Dear Cecile,

The link in the De Interpretatione and Nicomachean Ethic is that the former is used as tool through which logical interpretation can be made while the latter is a compedium on ethical issues that Aristotle reflected about.

Good for Aristotle is related to happiness; happiness is not interpreted as a result of bodily pleasures but as an activity of the soul that is living and contemplating virtues. There are two goods one related to the soul and the other related to the body, the one related to the soul is noble.The good for man/woman, according to Aristotle, is an active use or exercise of those faculties and in the exercise of reason in the search for the contemplation of truth.

The end of politics is the highest good, and consequently politics must try to cultivate dispositions to noble actions in citizens. Strictly speaking, only human beings with full use of reason (not animals or even small children) can be considered happy because happiness is action in accordance with reason.

To the second query about implicit logic in ethics; First, for Aristotle logic is principally the instrument (the "organon") by means of which we come to know anything. He proposed as formal rules for correct reasoning the basic principles of the categorical logic. Second, the implicit nature of this logic in his argument on ethics that he begins by asserting that there is some ultimate good which is both complete and self-sufficient, and defines this good as happiness and human beings by virtue of being rational can be considered to achieve this form of happiness since it dwells in contemplation.

Thank you! could you explain me what is for aristotle the practical sillogism? 

Dear Cecile,

The process of reasoning by syllogism employs a formal definition of validity that permits the deduction of new truths from established principles. The goal is to provide an account of why things happen the way they do, based solely upon what we already know. As regards the various syllogisms you may wish to make reference to the link below.

Smith, Robin, "Aristotle's Logic", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2014 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =

thanks!

Deductive reasoning (example, ethics starts with a deduction: pasa techne kai pasa methodos...); then inductive, causal and teleological explanations.

But if we refer to deliberation in Aristotles Ethic he admets part of the intuition posible in the decision making...

Aristotle uses intuition differently of Kant (Anschauung, clean inner understanding, intellectual reasoning without feelings or other complementary empirical impressions that accompany experiences) and even more differently then we use it (as a kind of a direct knowledge, not based on experience). For him it is something that is based on experience and directly abducted to universals; really, in fact, as our “abductions” (abductions i.e; hypotheses of Pierse). Aristotle uses “nous” and the translation should be (I think) intellect and not intuition. J.A.K. Thomson translated it as intuition, but H. Rackham as “intellectual”, W. D. Ross, and Bartlett & Collins translated it as “intellect” (1141a7). So…it would be worthwhile examining it may be more in depth.

Interesting I'll check in the greek version's of Ethic .... 

"nous" (Baywater, Cardwell, Wilkinson).

Latin: intelligentia (Wilkinson)

Roger Crisp uses "intelect" too. German "Geist" (O. Gigon), so...

good!  in a way you can't act ethicly without being able to use correctly your reason but Aristotle also admit that it's posible to act good whereas the argument is wrong... 

Is logic nessecity for ethic? 

The "Cliffs notes" on NE and "Monarch notes" on Aristotle are occasionally misleading. One example is exactly the concept of “nous”. I use those notes too occasionally as a helping means for teaching and they are very useful, but may be problematic. Indeed, Ross in his book on Aristotle uses “intuition or intellect” when discussing the Book 6 of NE. But the meaning is clearly not like our concept of intuition.

Do we need logic for ethics? I thik yes. Harry Gensler wrote a fantastic book on "Formal ethics".

http://www.harryhiker.com/

The deontic logic should be able to help. We need more elaborated "deontic logic", I am would say, to grasp various ethical issues too.

further...The difference between Justice and equity can explain the distincion and complementarity of the logic and the Ethic... ?

I am not sure I understand the question.

The justice correspond a a logic respons of rights, meanwhile equity is a practical ethic applicacion in situacions but involves argumentacion in decisión making...

I still cannot see what the point is. Is this concerning NE? Aristotle hardly has "rights", and the book 5 has something like: obligations, deserves, has power to..., not forbidden, is free to decide, ...but no rights and certainly no "human rights" or similar. I know you want to say something else, but I do not understand what this is. Please write a longer explanation, Write even in Spanish, I can understand it.

Hola, mira  quiero decir que la justicia es conforme a una regla de aplicación que obedece a una obligación mientras que la equidad es aplicación no matemática del principio... 

Cecile

If this is still with respect to Aristotle’s NE, I suggest look the book 5, in the beginning, he discusses justice and equality.

If you wanrt to say something else, sorry, I really need more information about the background of the quastion.

thanks, I wanted to try to find an exemple of the distincion of the use of the intellect in practical aplicacion like for example justice and equity and may be find an analogy posible with the distincion of the use of intelect in logic an in ethic... 

