DOCSLIB.ORG

Scholastic Philosophy

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Lecture Note BBA 7th. Semester: Patan Multiple Campus Prof. Bijaya Gopal Shrestha Scholastic philosophy ✓ The term scholastic is derived from the Latin word scholasticus and the Greek scholastikos. ✓ Scholastic means a man devoted to studying or scholar. ✓ The term philosophy represents a way of thinking about the world, the universe, and it works by asking very basic questions about the nature of human thought, the nature of the universe, and the connections between them. ✓ As a single expression, scholastic philosophy can be termed as scholasticism. Scholastic philosophy represents a medieval school of philosophy as teaching learning pedagogy through dialectic method. Dialectic means the art or practice of arriving at the truth by the exchange of logical arguments. Scholastic philosophy is a teaching learning pedagogy through dialectical reasoning. Scholasticism originally began as a reconciliation of the philosophy of the ancient classical philosophers (particularly Aristotle (384–322 b.c.e.) with medieval Christian theology (Dogma or religious belief) through dialectic method. There were great practices among medieval philosophers to incorporate Aristotle’s philosophy in defense of the faith. The most important Aristotelian principle is the idea of being (human) and an understanding of what all things are composed of. There were different contradictory views about existence, knowledge, life, power, morality, human nature, and general reality. Therefore the ideal goal of Scholasticism was the certain truth, through dialectic method with the instruments like definition, distinction, and argumentation, although frequently it could reach only probable conclusions. There should be a clear delimitation (demarcation) of the respective domains of philosophy and theology. Scholasticism highlights Man should guide his faith with his reason. The reason should guide the faith. Scholastic philosophy refers to a tool and method of learning which emphasized dialectical reasoning to extend knowledge by inference and to resolve contradictions. Therefore, it is a teaching learning pedagogy through dialectical reasoning. Lecture Note BBA 7th. Semester: Patan Multiple Campus Prof. Bijaya Gopal Shrestha The Kantian Ethics ✓ The Kantian ethics is one of the normative ethical theories. ✓ Kantian ethics is popular as DEONTOLOGY. ✓ Immanuel Kant (1724 -1804) is popular philosopher in explaining Deontological Ethics. Kant is famous as Non-consequentialist Philosopher. Duty based morality in human conducts is the main prescription of Kantian ethics. It suggests us to do our duty disregards of the consequence. “Do your duty that is best; leave unto the Lord the rest.” Some scholars have explained the Kantian Ethics linking with Niskam Karma (Desire less action). It is one of the central moral philosophy of Bhagvad Gita. Kant’s Categorical Imperative Kant developed a particular principle to determine moral duty, which he called the categorical imperative. It suggests that the imperatives of morality are not hypothetical but categorical. For example ‘Do not cheat the customers,’ ‘Fair pricing,’ ‘Honor your promise’ are the inherent corporate duty. Categorical means ‘without any doubt.’ It also represents ‘not hypothetical.’ It connotes without conditions. Imperative means absolutely necessary or unavoidable. The categorical imperative is the central philosophical concept in the deontological (duty based) moral philosophy of Kant. It is referred to as Kantian deontology. It was introduced in Kant’s Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals (1785). Kant believed that inclinations, emotions, and consequences should play no role in the moral action. The core formulations categorical imperative includes: (i) Autonomy, (ii) Humanity, and (iii) Universality, and (iv) The Law of nature. One should respect human dignities (i.e., treat all people as free and equal to us, don't exploit people). ‘Treat others as you would like to be treated,’ Universality of the behavior is one of the main focuses of the Categorical Imperative. One should act only according to that maxim which can be universalized. It means to act only in ways that one would wish others to act when faced with the same circumstances. The Kantian ethics is very rational philosophy for the harmonious society. Despite the eminent rationalities and righteousness associated with the Kantian ethics, several CRITICISMS are recorded. ✓ Rigidity is one of the main problems of Kantian ethics. ✓ It solely dishonors the outcome as a valid factor in evaluating the morality of an action. ✓ Kant’s categorical imperative is not actually free from consequentialism view. It is because; its motivation is also oriented toward the consequence, i.e., universality. ✓ It denies expectations of growth. Private sectors’ motivation toward the economic objective (their desire for profit) is not valid as per Kant. No one can survive, indeed, in this world with rigid deontology in all respects. In many instances human beings must think the consequence of their action. Lecture Note BBA 7th. Semester: Patan Multiple Campus Prof. Bijaya Gopal Shrestha The Machiavellian Principle ✓ Machiavellian principle is well-known political philosophy propounded by Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527), renowned western (Italian) philosopher. ✓ The main sources of Machiavellian principles are his book The Discourses (about republic) and The Prince (about monarchism). These are based on the observations of political situation of Medieval Period Europe, especially Italy. ✓ Machiavellian principles were more focused on the qualities of political ruler. ✓ It is more political philosophy than an ethical theory. It is about statecraft. ✓ The Machiavellian principles focus largely on preserving state and retaining power of ruler rather than pursuing ideals. ✓ The basic assumption of Machiavelli is: “Human nature is fundamentally bad. They are Selfish, Fickle, Egoistic, and Runaway from danger, Aggressive.” Therefore, there is significance of Prince (Monarch). Machiavellian principles are basically the suggestions to the ruler. He suggests that every society consists of two sections: (i) Nobility and (ii) Common people. Nobility section of society is more dangerous and less reliable for prince whereas, common people are less dangerous and more reliable. Therefore prince should base his power on common people. Critical overview of Machiavellian principle ✓ Its fundamental assumption about human being is pessimistic. ✓ Machiavelli suggests maintaining fearful environment than love. But he suggest to ruler to appear as good as he can. Therefore, it is double standard conception. ✓ According to Machiavellian principle political ruler is allowed to break the conventional moral principles. Accordingly, ruler (Prince) is above those principles. Ruler can make moral principles through laws. Whereas common people must obey those all moral principles. ✓ Machiavellian principle advocates cruelty to political opposition for the power of political ruler. However, it also advocates preservation of state. ✓ It advocates dual morality concept. One for political ruler and next for common people. Machiavellian principle argue against the nobility/elite group of society and suggest cruelty to them when need. Lecture Note BBA 7th. Semester: Patan Multiple Campus Prof. Bijaya Gopal Shrestha Utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill ✓ It is one of the Normative Ethics and important part of Teleological Ethics ✓ Utilitarianism is also known as Consequentialism ✓ Consequence of the conducts is its major concern, i.e., the end justifies the means ✓ It suggests to regard the consequence as a predictor to evaluate ethical stance ✓ Actions those maximize pleasure and minimize pain is to be considered as ethical ✓ Our duty is to promote the greatest happiness of the greatest number. ✓ Bentham (1748-1832) and Mill (1806-1873) are popular philosophers of Utilitarianism. ✓ It is consistent with the Buddhist philosophy: Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya According to Bentham the consequences can be measured in some way. The pleasure (positives) and pain (negatives) of different individuals be added together and based on the results different courses of action can be compared. Bentham had formulated precise quantitative measurement of pleasure and pain. A way of measurement that he called as: hedonistic calculus. The evaluating procedure of pleasure and happiness is as follows: Intensity: How strong it is Duration: How long it is Certainty: How likely it could be Propinquity: When it could arrive Fecundity: If it will cause further pleasure Purity: How free from pain it is Extent: How many people are affected Critiques view that Bentham’s hedonistic version of utilitarianism failed to differentiate between kinds and qualities of pleasure. Some have criticized it by illustrating pig’s pleasure. J. S. Mill attempted to develop a more defensible version of the utilitarian position. Mill has substantially modified Bentham’s Utilitarianism and popularized it. Mill holds that some kinds of pleasure are more desirable and more valuable than others. It means pleasure also differ in their quality. Mill's major contribution to utilitarianism is his argument for the qualitative separation of pleasures. Thus, in calculating the greatest happiness, one must make qualitative distinctions. Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill is relatively clear. In many cases, Utilitarianism is foundation of law making. It is consistent with many religious claims. It is comfortable for moral reasoning in different
Recommended publications
  • One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards a Symposium

