„Gemeinschaft“ steht in der Philosophie nicht nur im Zusammenhang mit ethischen Überlegungen, sondern auch mit Fragen nach der Natur von sozialen Handlungen und dem charakteristischen Wesen von Kollektiven. Gibt es Bedingungen, die erfüllt sein müssen, damit man von einer Gemeinschaft – in Abgrenzung zu „Gesellschaft“ – sprechen kann?

Scholarship on Aristotle’s NICOMACHEAN ETHICS (hereafter “the Ethics”) flourishes in an almost unprecedented fashion. In the last ten years, universities in North America have produced on average over ten doctoral dissertations a year that discuss the practical philosophy that Aristotle espouses in his Nicomachean Ethics, Eudemian Ethics, and Politics. Since the beginning of the millennium there have been three new translations of the entire Ethics into English alone, several more that translate parts of the work into English and other modern (...) languages, and half a dozen collections of new articles discussing Aristotle’s Ethics. Such an outpouring of scholarship has produced an almost unmanageable wave of books, articles, and reviews. Through my topical bibliography, I seek to organize this wealth of scholarly writing so as to make it manageable both to scholars working across the disciplines of philosophy, classics, history, and politics, and to scholars pursuing theses on specific topics within the Ethics. The bibliography takes as its model and is much indebted to that compiled by Barnes, Schofield, and Sorabji in their Articles on Aristotle, Volume 2: Ethics and Politics (1977), which was further updated and incorporated into the complete bibliography to all of Aristotle’s writings in Barnes’s Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (1995). Although I have taken guidance from their model, my bibliography differs in one main respect. Whereas Barnes et al. were more selective and annotated their bibliography, I have been more comprehensive in my inclusion of items. I have sought to include all books and journal articles concerned with the Ethics written in English over the last 120 years; additionally, I have sought to include representative and central works of scholarship written on the Ethics in French, German, and Italian during the same period of time. (shrink)

This doctoral thesis addresses a group of conceptual instruments that are central to Aristotle's philosophy, namely, the concepts of pros hen, homonymy, synonymy and multivocity. These instruments are crucial to many of Aristotle's works as he devotes himself to analysing the key notions in each of his investigations using these instruments. Despite the undisputable importance of these instruments, they display severe interpretative problems, which this thesis critically evaluates. The currently established view on the relationship between homonymy and multivocity is discussed (...) and then reassessed in order to approach the definition of the so-called pros hen structure. This approach takes into account a so-far undescribed distinction of types of examples Aristotle uses and sheds new light on the assessments of the role of the pros hen structure in Aristotle’s philosophy and the theories on development in Aristotle’s thought. Niels Tolkiehn studied Philosophy and Systematic Musicology at the University of Hamburg. He continued his studies as a doctoral student at the Munich School of Ancient Philosophy, a graduate school of the Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München. Supervised by Prof. Dr. Christof Rapp, he was awarded his doctoral degree in 2019 with this dissertation. (shrink)

Esta investigación tiene por objetivo indagar el fenómeno de la huida (φυγή, fuga) tal como aparece en el libro IX, capítulo 4 de la Ética Nicomáquea de Aristóteles. La finalidad temática principal estriba en sacar a la luz que tanto su fundamentación teorética última, así como también su fundamento intrínseco radican en el principio metafísico del acto y potencia. Sobre la base de este principio metafísico mostramos que el “sí mismo” del cual el vicioso vive dividido en la huida consiste (...) en el entendimiento recto actual, revelándose este como el correlato preciso ante el cual huye el vicioso. Esta interpretación recupera la relevancia sistemática de la huida en el contexto de la amistad, ya que la huida hace visible concretamente la relación “amical” que el vicioso mantiene con sus prójimos, a quienes comprende tácitamente como medios-de-huida. (shrink)

In this paper, Axel Honneth replies to the five critical accounts of Freedom's Right contained in this issue of Critical Horizons. He first discusses the methodological and systematic objections raised by Schaub and Freyenhagen, and then defends his approach vis-à-vis the other three critical accounts with reference to two social spheres – the sphere of personal relationships in the case of McNeill and McNay, and the market sphere in the case of Jütten. Among the significant clarifications of his account, Honneth (...) accepts that he should allow for the possibility of institutional revolutions and that there could be social pathologies in the spheres of social freedom. He also distinguishes more explicitly between capitalism and market societies, suggesting that market socialism might be more institutionally suited to realize social freedom in the social spheres of production and consumption than capitalism is. He insists on the distinctiveness of modern friendships; the moral superiority of modern societies based on social freedom; and the need for a teleological orientation in our critical engagement with social phenomena such as gender inequality. (shrink)

ZusammenfassungZur aristotelischen Unterscheidung von Herstellen und Handeln (Poiesis und Praxis) gibt es zwei konkurrierende Interpretationen: nach der einen betrifft der Unterschied zwei verschiedene Aspekte an Handlungen, nach der anderen verschiedene Typen von Handlungen. Für eine Entscheidung dieser Frage sind systematische und exegetische Gesichtspunkte zu trennen: zwar bietet die aristotelische Textbasis Belege für beide Seiten, allerdings zeigt die systematische Untersuchung, dass eine zwei-Typen-Lesart sachlich verfehlt ist. Handlungen lassen sich nicht sinnvoll unterteilen in solche, die ihr Ziel lediglich außer sich, aber kein (...) Ziel in sich haben und umgekehrt. Stattdessen sind sie notwendig von einer doppelten Zielsetzung geleitet, bei welcher der Vollzug der Handlung in deren Vollendung münden soll. (shrink)

Zusammenfassung Zur aristotelischen Unterscheidung von Herstellen und Handeln gibt es zwei konkurrierende Interpretationen: nach der einen betrifft der Unterschied zwei verschiedene Aspekte an Handlungen, nach der anderen verschiedene Typen von Handlungen. Für eine Entscheidung dieser Frage sind systematische und exegetische Gesichtspunkte zu trennen: zwar bietet die aristotelische Textbasis Belege für beide Seiten, allerdings zeigt die systematische Untersuchung, dass eine zwei-Typen-Lesart sachlich verfehlt ist. Handlungen lassen sich nicht sinnvoll unterteilen in solche, die ihr Ziel lediglich außer sich, aber kein Ziel in (...) sich haben und umgekehrt. Stattdessen sind sie notwendig von einer doppelten Zielsetzung geleitet, bei welcher der Vollzug der Handlung in deren Vollendung münden soll. (shrink)