On the metaphysical presuppositions of Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics

Conclusion In what precedes, I have argued that Aristotle does not, in his ethics, commit three metaphysical errors sometimes imputed to him: he does not define the good as a fact; he does not claim that human beings move by nature towards their telos; he does not claim, in the ergon argument, that human beings are fixed rather than versatile. Instead, I have shown, he does the opposite in each case: he argues that the good cannot be defined as a fact; he claims that human beings move towards their telos only if they have virtue and virtue is not by nature; he locates, in the human ergon, that which is responsible for human versatility. Finally, I have shown by example that the metaphysical commitments of Aristotle's account of human happiness are not as controversial as they seem.If all of this is true, then perhaps the disorder that has existed in ethics since the enlightenment has been misdiagnosed. Perhaps it is not due to an unhappy choice between end-neutral emotivism on the one hand and Aristotle's bad metaphysics on the other. Perhaps instead it is due, at least in part, to a too hasty rejection of Aristotle's ethics on the grounds of a rejection of his biology.     

Infants’ understanding of everyday social interactions: A dual process account

Six- and 12-month-old infant’s eye movements were recorded as they observed feeding actions being performed in a rational or non-rational manner. Twelve-month-olds fixated the goal of these actions before the food arrived (anticipation); the latency of these gaze shifts being dependent (r = .69) on infants life experience being feed. In addition, 6- and 12-month-olds dilated their pupil during observation of non-rational feeding actions. This effect could not be attributed to light differences or differences in familiarity, but was interpreted to reflect sympathetic-like activity and arousal caused by a violation of infant’s expectations about rationality. We argue that evaluation of rationality requires less experience than anticipations of action goals, suggesting a dual process account of preverbal infants’ everyday action understanding.     

Wild chimeras: Enthusiasm and intellectual virtue in Kant

Kant typically is not identified with the tradition of virtue epistemology. Although he may not be a virtue epistemologist in a strict sense, I suggest that intellectual virtues and vices play a key role in his epistemology. Specifically, Kant identifies a serious intellectual vice that threatens to undermine reason, namely enthusiasm (Schwärmerei). Enthusiasts become so enamored with their own thinking that they refuse to subject reason to self‐critique. The particular danger of enthusiasm is that reason colludes in its own destruction: Enthusiasm occurs when self‐conceit and reason's desire to transcend its boundaries mutually reinforce each other. I conclude by sketching an account of Kantian intellectual virtue that is consistent with Kantian moral virtue.     

Aristotle's Account of Anger: Narcissism and Illusions of Self-Sufficiency

This paper considers an allegation by M. Stocker and E. Hegeman that Aristotle's account of anger yields a narcissistic passion bedevilled by illusions of self-sufficiency. The paper argues on behalf of Aristotle's valuing of anger within a virtuous and flourishing life, showing that and why Aristotle's account is neither narcissistic nor involves illusions of self-sufficiency. In so arguing a deeper appreciation of Aristotle's understanding of a self-sufficient life is reached, as are some interesting contrasts between Aristotle's understanding of anger, its connections to value and our own understanding of these matters.     

Taking Ethical Disability Seriously

Aristotle's ethical theorizing contains resources for explaining what I call 'ethical disability'. In theories such as Kant's and Mill's it is important that criteria of right action be accessible to anyone. Aristotle's moral psychology yields a plausible account of how they are not available to everyone. Unless a correct appreciation of good is part of the agent's second nature, the agent will not recognize ethical requirements, and will not have the resources to alter his judgments. Often, bad action is not a matter of agents' flouting or violating criteria of right action that they recognize, but is a matter of agents' regarding as choiceworthy things that are in fact no good, and the agents are unable to appreciate this because of their vices. However, on the Aristotelian view, this is not a condition that diminishes responsibility, because of how voluntariness is interpreted. Some of the views of Susan Wolf and Bernard Williams are discussed in the development of this view of the moral landscape.     

So We Need Something Else for Reason to Mean

In this paper I give considerable attention to Richard Rorty's attempt to make plausible a conception of non-rational semantic and cultural change - change which Rorty insists on describing as identical with progress - in order to show the extent to which this attempt is compromised from the start by an unjustifiably narrow and inconsistent view of reason. The point of this immanent critique is not just to make Rorty's view of non-rational change look bad. It is meant to do more justice to his claim that intellectual and moral progress is inseparable from speaking and acting differently by incorporating this claim into a philosophically enlarged picture of reason. So the value of taking Rorty's claims about change seriously lies less in showing the shortcomings of his conception of reason than it does in bringing a sense of urgency to the need to renew the project begun by Kant, Hegel, and German Idealism - the project of conceiving reason as an agency of change by reinterpreting reason in terms of self-determining freedom.     

