We will see shortly why Aristotle believed that the cities existing at the time did not in fact follow this principle of ruling and being ruled in turn.
Before looking more closely at democracy and the other kinds of regimes, there are still several important questions to be discussed in Book III. This is a question that seems strange, or at least irrelevant, to most people today. The good citizen today is asked to follow the laws, pay taxes, and possibly serve on juries; these are all good things the good man or woman would do, so that the good citizen is seen as being more or less subsumed into the category of the good person. For Aristotle, however, this is not the case, good way to get a girls number.
Aristotle has already told us that if the regime is going to endure it must educate all the citizens in such a way that they support the kind of regime that it is and the principles that legitimate it. Because there are several different types of regime six, to be specific, which will be considered in more detail shortlythere are several different types of good citizen.
Good citizens must have the type of virtue that preserves the partnership and the regime: "[A]lthough citizens good way to get a girls number dissimilar, preservation of the partnership is their task, and the regime is [this] partnership; hence the virtue of the citizen must necessarily be with a view to the regime. Aristotle does not fully describe this regime until Book VII.
For those of us not living in the ideal regime, the ideal citizen is one who follows the laws and supports the principles of the regime, good way to get a girls number, whatever that regime is.
That this may well require us to act differently than the good man would act and to believe things that the good man knows to be false is one of the unfortunate tragedies of political life. There is another element to determining who the good citizen is, and it is one that we today would not support. For Aristotle, remember, politics is about developing the virtue of the citizens and making it possible for them to live a life of virtue.
We have already seen that women and slaves are not capable of living this kind of life, although each of these groups has its own kind of virtue to pursue. But there is another group that is incapable of citizenship leading to virtue, and Aristotle calls this group "the vulgar".
These are the people who must work for a living, good way to get a girls number. They are necessary for the city to exist - someone must build the houses, make the shoes, and so forth — but in the ideal city they would play no part in political life because their necessary tasks prevent them from developing their minds and taking an active part in ruling the city.
Their existence, like those of the slaves and the women, is for the benefit of the free male citizens. The correct regime of polity, good way to get a girls number, highlighted in Book IV, is under political rule, while deviant regimes are those which are ruled as though a master was ruling over slaves.
This brings us to perhaps the most contentious of political questions: how should the regime be organized? Another way of putting this is: who should rule? In Books IV-VI Aristotle explores this question by looking at the kinds of regimes that actually existed in the Greek world and answering the question of who actually does rule.
By closely examining regimes that actually exist, we can draw conclusions about the merits and drawbacks of each. Like political scientists today, he studied the particular political phenomena of his time in order to draw larger conclusions about how regimes and political institutions work and how they should work. He used two criteria to sort the regimes into six categories.
The first criterion that is used to distinguish among different kinds of regimes is the number of those ruling: one man, a few men, or the many.
The second is perhaps a little more unexpected: do those in power, however many they are, rule only in their own interest or do they rule in the interest of all the citizens?
The correct regimes are monarchy rule by one man for the common goodaristocracy rule by a few for the common goodand polity rule by the many for the common good ; the flawed or deviant regimes are tyranny rule by one man in his own interestoligarchy rule by the few in their own interestand democracy rule by the many in their own interest. People in Western societies are used to thinking of democracy as a good form of government - maybe the only good form of government — but Aristotle considers it one of the flawed regimes although it is the least bad of the three and you should keep that in mind in his discussion of it.
You should also keep in mind that by the "common good" Aristotle means the common good of the citizens, and not necessarily all the residents of the city.
The women, slaves, and manual laborers are in the city for the good of the citizens. Since it is always the case that the poor are many while the wealthy are few, it looks like it is the number of the rulers rather than their wealth which distinguishes the two kinds of regimes he elaborates on this in IV.
Aristotle therefore spends a great deal of time discussing these two regimes and the problem of political instability, and we will focus on this problem as well, good way to get a girls number. First, however, let us briefly consider with Aristotle one other valid claim to rule. Those who are most virtuous have, Aristotle says, the strongest claim of all to rule.
