The Best Human Life: On Aristotle's Ethics I.5

this program is brought to you by Emory University Thank You Ann Randy and everybody for the invitation it's great to be here these are my Mardi Gras bees because I'm missing Mardi Gras back home but I heard that the weather is even worse than here so and there's a reason I'm wearing these right now actually aside from missing New Orleans I wanted to start with the thought about festivals I don't know if any of you have heard I love this topic and I think what your people are doing with the from what I've understood the sequence of talks about the good life in my opinion you're onto the most important question and it's great to participate in it I thought I would start there's a has I don't know if you've come upon an anecdote about the philosopher Pythagoras about the good life oh he come Pythagoras was apparently you know he's a legendary figure we don't really know anything historically but he was once asked he called himself a philosopher and you know people asked him what does that mean what is a philosopher and he could explain it he compared life to a festival so he said at a festival like the Olympic Games in in Greece some people go to compete they want to win a victory some people go to sell hotdogs but some people go and to make a profit out of the festival but some people go just to contemplate and the word he used which maybe you've been introduced to theoria obviously the root of our word theory is the notion of contemplation Pythagoras said that's the life of the philosopher you know the whole Western tradition you could look at to what extent did philosophers agree with him about that of course there's a huge debate about that but I think it was an it's a very neat story that I believe Aristotle must have in the back of his mind in the beginning of the ethics in the passage I've handed out to all of you so I know some of you have been reading the ethics maybe not everybody if you don't have time to read that now take it home afterwards and read it again and think about it but Aircel also is raising the question is there some kind of life that's better than another and he's I think he's got this model in mind so let me begin Aristotle's ethics addresses a question of the greatest importance for all of us what is the good life for human being what is the life that brings happiness that's owed ammonia in Greek we might need that so this is presumably something everyone would want to know but what might seem highly questionable to us is the notion that there is some objective measure of the good for human being as such isn't it just whatever pleases us that counts as happiness or is it possible that Odum onea which maybe is better translated as flourishing or faring well is not just a matter of individual preference could there be some particular way of life that above all others most completely or perfectly fulfills the natural potential of a human being as such and with thus count as the human good in book one chapter five of the ethics which is what you have in your hands Aristotle examines a set of contestants to the title of the best life for human being he responds to each claim very quickly without much of any real argument and support but if you look carefully at these responses and you consider how each is developed in the course of the ethics as a whole this seemingly very simple discussion proves to be a rich under source for understanding the work as a whole that's what I would like to explore with you today and even after many years of working on this book I discovered in putting these thoughts together in this form it's much harder than it seems the first question is what exactly we mean and speaking of a way of life what finds a way of life according to Aristotle and differentiates one from another is the final end or the goal toward which it is directed the Telos in Greek everything we do deliberately every action aims at some end Aristotle argues but if each end is for the sake of something else so you got out of the room to get a breath of fresh air you want to get a breath of fresh air to stay healthy you want to stay healthy for something else if the chain went on odd infinitum air style reasons every step would be empty and in vain so the human good we are seeking which would be the most complete actualization of a potential that belongs to us as human beings is a final end it's not just something we make in a process of production not the product at the end of that process it is rather an activity I'll give you another Greek word very important in air stalls language it's and and nary Gaia I hope you hear the root of the word energy in there an activity and an area is something that's complete at every moment just to aside so you I hope you're on my wavelength here and one place he compares the difference between making a flute there's a process you know first you get the metal and so forth you make the process you'd go through the process of making it and then the Telos is the flute at the end which is outside of the whole process that's the not what he means by an energy or an activity playing a flute would be in an area you're just playing you're not on this step of a process to external product so this activity that counts as the human good cannot be instrumental it must be something desirable for its own sake but let me be more precise air still doesn't really take it for granted that there is such a final end in a way that's one of the deepest questions he actually raises he only argues that if there were discovering it would be as important for us as having a target is for archers how do we even begin such an inquiry that's a philosophic problem that may be familiar to some of you from plato's me know if we don't even know what we're looking for how would we even set out on a search and how would we even recognize what we're seeking if we came upon it if on the other hand we didn't know why would we need to inquire in the first place either way we seem to be stymied airstone offers a