attributes more relevance to the intrinsic

[keannu]

1. What does "relevance" mean in the first underlined?
2. What does "it" in the second underlined mean? Is this sentence an emphatic structure to emphasize "this aspect"?

st161)All human actions are both immanent and transitive, except in the case of a fully immanent action to think or to love. For example, when somebody works, there are two results: an 'objective' result, such as the product or service (transitive aspect), and a 'subjective' result, such as an increase in ability or self-fulfillment of the agent, as well as the moral good of the act (immanent aspect). For Aristotle, this latter ―the immanent aspect― is the more relevant. It is the one sought for its own sake, not for any further reason. Aristotle affirms that, 'we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more complete than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else.' In other words, Aristotle attributes more relevance to the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action because it is this aspect whose end is the very fulfillment or perfection of the agent.

[Raymott]

1. What does "relevance" mean in the first underlined?
2. What does "it" in the second underlined mean? Is this sentence an emphatic structure to emphasize "this aspect"?

st161)All human actions are both immanent and transitive, except in the case of a fully immanent action to think or to love. For example, when somebody works, there are two results: an 'objective' result, such as the product or service (transitive aspect), and a 'subjective' result, such as an increase in ability or self-fulfillment of the agent, as well as the moral good of the act (immanent aspect). For Aristotle, this latter ―the immanent aspect― is the more relevant. It is the one sought for its own sake, not for any further reason. Aristotle affirms that, 'we call that which is in itself worthy of pursuit more complete than that which is worthy of pursuit for the sake of something else.' In other words, Aristotle attributes more relevance to the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action becauseit is this aspect whose end is the very fulfillment or perfection of the agent.

It means that Aristotle thought the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action was more important. The passage doesn't say to what it is more relevant, so you might have to infer that, eg. to life, to actions.
It's a dummy subject. "It is this aspect (the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action) ..."

[keannu]

Thank you! In "this aspect whose end is..", I think "this" refers to "the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action" in the previous sentence with "it" a dummy subject. Does "whose" describe "this aspect" or function as "an emphasis" like "It is her that I met yesterday"? Is it for emphasis?

[Raymott]

Thank you! In "this aspect whose end is..", I think "this" refers to "the intrinsic or immanent aspect of action" in the previous sentence with "it" a dummy subject. Does "whose" describe "this aspect" or function as "an emphasis" like "It is her that I met yesterday"? Is it for emphasis?

Yes, that's what it means: "It is the intrinsic or immanent aspect whose end is the very fulfillment or perfection of the agent.
That's why Aristotle thinks it's the most relevant/important aspect. "Whose" is used as a normal relative pronoun.

[keannu]

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have never seen this kind of emphatic expression using "it" and "that" like these.

ex)original sentence = I met her yesterday.
=>It was I that(who) met her yesterday; It was her that I met yesterday; It was yesterday that I met her

These are normal emphatic expressions, but they don't transform any sentence with "whose", so "It is the intrinsic or immanent aspect whose end is the very fulfillment or perfection of the agent." is hard to interprete because of vague meanings of "it" and "whose". Can you clarify it grammar-wise?

[Raymott]

I'm sorry to bother you again, but I have never seen this kind of emphatic expression using "it" and "that" like these.

ex)original sentence = I met her yesterday.
=>It was I that(who) met her yesterday; It was her that I met yesterday; It was yesterday that I met her

These are normal emphatic expressions, but they don't transform any sentence with "whose", so "It is the intrinsic or immanent aspect whose end is the very fulfillment or perfection of the agent." is hard to interprete because of vague meanings of "it" and "whose". Can you clarify it grammar-wise?

Do you understand this sentence with the same grammar?:
"Aristotle has a dog and a cat and a bird. Aristotle likes the dog, because it is the dog whose goal is the fulfilment of his master's wishes."

[konungursvia]

Do you understand this sentence with the same grammar?:
"Aristotle has a dog and a cat and a bird. Aristotle likes the dog, because it is the dog whose goal is the fulfilment of his master's wishes."

No, I feel sure a cat views fulfilling its master's wishes as transitive, and so the cat will only pursue the immanently satisfying fulfillment of its own fancies; this way it will be more likely to achieve Aristotelian happiness. The dog, however, is after the lesser aspect of transitive and therefore vicarious pleasure. The immanent aspect of the fulfillment entirely escapes the dog. Therefore, he loves the cat most.