THE CHRISTIAN VIRTUE OF MERCY: AQUINAS' TRANSFORMATION OF ARISTOTELIAN PITY

In his discussion of the virtue of mercy (ST, II-II.30), Thomas Aquinas draws upon two seemingly opposed sources. On the one hand, Thomas takes Aristotle as an authority on the subject of compassion. Aristotle maintains in his discussion of pity in the Rhetoric that pity is felt for those who suffer undeservedly since we do not pity but rather blame those who suffer as a result of their own wicked actions. On the other hand, Jesus in Matthew's gospel feels pity for the crowds. 'At the sight of the crowds, his heart was moved with pity for them for they were troubled and abandoned, like sheep without a shepherd' (Matt.9:36). In his commentary on this text from Matthew, Thomas identifies two possible interpretations for the troubled and abandoned condition of the crowd. The crowd is said to be troubled in so far as it is vexed by demons and abandoned in so far as it lies prostrate because of infirmities. The crowd can also be said to be troubled in so far as it is vexed by errors and to be abandoned in so far as it is fallen because of sin. ¹ Jesus, then, according to Thomas and contrary to Aristotle's claim, feels pity for the crowds as a result of the crowd's misery brought on by their own sinful deeds.
In this paper, I examine how Thomas harmonizes these conflicting sources. More specifically, I hope to show both how Thomas uses Aristotle's observations on pity and at the same time transforms those observations in light of Christ's mercy on sinners. Thomas' use and transformation of Aristotle's account of pity provides an enlightening perspective from which to interpret Thomas' initially troubling claim that God feels no pity over the suffering of creatures, which we will consider briefly by way of a conclusion to this paper.     

TWO SIDES OF 'SILENCING'

John McDowell argues that for virtuous agents the requirements of virtue do not outweigh competing considerations, but 'silence' them. He explains this claim in two different ways: a virtuous agent (a) will not be tempted to act in a way which is incompatible with virtue ('motivational silencing'), or (b) will not believe that he has any reason to act in a way which is incompatible with virtue ('rational silencing'). I identify a small class of cases in which alone McDowell's claims about rational silencing are true. He draws his claims from Aristotle's assertion that a life of virtue is 'selfsuffcient'. I offer an alternative reading of Aristotle's assertion, which does not imply the truth of McDowell's. But McDowell's claims about motivational silencing are true.     

From Aristotle's Syllogistic to Stoic Conditionals: Holzwege or Detectable Paths?

This paper is chiefly aimed at individuating some deep, but as yet almost unnoticed, similarities between Aristotle's syllogistic and the Stoic doctrine of conditionals, notably between Aristotle's metasyllogistic equimodality condition (as stated at APr. I 24, 41b27–31) and truth-conditions for third type (Chrysippean) conditionals (as they can be inferred from, say, S.E. P. II 111 and 189). In fact, as is shown in §1, Aristotle's condition amounts to introducing in his (propositional) metasyllogistic a non-truthfunctional implicational arrow '', the truth-conditions of which turn out to be logically equivalent to truth-conditions of third type conditionals, according to which only the impossible (and not the possible) follows from the impossible. Moreover, Aristotle is given precisely this non-Scotian conditional logic in two so far overlooked passages of (Latin and Hebraic translations of) Themistius' Paraphrasis of De Caelo (CAG V 4, 71.8–13 and 47.8–10 Landauer). Some further consequences of Aristotle's equimodality condition on his logic, and notably on his syllogistic (no matter whether modal or not), are pointed out and discussed at length. A (possibly Chrysippean) extension of Aristotle's condition is also discussed, along with a full characterization of truth-conditions of fourth type conditionals.     

Aristotle on a Puzzle about Logical Consequence: Necessity of Being vs. Necessity of Saying

In the Posterior Analytics (I 6, 75a18–27) Aristotle discusses a puzzle which endangers the possibility of inferring a non-necessary conclusion. His solution relies on the distinction between the necessity of the conclusion's being the case and the necessity of admitting the conclusion once one has admitted the premisses. The former is a factual necessity, whereas the latter is meant to be a normative or deontic necessity that is independent of the facts stated by the premisses and the conclusion. This paper maintains that Aristotle resorts to this distinction because he thinks that, as long as it is conceived as a factual relation, logical consequence cannot exist independently of the facts expressed by the premisses and the conclusion. As a corollary, the necessity of such a consequence relation always requires the necessity of these facts. Aristotle holds this factual conception of logical consequence responsible for the puzzle, since it cannot account for valid syllogisms with contingent or false premisses. The alternative conception of necessity is then introduced by him in order to make good this deficiency. The distinction between the necessity of being and the necessity of saying was revived by the Oxford logician E. W. B. Joseph, and taken over by Frank Ramsey in his seminal Truth and Probability, but has not received attention from recent interpreters of Aristotle's logic. This paper, however, argues that, in spite of its intrinsic interest, the distinction bore no significant fruit in Aristotle's logical doctrine.     

