Book 1 / Chapter 6
Paragraph 4 - The Nature of the Good
Explanation - Part By Part
"But what then do we mean by the good? It is surely not like the things that only chance to have the same name. Are goods one, then, by being derived from one good or by all contributing to one good, or are they rather one by analogy?"
Aristotle is questioning what "the good" truly means and how it relates to different kinds of good things in the world. He argues that "good" isn't just a word randomly applied to unrelated things that happen to share the same name, like if we called many things "good" coincidentally. Instead, he explores whether all good things are connected in some deeper way.
He considers a few possibilities:
1. Are all things considered good because they come from one ultimate source of goodness?
2. Do all good things work together to contribute to a single, unified form of goodness?
3. Or is "good" more relative, something that applies to different things by analogy—meaning it's used in similar but context-specific ways, like how sight is "good" for the body and reason is "good" for the soul?
This thought leads to a bigger discussion about whether "goodness" is a singular, universal concept, or if it takes different forms in different contexts. Here, Aristotle begins to hint at his skepticism of the idea that all good things can be reduced to one single, abstract form.
"Certainly as sight is in the body, so is reason in the soul, and so on in other cases. But perhaps these subjects had better be dismissed for the present; for perfect precision about them would be more appropriate to another branch of philosophy."
Here, Aristotle is making a comparison to explain the relationship between certain qualities and their respective "host." He compares sight in the body to reason in the soul, illustrating that just as sight is a defining and essential faculty of the body, reason plays a similar foundational role within the soul. Both are inherent and fundamental to their respective domains.
However, he then acknowledges that this is not the right place to delve deeply into such abstract or metaphysical topics. The level of precision and detail required to fully explore these ideas belongs to a different area of philosophy—likely what we now call metaphysics or epistemology. He redirects the focus of the current discussion back toward practical matters, as the "Nicomachean Ethics" is primarily concerned with what can be achieved and practiced in human life, rather than abstract philosophical musings that may sidetrack the argument.
"And similarly with regard to the Idea; even if there is some one good which is universally predicable of goods or is capable of separate and independent existence, clearly it could not be achieved or attained by man; but we are now seeking something attainable."
Aristotle is addressing the concept of "the good" as a universal, abstract idea. Even if there is some ultimate, singular concept of "the good" that applies to everything (a sort of ideal or perfect form of goodness, as Plato might have argued), Aristotle emphasizes that it’s beyond human reach. This means it’s not something humans can practically achieve or experience in their everyday lives. Instead of focusing on an unattainable ideal, Aristotle is narrowing the scope to seek something more practical and relevant—something that can actually be pursued and realized by humans in their lives.
"Perhaps, however, some one might think it worth while to recognize this with a view to the goods that are attainable and achievable; for having this as a sort of pattern we shall know better the goods that are good for us, and if we know them shall attain them."
Aristotle is considering here an idea that might seem appealing: the recognition of one ultimate or universal "good" as a kind of ideal or blueprint for understanding and achieving the specific, practical goods in our lives. The thought is that if this universal "good" exists, it could serve as a model or standard to help us identify and pursue the goods that are appropriate and beneficial for human beings. In other words, by knowing what the ultimate good is, we might better navigate our lives and make choices that lead us to happiness or fulfillment.
However, this is just a possibility he entertains here, and he moves on to question how practical or useful such an idea really is. Aristotle’s focus remains on what’s attainable and relevant to human life—something we can work toward in real-world terms rather than abstract or unreachable ideals.
"This argument has some plausibility, but seems to clash with the procedure of the sciences; for all of these, though they aim at some good and seek to supply the deficiency of it, leave on one side the knowledge of the good."
Aristotle is entertaining an argument that suggests knowing a universal or ultimate "good" (an abstract, overarching concept of goodness) could help us better understand and achieve specific goods in life. However, he points out that this idea conflicts with how practical fields, like the sciences or crafts, actually operate. These disciplines aim at specific goods—like health in medicine or functionality in construction—without trying to base their work on a broad, theoretical understanding of "the good." Essentially, he's saying that while the notion of a universal "good" might sound appealing, it doesn’t align with the practical way people approach problem-solving and the pursuit of specific goals in various areas of expertise.
"Yet that all the exponents of the arts should be ignorant of, and should not even seek, so great an aid is not probable. It is hard, too, to see how a weaver or a carpenter will be benefited in regard to his own craft by knowing this 'good itself', or how the man who has viewed the Idea itself will be a better doctor or general thereby."
Here, Aristotle is essentially critiquing the idea that knowing a single, universal "Idea of the Good" (a concept made famous by Plato) would practically benefit people in their specific areas of work or expertise. He argues that such knowledge doesn’t necessarily make someone better at their craft or profession.
For example, just because a carpenter might understand some abstract concept of "good itself," it doesn't mean that their carpentry skills will improve. Similarly, a doctor doesn't need to grasp some overarching "good" but rather focuses on the health of a specific person. A general commanding an army doesn't benefit from contemplating an abstract ideal; instead, their work is improved by understanding strategy, soldiers, and the terrain at hand.
Aristotle is emphasizing the practicality of knowledge and action. He’s skeptical of the idea that studying something as abstract as the "Idea of the Good" has value in everyday practical pursuits. What matters more, in his view, is focusing on the specific good relevant to one’s context or profession, rather than chasing after a universal ideal.
"For a doctor seems not even to study health in this way, but the health of man, or perhaps rather the health of a particular man; it is individuals that he is healing. But enough of these topics."
Aristotle is emphasizing practicality over abstract theorizing here. He points out that a doctor doesn’t focus on some abstract idea of health as an ideal, philosophical concept. Instead, their concern is the specific health of actual individuals. A doctor treats this patient in their unique, personal situation, not in some general or detached sense. Aristotle uses this to argue that knowledge of abstract "ultimate goods" or "universal ideas," while interesting, may not directly help us in practical, everyday matters. This hints at his broader focus on tangible, actionable ethics—what we can realistically achieve—rather than theoretical, unreachable ideals.