Aristotle and Natural Law lays out a new theoretical approach which distinguishes between the notions of 'interpretation,' 'appropriation,' 'negotiation' and 'reconstruction' of the meaning of texts and their component concepts. These categories are then deployed in an examination of the role which the concept of natural law is used by Aristotle in a number of key texts. The book argues that Aristotle appropriated the concept of natural law, first formulated by the defenders of naturalism in the 'nature versus convention debate' (...) in classical Athens. Thereby he contributed to the emergence and historical evolution of the meaning of one of the most important concept in the lexicon of Western political thought. Aristotle and Natural Law argues that Aristotle's ethics is best seen as a certain type of natural law theory which does not allow for the possibility that individuals might appeal to natural law in order to criticize existing laws and institutions. Rather its function is to provide them with a philosophical justification from the standpoint of Aristotle's metaphysics. (shrink)

As everyone who discusses Scotus's moral theory points out, Scotus recognized two fundamental inclinations in the will: the affectio commodi and the affectio iustitiae. Everyone agrees that these two affectiones play an important role in his moral theory, and there is virtual unanimity about what that role is. I contend that the standard view is misguided, and that it obscures the true character of Scotus's very un-medieval moral theory. I shall begin by laying out the context in which Scotus develops (...) his theory of the two affectiones. The standard interpretation, I shall then argue, fails to appreciate that context; moreover, it can actually be shown to be contrary to Scotus's explicit statements. I shall then argue for my own interpretation of the two affectiones, which assigns to morality a role altogether independent of human flourishing. (shrink)

Translators and commentators find difficulty in offering non-Greek equivalents for hekôn/hekousion and akôn/akousion. In English we do not speak of ordinary human acts as being either voluntary or involuntary. We do not say ordinarily that Jones brushed his teeth voluntarily, for that would falsely suggest that his brushing his teeth was not at all ordinary. But this conforms with ordinary Greek usage as well.

Este artigo desenvolve a hipótese de que a doutrina anselmiana da verdade é esclarecedora de modo decisivo para bem compreender o seu argumento a favor da existência de Deus no Proslogion. Partindo de uma interpretação básica do unum argumentum, e após expor de forma resumida os principais aspectos do diálogo De veritate, procura-se investigar em especial a “verdade do pensamento”. Ao final, a análise e a comparação dos sentidos de cogitare e de cogitatio, no Proslogion e na obra De veritate, (...) mostram ser úteis tanto para elucidar elementos centrais do argumento quanto para melhor entender o que Anselmo, no De veritate, efetivamente quis dizer ao tematizar a cogitatio como um tipo de portador de verdade. (shrink)

Theological debate about the origin of evil derives from the quest after God’s goodness and justice. This problem can be constructively discussed only within the framework of a universe that has been created good, and within a corresponding anthropology. Anselm’s enquiry proceeds much along these tracks, and is based on the premises of the Platonic‐Augustinian view of evil as the privation of good, yet it concludes with a reference to the domain of the irrational and contradiction in which such a (...) discussion must necessarily harbour. The strength and uniqueness of his approach lies in his well defined hermeneutical and epistemological framework: his definition of theology as fides quaerens intellectum on the one hand, and his concept of ordo et pulchritudo universitatis on the other.The aim of this article is to discuss Anselm’s answer to the origin of evil in a wider context of his definitions of freedom and theology, trying to consider the issue, as Anselm does, from the point of view of the doctrine of Creation by the Word. His argument will be considered from the standpoint of Systematic Theology, which will enable us to contrast it with the thought of modern thinkers. Therefore the goal of this writing is not primarily to show how unique Anselm’s solution is in the history of dogma, but rather to highlight the uniqueness of the manner of his elaboration of this problem within his own theological framework. (shrink)

Theological debate about the origin of evil derives from the quest after God’s goodness and justice. This problem can be constructively discussed only within the framework of a universe that has been created good, and within a corresponding anthropology. Anselm’s enquiry proceeds much along these tracks, and is based on the premises of the Platonic‐Augustinian view of evil as the privation of good, yet it concludes with a reference to the domain of the irrational and contradiction in which such a (...) discussion must necessarily harbour. The strength and uniqueness of his approach lies in his well defined hermeneutical and epistemological framework: his definition of theology as fides quaerens intellectum on the one hand, and his concept of ordo et pulchritudo universitatis on the other.The aim of this article is to discuss Anselm’s answer to the origin of evil in a wider context of his definitions of freedom and theology, trying to consider the issue, as Anselm does, from the point of view of the doctrine of Creation by the Word. His argument will be considered from the standpoint of Systematic Theology, which will enable us to contrast it with the thought of modern thinkers. Therefore the goal of this writing is not primarily to show how unique Anselm’s solution is in the history of dogma, but rather to highlight the uniqueness of the manner of his elaboration of this problem within his own theological framework. (shrink)

Este artigo procura mostrar a importância e o desenvolvimento da crítica da moral na obra de Nietzsche, desde sua primeira formulação até sua forma mais elaborada, na obra tardia. Após a análise dos limites da investigação histórico-genealógica da moral, serão questionados o alcance e a congruência dessa pretensa crítica radical da moral.