Liberating Ecological Reason Through Interdisciplinarity

The theory and practice of ecological reason have consistently suffered various shortcomings, versions of anthropocentrism and holism prominent among them. Even definitions of ecological reason that rely on philosophically informed policy studies and that explicitly take the functional and substantive moments of reason into account have not escaped these problems. An account of interdisciplinarity can shed light on how these intractable problems arise, since many of them fail to build interdisciplinarity as such sufficiently into the definition of ecological reason. Genuine interdisciplinarity, distinguished from both multidisciplinarity and metadisciplinarity, can thus be seen to be necessary (not sufficient) to liberate ecological reason and to illuminate its theory and practice for late moderns.     

亚里士多德关于以音乐教育培养少儿道德品行的思想探析

在快乐中培养少儿的道德品行是亚里士多德音乐教育思想的道德目标。在审美通感的基础上,通过道德移情进行理性灵魂的德性活动,是音乐教育培养少儿道德品行的心理机制。“执中”为善、积习成德是音乐教育培塑未来道德公民的基本途径。     

Asking “why” helps action control by goals but not plans

The present research investigated whether asking “why” concerning the pursuit of one goal can affect the subsequent pursuit of a previously chosen goal. Asking “why” should activate cognitive procedures involving deliberation over the pros and cons of a goal (why-mindset). This mode of thinking should spill over to subsequently pursued goals, with different consequences for goal striving guided by goal intentions and for goal striving guided by implementation intentions (if-then plans). As goal intentions guide behavior by effortful top-down action control processes motivated by the expected value of the desired outcomes, being in a why-mindset should induce defensive postdecisional deliberation and thereby promote goal pursuit. In contrast, implementation intentions guide behavior by automatic bottom-up action control processes triggered by the specified situational cues; in this case, being in a why-mindset should eliminate the effects implementation intentions have on goal pursuit. Performance on a handgrip self-control task (Study 1) as well as on a dual-task (simultaneous go/no-go task and tracking tasks; Study 2) supported these predictions: why-mindsets reinforced goal intention effects and impaired implementation intention effects on handgrip and dual-task performance. Implications for effective goal striving are discussed.     

The Mafioso Case: Autonomy and Self-respect

This article argues that immoralists do not fully enjoy autonomous agency because they are not capable of engaging in the proper form of practical reflection, which requires relating to others as having equal standing. An adequate diagnosis of the immoralist’s failure of agential authority requires a relational account of reflexivity and autonomy. This account has the distinctive merit of identifying the cost of disregarding moral obligations and of showing how immoralists may become susceptible to practical reason. The compelling quality of reason should not be represented as the capacity to force them to abide by morality on pain of incoherence. Rather, its authority (and objectivity) is shown when it presents them with the prospect of a transition that makes sense for them to undertake.     

Aristotle's Endoxa and Plausible Argumentation

Aristotle's conception and use of ta endoxa are key points to our understanding of Aristotelian dialectic. But, nowadays, they are not of historical or hermeneutic importance alone, as, in Aristotle's treatment of endoxa, we still see a relevant contribution to the modern study of argumentation. I propose here an interpretation of endoxa to that effect: namely, as plausible propositions. This version is not only defensible in the Aristotelian context, it may also shed new light on some of his assumptions and methodological shortcomings – e.g. concerning the 'plausible/implausible' pair –; finally, it will even enable us to show certain basic hints and guidelines, advanced by Aristotle's study of endoxa, which still serve nowadays to orientate our studies of argumentation from the angle of a theory of plausible argument currently under construction. These hints and guidelines suggest a pragmatic, gradual and comparative discursive concept of plausibility, and point, in particular, towards the reasonable dealing with, and weighing up of, differences of opinion within this frame of reference.     

The Early Stoics and Aristotelian Ethics

Aristotle's philosophical legacy should be accepted as one of the historical influences that shaped Stoic moral and psychological thought,even if this influence needs to be demonstrated in each individual case rather than be taken for granted in general.Having discussed the methodological issues raised by the state of our documented evidence,I focus upon the particular philosophical agenda bequeathed by Aristotle,the issue of the structure of the human soul,and the theory of character and emotion.I argue that Aristotle's influence upon the Stoics is not only a matter of their adoption of Aristotelian themes or concepts but that,given the aporetic quality of much of Aristotle's writing,they accepted options as discussed,and actually rejected,by Aristotle.In particular,the Stoics have been influenced by deliberations in which Aristotle discusses,adapts or rejects positions associated with the philosophical hero of the Stoics,Socrates (in particular in De an.II,9-10 and EN Ⅶ,1-11).Seen in this light,the Aristotelian legacy appears to be even more relevant to explaining distinctive and in particular Socratic features of Stoic moral psychology than has been previously assumed.     

