I discuss the exact meaning of the thesis according to which the object of scientific knowledge is necessary. The thesis is expressed by Aristotle in the Posterior Analytics, in his definition of scientific knowledge. The traditional interpretation understands this definition as depending on two parallel and independent requirements, the causality requirement and the necessity requirement. Against this interpretation, I try to show, through the examination of several passages that refer to the definition of scientific knowledge, that the necessity requirement specifies (...) more exactly the causality requirement: what cannot be otherwise is the explanatory relation between the explanandum and the cause by which it is what it is. (shrink)

This paper reconstructs the function argument of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics 2.1. The argument seeks to define happiness through the method of division; shows that the highest good is better than all four of the goods of the soul, not only two, as commentators have thought; and unlike the Nicomachean argument, makes the highest good definitionally independent of the human function.

The article shows a difference in Aristotle’s ethical theory between the Protrepticus and Eudemian Ethics on the one hand and the Nicomachean Ethics on the other. The difference is explicated by means of the interpretation of the concept of ὅρος (standard) in these writings. The Protrepticus and Eudemian Ethics present ethical theory as an expertise which – together with other sciences – has a standard for decisions and actions taken from nature and the divine. The ethical theory presented in the (...) Nicomachean Ethics does not entail such a strong concept of ὅρος and it treats ethics in contrast to other, more exact, sciences. Finally, the article presents a tentative suggestion as to why it seems that the Nicomachean Ethics VI,1 raises hopes that it will provide a detailed account of ὅρος when in fact there is no discussion of it. (shrink)

O objetivo do presente volume é apresentar à comunidade filosófica parte do trabalho realizado nos GTs de Filosofia da Libertação, Latino-americana e Africana e Filosofia e Raça durante o XIX Encontro Nacional da ANPOF (Goiânia, 2022), através de textos apresentados no XIX Encontro Nacional da ANPOF (Goiânia, 2022), ou frutos de discussões e debates realizados nos GTs supracitados. Agradecemos a todos, todas e todes que apresentaram seus trabalhos e/ou participaram ativamente das discussões que deram origem aos textos deste volume, enriquecendo (...) o debate filosófico e conferindo maior visibilidade e destaque a esses tópicos de pesquisa em nossa comunidade. -/- Os temas abordados e as bases epistemológicas do GT Filosofia da Libertação, Latino-americana e Africana e do GT Filosofia e Raça apresentam vários pontos de contato. Isso justifica esta publicação conjunta, que certamente incentivará a continuidade do diálogo entre os GTs e possibilitará a formação futura de novas agendas de pesquisa. As leitoras e os leitores deste livro têm a oportunidade de conhecer alguns dos trabalhos realizados pelos dois grupos e estão convidadas e convidados a participar das atividades realizadas pelos GTs. (shrink)

The aim of this Dissertation is to ascertain what role reason has in determining the ends of action in Aristotle’s practical philosophy. I argue that Aristotle is committed to an answer to this question according to which full virtue (ἀρετὴ κυρία) enables one to aim for fine ends for their own sakes, decide on virtuous actions on their own account, and perform virtuous actions for their own sakes. Yet, on my reading, full virtue would not be necessary for aiming for (...) fine ends (although being virtuous in some sense turns out to be necessary for that), which is sufficient for securing that agents who are not fully virtuous such as the continent and the incontinent are able to aim for ends that are right, provided they cannot aim for such ends for their own sakes. (shrink)

Review of Karbowski, J.. Aristotle’s Method in Ethics: Philosophy in Practice. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press.