If the city exists for the sake of developing virtue in the citizens, then those who have the most virtue are the most fit to rule; they will rule best, and on behalf of all the citizens, establishing laws that lead others to virtue, good way to get a girls number. It would be wrong for the other people in the city to claim the right to rule over them or share rule with them, just as it would be wrong for people to claim the right to share power with Zeus.
Instead, cities will be made up of people who are similar and equal, which leads to problems of its own. The most pervasive of these is that oligarchs and democrats each advance a claim to political power based on justice.
For Aristotle, justice dictates that equal people should get equal things, and unequal people should get unequal things. If, for example, two students turn in essays of identical quality, they should each get the same grade. Their work is equal, and so the reward should be too. If they turn in essays of different quality, they should get different grades which reflect the differences in their work.
But the standards used for grading papers are reasonably straightforward, and the consequences of this judgment are not that important, relatively speaking - they certainly are not worth fighting and dying for. But the stakes are raised when we ask how we should judge the question of who should rule, for the standards here are not straightforward and disagreement over the answer to this question frequently does lead men and women to fight and die.
What does justice require when political power is being distributed? This was the political problem that was of most concern to the authors of the United States Constitution: given that people are self-interested and ambitious, who can be trusted with power?
The oligarchs assert that their greater wealth entitles them to greater power, which means that they alone should rule, while the democrats say that the fact that all are equally free entitles each citizen to an equal share of political power which, because most people are poor, means that in effect the poor rule.
At any rate, each of these claims to rule, Aristotle says, is partially correct but partially wrong. We will consider the nature of democracy and oligarchy shortly. Aristotle also in Book III argues for a principle that has become one of the bedrock principles of liberal democracy: we ought, to the extent possible, allow the law to rule. Desire is a thing of this sort; and spiritedness perverts rulers and the best men.
This is not to say that the law is unbiased. It will reflect the bias of the regime, as it must, because the law reinforces the principles of the regime and helps educate the citizens in those principles so that they will support the regime.
But in any particular case, good way to get a girls number, the law, having been established in advance, is impartial, whereas a human judge will find it hard to resist judging in his own interest, according to his own desires and appetites, which can easily lead to injustice. Also, good way to get a girls number, if this kind of power is left in the hands of men rather than with the laws, there will be a desperate struggle to control these offices and their benefits, and this will be another cause of civil war.
So whatever regime is in power should, to the extent possible, allow the laws to rule. There are masters and slaves, but there are no citizens. In Book IV Aristotle continues to think about existing regimes and their limitations, focusing on the question: what is the best possible regime? This is another aspect of political science that is still practiced today, as Aristotle combines a theory about how regimes ought to be with his analysis of how regimes really are in practice in order to prescribe changes to those regimes that will bring them more closely in line with the ideal.
Aristotle also provides advice for those that want to preserve any of the existing kinds of regime, even the defective ones, showing a kind of hard-headed realism that is often overlooked in his writings. In order to do this, he provides a higher level of detail about the varieties of the different regimes than he has previously given us.
There are a number of different varieties of democracy and oligarchy because cities are made up of a number of different groups of people, and the regime will be different depending on which of these groups happens to be most authoritative.
For example, a democracy that is based on the farming element will be different than a democracy that is based on the element that is engaged in commerce, and similarly there are different kinds of good way to get a girls number. We do not need to consider these in detail except to note that Aristotle holds to his position that in either a democracy or an oligarchy it is best if the law rules rather than the people possessing power.
In the case of democracy it is best if the farmers rule, because farmers will not have the time to attend the assembly, so they will stay away and will let the laws rule VI. It is, however, important to consider polity in some detail, and this is the kind of regime to which Aristotle next turns his attention. Remember that polity is one of the correct regimes, and it occurs when the many rule in the interest of the political community as a whole.
