In my paper, I defend an interpretation according to which Aristotle thinks in Nicomachean Ethics (EN) that the rational aspect of soul is needed in discerning which ends of desire would be good. Many interpreters have traditionally supported this, ‘rationalist’ line of interpreting Aristotle’s theory of value cognition. The rationalist interpretation has, however, recently come under a novel challenge from Jessica Moss (2011, 2012), but has not yet received a defence. Moss attempts to resurrect now virtually abandoned ‘anti-rationalist’ interpretation, which (...) claims, in a contrast to the rationalist one, that discerning good ends may require no activity from the rational aspect, but only well-habituated non-rational desire. Moss’ interpretation appeals to certain Aristotle’s claims in De Anima (DA) 3, which, she thinks, show that non-rational phantasia suffices for discerning good ends if only accompanied with the habituated desire. Although her interpretation can successfully avoid some problems that earlier anti-rationalist interpretations faced with certain passages of EN, I also argue, however that it introduces some new problems, and attributes philosophically incoherent views about moral responsibility to Aristotle. Therefore I conclude that even after Moss’ improvements to the anti-rationalist interpretation, the rationalist interpretation remains overall more plausible. (shrink)

En el presente artículo se sostiene que la filosofía práctica de Aristóteles puede dar lugar a dos sentidos distintos de προαίρεσις, los cuales se encuentran relacionados a su vez con dos sentidos distintos de deliberación. El primer sentido de προαίρεσις hace referencia a las elecciones deliberadas particulares, en las que el fin que se busca alcanzar, el deseo relacionado y los medios empleados son de carácter particular y se encuentran circunscritos a la situación concreta en que se realiza la elección. (...) En cambio, el segundo sentido de προαίρεσις se refiere a las elecciones vinculadas con objetivos de mediano y largo plazo, que si bien pueden ser particulares, buscan fines que trascienden la particularidad de la situación dada. Al primer tipo de προαίρεσις le corresponde la "deliberación descendente", mientras que al segundo le corresponde la "deliberación ascendente". Finalmente se presenta un análisis de las características del silogismo práctico de acuerdo a los dos tipos de deliberación. (shrink)