1. Owen Phelps
Ancient Philosophy
Antomarini
30/11/14
Aristotle’s Manners
Philosophy has had a rather varied history since its inception within those marbled Hellenic cities
over two thousand years ago. In the modern world, we are faced with a question that even bothered the
Romans when they came across Greeks and their philosophy: what is the point? If science provides better
explanations that philosophy can’t, is there any practical use for what is a seemingly antiquated field of
academic study? While Philosophy may appear as a field solely for academia, one such philosophical
field is still very useful: the study of ethics, which was first touched upon by Socrates and Plato, then
further defined and examined by Aristotle. While Socrates and Plato hypothesized that all efforts in life
should be aimed at forging a communion with the world of ideas, Aristotle outlines a set of applicable
rules on the more virtuous and appropriate way to act given the context of the situation that anyone could
realise.
Aristotle, while being the first Platonist, was also the first anti-Platonist: his philosophy was not
as rigid and hierarchical as his mentor’s, and didn’t accept that society is automatically distinguished
between an inherently superior, philosophical echelon, and a poorer, inferior class that relied more on
their senses (Meno 1). Aristotle was a proponent of the idea that humankind has a natural interest in
knowledge, and that philosophy was open to all of humanity, for all of humanity possess curious minds
– which is the result of the sensations that humans experience: “All men by nature desire to know… For
not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing… the
reason for this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between
things.” (Metaphysics 1). In accordance to Aristotle’s line of thought, knowledge comes from sensations,
as sensations build experiences wherein which an individual is able to discern what is beneficial and what
is not to their constitution (Ethics 1). If the individual is able to recall experiences of what was good, it
would then lead to greater understanding of how to apply their experiences in other situations.
As such, it is this belief that leads Aristotle to develop a treatise on ethical behaviour. Unlike
Plato, who believed that knowing was innate (and that life was a process of unlocking the gates to
knowledge which had been sealed due to an overwhelming of senses) Aristotle’s theory of ideas being
accessible through experience means that every individual is able to learn from their past. Since everyone
is able to learn, then they are able to learn how to be good, as Aristotle explains: “…Every virtue or
excellence both brings into condition the thing of which ti s the excellence and makes the work of that
thing be done well… If this is true, the virtue of man also will be a state of character which makes a man

2. good an which makes him do his own work well.” (Ethics 1). Accordingly, virtuous actions yield
beneficial results; it’s not so much just merely presenting oneself as “good,” but is a continuous act of
knowing how to act, when the context requires the need. As such, Aristotle’s view on human behaviour
appears to be one of self-improvement: if a person follows the discipline of philosophy which leads them
to excellent work, the individual then becomes excellent themselves.
Yet, what are the appropriate choices when it comes to behaviour? For instance, if a man struck
down another, is that man not justified in striking back? Numerous answers have been applied to this
question, be it from other philosophical doctrines, such as the Stoics: “Leave the wrong with the person
who did it.” (Meditations, 65). However, while it may seem perfectly justifiable to retaliate violently,
Aristotle cautions the individual that just action does not necessarily mean responding in kind: “Equal is
the intermediate between excess and defect. By intermediate in the object, I mean that which is
equidistant from each of the extremes… by the intermediate relatively to us that which is neither too
much nor too little.” (Ethics 1). This idea of a “golden mean” is the main tenant found within
Nicomachean Ethics, which states that the virtuous act lies within the middle of harshness, and
feebleness. If one were to reciprocate too harshly, the action which is justified (for example, returning a
hit from its origin) becomes unjust if the other party is more badly injured. Likewise, if the victim were to
simply ignore it, and attempt to move on, it would be seen as weak and possibly cowardly (Ethics 4). For
instance, the excess in pride is empty vanity, while its extreme deficiency is undue humility (Ethics 4). As
empty vanity would encourage the individual to act in detrimental ways out of the misconception of their
own self-importance, being modest to a fault in which one does not accept gratitude in any occasion
would mean that they would appear ungrateful – and perhaps dishonest.
While the latter may seem harsh by modern standards, it is anachronistic of the period in which
Aristotle lived in. Aristotle’s view of ethics and just behaviour appears to rest upon an idea that there is a
medium between excess and defect of every action: “…to feelthem at the right times, with reference to
the right objects, towards the right people, with the right motive, and in the right way, is what is both
intermediate and best, and this is characteristic of virtue.” (Ethics 2). This “relativity” in which Aristotle
speaks of, is how one ought to relate to others by using the intermediate between excessive overreaction,
or permissive submittal: humans ought to find a balance between acting with too much intensity, and
acting so minutely, that they become passive. To Aristotle, a moderate approach between two deleterious
extremes is the most appropriate way to act. Even between two vices that have no easily identifiable
good-bad dichotomy, Aristotle states that the action which has less of a detrimental impact is the optimal
route for virtuous behaviour (for example, there is no ideal excess and defect between the actions of
murdering, theft or adultery) (Ethics 2). Therefore, while acting virtuously may be gravitating between
two extremes of behaviour, when faced with a difficult situation where there’s no obvious good path to

3. choose from, one must use principle and practical wisdom in order to realise which act would be the less
harmful (Ethics, 2). Aristotle demonstrates this with a little quip: “Goodness nor badness with regard to
such things spend as committing adultery with the right woman, at the right time, and in the right way,
but simply to to any of them is to go wrong.” (Ethics 3).
However, while Aristotle’s ethics are a sound foundation upon which one is to base their actions
off, one must take into consideration as to whether or not how one acts – and how appropriately – is
within the individual’s control. Aristotle’s view seems to concentrate solely upon individual acts. Yet, he
misses an important factor that determines ethical behaviour: circumstance. Does circumstance determine
individualistic behaviour? It is a complicated question to answer, as Hannah Ardent explains: “The first
thing reason can teach is the distinction between things that depend on the man, those that are in his
power, and those that are not… The power of the will rests on its sovereign decision to concern itself only
with things within man’s power, and there reside exclusively in human inwardness.” (The life of the Mind
78). In part, circumstance does play a role within how an individual acts, but that does not stop said
individuals from acting appropriately: “Since man, in other words, is entirely powerless in the real world,
he has been given the miraculous faculties of reason and will… he rules over himself and over the objects
of his concern, for the will can be hindered only by itself,” (The life of the Mind 78). Essentially,
circumstance does matter – but that doesn’t mean it allows an individual to forge their reasoning, and
approach the situation that they are in illogically, or nastily. While it may be understandable when an
individual may respond in anger when in a stressful environment, it does not mean that their control over
their actions leaves them entirely.
Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics is an insightful piece of work, and a rare piece of ancient
philosophy that has a practical use in the modern day, just as much as it enjoyed during Antiquity. While
some may view his belief on ethics as somewhat strict and disciplinary in nature, Aristotle writes from a
time wherein which philosophy was a discipline, a notion in which Hannah Ardent (a 20th century
philosopher) defends. The difficulty in approaching the virtuous mean in times of stress – or even the
jejune mundaneness of every day life – is a testament to how high Aristotle holds individualistic nature in
regard. It is his belief that humans have a desire to know, and as this is true to his philosophy, it means
that individuals can master themselves, and how they act. While it may not be so evident where and when
to apply these ethical virtues, Aristotle’s belief that experiences bring knowledge will allow the doer to
help fill in the uncertainty. From this, Aristotle provides a philosophy that is as practical and it is
achievable.
Bibliography:

4. Marcus Aurelius, The Meditations, trans. C Scot Hicks and David V. Hicks, New York: Scribner, 2002.