Aristotle Claims Research Articles

Concocting Teleology in Aristotle’s Meteorology 4 and Generation of Animals

Abstract Aristotle claims that in making an animal, nature acts like a “good housekeeper” who “is accustomed to throw out nothing from which it is possible to make something useful” (744b16–17). How does nature act when it “make[s] something useful” in these cases – and does it differ from other ways it acts? I defend two main claims. The first is that Meteor. 4.2’s distinction between two sorts of ‘concoction’ processes offers an underappreciated source of evidence for answering this question. My second claim concerns the nature of those processes and the ends they realize. While they are both the ends of their respective types of concoction, they differ in that some essential (process-defining) features of the second end – but not the first – are supplied by what the capacities of the “underlying” patient (on which the agent acts) are for. The result is a distinction between two kinds of end-directed efficient causation.

Busybodies and Quietists, Yesterday and Today: Discovering Debates about Phronēsis in Nicomachean Ethics 6.8

Abstract Nicomachean Ethics 6.8 has been interpreted in a variety of ways. One dispute involves Aristotle’s remarks about the relationship of phronēsis to politics: does Aristotle claim that phronēsis is foremost applicable to an individual’s private life, to the political realm, or to some combination of the two? Two features of this dispute make it worthy of closer attention. First, the conflict of interpretations has not been documented as such. Second, I argue this contemporary conflict is a repetition of an ancient conflict about phronēsis that was being waged in 5th/4th century Athens. Phronēsis was a contested term alongside two related terms, apragmosynē (quietism) and polypragmosynē (meddlesomeness), and the construction of lines 1141b23–1142a12 enters into this historical debate to create a productive tension between two rival views. Aristotle heightens the tension between views represented by quietists and busybodies for his own purposes. In section 1, I surface the neglected historical frame of Nicomachean Ethics 6.8. In section 2, I turn to the contemporary conflict of interpretations, showing how it repeats the historical frame in many ways, and I provide a basic taxonomy of the views typically offered. In section 3, I bring the two debates – historical and contemporary – together and offer my own view of what Aristotle is up to in the passage. I argue that centering the historical frame in this passage highlights Aristotle’s use of Isocratean-style phronēsis, while also transforming the concept by connecting it to a series of questions that go beyond Isocrates’ view, thus preparing for a later exploration of the best forms of human living.

AL-FĀRĀBĪ’S EIGHTH FALLACY EXTRA DICTIONEM AND AVERROES’ CRITICISM

AbstractThis paper aims to introduce and discuss al-Fārābī's (d. 950–1 CE) fallacy from transfer and substitution in his little-studied “On Deceptive Topoi” (Kitāb al-amkina al-muġalliṭa) and the criticism leveled at him by Averroes (d. 1198 CE) for violating Aristotle's claim of the exhaustiveness of his list of fallacies. The first and larger half of this paper introduces al-Fārābī's treatise and its innovations upon Aristotle's Sophistici elenchi. The second half focuses on Averroes’ criticism in his so-called middle commentary (talḫīṣ) on Aristotle's SE and discusses the validity of his arguments against al-Fārābī. As the final analysis will show, Averroes’ criticism does not sufficiently take into account the independence of al-Fārābī's treatise from Aristotle's SE, its disregard for the study of dialectical deception and counter-deception, and its particular focus on the demonstrative sciences. In light of al-Fārābī's innovation his “On Deceptive Topoi” turns out to be a work of great originality drawing on a broad range of source texts.

VII—The Straight-edge of Virtue: Aristotle on the Rational Significance of Beauty-in-Action

Abstract Aristotle claims that the virtuous person acts for the sake of to kalon. To understand this idea, I examine the analogy he draws between craft and virtue. I argue that the kalon is a formal feature of well-ordered wholeness and that the virtuous person takes intellectual pleasure in perceiving (or remembering or imagining) the kalon-in-action, akin to pleasure in observing artworks or works of nature. However, the virtuous person’s pleasure in kalon action is primarily a pleasure of practical reason. In these ways, Aristotle’s concept of the kalon is and is not like the modern aesthetic concept of the beautiful.