    One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards a Symposium

    One Hundred Years of Thomism Aeterni Patris and Afterwards A Symposium Edited By Victor B. Brezik, C.S.B, CENTER FOR THOMISTIC STUDIES University of St. Thomas Houston, Texas 77006 ~ NIHIL OBSTAT: ReverendJamesK. Contents Farge, C.S.B. Censor Deputatus INTRODUCTION . 1 IMPRIMATUR: LOOKING AT THE PAST . 5 Most Reverend John L. Morkovsky, S.T.D. A Remembrance Of Pope Leo XIII: The Encyclical Aeterni Patris, Leonard E. Boyle,O.P. 7 Bishop of Galveston-Houston Commentary, James A. Weisheipl, O.P. ..23 January 6, 1981 The Legacy Of Etienne Gilson, Armand A. Maurer,C.S.B . .28 The Legacy Of Jacques Maritain, Christian Philosopher, First Printing: April 1981 Donald A. Gallagher. .45 LOOKING AT THE PRESENT. .61 Copyright©1981 by The Center For Thomistic Studies Reflections On Christian Philosophy, All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or Ralph McInerny . .63 reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written Thomism And Today's Crisis In Moral Values, Michael permission, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in Bertram Crowe . .74 critical articles and reviews. For information, write to The Transcendental Thomism, A Critical Assessment, Center For Thomistic Studies, 3812 Montrose Boulevard, Robert J. Henle, S.J. 90 Houston, Texas 77006. LOOKING AT THE FUTURE. .117 Library of Congress catalog card number: 80-70377 Can St. Thomas Speak To The Modem World?, Leo Sweeney, S.J. .119 The Future Of Thomistic Metaphysics, ISBN 0-9605456-0-3 Joseph Owens, C.Ss.R. .142 EPILOGUE. .163 The New Center And The Intellectualism Of St. Thomas, Printed in the United States of America Vernon J.
  • St. Augustine and the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ Stanislaus J

