the most useful philosophies are the ones that are not just true, but affect how we live. Perhaps it is just me, but it feels like self-improvement and self-help content has skyrocketed in popularity in recent years, whereas just a few decades ago, the idea that someone would spend an inordinate amount of time improving themselves would seem ludicrous. Now, it has become a whole subset of Internet culture, arguably a whole subset of our economy. At its best, you can see people striving to become smarter, stronger, and kinder, with the idea that this will pay dividends in increased joy further down the road. The thing is, almost everything you can read from online self-improvement gurus today can be found in this book, the Nicomachean Ethics. It is a transcription of a series of lectures by the ancient philosopher and tutor to Alexander the Great, Aristotle. And in these pages, he addresses many of the same questions that those in the self-help sphere aim to answer today: how do you become a better and happier person? How can you

craft meaningful relationships, and how can you live a fulfilling life. But not only does he prefigure much of this self-help and self-improvement talk, he actually improves upon it. So whether you want to add to the tools in your self-improvement handbook or just point out where the modern community falls short, there's plenty you'll get from this book. Get ready to learn how being a good person is a matter of habit, while we can't become better without logic, and how a few key properties of the modern self-help movement would seem outright destructive to this giant of ancient philosophy. First is my obligatory disclaimer that there is much more to the Nicomachean Ethics than I can possibly cover here, but with that out of the way, let's get started. On a matter of habit, one of the biblical texts of the modern self-improvement sphere is James Clear's Atomic Habits. Even I have read it, and it is genuinely really good, but I'm surprised that how much this emphasis on habits is already there in Aristotle.

thought that being a good and fulfilled person was largely about the habits you cultivate. Aristotle's ultimate aim in the Nicomachean Ethics is to help the reader achieve eudaimonia, which roughly translates to human flourishing. It is a kind of happiness that is not merely hedonistic in nature, but is deeply grounded in virtue and meaning. So for Aristotle, learning to be happy and learning how to be virtuous are two sides of the same coin, and for him, the best way to become more virtuous is via habits. If I were to ask you, what is a virtuous person, who's the first figure that comes to mind? Is it Jesus, or perhaps the Buddha, or maybe just someone you know in your personal life? Whoever it is, I bet it's someone that doesn't just do good things, but seems to do so almost automatically. Not only are they kind, but they get the spontaneous impulse to be kind. Not only are they generous, but it wouldn't even occur to them to be miserly. In other words, they don't just do good things, they find

those good things intrinsically rewarding. This alignment of pleasure and virtue is a key part of Aristotle system. It is part of what links being virtuous to achieving eudaimonia. Aristotle thinks that habits are the key to making these virtuous actions so pleasurable. Aristotle recognizes that what we desire is mostly a matter of emotion. In Schopenhauer's words, we can do what we will, but we cannot will what we will. But he also thinks that both our emotions and our desires are tuned by our regular behavior. After a while, these habits will solidify into character traits, which in turn will affect our emotions and desires, making us genuinely want to perform virtuous actions more often. In other words, our behavior feeds into our character, which in turn feeds into our desires, but those desires then feed back into our behavior. In a break from Plato and Socrates, Aristotle does not just think that virtue is a matter of believing the right things. He thinks we must tune our emotional system to be virtuous as well. If not, we might still

be able to summon up virtuous actions through sheer force of will, but we won't find performing those actions rewarding, and as a result, it won't make us happy. It is only through this process of habituation that we will learn to find real pleasure in being good people. The foundation for Aristotle's conception of good is a little bit complicated, but it's essentially a mixture of what is best for us individually and what benefits the people around us. In terms of Virtues, he advises that we seek the appropriate Middle Ground between two extremes of behavior, and he calls that the golden mean. So, we don't want to have so much courage that we ignore every possible danger, or else that will make us Reckless, and we may get ourselves and others hurt. On the other hand, we don't want to be an outright coward, as this will prevent us from taking advantage of opportunities or helping other people. The same goes for something like anger; we don't want to have a short fuse, as that is UN Pleasant for both us and

others. But if we are never willing to get angry, then chances are we'll get taken advantage of. Aristotle freely admits that there is no step-by-step system that will tell you where these appropriate midpoints are, but says we will find them out through good education and, most importantly, trial and error. He also advises that we habituate a midpoint for our desires. If we crave material possessions or food or sex too much, then we will organize our entire lives around them and ignore both our duties to others and everything else about existence that might fulfill us. But on the other hand, if we neglect material matters altogether, then we'll end up destitute and starving, and this is hardly a state conducive to human flourishing. This would probably form Aristotle's first friendly critique of much of the modern self-help and self-improvement movement. So much of it is about excess. It often seeks excess in money or sexual partners or just in material success conceived in some abstract fashion. Aristotle would probably admire this level of industriousness and

