There is a recent scholarly trend drawing similarities between Aristotle’s conceptions of ethics and demonstrative science. One such similarity has become widely and rightly recognized: for Aristotle both ethics and demonstrative science seek essential definitions of phenomena. The task of the paper is to show that German philosopher and classicist Hans-Georg Gadamer not only prefigured this interpretative trend, he also identified a problematic feature of Aristotle’s method so construed. The problematic feature is semantic. For Aristotle essential definitions must consist of (...) univocal terms, but such univocity cannot be maintained if the definienda and definientes are concepts to be usefully employed in everyday ethical judgements. Gadamer therefore points out a problematic tension in Aristotle’s ethics. On the one hand, ethical inquiry should have practical application, but, on the other hand, the semantic assumptions underlying inquiry imply that it cannot. (shrink)

In Eudemian Ethics I 6, Aristotle describes the progress of the ethical investigation as a drift from a) what is true but not clarifying to b) what is true and clarifying. The drift from a) to b) is usually interpreted as the overcome of a first obscure and confused grasp of the subject by a more accurate and reliable account. In this paper, I claim that the understanding of the methodological role of a) depends upon its dissociation from the notions (...) of obscurity and confusion. What is true but not clarifying should be rather understood as a first indistinct (but not confused) grasp of the subject. Its insuficiency as regards explanation is to be accounted on the base of its indistinctness and not on its supposed obscurity. (shrink)

This article is about the methodological remarks in Nicomachean Ethics 7.1, 1145b2–7, and the way they are carried out in the following chapters. I argue that the procedure therein described does not aim to establish consistency among a subset of endoxa, but to test and refine—by considering and resolving objections against them—endoxa that could enter into a nominal definition of continence and incontinence. The dialectical lineage of this discussion, if there is one, is to be found in the use of (...) the critical procedure of resolution that can be traced back to Topics and Sophistical Refutations. (shrink)

Resumen: En este trabajo replantearé el papel que cumple la inducción en la obtención de los principios éticos. Sostengo que, para Aristóteles, en el texto de EN A4 1095a30-1095b8, la inducción consiste en un proceso cognitivo-intelectual que posibilita las primeras generalizaciones éticas, es decir, los principios prácticos universales, a partir de la generalización o universalización de los datos particulares de la experiencia práctica, es decir, a partir de los principios prácticos particulares. El producto de la inducción es de especial relevancia (...) para la ciencia ética porque parece ser uno de los puntos de partida para la búsqueda de las definiciones éticas. Además, si la inducción se concibe de esta manera, la habituación debe considerarse una inducción sólo por analogía.: In this paper I reassess the role that induction plays in obtaining the ethical principles. In my view, Aristotle holds in Ne A4 1095a30-1095b8 -a passage which has not been duly attended- that inductions consist in intellectual and cognitive processes by means of which we obtain the first ethical generalizations, i.e. the universal practical principles, which in turn are obtained from the generalization of the particular data of practical experience, i.e. from the particular practical principles. What we obtain by means of induction is of great relevance for the ethical science, since it is the starting point for the search of the ethical definitions. If induction is to be conceived this way, then, I conclude, habituation must be considered as an induction only by analogy. (shrink)

I argue that Eudaimonism was not Ancient Greek common sense. After dividing Eudaimonism into Psychological and Normative varieties, I present evidence from Greek literature that the Ancient Greeks did not commonsensically accept Eudaimonism. I then review, and critique, evidence that has been offered for the opposite claim that Eudaimonism was Ancient Greek common sense. This claim is often called on to explain why Ancient Greek philosophers embraced Eudaimonism; the idea is that they did so because it was the ethical common (...) sense of their day. But, according to the case I make in this paper, this explanation cannot stand. Those looking to explain the Eudaimonistic character of Ancient Greek ethical thought must turn to other explanations. (shrink)