What does 'for the reasons for the sake of which' mean?

Question

_{Source: Bekker Number 1106B, Line 20, Nicomachean Ethics (2012) by Aristotle, translated by Joe Sachs}

  I am speaking of virtue of character, for this is concerned with feelings and actions, and among these there is excess and deficiency, and the mean. For instance, it is possible to be afraid or be confident or to desire or be angry or feel pity, or in general to feel pleasure [20] or feel pain both more and less, and on both sides not in the right way; but to feel them when one ought,
and in the cases in which, and toward the people whom, and for the reasons for the sake of which, and in the manner
one ought
is both a mean and the best thing, which is what belongs to virtue.

I suspect this complex English syntax to originate from the Ancient Greek syntax; but I have tried to clarify it by adding space, to indicate one ought as the subject in the relative clauses.
I know, and so ask NOT about, the meaning of sake (= the Germanic synonym for 'purpose').

reasons and sake are Referring Expressions; so to what do they refer?
1, 2. Reasons/sake for/behind/of what?

Answer 1

First off, let's unravel the parallel construction. "For the reasons for the sake of which" is one of multiple alternatives, so let's simplify the sentence by eliminating the others, and trimming out some other less-important parts.

"To feel [pleasure or pain] for the reasons for the sake of which one ought, is [...] what belongs to virtue".

Now if we re-organize it a little bit, we can see a statement: one ought to feel pleasure or pain for the sake of certain reasons.

"Reason" is used here for one of its ordinary meanings: "a fact, condition, or situation that makes it proper or appropriate to do something, feel something, etc." (Webster).

"Sake" means something like "purpose" — "X is done for the sake of Y" means that X is done with Y as its purpose. In this case, "sake" and "reason" are a bit redundant, and "for the sake of" could have been left out without making much difference.

Overall, Aristotle is making some sort of statement about the virtue of feeling emotions for "correct" reasons and not artificial ones.

I'm surprised that this translation is from 2012; I would have guessed that it was from the 19th century, and that the era was the reason for its wordiness, not any feature of the original Greek.

Answer 2

On its own, "one ought" is a clause.  It doesn't serve as the subject of anything.

 

I will agree that reformatting the matrix clause in question, along with reintroducing what was lost through ellipsis, can expose its internal structure: 

but
      to feel them when one ought [to feel them] ,
   and
      [to feel them] in the cases in which [one ought [to feel them] ],
   and
      [to feel them] toward the people [for] whom [one ought [to feel them] ],
   and
      [to feel them] for the reasons for the sake of which [one ought [to feel them] ],
   and
      [to feel them] in the manner one ought [to feel them]
is
   both
      a mean
   and
      the best thing
. . . . 

One ought to feel these things for the sake of some reasons.  What reasons those might be is not mentioned here.  To feel them for those reasons is a mean thing but also the best thing. 

The sense of "sake" used here means something like "cause", "justification", or "purpose".  It is in no way related to rice wine. 
 

I am tempted to paraphrase this passage as follows: 

but
   to feel such things
      at the appropriate time,
      in the appropriate cases,
      toward appropriate people,
      for appropriate reasons
   and
      in an appropriate manner
is
   both a mean and the best thing . . . . 

 

The remainder of the sentence is the nonrestrictive relative clause "which is what belongs to virtue".  The antecedent of the relative "which" is that thing that happens to be both mean and the best.  That, in turn, shares its referent with the subject of the matrix clause. 

Those three descriptions (to feel things under those conditions, something both mean and best, and that which belongs to virtue) all indicate the same referent. 
 

 
Edit:

In this translation, "cases", "people", "reasons" and "manner" are all common nouns in a parallel structure.  They are each the object of a preposition, and they each serve as the antecedent for a following relative clause.  None of them have antecedents themselves.  The prepositions relate those nouns to the infinitive phrase "to feel them", which stands as the subject of the matrix clause.

The question "reasons of what?" makes no more sense than "cases of what?", "people of what?" or "manner of what?". 
 

Perhaps you mean to ask why this translator chose "the reasons for the sake of which one ought" rather than the simpler "the reasons for which one ought".