he certainly doesn't dissuade people from acquiring material goods, but he would warn against making them the sole focus of our lives. In his view, well, we need to make sure that our basic physical needs are met. If we neglect the process of cultivating a virtuous character, then we will still be miserable, even if we were surrounded by piles of gold. For instance, if we never learn to be temperate in our desires, however much we have, we will always want more. But it's all well and good cultivating these habits of virtue, they will still be useless if we don't know when to use them. Luckily, that is just our ancient sage's next point. If you want to help me make more videos like this, then consider subscribing to either my email list or my Patreon. The links are in the description. Two intellectual virtues. Here is an odd question: Are smarter people happier than less smart people? Philosophers have very different answers to this. Kard argued that self-reflection could make us much less happy in the short term, but in the long

term was certainly to our benefit. The added level of self-awareness would alert us to all of our flaws. The emptiness in our life, and it would torment us with endless questions, but it would also mean that we'd have the ability to slowly solve and move past these questions and to live overall fuller lives. For nature, we undergo a sort of painful self-examination to emerge on the other side with our innocence renewed. But for Aristotle, the answer is clear. If we want to live UD dionic lives, we're going to have to spend a lot of time learning. Specifically, he wants us to cultivate different kinds of wisdom. Now, wisdom is kind of a fuzzy term. Someone can be extremely knowledgeable and extremely clever without seeming wise at all. The genius who can't fathom why people care about others is basically a literary trope at this point. Aristotle splits up intellectual virtues as a whole into five different types, with three of those types resembling what we would normally call wisdom. The first is fris

practical wisdom. The second is nous or intuition, and the third is sophia or abstract wisdom. Phronesis is, in my humble opinion, the most underrated concept in all of Greek philosophy because it captures an idea that many of us have but we can't quite put our finger on. It seems that we can have in-depth knowledge of something in the abstract without any idea of how to apply it practically. A criticism the Stoic philosopher Epicurus leveled at many of the so-called learned men of his time was that they never bothered to put all of that learning into their own lives, and as a result, their philosophy never bore any fruit. To paraphrase a meme I once saw, knowledge is knowing that a tomato is a fruit, but phronesis is understanding that does not mean it goes in a fruit salad. We might have all of this technical knowledge and virtue on the one hand, but phronesis lets us know how to apply it in the real world. And in this notion is an idea that we would all

a sense to but we could probably bear in mind more often. Knowing something but never applying it is kind of pointless. It is not going to do anyone any good learning what the most optimal gym routine is or the perfect productivity setup or the ideal way to make friends if we never bother to put any of this into practice. And according to Aristotle fris is the meta skill that allows us to apply our virtues and knowledge in a prudent and wise way so that they can affect both the world and our lives in a positive direction. New is what Aristotle thinks we gain through long and careful experience of the world. It is what makes an expert mathematician able to look at a statement and just intuit what the proof will look like. It is the financial expert who just has a feel for how the market is going and most importantly it is the person who just knows what the correct aims for their action should be. For Aristotle if somebody has a highly developed new in the moral sphere then the whole of nicam makian Ethics is

going to be somewhat useless. They will already know what to do to become a virtuous and happy person. They just need to follow their intuitions. I'm sure you can see how a mixture of fris and new can meld together to teach us how to apply our virtues in our everyday lives and thus bring us one step closer to udonia. Lastly, Aristotle talks of safia, which is a much more abstract sort of wisdom. This is the kind he thought that certain ancient philosophers had access to, and it is some combination of logic, observation, and an intuitive understanding of the world. It is a difficult concept to get your head round, but someone like the Buddha is a good example of abstract wisdom. He not only had a mind for the practical concerns of an ethical life, but he underpinned those teachings with abstract organizing principles, such as the rejection of a permanent self and the thread of humanity that runs through all people. Aristotle says that this sort of wisdom is aimed at for its own sake, and this

can be interpreted in a number of ways, but in a modern context, I like to think of it as a form of striving at something greater than ourselves. Aristotle clearly thinks that cultivating this is going to help us flourish, as it's one of the few things in the book that he says can be pursued as an end in itself, rather than to achieve some other aim. Put a pin in this as I'm going to come back to it later. A key takeaway that I get from Aristotle's discussion of intellectual virtues is that to organize our mind in a way best conducive to human flourishing, we're going to have to carefully balance the concrete and the abstract. We must not let the pragmatic concerns of every passing moment dominate our minds, or else we will not capture a through line of meaning to make our lives fulfilling. But at the same time, if we get totally lost in the abstracts, then we will lose touch with the material reality, which is both the training ground for our virtues and the