Why is Deliberation Necessary for Choice?

Abstract In the ethical texts, Aristotle claims that all instances of choice (prohairesis) must be preceded by deliberation, but it is not clear why he believes this. This paper offers an explanation of that commitment, drawing heavily from the De Anima and showing that the account emerging from there complements that of the ethical texts. The view is that the deliberative faculty has the capacity to manipulate reasons combinatorially, while the perceptual/desiderative faculty does not, and choice requires the combinatorial manipulation of reasons.

IN WHAT SENSE WRONG CONCEPTIONS OF EUDAIMONIA GET AT LEAST SOME THINGS RIGHT

IN WHAT SENSE WRONG CONCEPTIONS OF EUDAIMONIA GET AT LEAST SOME THINGS RIGHT

Philosophy’s Resurrection: Richard Fishacre on Theology, Light, and the Stars

Abstract This article explores Richard Fishacre’s (1200–1248) thinking on the relationship between theology and philosophy. It shows how, despite constructing what, on the surface at least, appears to be a traditional understanding of theology’s relationship to philosophy, Fishacre in practice offers a very creative interpretation of how the two sciences interact. For Fishacre, theology does not simply illumine philosophy by guiding it away from error. Instead, it steps into the fray of ordinary philosophical dispute so as to uncover novel ways of reading natural phenomena, ones which philosophy, by itself at least, is blind to. To demonstrate how this is so, the article explores how Fishacre appeals to Christ’s resurrected body to justify some of his most controversial arguments in the field of natural philosophy. Two specific areas are considered: Fishacre’s claim that light in medio is a body and his assertion that the stars and planets are made from the terrestrial elements as opposed to the celestial quintessence, as Aristotle claims. Each of these aspects of Fishacre’s physics show how, for the Dominican, theology can, when appropriate, step onto the philosophical plane and help the natural philosopher to discover truths that go against the philosophical consensus.

A visual bias for falling objects.

Aristotle believed that objects fell at a constant velocity. However, Galileo Galilei showed that when an object falls, gravity causes it to accelerate. Regardless, Aristotle's claim raises the possibility that people's visual perception of falling motion might be biased away from acceleration towards constant velocity. We tested this idea by requiring participants to judge whether a ball moving in a simulated naturalistic setting appeared to accelerate or decelerate as a function of its motion direction and the amount of acceleration/deceleration. We found that the point of subjective constant velocity (PSCV) differed between up and down but not between left and right motion directions. The PSCV difference between up and down indicated that more acceleration was needed for a downward-falling object to appear at constant velocity than for an upward "falling" object. We found no significant differences in sensitivity to acceleration for the different motion directions. Generalized linear mixed modeling determined that participants relied predominantly on acceleration when making these judgments. Our results support the idea that Aristotle's belief may in part be due to a bias that reduces the perceived magnitude of acceleration for falling objects, a bias not revealed in previous studies of the perception of visual motion.

Aristotle on Political Friendship and Equality

Recent scholarship has placed the concept of friendship at the centre of Aristotle's political thought. However, relatively little attention has been given to Aristotle's claim that political friendship is 'based on equality'. This article first explicates this claim as it appears in the Eudemian Ethics, where Aristotle asserts that the paradigmatic form of political friendship is based on 'arithmetic' rather than 'proportional' equality. Second, it shows that this 'egalitarian' conception of political friendship is fully consistent with theNicomachean Ethics and Politics — and in doing so, challenges a recent argument that the Eudemian Ethics was not genuinely written by Aristotle. Third, it argues that Aristotle's 'egalitarian' conception of political friendship motivates his advocacy of various economic arrangements and practices throughout the Politics, including but not limited to the 'common use' of property.