There is an example in Plato’s Protagoras and Socrates position there to knowledge of what is good and bad. Later, in the Book 7 of NE, Aristotle initiates the further discussion related to akrasia. This will become a central point of the so called “weakness of will” problem. What I think to be quite interesting subject related to that question is the problem of knowledge of the ethical “facts” in principle.

Is this all somehow related to your research?

yes! thanks!

maybe in Plato and Aristotle, the purpose of good means truth to some extent (not absolutely), but in Kant, Good, truth, beauty, are three separated topic; idea of the highest good have dominion in all the three. the link between good and truth becomes more and more difficult in modern philosophy, especially in German classical philosophy.

Fungjuan

Is this your PhD thesis? You hold an interesting, challenging position:

"the link between good and truth becomes more and more difficult in modern philosophy, especially in German classical philosophy"

1) When you say "modern philosophy" and "German classical philosophy" what do you mean more precisely, please? Which philosophers you have in mind?

2) And, well, could you prove what you maintain, please? Give us, please, just a few short arguments why you believe that "the link between good and truth becomes more and more difficult ".

1, not my PHD thesis, for "modern philosophy", I means philosophical thoughts influenced mostly by Enlightenment; and Kant and Hegel are my favorite philosophers.   2,  Kant's critical position make the problem more complex than Plato and Aristotle whose standpoints are a little dogmatical. 

 well done!!! I'm trying to find in Husserl link between truth and good / logic-ethic similarity with Aristotle... 

I am sorry. This discussion does not look very serious.

In Edith Stein fenomenologist in "finit and eternal being" chap 5 chez referes to truth and good mostly with references of Aristotle and Husserl. Husserl in Logics investigaciones refers to Aristotle logics but differs in a way saying that the truth is more in the judgement than in the asertion... 

Very briefly:

If I had to answer the initial to this discussion question, without refreshing my memories from the De Interpretatione and the Nicomachean Ethics, just by thinking what would be the links between truth and good in Aristotle, I would have said the following.

Aristotle is the closest, most important, though often opposing -at a first glance- to his master, student of Plato. That means, despite the differences that occur between them mainly as resulting from the reformation of the Theory of Ideas, which Plato develops in order to ground and explain the sensible realm, and Aristotle considers to be somehow non-sense, since for him the essence of the being is in the very being, they have some great common points.

One of these points, relevant to your discussion here, is that the good is the ultimate, most perfect (if I could say that) reality the human being can conceive of. This perfection is stated by Plato when he 'places' the 'greatest lesson' of the Idea of the Good beyond substance, thus stating not only the perfection of the good, as being beyond both subjectivity and objectivity, but also its uniqueness.

This ontological, metaphysical Platonic principle, is sustained by Aristotle. As Gadamer observes, in his 'Aristotle's Critique of the Idea of the Good', Aristotle opens the  Nicomachean Ethics by placing the good as the goal of any artistic, technical and, in general, practical pursuit. Thus, it seems to me that Aristotle sets the good as his epistemological, gnoseological principle, as well. For to achieve a sort of perfection in any practical activity implies a certain knowledge of the good, which proportionally affects the quality of what is done.

Now, if logic is the way through which the human mind appropriately works in such a way that its thinking results to an accurate and effective depiction of the world of beings, i.e. to articulate sentences that correspond to natural laws under which nature is functioning, then one could say, that, from this point of view, logic leads to truth.

However, logic is deriving from reason. Logic is the exercise of reason. And in Nicomachean Ethics Eudaimonia can be achieved through the appropriate use of reason. Eudaimonia is not happiness, if by happiness we understand an individually achieved state of either pure pleasure or lust. Eudaimonia is a state that relates to god. So to be happy for Aristotle involves a quality (eu) connected to the divine (daimon). 

So how eudaimonia can be achieved? By aligning our reason to that reason that is standing without any need, beyond all that is in needful motion. That is the unmoving mover, the good. Besides, this is I think, a possible Aristotelian interpretation of  Heraclitus' fragment: 'you should hear not of me, but of the koinos logos, and thus admit that all is one'. 

But if then there is a possibility for all to be one, this means that all is within the good. For only the good is one, or the good is only one (and this is, I think, the Neoplatonic contribution to Aristotle.)  

From this point of view, yes, there is an implicit logic in the Ethic and this means that for Aristotle there are no independent Ethical values, and all virtues are circumscribed to the good.

Also, yes, the purpose of good not only means truth, but implies truth; thus truth is deriving as epistemic value and draws validity from the good.

I hope I didn't confuse you, I would be happy to tell me that I am not confused either...!

Best to all

thanks Panagiotis! the answer corresponds  well, I also want to refere to the practical silogisme in  the ethic of Nicomaco in chap 6. I'll try to distinguish the logic truth , ontological truth in Aristoteles texts. 

The practical silogisme : http://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0185-24502010000200001&script=sci_arttext