THE METHOD OF EUDEMIAN ETHICS: SOLVE THE APORIAI OR DEDUCE

HYPOTHESIS?
Mariane Farias de Oliveira
ABSTRACT AND ISSUE
From the methodological prescription of Ethica Eudemia I 6 ("One should try to seek conviction
about all these issues through the arguments, using as evidence and models what appears to us. (...)
In fact, based on what is said with truth, but clearly, there will be clarity to pursuing, always taking
what is more knowable from what usually is said confusedly 1216b26-30), is indicated, as we aim
to show that Aristotle has in mind that endoxa develop an important role in his method. However,
this limitation does not indicate that endoxa enclose the definitional search, but that constitute solid
starting points for research. Thus, how to understand the acquisition of moral knowledge in the
treaty? Apparently there is a gap between the procedure establishing the starting points and the
continuity and closure of definitional search.
The book I of Ethica Eudemia, as stated by Aristotle (1217a18), provides us with a preamble to
research, with the culmination of the passage of Chapter 6 - which we mentioned in the previous
paragraph dealing with endoxa. In several passages that precede I 6, we can find methodological
prescriptions along the main introduction of the treaty question: what is the good life and how you
can achieve it. This preamble therefore already introduces and discusses key concepts of research,
while in doing this through methodological prescriptions. This notion, as we shall see, are
introduced often as endoxa. All that is presented to us as much as prescription procedure with
respect to endoxa is perfectly compatible and justified by Barnes thesis (2010, p.180), that we must
"establish the endoxa, go through the aporias and prove what we can the remaining endoxa" on
ethics, assuming the endoxa as the basis of moral inquiry.
In Book II, however, Aristotle presents us with a seemingly different procedure. In II 1, Aristotle
begins by saying that what is presented is arising both from reputable opinions ("For wisdom, virtue
and pleasure are in the soul, and some of these or all are considered by all as goals." 1218b35) and
than can be known by induction ("This is clear by induction, since we consider it that way in all
cases" 1219a1-20). However, the assumptions made throughout the chapter resemble postulates,
because there are no precedents of prior analysis of them as endoxa or are introduced as the opinion
of some sage or the majority. Allan (1960, p. 309) note in this passage a use of the Euclidean
method in which the "reference is made to the initial assumptions or vague definition." In addition,

Allan (1960, p.311) defends the thesis that it is possible to use the assumptions as premises of a
perfect deduction and Aristotle would have prescribed a particular procedure in Book I and using
the other as the most appropriate research in book II. Finally, noting the advance from the same
procedure in the following definitions - eudaimonia (II 1, 1219a39), krios (II 6, 1222b21),
prohairesis (II 10, 1226b 16-21) and etik aret (1227b5-10 ) - at least the entire second book
advance so that a definition ensures precedent, being connected in the same deductive way that was
presented earlier: "(...) the version of Eudemia, performing its stated principle of constant
advancement of the looser more precise, reaches a connected series of definitions." (Allan, 1960, p.
317).
My working hypothesis will focus on trying to reconcile the two theses about the methodological
procedure of Ethica Eudemia, namely: Allan and Barnes. The hypothesis is to try to argue that the
assumptions made in II 1 are endoxa, and the method can be presented both deductively, as Allan
argues, as according to the "method of endoxa" (Barnes, 2010).