solution to this problem but in fact it appears only to highlight the paradox we must begin of course with what's first but we don't really know what's first or primary in itself we have to begin with what's first for us and that means whatever assumptions and opinions we already hold in the case of the ethics the inquiry is accessible only to those who have been brought up and guided by the proper opinions that something is Noble or just that's in Chapter four of your handout if you look back at it later you have to been brought up with with these opinions that something is beautiful or noble or just an error still continues if the VAT is sufficient there would be no need to look for the why you know many I think most readers of the ethics take that fairly straightforward but after thinking about it after reading it and accepting it for a long time it suddenly dawned to me what a crazy idea this is so what many people think is the ethics is addressed to the gentlemen who do not question whether the things that they hold Noble and just are worth pursuing but in that case those who have satisfied the condition required to participate in this project would have no need to pursue it on the other hand those who do need to pursue it wouldn't have what is required to do so or with me here if the vet you need the vet to participate but if you have that and it's satisfactory you don't need the why why would you read the ethics the ethics looks like a book for no one perhaps we can draw a different conclusion from Aristotle's puzzle what is grant that we must begin with the opinions of our own society about what is Noble or shameful just or unjust but those opinions as air style remarks are so variable from one place or time to another that they're sometimes thought to be entirely by convention nothing is Noble or just by Nature now isn't it precisely someone who had become aware of that problem for whom the inquiry of the ethics would be of the greatest need shouldn't it be addressed above all to someone who is beginning to wonder whether the things said to be Noble and just are truly good for human being and are really the way to happiness perhaps in fact the ethics doesn't just await a reader with that dissatisfaction but aims to awaken it to do that it would have to bring to light all of the limitations the partial perspectives the internal contradictions of the opinions with which its readers begin of course if Aristotle were responsible he would have to try to disturb as little as possible those who are satisfied with the bat of their moral education can his inquiry do that while inducing the perplexities that would provoke a search for the why in the appropriate audience reading the ethics with that challenge in mind is I believe the key to understanding this very thought-provoking work three lives the most fundamental opinion which is the premise of the whole inquiry according to Aristotle is a nearly universal agreement almost everyone believes the and and human life is happiness or faring well or flourishing everything else we desire is ultimately for the sake of happiness but we never desire happiness for the sake of something else this common agreement however is the basis for the greatest dispute about what constitutes this happiness or owed I'm Ania what is it what does it consistent not only do different individuals disagree the same individual disagrees with himself at different times when you're sick health seems to be the final end when you're impoverished wealth seems so and so on giving a vast array of claims about happiness examining them all might seem like an impossible task air style warns that matters like these one must look not just at what people say but it has how they act on that basis he finds a very limited set of opinions that are dominant in his society and I would say in ours as well more precisely in this chapter 5 that you're holding aerosol takes up for examination 3 and actually turns out to be 4 popular views I'll be very curious afterwards to hear what you think about this selection you know first it seemed to me completely arbitrary and the more I thought about it it seemed like maybe this is very comprehensive but I wonder you know are there other candidates that you would propose is he missing something important aerosol begins by distinguishing the view of the many and the most vulgar from the more refined and the active the reference to the most vulgar might seem to have a tone of contempt but it is the voice as we eventually realize not of Aristotle but of the more refined the gentlemen who have some grounds perhaps for looking down on the multitude whom they see identifying the good or the final end with pleasure and embracing the life of enjoying devoted to it in the eyes of the more refined the best for human being is the political life or the life of action which looks to honor as its end echoing the Pythagorean model I mentioned Aristotle introduces a third the life of contemplation or the theoretical life though he gives us no indication of what the final end is toward which that life is oriented that omission actually raises a very difficult question how exactly is a way of life defined by its final end does this what Eris are calls the life of enjoyment require that every moment be filled with pleasure is there no enjoyment in the life of action or the theoretical life which are supposed to be altogether other see I'm suggesting it sounded so simple three lives already when you asked that question I think you realize it's not so easy to even understand how he's separating out these lives and what the relation is to the end that's supposed to define them Aristotle is not prepared to address these issues in a rapid sequence of responses he now offers to the claims under consideration the first contestant the life of enjoyment which finds the human good and pleasure is rejected with nothing but the disdainful remark that the many appear utterly slavish in choosing a life for cattle elect fit for cat-cows now this is not completely