Before going any further, something should be said about the word "natural" that appears in my title. Miller distinguishes two ways in which rights can be called natural, and holds that Aristotle recognizes natural rights in one sense but not the other. First, "natural" can be contrasted with "conventional," "legal," and "customary." This is the familiar distinction the Greeks made between physis and nomos. Aristotle makes use of the distinction when he contrasts natural and legal justice. According to Miller, Aristotle (...) has a theory of natural rights in the sense that he has a theory of natural justice that serves as the basis for his recognition of rights. It is naturally and not merely legally just that certain people be treated in certain ways; they have a valid claim, based on natural justice, to such treatment, and this claim is valid whether or not it is recognized by a legal system. On the other hand, the term "natural right" can also be used in a second way, to designate a right that is possessed in a state of nature, that is, at a time prior to the existence of political communities. Miller holds that Aristotle does not recognize natural rights of this sort, but as he points out, this would not prevent Aristotle from recognizing natural rights in the first sense. The natural rights Miller finds in Aristotle are not possessed by all people at all times; rather, his thesis is that when the polis does come into existence, Aristotelian natural justice requires that political systems be structured in ways that recognize the rights of certain human beings. More specifically, when the polis arises, certain people have a natural right to hold various political offices and to own property. (shrink)

A ética aristotélica baseia-se em uma “teoria da ação humana”. Para fins de compreensão , ela pode ser “decomposta” em etapas e analisada em seus componentes, que ficam expostos claramente. Dessa forma, também, podem-se avaliar os diferentes papéis desempenhados, especialmente, pela virtude e pela prudência , entre outros. A “ética teleológica” de Aristóteles, nessa exposição, parece portar componentes deontológicos, o que torna o estudo, além de relevante, também filosoficamente interessante.The Aristotelian ethics is based on a “theory of human action”. For (...) understanding his ethical theory it can be divided in steps, and thus be analyzed in its components, for example, virtue and prudence , which are so clearly exposed. Thus, also, it is possible toevaluate the different roles performed especially by these components. The “teleological ethics” of Aristotle seems, besides, to carry components of a deontological ethics which makes the study presented hear relevant and philosophically interesting. (shrink)

A good place to start in assessing a theory of truth is to ask whether the theory under discussion is consistent with Aristotle’s commonsensical definition of truth from Metaphysics 4: “What is false says of that which is that it is not, or of that which is not that it is; and what is true says of that which is that it is, or of that which is not that it is not.”1 Philosophers of a realist bent will be delighted (...) to see that Anselm unambiguously adopts the Aristotelian commonplace. A statement is true, he says, “when it signifies that what‐is is.”2 But the theory of truth that Anselm builds on this observation is one that would surely have confounded Aristotle. For no matter what the topic, Anselm’s thinking always eagerly returns to God; and the unchallenged centrality of God in Anselm’s philosophical explorations is nowhere more in evidence than in his account of truth. Indeed, we see in the student’s opening question in De veritate that the entire discussion has God as its origin and its aim: “Since we believe that God is truth, and we say that truth is in many other things, I would like to know whether, wherever truth is said to be, we must acknowledge that God is that truth.”3 The student then reminds Anselm that in the Monologion he had argued from the truth of statements to an eternal Supreme Truth. Does this not commit Anselm (the student seems to be asking) to holding that God himself is somehow the truth of true statements? But what definition of truth could make sense of such an odd claim? Anselm is happy to take up the challenge of showing that his description of God as “Supreme Truth” is no mere metaphor, but the expression of the deepest insight into the nature of truth. An account of truth is just theology under a different name. This first distinctive characteristic of Anselm’s theory, the centrality of God as Supreme Truth, helps account for a second distinctive characteristic: its strong insistence on the unity of truth. All truth either is God or somehow reflects God; thus, one simple being provides the.... (shrink)

The essential intent of this paper is to elucidate the meaning of the term pros hêmas appearing inside the Aristotelian definition of moral virtue. In this definition, after having established the genus of virtue as a disposition , Aristotle offers his specific difference, i.e., being a mean pros hêmas . What is the meaning of “relative to us”? Relative to us as specie? Relative to the moral agent? Relative to the character? Every one of these possibilities will be analyzed, in (...) an attempt todemonstrate that none of them fulfills the Aristotelian intent, because us in the expression “relative to us” seems to point out to circumstances in which the agent is involved with, what seems to be asserted in several passages of the Nicomachean Ethics. (shrink)

The paper presents an interpretation of Aristotle's views on natural justice in the Nicomachean Ethics. It focuses, in particular, on Aristotle's understanding of the relationship which exists between natural justice and political justice, or between natural law and positive law. It is suggested that Aristotle's views on this subject are often misunderstood. It is also suggested that, contrary to what some commentators might think, Aristotle's comments on natural justice are actually central for our understanding of his political thought as a (...) whole. It is argued that Aristotle is, therefore, definitely a natural law theorist of some description. However, Aristotle's natural law theory is unconventional in certain respects. In particular, Aristotle does not consider natural law to be a critical standard by means of which positive law might be evaluated. This places Aristotle outside the mainstream of natural law theory as it has been traditionally understood. Aristotle is not, in this sense at least, the forerunner of the Stoic natural law tradition and of the individualistic, liberal natural law theory of the modern era. He is, rather, the founding father of what might best be described as the conservative natural law tradition, the most well known adherents of which in modern times are Montesquieu, Burke and Hegel. (shrink)

Allen Wood “What is the human being?” Kant sometimes treated this question as the most fundamental question of all philosophy: “The field of philosophy in the cosmopolitan sense can be brought down to the following questions: 1. What can I know? 1. What ought I to do? 1. What may I hope? 1. What is the human being? Metaphysics answers the first question, morals the second, religion the third, and anthropology the fourth. Fundamentally, however, we could reckon all of this (...) to anthropology, because the first three questions refer to the last one”.[i]. (shrink)