dwelling place for other people. This topic of what we owe to others is a key part of Aristotelian philosophy, and it provides a nice counterpoint to some of the more egoistic strains of the modern self-help movement. So let's step into the terrifying world of other people: three ego, community, and happiness. One of the most common criticisms I see of the online self-help and self-improvement sphere is that it is fundamentally egoistic, and I wouldn't say this is a baseless criticism. Much of the advice does involve centering yourself and your own wants and wishes, regardless of how it might affect other people, though obviously there are many exceptions to this. At first glance, it seems like this criticism should also apply to Aristotle's philosophy, since it's all based around this concept of eudaimonia, which benefits the virtuous person. However, this ignores a key part of what Aristotle thinks makes a fulfilling life: our duties to other people. First of all, it's worth noting that Aristotle uses so many of his arguments for being

virtuous person in terms of how it will affect one's Community. This makes a lot of sense. He was writing at a time where Greece comprised of numerous different city-states, which often came into conflict with one another, and serving your own was considered a Cornerstone of ethical conduct, amongst other things. Aristotle thinks we should cultivate bravery so we're ready to die for our community, that we should be generous in order to benefit our fellow citizens, and that our dealings are fair so we don't undermine the shared trust which binds the inhabitants of a city-state together. And he is even more extreme when it comes to our friends. Aristotle thinks that true friendships between virtuous people are incredibly rare, and that we have many duties to these glimmering jewels in the crown of Our Lives, since they give us so much pleasure and help us to become better people. We owe them our loyalty, our support in hard times, and our strength should they ever encounter an enemy, despite how things initially seem.

Aristotle is certainly no egoist. On the contrary, he thinks that being a virtuous person is beneficial both for ourselves and for those around us. It's the ultimate win-win situation. At points, he insinuates that it is near impossible to achieve eudaimonia alone, and at the very least, it is far easier when you are surrounded by loyal friends working towards the same virtuous goal. And I think that this is really intuitive. We are social animals, and most of us will suffer immensely if we're deprived of genuine connections. Another Greek philosopher, Epicurus, seemed to think that good friendship combined with a few simple pleasures was all you needed for a good life. Some psychoanalysts have argued that we can't even form a proper self-conception without the interaction and input of others. While there are surely exceptions to this rule, most of us would probably be happier if we were contributing to a supportive community, forging close bonds with our peers, and reaping the rewards. And this is

where we get a glimpse into how Aristotle's ethics fits in with his wider philosophy. In his more political works, he talks about how the city-state itself should encourage eudaimonia amongst its citizens, whose virtues will in turn keep the community stable and prosperous. Ideally, this will become a self-reinforcing circle where the virtues of the citizens keep the state powerful and just, which in turn encourages trusting virtuous friendships between people. For Aristotle, this is partly why self-improvement in the sense of cultivating your virtues is not just a matter of personal choice; it is a duty we owe to our fellow citizens as we will contribute to making their lives more joyful and fulfilled, or while we help ourselves too. This is a fundamentally different concept from how many see self-help or self-improvement now, and I think it's a shame that we've lost this community element. It helps bring us outside of our own individual bubbles and towards helping other people. It means improving ourselves to serve.

others and to contribute to the well-being of an entire community. I hear a lot about the loneliness epidemic currently sweeping the world, and I can't help but think that if our collective worldview was a little bit more Aristotelian, we might slowly construct a solution. But there is one final aspect of Aristotle's ethic philosophy that stands out from the rest. At first glance, it seems completely ridiculous, but if we interpret it charitably and put it in a modern context, it might just be his most insightful piece of wisdom. For taking the high road. In the Marquis de Sade's disturbing novel Juliet, we are presented with a character who values nothing higher than her own pleasures. She and the other libertines in the novel are hedonists in the crudest sense of the word. They extract whatever sexual or bodily pleasures they want from the world and leave no stone unturned in their quest for hedonic bliss. Sade himself seemed to somewhat recommend this way of living, but to most people, it seems

of empty in a way that is quite difficult to fully put into words. It seems that for a fulfilling human life, something more is required than just for each individual moments to be pleasurable. We want something higher to strive for, something that makes our lives not just pleasant but meaningful. The 20th century philosopher and psychologist William James talked of our religious craving for higher meaning, and at points, he suggests that without some minimal belief in something not just higher than ourselves but higher than any individual person, we are at serious risk of falling into despair. Aristotle was well aware of this psychological hunger, and he devoted book 10 of the Nicomachean Ethics to the highest good he thought we could strive for: philosophical contemplation. Whenever I have taught this aspect of Aristotelian philosophy in the past, there's always been a collective groan amongst the listeners, and I totally share this disappointment. Of course, this great philosopher would think that philosophical contemplation was the best way to live, and while he does have

