糖心TV

Open to all MA and MPhil students.

Meet your peers, discuss modules, generate essay ideas, discover 糖心TV University's offering, distribute academic resources and more!

For any questions, email: Amrita.Tewari@warwick.ac.uk

Abstract

All of Aristotle鈥檚 ethical writings allocate a central place to theoretical philosophical thinking (迟丑别艒谤颈补). Noting the differences both in detail and in spirit, scholars have speculated about the treatises鈥� relative composition and Aristotle鈥檚 philosophical development more generally. However, any kind of judgement about the relationship between these texts requires an account of the place and role of 迟丑别艒谤颈补 in each text taken on its own.

Setting aside the well-known account of the Nicomachean Ethics, I provide such an account for the Protrepticus, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Magna Moralia by considering two questions: 1) What is 迟丑别艒谤颈补? And 2) What role does 迟丑别艒谤颈补 play in the ethical theory of each of these treatises? I argue that the treatises agree broadly on what 迟丑别艒谤颈补 is. It belongs to theoretical philosophy and has to do with knowledge of causes, nature, and truth. The EE and the MM do not say much about the nature of 迟丑别艒谤颈补; the Protrepticus proves to be more informative because it aims at putting the contemplative way of life on the map — in contrast to a more practical approach, associated with Isocrates.

Of the three texts, the Protrepticus has most to say about the nature of 迟丑别艒谤颈补. It presents 迟丑别艒谤颈补 as the contemplation of nature and truth, understood as knowledge of causes. I shall argue that this knowledge is purely theoretical, despite the argument in ch. 10 that 迟丑别艒谤颈补 provides the greatest benefit for human beings. The other two treatises, operating with a similar conception of 迟丑别艒谤颈补, also maintain a firm distinction between practical and theoretical knowledge. However, both argue, in different ways, that we cannot fully understand practical virtue without considering 迟丑别艒谤颈补 because the former is for the sake of the latter. In the course of explaining how each of the treatises subordinates practical to theoretical wisdom, I shall argue that the EE widens the remit of theoretical thinking to include some aspects of politics, whereas the MM operates with a less developed account that does not stress the importance of knowledge of causes.