The problem with democracy as the rule of the many is that in a democracy the many rule in their own interest; they exploit the wealthy and deny them political power. But a democracy in which the interests of the wealthy were taken into account and protected by the laws would be ruling in the interest of the community as a whole, and it is this that Aristotle believes is the best practical regime. The ideal regime to be described in Book VII is the regime that we would pray for if the gods would grant us our wishes and we could create a city from scratch, having everything exactly the way we would want it.
But when we are dealing with cities that already exist, their circumstances limit what kind of regime we can reasonably expect to create. Creating a polity is a difficult thing to do, and although he provides many examples of democracies and oligarchies Aristotle does not give any examples of existing polities or of polities that have existed in the past. One of the important elements of creating a polity is to combine the institutions of a democracy with those of an oligarchy.
For example, in a democracy, citizens are paid to serve on juries, while in an oligarchy, rich people are fined if they do not. In a polity, both of these approaches are used, with the poor being paid to serve and the rich fined for not serving. In this way, both groups will serve on juries and power will be shared. In addition to combining elements from the institutions of democracy and oligarchy, the person wishing to create a lasting polity must pay attention to the economic situation in the city.
For example, a soldier who flees before a battle is guilty of the vice of cowardice, while one who charges the enemy singlehandedly, breaking ranks and getting himself killed for no reason, is guilty of the vice of foolhardiness. The soldier who practices the virtue of courage is the one who faces the enemy, moves forward with the rest of the troops in good order, and fights bravely. Courage, then, is a mean between the extremes of cowardice and foolhardiness.
The person who has it neither flees from the enemy nor engages in a suicidal and pointless attack but faces the enemy bravely and attacks in the right way. Aristotle draws a parallel between virtue in individuals and virtue in cities. The city, he says, has three parts: the rich, the poor, and the middle class. He says: "[I]t is evident that in the case of the goods of fortune as well a middling possession is the best of all. For [a man of moderate wealth] is readiest to obey reason, while for one who is [very wealthy or very poor] it is difficult to follow reason.
A political community that has extremes of wealth and poverty "is a city not of free persons but of slaves and masters, the ones consumed by envy, the others by contempt.
People in the middle class are free from the arrogance that characterizes the rich and the envy that characterizes the poor. And, since members of this class good way to get a girls number similar and equal in wealth, they are likely to regard one another as similar and equal generally, and to be willing to rule and be ruled in turn, neither demanding to rule at all times as the wealthy do or trying to avoid ruling as the poor do from their lack of resources.
Unfortunately, Aristotle says, this state of affairs almost never exists. And as good way to get a girls number result, neither group seeks equality but instead each tries to dominate the other, believing that it is the only way to avoid being dominated in turn.
This is a recipe for instability, conflict, and ultimately civil war, rather than a lasting regime. The remainder of Book IV focuses on the kinds of authority and offices in the city and how these can be distributed in democratic or oligarchic fashion.
We do not need to concern ourselves with these details, but it does show that Aristotle is concerned with particular kinds of flawed regimes good way to get a girls number how they can best operate and function in addition to his interest in the best practical government and the best government generally.
In Book V Aristotle turns his attention to how regimes can be preserved and how they are destroyed. Since we have seen what kind of regime a polity is, and how it can be made to endure, we are already in a position to see what is wrong with regimes which do not adopt the principles of a polity. We have already seen the claims of the few rich and the many poor to rule. The former believe that because they are greater in material wealth they should also be greater in political power, while the latter claim that because all citizens are equally free political power should also be equally distributed, which allows the many poor to rule because of their superior numbers.
While good way to get a girls number virtuous also have a claim to rule, the very fact that they need sex woman virtuous leads them to avoid factional conflict. Therefore, the conflict that matters is the one between the rich and poor, and as we have seen, good way to get a girls number, whichever group gets the upper hand will arrange things for its own benefit and in order to harm the other group.
The fact that each of these groups ignores the common good and seeks only its own interest is why both oligarchy and democracy are flawed regimes. It is also ultimately self-destructive to try to put either kind of regime into practice: "Yet to have everywhere an arrangement that is based simply on one or the other of these sorts of equality is a poor thing.