The Best Constitution for the Flourishing Lives: Aristotle’s Political Theory and Its Implications for Emancipatory Purposes

The aim of this paper is to discuss the issue of the best constitution given Aristotle’s account of human flourishing articulated in the Nicomachean Ethics. There, Aristotle claims that monarchy is the supreme form of constitution. A similar claim is repeated in Politics. The paper argues that these claims sit uneasily with Aristotle’s teleological accounts of the polis, the citizen, and his discussion of the virtues of the citizen and the good man in Politics. Given Aristotle’s philosophical definition of the state as “an association of equals for the sake of the best possible life” and his notion that “the best is happiness, and that consists in excellence and its perfect actualization and its employment”, and Aristotle’s argument on the relationship between the good man and the good citizen, this paper concludes that the best constitution is politeia. Yet, simply to argue so is not enough if we are to rescue Aristotle from his inconsistencies and his claims on “natural inequalities”. Finally, a more radical interpretation of Aristotle is outlined, which rejects Aristotle’s separation between the oikos and the polis and argues that the verticality of the former is philosophically arbitrary and contradicts the revolutionary implications of Aristotle’s normative teleology.

Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethicson the Sameness of Friendship and Justice

AbstractIn theNicomachean Ethics, Aristotle claims that friendship and justice are the same, apparently flouting the not uncommon contrast between friendship and justice. I start by assessing Aristotle’s principle of equality: friends of equal standing engage in exact reciprocity in goods and friends of unequal standing engage in proportional reciprocity. In a number of ways that have gone unnoticed, the equalization principle is a requirement for understanding the sameness of friendship and justice. Just relations and friendship share the same domain, that is, the same relationship of a corresponding community. Moreover, asking how to be just to someone is the same as asking how to be a friend to that person, indicating that the virtue of justice and the virtue of friendship are also the same.

Aristotle on Efficient and Final Causes in Plato

Abstract In Metaphysics A 6, Aristotle claims that Plato only recognises formal and material causes. Yet, in various dialogues, Plato seems to use and distinguish efficient and final causes too. Consequently, Harold Cherniss accuses Aristotle of being an unfair, forgetful, or careless reader of Plato. Since then, scholars have tried to defend Aristotle’s exegetical skills. I offer textual evidence and arguments to show that their efforts still fall short of the desired goal. I argue, instead, that we can reject Cherniss’ assertation by re-examining Aristotle’s exegetical and methodological assumptions.

The Predicative Role of ‘Being Good’ in Aristotle

The article proposes a renewed analysis of the texts in which Aristotle claims that the term ‘good’ is spoken of in many ways and more precisely in as many ways as there are categories. After a revision of the traditional interpretations, a new reading of the texts is advanced in the light of the theory of predication described in Top. 103 b20-38 and Metaph. 1017 a7-30. The conclusion is that in the Aristotelian passages on the multivocity of ‘good’, the word ‘good’ should not be meant as the predicate of categorially distinct realities, and therefore as a qualifying adjective, but itself as the subject of the question what is it? (τί ἐστι;) In this way, it is possible to advance the hypothesis that the homonymous notion of ‘good’ performs a predicative function, useful to the formulation of practical and prescriptive propositions.

The ‘Belonging to a Kind’ Reading of the Eudemian Ergon Argument

Aristotle does not uniquely specify, much less define, eudaimonia in the EE’s ergon argument (1218b31-1219a39). He concludes simply that eudaimonia belongs to a certain kind. That Aristotle claims to have offered a horos of eudaimonia (1219a39-40) does not show that he has uniquely specified eudaimonia. This interpretation has implications for our understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian account of eudaimonia; of Eudemian methodology; and of his use of ergon argument more generally.

Aristotle on Benefaction and Self-Love

Aristotle claims that the virtuous motive in benefitting others is altruistic. But he also claims in Nicomachean Ethics 9.7 that benefaction is an expression of self-love. This essay examines the account of benefaction with an eye to resolving the tension between these claims. By drawing out Aristotle’s comparison between reproduction and benefaction, I show that Aristotle conceives of self-love principally in terms of activities whose causal effects redound not only to the beneficiary but also to the benefactor. With this understanding of self-love, we better understand the relationship between self-love and benefaction and between self-love and friendship.