Completing the square of opposition

In this paper a set of categorical sentences called an antilogistic tetrad is presented as a perspective on Aristotle's square of opposition. An antilogistic tetrad is formed by collecting the premises of a pair of valid syllogisms the conclusions of which are contradictory categorical sentences. A set of such premises serves to bring together Aristotle's concern with debate and the syllogism, and as such may be seen as a way of completing Aristotle's analysis of the square of opposition.The debate context is characterized by opposing views for which arguments are offered. The square of opposition captures that contending of opposing views; and is also basic to the presentation of categorical sentences, a necessary condition for the syllogism. By using C. S. Peirce's notion of abductive argument to produce the middle term, and hence to construct deductive syllogistic arguments, antilogistic tetrads may be formed on any contended subject. For that reason, the process sketched above for forming antilogistic tetrads is called completing the square of opposition.     

Fatal violence – from trauma to offence: A case study in forensic psychotherapy and trauma therapy with a migrant patient

Abstract

That persons who are objects of violence and traumatisation become offenders themselves is a typical feature of ill-fated cycles of violence in countries torn by fierce political, ethnic, and religious conflicts. Some refugees and migrants with this background present a challenge to forensic psychotherapy when they continue such patterns of physical force and criminal behaviour in a host country like Germany, and are found to be either not responsible or of diminished responsibility for their criminal acts by reason of mental disorders or addictions. Their offences create a critical legal situation for them, since they are threatened with deportation. At the same time, their clinical condition is critical, for they were possibly subjected to traumatic experiences by authorities in their past; their cooperation in the treatment can seriously affect their legal status. Finding a way out of these complications has to take these special factors into account. Our paper focuses on the case study of a refugee from North Africa, illustrating a model of cooperation in forensic inpatient treatment, special trauma therapy (narrative exposure therapy), and expert testimony.     

Con-reasons and the causal theory of action

A con-reason is a reason which plays a role in motivating and explaining an agent's behaviour, but which the agent takes to count against the course of action taken. Most accounts of motivating reasons in the philosophy of action do not allow such things to exist. In this essay, I pursue two aims. First, I argue that, whatever metaphysical story we tell about the relation between motivating reasons and action, con-reasons need to be acknowledged, as they play an explanatory role not played by pro-reasons (the reason the agent takes to count in favour of the action taken). Second, I respond to an argument recently developed by David-Hillel Ruben to the effect that a causal theory of action – still known as ‘the standard story’ – cannot account for con-reasons. His argument attempts to show that a fundamental principle of the causal theory cannot be reconciled with the role con-reasons play in a certain kind of imagined case. I first argue that a causal theorist is not, in fact, committed to the problematic principle; this argument has an added benefit, since the principle has been taken by many to show that the causal theory generates a puzzle about the possibility of weak-willed action. I then argue that a causal theorist has good reason to reject the possibility of Ruben's imagined cases. If successful, my arguments make clearer the commitments of the causal theory and show that it can accommodate con-reasons in the way I think they ought to be accommodated.     

Illness perception and quality of life of HIV-positive persons: mediation effects of tenacious and flexible goal pursuit

Medical advances contribute to raise life expectancy of people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). However, they still face challenges related to the disease, thus, quality of life (QOL) became a priority on the field. The self-regulatory model (SRM) guided this study. Illness perceptions (IP) are the beliefs, cognitions, representations of a disease, impacting PLHIV coping strategies and QOL. Tenacious goal pursuit (TGP) is the pursuit of goals with determination, flexible goal adjustment (FGA) is doing it with flexibility, disengaging if necessary, they can both be considered as coping strategies. This study aims to measure the impact of HIV Perception in the QOL of PLHIV mediated by the TGP and FGA. Data was collected from 196 PLHIV with the WHOQOL-HIV Bref, the Brief-IPQ and the FGA and TGP scales. Structural equation model provided a good fit consistent with the theoretical SRM. IP, TGP and FGA had direct effects on the QOL of PLHIV. IP had also an indirect effect (partially mediated by TGP/FGA), suggesting that TGP/FGA reduce the impact of a threatening IP in the QOL. Goal oriented interventions should focus in the HIV perception of PLHIV to ameliorate their QOL.