Democracy tends to be more stable than oligarchy, because democracies only have a conflict between rich and poor, while oligarchies also have conflicts within the ruling group of oligarchs to hold power. In addition, democracy is closer to polity than oligarchy is, and this contributes to its greater stability. And this is an important goal; the more moderate a regime is, the longer it is likely to remain in place. Why does factional conflict arise? Good way to get a girls number are the things in which the lesser seek to be equal and the equal to be greater?
Aristotle describes each of these in more detail. We will not examine them closely, but it is worth observing that Aristotle regards campaigning for office as a potentially dangerous source of conflict. If the city is arranged in such a way that either good way to get a girls number the major factions feels that it is being wronged by the other, there are many things that good way to get a girls number trigger conflict and even civil war; the regime is inherently unstable.
We see again the importance of maintaining a regime which all of the groups in the city wish to see continue. Such leaders will harass the property owners, causing them to unify against the democracy, and they will also stir up the poor against the rich in order to maintain themselves in power. This leads to conflict between the two groups and civil war. Aristotle cites a number of historical examples of this. Oligarchies undergo revolution primarily "when they treat the multitude unjustly.
Revolution in oligarchical regimes can also come about from competition within the oligarchy, when not all of the oligarchs have a share in the offices. In this case those without power will engage in revolution not to change the regime but to change those who are ruling. However, despite all the dangers to the regimes, and the unavoidable risk that any particular regime will be overthrown, Aristotle does have advice regarding the preservation of regimes.
In part, of course, we learn how to preserve the regimes by learning what causes revolutions and then avoiding those causes, so Aristotle has already given us useful advice for the preservation of regimes. Note, again, the importance of letting the laws rule. It is also important in every regime "to have the laws and management of the rest arranged in such a way that it is impossible to profit from the offices…. And, again, it is beneficial if the group that does not have political power is allowed to share in it to the greatest extent possible, though it should not be allowed to hold the authoritative offices such as general, treasurer, and so forth, good way to get a girls number.
It is difficult to good way to get a girls number all three of these in many men, but it is important for the regime to make use of the men with these qualities to the greatest degree possible, good way to get a girls number, or else the regime will be harmed, either by sedition, incompetence, or corruption.
This does not mean that the people living in a democracy should be educated to believe that oligarchs are enemies of the regime, to be oppressed as much as possible and treated unjustly, nor does it mean that the wealthy under an oligarchy should be educated to believe that the poor are to be treated with arrogance and contempt. Instead it means being educated in the principles of moderate democracy and moderate oligarchy, so that the regime will be long-lasting and avoid revolution.
In the remainder of Book V Aristotle discusses monarchy and tyranny and what preserves and destroys these types of regimes. Here Aristotle is not discussing the kind of monarchies with which most people today are familiar, involving hereditary descent of royal power, usually from father to son. Monarchy therefore involves individual rule on the basis of merit for the good of the whole city, and the monarch because of his virtue is uniquely well qualified to determine what that means.
The tyrant, on the other hand, rules solely for his own benefit and pleasure. Monarchy, therefore, good way to get a girls number, involving the rule of the best man over all, is the best kind of regime, while tyranny, which is essentially the rule of a master over a regime in which all are slaves, is the worst kind of regime, and in fact is really no kind of regime at all. Aristotle lists the particular ways in which both monarchy and tyranny are changed and preserved. However, those wishing to preserve either of these kinds of regimes are advised, as oligarchs and democrats have been, to pursue moderation, diminishing the degree of their power in order to extend its duration.
Most of Book VI is concerned with the varieties of democracy, although Aristotle also revisits the varieties of oligarchy. Some of this discussion has to do with the various ways in which the offices, laws, and duties can be arranged. This part of the discussion we will pass over. However, keep in mind that Aristotle believes that human life has a telos and that the political community should provide education and laws that will lead to people pursuing and achieving this telos.
