4 Text amended
source | link

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms. But to reinforce my interpretationI am not out on a limb in face of an evidently sceptical readershipthis interpretation; I cite Joachim :

... we may notice that the unfairness [injustice] is shown in respect to the 'goods of fortune' - those goods which in the abstract are always good, but whose value depends upon the use made of them and which, therefore, are not necessarily always good without qualification to everyone. Joachim, 129.)

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

H.H. Joachim, Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics : A Commentary, ed. D.A. Rees, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1951 rev. 1962.

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms. But to reinforce my interpretation in face of an evidently sceptical readership I cite Joachim :

... we may notice that the unfairness [injustice] is shown in respect to the 'goods of fortune' - those goods which in the abstract are always good, but whose value depends upon the use made of them and which, therefore, are not necessarily always good without qualification to everyone. Joachim, 129.)

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

H.H. Joachim, Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics : A Commentary, ed. D.A. Rees, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1951 rev. 1962.

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms. I am not out on a limb in this interpretation; I cite Joachim :

... we may notice that the unfairness [injustice] is shown in respect to the 'goods of fortune' - those goods which in the abstract are always good, but whose value depends upon the use made of them and which, therefore, are not necessarily always good without qualification to everyone. Joachim, 129.)

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

H.H. Joachim, Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics : A Commentary, ed. D.A. Rees, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1951 rev. 1962.

3 Text added for clarification.
source | link

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms. But to reinforce my interpretation in face of an evidently sceptical readership I cite Joachim :

... we may notice that the unfairness [injustice] is shown in respect to the 'goods of fortune' - those goods which in the abstract are always good, but whose value depends upon the use made of them and which, therefore, are not necessarily always good without qualification to everyone. Joachim, 129.)

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

H.H. Joachim, Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics : A Commentary, ed. D.A. Rees, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1951 rev. 1962.

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms.

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms. But to reinforce my interpretation in face of an evidently sceptical readership I cite Joachim :

... we may notice that the unfairness [injustice] is shown in respect to the 'goods of fortune' - those goods which in the abstract are always good, but whose value depends upon the use made of them and which, therefore, are not necessarily always good without qualification to everyone. Joachim, 129.)

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

H.H. Joachim, Aristotle - The Nicomachean Ethics : A Commentary, ed. D.A. Rees, Oxford : Clarendon Press, 1951 rev. 1962.

2 Typo corrected
source | link

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms.

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms.

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.

I think what he has in mind is something like this :

'Since he is greedy the unjust man will seek good things, but not all good things - rather the 'goods of fortune' or external goods such as wealth which in the abstract are always good but not always good for the individual.'

This is my own free translation except that I take 'external goods' from Thomson & Tredennick, 114, footnote 1 where wealth is given as an instance. Wealth, Aristotle's idea seems to be, is a good thing in the abstract but not for the spendthrift.

'... always good, unconditionally speaking' does not, I think, mean 'unconditionally good' but rather 'good considered abstractly, in isolation from particular conditions in which they can be harmful', the condition for instance of a spendthrift who comes into wealth. In the abstract wealth is a good but it is not good for the spendthrift.

This makes maximum sense of what Aristotle says and seems also acceptable on its own terms.

REFERENCES

Ethica Nicomachea, Gk text.

Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics, tr. J.A.K. Thomson & H. Tredennick, London : Penguin. (This is not my favoured translation but it has proved useful here.)

1
source | link