Aristotle was a student of Plato for approximately twenty years. But reading Aristotle is very unlike reading Plato. Most of the texts of Plato's which have been preserved are polished manuscripts meant to be published for public dissemination. In contrast, scholars agree that what we have of Aristotle are probably lecture notes, polished to some extent by students after Aristotle's death. In Plato, we find dialogues, polished prose, and memorable stories and characters. In Aristotle, we find sketches of intriguing insights, promises that he will take up a particular subject again later when it is appropriate, and allusions that we can assume he would have stopped to fill in more fully while lecturing. If you find yourself asking in irritation "Why can't this man write better?" ask yourself whether you'd want your writing style judged on the basis of the lecture notes you've taken in courses.

Aristotle is well worth reading despite his sometimes exasperating style. The leading question of the Ethics is "What is the highest human good?" Like Plato, Aristotle thought that knowledge of the good life is the most important kind of knowledge. Without this knowledge we would be like blindfolded archers trying to hit a traget, and living well would be a matter of pure luck. However, Aristotle thought that Plato's mistaken views about reality and knowledge had led himoff in unhelpful directions.

Aristotle rejects Plato's theory of the Forms and does not think that there is a Form of the Good that we can search out and model our life upon. Reality is not outside the Cave for Aristotle, but right here where ordinary people live. Human beings are not temporarily embodied souls but rational animals. Ethics is not like geometry; deductions about what we should do cannot be derived from axioms that give us infallible access to the Good. If we want to investigate what the good life is, we need to consult human experience as it is encoded in common sense and the opinions of those respected for their wisdom. Philosophy is a matter of sorting through this data and solving the puzzles raised by it, not a matter of accessing some transcendent Reality or esoteric knowledge.

The Ethics contains considerations of many topics related to the good life: What is human happiness? Are pleasure and happiness identical? What sorts of character traits are valuable, and how do we get them? Are people born good or bad, or are good people created? How? What are the primary things people need in order to live well? What is the place of friendship in the good life? What kinds of friends should we want? Aristotle is also an astute observer of human nature, and in many ways is one of the founders of psychology (he is also the founder of biology and of formal logic). One of the puzzles he addresses is the nature of the common human experience of doing something different from what you are convinced is right or good. What he has to say about this and other subjects is not just illuminating but of genuine practical use.

If Aristotle is right that we cannot crawl out of the Cave to find the truth about the good life, how do we get it? Aristotle describes his method this way:

We must set out the appearances, and first of all go through the puzzles. In this way we must prove the common beliefs about these ways of being affected-ideally, all the common beliefs, but if not all, then most of them and the most important. For if the objections are solved, and the common beliefs are left, it will be adequate proof.

Aristotle scholars have labeled this the "aporetic" method (from aporia, the Greek word for puzzle, tangle or knot). The aporetic method has three steps: (1) assemble the data ("appearances," i.e., the opinions of the wise and of common sense); (2) identify the puzzles (i.e., look for contradictions among the opinions or difficulties and paradoxes raised by the data); (3) construct a theory that solves the puzzles while preserving the most important parts of the data. Thus, Aristotle thought that we should just take received opinion at face value, but that we cannot afford to ignore it either. Aristotle's method presupposes that a theory that flies in the face of common sense at least has to be able to explain how so many people could have been misled for so long.

One of the challenges in reading Aristotle is that he does not always clearly indicate what stage of the method he is applying. It is easy to confuse his laying out a view in order to demonstrate that it raises a puzzle with his conclusions about the theory we should adopt to solve a puzzle. He will often make statements which are just a matter of "assembling the appearances"-that is cataloguing the various views which are held-rather than affirmations of his own views. This procedure reflects the fact that for Aristotle, as for Plato, philosophy is a dialogue which searches for truth by examining a variety of views and critically evaluating them. Plato usually flags which views he endorses by putting them into the mouth of Socrates, while presenting the views he wants to raise puzzles about by assigning them to other speakers in the dialogue. Aristotle is more like a person replaying arguments with others in his mind, ruminating on what they might have said, and thinking through how he would respond. The important question to ask as you read is: What clues are there as to whether Aristotle is listing others' opinions, identifying puzzles, or offering his own theory.