From: Peterfabriani@aol.com
Date: Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:58:12 GMT
Hi Peter,
I think we disagree about Aristotle.... Which is a bugbear as there is not
way we could resolve the differences in this forum. Not that I'm a big
expert on Aristotle by any means, it's just that the analysis of his
approach given by Nussbaum and MacIntyre (which are really what I base my
interpretation on) is one that I find plausible, and also one that tallies
nicely with my broader philosophical understanding, which is largely derived
from Wittgenstein (so even if my account of Aristotle is shown to fail, I
have a fallback position ;-).
Peter: Yes indeedy! It would be fascinating to have a head to head over
Aristotle, but there is little time for it? One thing however: At the end of
book Ten in his Ethics, Aristotle basically has two positions regarding
Eudamonia; the political individual and the contemplator. The contemplator is
given prize position, but what is it that is being contemplated? Much debate
over that, but i venture to suggest this contemplative Eudamonic is not
social?
It seems that we are still somewhat talking past each other with respect to
'reason' 'intellect' and 'eudaimonia'. You say that Aristotle's account of
eudaimonia is ordered by a rational methodology - I agree; clearly he's
giving a rational account of it - but it is not an 'intellectual'
methodology in the sense that I am trying to distinguish.
Peter: Here we part company, but i wish you well and look forward to your
rigorous work.
Aristotle specifically states: "That practical wisdom is not scientific
understanding
is obvious." Furthermore, the criterion of correct choice (what I call the
'choosing unit') is the whole human being, not the Platonic disembodied
intellect. I disagree that Aristotle is inventing sociology in doing this.
Peter: The choosing unit is the psuche or soul? Encheletism? Problems.
> Peter: Eudaimonia is Aristotle's chosen term for arte. This is rather like
> choosing the term 'painter' for the bloke who painted the Sistine chapel?
Do you mean arte or arete? (Arete! Sorry, Peter.)
It is a bit like that, but it's more like coming up with a common term to
describe the bloke who painted the sistine chapel, the bloke who painted the
Mona Lisa, Marie Curie and Mother Theresa.
Peter: In short, Aristotle is trying to define Quality, and we don't do that
here??? ;)
> Peter: In this, your response to my previous posting, you have ignored my
> insistence that the good is superior to truth? You also fail to highlight
my
> insistence that truth is culturally relative.
>
You seem to be implying that we're disagreeing on this. Except that,
largely, I think we're in agreement. I'm confused.
Peter: But Aristotle uses truthful definitions to try and encapsulate the
good? No?
> Peter: It is most encouraging to discover a philosopher who is so free. I
am
> happy to read this! How do you feel about my description of Intellect
> including the rational?
>
I'm very happy that Intellect includes the rational, the problem is if it is
nothing more. If we can get it to include emotional maturity, so that
'intellect' becomes equivalent to Aristotelian 'practical wisdom', and
thereby the means to eudaimonia, then we reach 'game over'.
Peter: Practical Wisdom may be the 'man of affairs' - the Political animal?
Wisdom proper may be the contemplator of Book Ten?
> Peter: Personal experience getting in the way here. I prefer books and
music
> to people infected with western cultural values.
>
Which western cultural values do you object to?
Peter: Material and media mostly.
> Take care,
And you.
Peter: :)
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:58:58 GMT