THE BEAUTY OF FAILURE: HAMARTIA IN ARISTOTLE'S POETICS

AbstractIn Poetics 13, Aristotle claims that the protagonist in the most beautiful tragedies comes to ruin through some kind of ‘failure’—in Greek, ἁμαρτία. There has been notorious disagreement among scholars about the moral responsibility involved in ἁμαρτία. This article defends the old reading of ἁμαρτία as a character flaw, but with an important modification: rather than explaining the hero's weakness as general weakness of will (ἀκρασία), it argues that the tragic hero is blinded by temper (θυμός) or by a pursuit for fine, good and desirable things—that is, by what may be labelled ‘qualified’ weakness of will. The upshot is that ἁμαρτία ends up as being less blameworthy than ‘proper’ ἀκρασία, but still explains why morally outstanding people are unsuitable for the most beautiful tragedies.

Aristotle on Substance as Primary in Time

Abstract In a notoriously obscure passage in Metaphysics 7.1 Aristotle claims that substance is primary in time. The only concrete literal interpretation suggested so far of this controversial claim is in terms of existing before and after in time. I argue that this interpretation faces serious problems. I then present a novel literal interpretation, in terms of being an appropriate subject of temporal predications, that is immune to these problems and strongly supported by philosophical and contextual considerations.

Reciprocity and Political Justice in Nicomachean Ethics Book V

Abstract The profusion of senses of justice in NE V.1–7 has left many readers with a general impression of chaos, but also gives rise to pressing questions about Aristotle’s conception of justice. Specifically, (1) why does Aristotle claim that there are two parts to justice as equality, but go on to discuss three types of equality in the subsequent chapters? (2) What is the relationship between political justice and the distinction between general justice and particular justice? I argue in this essay that the notion of reciprocity, central to the first question, can also help us address the second. Specifically, I show that reciprocity is not a third species of particular justice, but rather a prior condition for political community and for political justice. Political justice is best understood as a redescription of particular justice that highlights how distributive and corrective justice maintain equality among citizens in an existing political community. In addition to explaining the unity of Aristotle’s thought in these chapters of NE V, I demonstrate a number of philosophical consequences for understanding Aristotle’s conception of justice.

Form and Function in Aristotle

Abstract On the one hand, Aristotle claims that the matter of a material thing is not part of its form. On the other hand, he suggests that the proper account of a natural thing must include a specification of the kind of matter in which it is realized. There are three possible strategies for dealing with this apparent tension. First, there may be two kinds of definition, so that the definition of the form of a thing does not include any specification of its matter, whereas the definition of a compound does. Second, the definition of a substance may not include a specification of its matter at all, but still reveal in what kinds of matter its form can be realized. Third, there may be a special kind of matter, functional matter, which belongs to the form of certain things. I will show that the functional matter of a thing does not belong to its form (in a strict sense of “form”), but that an adequate account of natural substances and their functions must nonetheless involve a reference to their functional matter. This means that the function of a natural thing is not the same as its form and that its adequate account as a natural thing is not a definition (in a strict sense of “form” and “definition”).

Aristotle on the Unity of the Nutritive and Reproductive Functions

Abstract In De Anima 2.4, Aristotle claims that nutritive soul encompasses two distinct biological functions: nutrition and reproduction. We challenge a pervasive interpretation which posits ‘nutrients’ as the correlative object (antikeimenon) of the nutritive capacity. Instead, the shared object of nutrition and reproduction is that which is nourished and reproduced: the ensouled body, qua ensouled. Both functions aim at preserving this object, and thus at preserving the form, life, and being of the individual organism. In each case, we show how Aristotle’s detailed biological analysis supports this ontological argument.