Aristotle+A+p.+100

__**Translate each section separately. Make sure that you summarize and get to the heart of his logical argument.

Section 1.**__

Aristotle first defines what "good" actually is, by calling it "that at which all things aim". He does this by stating that since "every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and pursuit, is thought to aim at some good", then in general, good must be something that everyone and everything strives for. Then, he makes a distinction between what that "good" is, since sometimes "good" can be the doing of an activity and other times, it can be the product that activity produces. And naturally, Aristotle asserts, the product of an activity is going to be more "good" than that activity itself. We can see that from examples like "the end of the medical art is health", where health is more good than the practice of medicine itself; or the art of "shipbuilding", where having a "vessel" is more good than the actual building of the ship. Aristotle then reverses the example and shows how one can unite the art of "bridle-making" and the art of all "horse equipment" all under the "art of riding". Thus, he concludes, the "master arts" are more good than the specific arts that make up those master arts. And by transition, the "__ends__ of the master arts" are more good than the "subordinate ends" of the subordinate arts. - Anna Merkoulova

__**Section 2**__ Aristotle suggests that since there is an end to our actions, a desire that everything else is rested upon, then there is an ultimate or "chief good" and that our knowledge of it will help guide us and direct us. He gives the example of an archer, who when they have a mark to aim at, are far more likely to strike what they aim for, or what is right. In order to follow and find the chief good, Aristotle says we must determine what the ultimate end is and how to get there. Due the acknowledgement that our end good is the "most authoritative" and "master art", he reasons that politics is this art, because it dictates the use of all the sciences, and thus controls what guides us to our end. Furthermore, Aristotle claims that because we use the politics through other fields of study (sciences), and that because the use of sciences is determined by politics, the end of politics must be the ultimate good. This is why it is more important to seek the end for a state than for an individual, because achieving the end good for a state means achieveing that good for the entire state, not just a single person. Therefore, our telos, or ultimate end, can should be achieved through trying to achieve the end of the state through the science of politics. - Brandon Olson

__**Section 3.**__ Aristotle continues by saying how fine and just actions. which political science investigates, come with variety and fluctuations of opinion. And if what is considered a just/fine action is based on solely opinions, then what is just/fine is thought to exist only by "convention", or be based upon a general agreement, or common way of looking at the subject, and not nature. (This is why we cannot reason something into existence). He then states that goods also come with fluctuation by brining harm to many people. He gives examples of what we commonly look upon as good, bringing bad to certain people such as men who have been "undone" or ruined by their wealth, courage. Because of these fluctuations, Aristotle suggests that we must look at the truth in a rather roughly outlined manner, and be willing to speak of things that may only be for the most part true, in order to reach some kind of conclusion. He goes on to describe that an educated person would take the suggested statements of what is good, and look for precision within it; analyze and try to uncover the truth with every statement. On the other hand, it would be foolish to simply accept the reasoning or opinion of another without seeking any sort of precision, or correction of the given statement. In terms of being a "good judge" of subject matters, Aristotle suggests that a man is a good judge with things he knows. Thus "a man who has been educated in a subject is a good judge of that subject, and the man who has received an all round education is a good judge in general." With this, he concludes that a young man would not be a good judge or hearer of the subject on political science for he is inexperienced in this subject. This young student would rather follow his passions, his desires at the moment, and this will only result as being unprofitable for it was acted upon in vain; this kind of action has an end aim of pursuing action to fulfill passions rather than gain knowledge, and therefore is unprofitable. The opposite of this kind of person would be someone who "acts in accordance with a rational principle knowledge," and these are the people who would benefit in the end. Sherry