unreasonable if pleasure motivates all animals it looks as if it cannot play the role of the distinctively human good but the objection raises none of the questions that should about the nature of pleasure it reflects once again the perspective of the gentleman in its strength and in its limits in contrast to the private life of enjoyment the political life they advocate should be devoted you might think to the good for the community for aerosol that would be the polis or the but what we're concerned with now don't forget is the good for the individual and the end sought by an individual who lives a political life era still maintains is honor honor however is given by others one who desires honor is dependent on those who bestow it whereas the good is divined as air Estelle puts it to be something more self sufficient it is especially problematic if those who consider themselves superior depend on honor from the many whom they take to be living lives no better than cattle air stall does not for the moment pursue this deep-rooted problem instead it goes on to acknowledge that those who seek honor are not really looking just for fame or recognition but more specifically for recognition of their excellence the final end of the political life then would not be honored but virtue of course what he's really implied is the reputation for virtue with a rather cryptic observation air stall quickly eliminates the claim of virtue to count as the human good virtue he says is too incomplete you don't really know very problematic what does he mean it's too incomplete to be the final end that we are looking for it's possible he says after all to have a virtuous disposition while you're asleep without ever putting it into practice in the midst of suffering great misfortune which no one would call a happy life that again seems like a sensible point but it's not obvious to me why it should be a specific rejection of the claim to virt of virtue to count as the human good turning to the third contestant the theoretical life heir still only comments that he'll get back to it later which turns out to mean not until the tenth and last book of the ethics you've got a long stretch before he gets to solving his question here for the moment his son adds a fourth unannounced candidate the life of money-making this would not constitute another way of life unless the production of wealth were pursued as an end in itself but accumulating wealth that is assumed is properly understood only as a means again the instrumental status of money is perhaps a persuasive ground for rejecting its claim to be objectively the final end in human life yet I'm still wondering why his Aircel going out of his way to introduce it he already had three the three lives why add this and it seems to me he asks us to remember that wealth is the necessary condition for all the ways of life under consideration none of these ways of life is perhaps as self-sufficient as it might claim or want to be now aerosol survey has eliminated all but one contender to the title of the best human life and that one has simply been left in question pleasure was rejected as a final end on the unexamined assumption that it is all of one sort which makes the many I'm going to try to emphasize when I'm pulling out of the text here appear slavish he says in choosing a life common to all animals honor is rejected because it is thought to depend on all others well we have divined that the good should be self sufficient virtue appears inadequate because it is thought possible to have it in the state no one would call happy basically every phrase of this argument is a matter of opinion we have been examining a set of opinions about what constitutes human happiness on the basis of a set of opinions about the standards to be met what we have discovered thus far is that the most common candidates do not live up to the criteria assumed for what counts as happiness to think through what has been so quickly assumed in each case would require following the fate of each of these candidates as you trace a path through the argument of the ethics as a whole perhaps we can try to catch just a glimpse of that today I hope you all continue and do this it's amazing I think it is true that this little chapter you've got it in half a page contains almost all the threads of the argument of the of the whole ethics which is probably one of maybe the most influential book and moral and political philosophy in the Western tradition so he's got off to a off to a strong start here but I would hope I'm conveying how questionable each of the moves is ok let's start with pleasure and the life of enjoyment pleasure we just saw is rejected as a life fit for cattle it would be rather shocking then if we jump directly to book 10 which opens with the sharp criticism of just such an unqualified teaching in matters like these err style advises once again speeches are less persuasive than deeds and someone who unqualifiedly condemns pleasure is absolutely bound to be seen at some point in his life inclining toward pleasure of some sort then people will reject his speeches just as unqualifiedly surely Erised all must have been aware of the sensible point when he expressed in book 1 the contemptuous dismissal of pleasure as such that condemnation he now confirms expressed the perspective of the gentleman and the action of the ethics the action of the argument of the work consists in moving its reader or a certain kind of reader from that starting point beyond it in correcting the initial rejection of pleasure the argument of the ethics goes through more reversals and revisions I believe than on any other topic most conspicuously book 10 introduces its discussion of pleasure with the remark that this is far too important an issue to ignore after the question of the nature and the good of pleasure was the subject of an extended analysis in book 7 these reversals and revisions and the treatment of pleasure are usually taken as the most obvious sign that the ethics is not very carefully composed