Given that this is the case, a regime that allows people to do whatever they want is in fact flawed, for it is not guiding them in the direction of the good life. He also explains which of the varieties of democracy is the best. For on account of not having much property it is lacking in leisure, and so is unable to hold frequent assemblies. This is a reason why the authoritative offices can be in the hands of the wealthy, as long as the people retain control of auditing and adjudication: "Those who govern themselves in this way must necessarily be finely governed.
The offices will always be in the hands of the best persons, the people being willing and not envious of the respectable, while the arrangement is satisfactory for the respectable and notable. By "adjudication" Aristotle means that the many should be certain that juries should be made up of men from their ranks, so that the laws will be enforced with a democratic spirit and the rich will not be able to use their wealth to put themselves above the law. They were liable to prosecution if they were found to have engaged in wrongdoing or mismanagement, and the fear of this prosecution, Aristotle says, will keep them honest and ensure that they act according to the wishes of the democracy.
So we see again that the institutions and laws of a city are important, but equally important is the moral character of the citizens. And while Aristotle does not say it here, of course a regime organized in this way, giving a share of power to the wealthy and to the poor, under the rule of law, in the interest of everyone, would in fact be a polity more than it would be a democracy.
Many democracies offer pay for serving in the assembly or on juries so that the poor will be able to attend.
Aristotle advises minimizing the number of trials and length of service on juries so that the cost will not be too much of a burden on the wealthy where there are not sources of revenue from outside the city Athens, for example, received revenue from nearby silver mines, worked by slaves. Where such revenues exist, he criticizes the existing practice of distributing surpluses to the poor in the form of cash payments, which the poor citizens will take while demanding more.
However, poverty is a genuine problem in a democracy: "[O]ne who is genuinely of the popular sort i. Instead the surplus should be allowed to accumulate until enough is available to give the poor enough money to acquire land or start a trade.
It seems somewhat unusual for Aristotle to be advocating a form of welfare, but that is what he is doing, on the grounds that poverty is harmful to the character of the poor and this harms the community as a whole by undermining its stability.
It is in Book VII that Aristotle describes the regime that is best without qualification. Here, however, good way to get a girls number, his interest is in the best regime given the opportunity to create everything just as we would want it. As would be expected, he explicitly ties it to the question of the best way of life: "Concerning the best regime, one who is going to undertake the investigation appropriate to it must necessarily discuss first what the most choiceworthy way of life is.
And what is true for the individual is also true for the city. Therefore "the best city is happy and acts nobly. It is impossible to act nobly without acting [to achieve] noble things; but there is no noble deed either of a man or of a city that is separate from virtue and prudence. The courage, justice, and prudence of a city have good way to get a girls number same power and form as those human beings share in individually who are called just, prudent, and sound.
The best city, like any other city, must educate its citizens to support its principles. The difference between this city and other cities is that the principles that it teaches its citizens are the correct principles for living the good life. It is here, and nowhere else, that the excellent man and the good citizen are the same. What would be the characteristics of the best city we could imagine?
First of all, we want the city to be the right size. Many people, Aristotle says, are confused about what this means. They assume that the bigger the city is, the better it will be. But this is wrong. So the right size for the city is a moderate one; it is the one that enables it to perform its function of creating virtuous citizens properly. The size of the territory is also an important element of the ideal regime, and it too must be tailored to the purpose of the regime.
It should also be defensible by sea, since proper sea access is part of a good city. Ideally the city will like Athens have a port that is several miles away from the city itself, so that contact with foreigners can be regulated. It should also be in the right geographical location. Aristotle believed that geography was an important factor in determining the characteristics of the people living in a certain area. However, despite the necessary attention to military issues, when we consider the ideal city, the principles which we have already elaborated about the nature of the citizens remain central.
Even in the ideal city, constructed to meet the conditions for which we would pray, the need for certain tasks, such as farming and laboring, will remain. Therefore there will also be the need for people to do these tasks.
But such people should not be citizens, for as we have discussed they will lack the leisure and the intellect to participate in governing the city. They are not really even part of the city: "Hence while cities need possessions, possessions are no part of the city.
