Skip to content
Carmelics
Topics
Thinkers
Changes
Contributors
Loading account…
Statements
321,452
Perspectives
108,905
Topics
42
Home
/
Original
/
inverse
See Original
Inverse View
It is not the case that Aristotle demonstrates in Nicomachean Ethics X that pleasure considered in isolation from the activity it accompanies cannot serve as a self-sufficient end.
?
Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.
Reasons For
1 perspective
Reason for
?
1.
Aristotle acknowledges certain pleasures are intrinsically valuable and worth pursuing for their own sake, not merely as activity accompaniments.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
The claim conflates Aristotle's hierarchy of goods with a claim about logical independence; pleasure could be both secondary and self-sufficient.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
X.5 suggests contemplation's pleasure is inseparable from the activity itself, not that isolated pleasure is impossible or indefensible as an end.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Reasons Against
1 perspective
Reason against
?
1.
Aristotle defines eudaimonia as activity of soul in accordance with virtue, making activity—not pleasure—the fundamental end.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
2.
Isolated pleasure (e.g., from drugs) lacks the rational deliberation and virtue Aristotle identifies as essential to human flourishing.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
3.
Aristotle argues pleasure perfects activity as its natural completion, proving pleasure depends on activity rather than vice versa.
?
How convincing is this?
Think about whether this reason is strong or weak
Next step
Based on where you are in your exploration
Strongest counterpoint
Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.