airstone didn't deliberately put this together maybe it's just a compilation of notes that's a common view I would argue on the contrary that the developments and the understanding of pleasure are particularly illuminating signposts of the argument that makes the work a whole as soon as the inquiry turns in book 2 to moral virtue and the formation of character it is immediately necessary to recognize the powerful role that pleasure and pain play in our lives the gentleman may indignantly rejected but he would not have developed the virtues he is proud of and avoided the vices he disdains had he not been trained trained from childhood to take pleasure in the one sort of action and find the other painful virtue of character on Aristotle's account is acquired by habituation practicing the appropriate actions to develop the desired disposition if you want to become a piano player you have to practice playing piano and the tool of moral habituation is the natural attraction to pleasure or aversion to pain pleasure and pain which motivate all animals are flexible enough in human beings to be channeled in the directions we find desirable that possibility rests for one thing on our political nature we need to live together with others and can help but find pleasure in their approval pain in their disapproval so for instance to foster the virtue of moderation a parent has to try to habituate his child to give up the immediate pleasure of eating candy for dinner or something and get pleasure in being praised for eating broccoli and pleasure in the sense of self-control he develops which will then bring further praise but you're really substituting one form of pleasure or pain for another the morally virtuous person we will learn is supposed to choose this action entirely for its own sake simply because it is beautiful or Noble in itself you might want to ask me later when I say beautiful or Noble we can talk about that later but if he has developed this disposition by being brought up to take pleasure in the appropriate actions and find the inappropriate ones painful wouldn't that continue to motivate his action or at least make it hard to know his own motives to separate out this life of enjoyment as one fit for cattle is to assume that all pleasure is of one kind the kind human beings share with other animals in fact however pleasure accompanies all sorts of activities a pig rolls in the mud with pleasure you guys study Aristotle's ethics with pleasure you will eventually are the pleasures that accompany different activities themselves different in kind are there kinds of pleasure or is there just some one thing pleasure itself however different the activities might be that lead to it this turns out to be in book 7 and 10 a very challenging question by the time that kind of question is raised the perspective of the gentleman has been left behind just how far the argument moves from its initial starting point is vividly evident in book seven which first takes up this challenging theoretical question what is pleasure when you think about it and stand back from moral judgment what is pleasure is a perplexing issue the investigation air stall conducts leads to a very far-reaching conclusion if all animals all animals human beings down on down if all animals aim at pleasure in one way or another pleasure would appear to be the good be good for living things of course there are stall grants it's not one in the same pleasure that all animals seek or are he pulls back or maybe pleasure is someone end for all living beings and he has this interesting cryptic phrase there for nature has implanted something divine in life in living things I mean I don't think people see how closed air still has come I think they're to giving voice to what philosophers would call a thesis of hedonism this radical speculation may explain the need to return to the topic of pleasure at the beginning of book 10 to ask again whether there are any pleasures that are distinctively human as air stall argues there for any living thing - I think what are you really the way you really have to put it is for any animal because I don't think this applies all the way to plants but for any living animal to be alive most fully is to be aware for other animals that's through perception for human animals that's through perception and thinking those are our our modalities for Oh Ernest and when such awareness is in its best condition the experience that accompanies it is pleasure that's how he's defining pleasure at that point it follows along with this experience of being aware which is what it is to be alive pleasure and life are inextricably bound together indeed aerosol finds it impossible to answer the question he poses whether we live for the sake of pleasure or we experience pleasure for the sake of life in fact as we finally hear and we'll get back to this in a minute and booked in the very special pleasure that comes with the activity in which human beings are most fully awake and thus most fully alive is one measure of what makes the life devoted to that activity best so you've come a long way from that initial rejection of pleasure that we started with let me go on to honor and virtue in contrast with pleasure and the life of enjoyment book ones evaluation of honor as the final end of political life undergoes a different fate as the ethics unfolds in this case the initial rejection is not put into question it is in fact deepened and it becomes a key to the understanding of world virtue this is especially manifest from the rule Honor plays in the disposition that's presented as the first peak of moral virtue greatness of soul did you get that far the greats old man mega Lopes sukhiya in Greek the great soul person is someone who stands so far above all the usual petty concerns that he would never be attracted to things that lead others astray his own sense of dignity and superiority prevents him from even being attracted to anything shameful in regard to any of the passions hence in possessing this one virtue all the others