Nichomachean Ethics

I found Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics to be something that was both intriguing and infuriating. I've heard it be called one of the most important books when it comes to the study of ethics, as well as being referred to as one of Aristotle's most influential works. My problem is that in order for something to be influential, I need to be able to understand what in the world it's saying to me. The way Nichomachean Ethics is written made it rather difficult for me to get through the reading, and I had to consult extra sources, mostly acquired online, in order to cobble together a transliteration of sorts which I could understand and analyze the material properly. I think this was mostly due to my unfamiliarity with Aristotle's writing, since I've personally never been one to dabble in philosophy.

I think the part I found most interesting was the discussion we had in class over the difference between sophists and logicians. According to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, a 'sophist' was an itinerant professional teacher who, in return for a fee, offered education in arete, which is 'virtue' or 'excellence'. Meanwhile, a 'logician' is a person who's primary topic of study is logic. I think this drew my interest the most because I've always enjoyed wordplay and studying the roots of certain words as a pastime, which is in large part due to the enjoyment I derive from writing. Along with providing me with chances to explore the origins of these words further, and thereby expand my vocabulary, the differences that one can assume existed between these two types of scholars still exists in today's society, in various different groups. I always find it intriguing when old ideas such as this manage to translate so cleanly across time, which is just another reason why I find this particular part of Nichomachean Ethics to be so fascinating.