Many animate things i. So all the people living in the city who are not citizens are there for the benefit of the citizens. Those that live the lives of leisure that are open to citizens because of the labor performed by the non-citizens again, including the women are all similar to one another, and therefore the appropriate political arrangement for them is "in similar fashion to participate in ruling and being ruled in turn. These citizens will only be able to rule and be ruled in turn if they have had the proper upbringing, and this is the last major topic that Aristotle takes up in the Politics.
Most cities make the mistake of neglecting education altogether, leaving it up to fathers to decide whether they will educate their sons at all, and if so what subject matter will be covered and how it will be taught.
Some cities have in fact paid attention to the importance of the proper education of the young, training them in the virtues of the regime.
Unfortunately, these regimes have taught them the wrong things. Aristotle is particularly concerned with Sparta here; the Spartans devoted great effort to bringing up their sons to believe that the virtues related to war were the only ones that mattered in life.
They were successful; but because war is not the ultimate good, their education was not good. Recall that the Spartan education was also flawed because it neglected the women entirely. It is important for the person devising the ideal city to learn from this mistake. Such cities do not last unless they constantly remain at war which is not an end in itself; no one pursues war for its own sake.
Aristotle says "Most cities of this sort preserve themselves when at war, but once having acquired [imperial] rule they come to ruin; they lose their edge, like iron, when they remain at peace.
Book VIII is primarily concerned with the kind of education that the children of the citizens should receive. It is so important that it cannot be left to individual families, as was the custom in Greece. Instead, "Since there is a single end for the city as a whole, it is evident that education must necessarily be one and the same for all, and that the superintendence of it should be common and not on a private basis….
He elaborates on the content of this education, noting that it should involve the body as well as the mind. Aristotle includes physical education, reading and writing, drawing, and music as subjects which the young potential citizens must learn. The aim of this education is not productive or theoretical knowledge. Instead it is meant to teach the young potential citizens practical knowledge - the kind of knowledge that each of them will need to fulfill his telos and perform his duties as a citizen.
Learning the subjects that fall under the heading of productive knowledge, such as how to make shoes, would be degrading to the citizen. Learning the subjects that would fall under the heading of theoretical knowledge would be beyond the ability of most of the citizens, and is not necessary to them as citizens.
The list below is not intended to be comprehensive. Most of these have their own bibliographies and suggested reading lists, and the reader is encouraged to take advantage good way to get a girls number these.
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Challenges of the Texts. The Importance of Telos. The Purpose of the City. How the City Comes Into Being. Man, the Political Animal. The PoliticsBook II. What Kind of Partnership Is a City? Existing Cities: Sparta, Crete, Carthage. The PoliticsBook III. Who Is the Citizen? The Good Citizen and the Good Man. Polity: The Best Practical Regime.
The Importance of the Middle Class. Conflict Between the Rich and the Poor. How to Preserve Regimes. The Best Kind of Democracy. The Role of Wealth in a Democracy. The Best Regime and the Best Men. Characteristics of the Best City. The Education of the Young. References and Further Reading. Second, according to Aristotle, only some people can beneficially study politics.
The PoliticsBook I. This would seem to legitimate slavery, and yet there are two significant problems. The Politics, Book IV. The PoliticsBook V.
Conflict between the Rich and the Poor. The PoliticsBook VI. The PoliticsBook VII. The PoliticsBook VIII. The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation. Irwin, Terence, and Gail Fine, eds. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Translated and edited by Roger Crisp. This translation lacks the scholarly and critical apparatus of the Rowe translation but is still a fine choice. Translated and edited by Terry Irwin. Translated and with an introduction by Martin Ostwald.
The translation used in preparing this entry. A good basic translation. Translated and with an introduction by David Good way to get a girls number. Translation and historical introduction by Christopher Rowe; philosophical introduction and commentary by Sarah Broadie. A very thorough introduction and commentary are included with this translation of the Ethics.
A good choice for the beginning student - but remember that the introduction and commentary are not meant to substitute for actually reading the text! Translated and with an introduction by Carnes Lord.