follow in its wake or at least the absence of all the vices greatness of soul and Aristotle's words is a cosmos of the virtues and cosmos in Greek is either an all-encompassing ordered whole the universe or the crowning jewel that stands above all the others and graces them greatness of soul is certainly the least democratic of Aristotle's world virtues what the Great's old individual claims and deserves must be the greatest of external goods and that air style reasons should be what we give to the gods which is honor but if it is honored that the great-souled individual deserves and demands he is at his very core caught in a contradiction the honor that confirms what he is makes him dependent on others which would be the denial of what he is if honor were to mean anything to a great soul person it would have to come from someone he respects but he certainly cannot accept a superior perhaps not even an equal I think this problem would apply above all to a god don't forget Aristotle said what we give to the gods is honor greatness of soul displays most vividly the dilemma of Honor and through its status as a peak according to Aristotle it suggests that this dilemma might lurk in all of moral virtue if political life is directed toward honor as its final end it cannot achieve satisfaction eros doll had acknowledged though that it is not honor per se but honor for one's excellence that is desired which implies that virtue is really the final end of the political life for the act of life you remember it was eliminated on the ground said it's too incomplete you can have a virtuous disposition in the state of misfortune which you wouldn't call happiness that might seem to apply though to any candidate for the human good more virtue however makes a special claim to be sufficient the idea that as long as you have a good soul as long as you have a good character nothing else matters as if you've some of you I know I've read through maybe have read through the rest of but one of the ethics as you proceed it be that claim is put increasingly into question over the course of a lifetime we are all vulnerable to the wheel of fortune even if you don't identify happiness with fortune it just seems willful to deny that real misfortunes conditions like chronic illness poverty lack of friends or family inevitably Mar our well-being a virtuous character might shine forth under such circumstances in fact maybe the most admirable virtuous character would shine forth under such circumstances but that's not the same as happiness well what about the activity just in itself of actual izing a virtuous disposition even if it doesn't make for a lifespan of happiness couldn't that count as the final end which makes the political life best for a human being the problem here lies in the very ambiguous reference to virtue without any further qualification for the premise of the ethics whole investigation of virtue you might want to come back to this issue later to is its division into two kinds moral and intellectual excellence of character and excellence of mind book two examines how moral virtue is produced and what it is a disposition that aims at the mean between excess and deficiency in regard to some kind of feeling the following books explore the whole plurality of virtues and vices that exemplify that definition say courage in regard to fear remember over against cowardice or boldness or moderation in regard to the desire for pleasure Aristotle shows us in these books how the morally virtuous person understands himself as someone who aims at the noble or beautiful for its own sake err still holds up a mirror that reflects such nobility and why it is admired but in the process I think he quietly points to the limits of these dispositions the conflicts among them the confusions we bite higher harbours the questions one might raise to home in on what I think might be the most important can moral virtue aim at the noble or beautiful for its own sake while being the good that most truly satisfies our interest is moral virtue in fact the perfection of the whole human being or the highest in the human being questions like that remain underground until the 10th and last book of the ethics when it returns to the initial contest of lives err still had introduced the theoretical life in book 1 while deferring any comment about it when he finally gets back to it at the end of book 10 he asserts the theoretical life was already said to be the best life for a human being now where readers are still continuing to search for where he said that it seems like he's referring back to our book one passage but in book 1 he just said I'll get to it later when he gets to it I said he says I got to it earlier is there some way it may have been established without an explicit statement is there a satisfactory argument for it now my last step the theoretical life if happiness is an activity in accordance with virtue our style reminds his reader and booked him it should be in accordance with the most excellent virtue and that would belong to what ever is best in us now if the human being is a rational animal what elevates us above all other animals is mind or intellect and its activity would be the perfection of the human that activity must bring the greatest pleasure if hairstyle remarks in a casual aside there are such wondrous pleasures even in the pursuit of wisdom that is philosophy there's a that turns out to be a very intricate thing he just did there we perhaps want to come back to that too theoretical activity allows us to be most self-sufficient even if our stall concedes it might be a lot better with coworkers than alone very hard to sustain it without conversation most importantly the activity of the mind is not pursued for the sake of any other end beyond itself so this actualization of the highest human possibility looks as if it does meet the criteria for complete happiness if aerosol suddenly adds it belongs to a complete span of life and as soon as he recalls that condition he admits that such a life would