Arguments for his position. I can't help but recall N's idea that when philosophers recommend a way of living, most of the time they're just writing their autobiography. However, if we abstract away from this specific recommendation, I think there's something really insightful in Aristotle's touching recommendation that we all become philosophers. On a practical level, his idea of philosophy fulfills the role of the higher power that William James thought was essential for us to live fulfilling lives. For Aristotle, abstract philosophical contemplation included asking questions like: what is good? What is beauty? What is the metaphysical structure of the universe? Sure, these questions might have practical import in some situations, especially those about ethics or politics, but more importantly, they allow us to imbue the world with a sense of meaning that would otherwise be robbed from us. The German philosopher and sociologist Max Weber used to talk about the process of disenchantment, where something that was previously associated with the religious, the spiritual, or the mysterious, was gradually reduced down to something

ordinary and commonplace in Central Europe, the forest used to be a place where we thought goblins and witches lived. But now we know that they don't, and so it has become disenchanted. Vber did not deny that this process allows for immense benefits. It allows us to expand the domains of science, mathematics, and analytic philosophy so that we can better understand the descriptive properties of the world. However, it leaves behind an ever-expanding hole where meaning used to be, as all the elements of Our Lives that previously had this quasi-religious flavor to them are gradually eroded away. In is a similar concept to ne's idea that God is dead, but with a much broader scope. With this in mind, Aristotle's view that philosophy is the Ultimate key to a UD dionic life can be taken in another Direction. It highlights the need to answer the existentialist challenge in our lives. We cannot simply be content with day-to-day concerns about self-help or self-improvement. We must have some higher idea as to what these are for.

Aristotle is not the only philosopher to draw attention to this as a theme. It can be found in everyone from Kierkegaard to Sartre to C.S. Lewis, but he is perhaps one of the earliest philosophers to identify this human psychological need to strive for something higher than ourselves, a North star that we can use to chart our course through life. To return to Modern self-help communities, many of them are explicitly or otherwise confronting this existential question. In between talking about the gym or relationships or skills, the issue of what it's all for will rear its ugly head. Sometimes this is answered with a vague idea of becoming better or living the good life. Sometimes the highest good is freedom and everything else is a means to that end. Sometimes the goal is straightforwardly spiritual or religious, and all the self-help or self-improvement is sublimated to the overall desire to serve God. But I bring all this up to illustrate one overall point. It is tempting to think in our Modern Age that we have moved past the need for existential questions.

have answered the problem of nihilism with some two-line Instagram quote about creating our own meaning. But I think we ignore these issues at our own peril. It is a little intellectually arrogant of us to think that this problem, which almost every generation has had to deal with, which has inspired hundreds of thousands of pages of writing, and that we recognize as common enough to coin the term existential crisis, can be safely put to rest. We might not think that we can find objective meaning in our lives. We might want to create subjective meaning along the lines of somebody like Jean-Paul Sartre, or perhaps you want to follow in the footsteps of Albert Camus and reject this notion of meaning altogether, learning to embrace life for its own sake. But one thing is clear, these are not questions we can safely neglect. We might think we have no need to bother with these existential concerns, perhaps because we are suitably distracted by our everyday lives, but there may come a day where our existence is suddenly turned on its head, perhaps

we fall seriously ill, or our family collapses, maybe we suddenly realize we are dissatisfied with our lives and don't know how to go up. In these times of intense struggle or change, it might be worth having an answer as to what makes all of this difficulty worth it. As Friederick Nietzsche would go on to say, the man with a strong enough why can bear any how, and this seemed to be something that both the great German and the great Greek found wisdom in. So even if we disagree, it's a position worth taking seriously. As always, I encourage you to read Aristotle's book for yourselves and click here if you want to learn about his theory of friendship in much more detail. And stick around for more on thinking to improve your life.

The Only Self-Help Book Worth Reading | Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

The Only Self-Help Book Worth Reading | Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

스크립트