seem to be beyond the merely human is this kind of activity going to be so self-sufficient that nothing else matters he seems to say I've really built this up and elevated it but it looks now like it's jumped a step outside of the human range a human being would live it only insofar as there is something divine in him and but air Estelle urges us not to accept the proverbial advice he quotes mortals should think mortal thoughts no there are no jealous gods who will punish us for striving to participate as far as possible in a life that is divine so you seem to now have this idea that the most human is what goes beyond the human yet Aristotle himself seems to raise doubts when he stops one last time to remind us that matters about how to live speeches must be considered in light of Deeds we are certainly eager to hear at last the evidence for the identification of happiness with the theoretical life and let me quote this he's he's not going to tell us what's the real evidence what are the real deeds of life that proved my point this is what he says if the gods take care for human things as it is thought then it would be reasonable to suppose that they enjoy what is best and most akin to themselves and that would be mind and that they reward those who honor this most because they care for things dear to themselves and act correctly and beautifully and this belongs to the wise one who is therefore most beloved by God and probably most happy the supposed testimony of deeds is nothing but a common opinion this is thought to be the case it seemed likely and furthermore an opinion that Aristotle just a moment before this had declared ridiculous when he first introduced the thesis about perfect happiness by appealing to the Blessed gods surely the gods would never need to practice ethical actions like paying back debts justly facing fears courageously giving money liberally if if there are living gods if God is alive the only suitable activity and at that moment he turns it into the singular the only suitable activity for by God is Faria contemplation the ethics final speech on happiness supported by a rhetorical defense about the gods rewarding us constructs an of the theoretical life or the life of contemplation in the sharpest possible separation from the political life or the life of action he's got them pulled apart as far as he can the contemplatively he represents by the pre-socratic philosopher these first philosophers before Socrates who whose activity of philosophy is solitary contemplation of the universe of the heavenly bodies while the Statesman who rules the city represents the life of action so you imagine like the theoretical physicist and the politician those are the representatives now these two competing lives ways of life but there's something important conspicuously missing from that division what about the activity in which we have been engaged all along in our study of the ethics reading the text thinking it through discussing with one another the questions it writ poses writing exams and papers of it you see I'm following Aristotle's advice he said to us don't just listen to what someone says look at what what they do and this is what we've been doing the speech that identifies the highest human capacity as some kind of theoretical collective 'ti does have a real deed that confirms it not an opinion about the gods rewarding those most like them but the deed that we are practicing this activity might be understood as theoretical it consists however not in solitary contemplation of the universe but in our shared examination of the opinions about the just the noble and the good the opinions of our society the assumptions we have been brought up with this is what Socrates had in mind when he refused at his trial to accept a life of eggs or anything that would make him give up the way of life he had always well followed for as you know in his famous words the unexamined life is not worth living that I would suggest is the teaching of Aristotle's ethics air style shares the most fundamental premise with Plato all human beings by nature desire the good desire what is truly good if we borrow the well-known image Socrates presents in the Republic every society is a cave the citizens are chained in front of a wall watching the projected images of the just the beautiful and the good which they take to be the only reality but every cave has some opening to the light how does Socrates know that how does he guarantee that I want to suggest that opening to the light is guaranteed because we have a knowledge for what is truly good in this one matter at least there is a hunger for truth and no one would be satisfied with an illusion you might be satisfied with illusions about the just or illusions about the noble but you want what's really good air stall set out in the ethics to discover what is truly good for a human being he began though with a paradoxical invitation that appeared to shut out one kind of reader and make the work superfluous for another someone who came to the inquiry with the starting point it requires opinions about the noble and just the guide moral virtue if satisfied with that would seem to have no motivation to open up these pages of course if he did he might find his own assumptions held up in Aristotle's mirror perhaps even clarified the reader on the other hand who discovers all the complexities Aristotle unveils all the implicit questions he raises that reader who experiences a desire for the why is the one who would be drawn into what I'm calling the deed or the action of the inquiry he wouldn't be satisfied with the speeches you would be drawn into the deed that is the activity of examination which I believe Aristotle like Socrates finds the mark of a life worth living the preceding program is copyrighted by Emory University

Channel: Emory University

Views: 10,145

Rating: 4.8441558 out of 5

Keywords: Emory University, Emory Williams Lecture Series, Aristotle Ethics

Id: fa1dZpO0fFM

Length: 47min 22sec (2842 seconds)

Published: Mon Feb 18 2013