    St. Augustine and the Doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ Stanislaus J

    ST. AUGUSTINE AND THE DOCTRINE OF THE MYSTICAL BODY OF CHRIST STANISLAUS J. GRABOWSKI, S.T.D., S.T.M. Catholic University of America N THE present article a study will be made of Saint Augustine's doc­ I trine of the Mystical Body of Christ. This subject is, as it will be later pointed out, timely and fruitful. It is of unutterable importance for the proper and full conception of the Church. This study may be conveniently divided into four parts: (I) A fuller consideration of the doctrine of the Mystical Body of Christ, as it is found in the works of the great Bishop of Hippo; (II) a brief study of that same doctrine, as it is found in the sources which the Saint utilized; (III) a scrutiny of the place that this doctrine holds in the whole system of his religious thought and of some of its peculiarities; (IV) some consideration of the influence that Saint Augustine exercised on the development of this particular doctrine in theologians and doctrinal systems. THE DOCTRINE St. Augustine gives utterance in many passages, as the occasion de­ mands, to words, expressions, and sentences from which we are able to infer that the Church of his time was a Church of sacramental rites and a hierarchical order. Further, writing especially against Donatism, he is led Xo portray the Church concretely in its historical, geographical, visible form, characterized by manifest traits through which she may be recognized and discerned from false chuiches. The aspect, however, of the concept of the Church which he cherished most fondly and which he never seems tired of teaching, repeating, emphasizing, and expound­ ing to his listeners is the Church considered as the Body of Christ.1 1 On St.
  • Antoine De Chandieu (1534-1591): One of the Fathers Of

    Antoine De Chandieu (1534-1591): One of the Fathers Of

    CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU (1534-1591): ONE OF THE FATHERS OF REFORMED SCHOLASTICISM? A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY IN CANDIDACY FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY THEODORE GERARD VAN RAALTE GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN MAY 2013 CALVIN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY 3233 Burton SE • Grand Rapids, Michigan • 49546-4301 800388-6034 fax: 616 957-8621 [email protected] www. calvinseminary. edu. This dissertation entitled ANTOINE DE CHANDIEU (1534-1591): L'UN DES PERES DE LA SCHOLASTIQUE REFORMEE? written by THEODORE GERARD VAN RAALTE and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy has been accepted by the faculty of Calvin Theological Seminary upon the recommendation of the undersigned readers: Richard A. Muller, Ph.D. I Date ~ 4 ,,?tJ/3 Dean of Academic Programs Copyright © 2013 by Theodore G. (Ted) Van Raalte All rights reserved For Christine CONTENTS Preface .................................................................................................................. viii Abstract ................................................................................................................... xii Chapter 1 Introduction: Historiography and Scholastic Method Introduction .............................................................................................................1 State of Research on Chandieu ...............................................................................6 Published Research on Chandieu’s Contemporary
  • Life with Augustine

    Life with Augustine

    Life with Augustine ...a course in his spirit and guidance for daily living By Edmond A. Maher ii Life with Augustine © 2002 Augustinian Press Australia Sydney, Australia. Acknowledgements: The author wishes to acknowledge and thank the following people: ► the Augustinian Province of Our Mother of Good Counsel, Australia, for support- ing this project, with special mention of Pat Fahey osa, Kevin Burman osa, Pat Codd osa and Peter Jones osa ► Laurence Mooney osa for assistance in editing ► Michael Morahan osa for formatting this 2nd Edition ► John Coles, Peter Gagan, Dr. Frank McGrath fms (Brisbane CEO), Benet Fonck ofm, Peter Keogh sfo for sharing their vast experience in adult education ► John Rotelle osa, for granting us permission to use his English translation of Tarcisius van Bavel’s work Augustine (full bibliography within) and for his scholarly advice Megan Atkins for her formatting suggestions in the 1st Edition, that have carried over into this the 2nd ► those generous people who have completed the 1st Edition and suggested valuable improvements, especially Kath Neehouse and friends at Villanova College, Brisbane Foreword 1 Dear Participant Saint Augustine of Hippo is a figure in our history who has appealed to the curiosity and imagination of many generations. He is well known for being both sinner and saint, for being a bishop yet also a fellow pilgrim on the journey to God. One of the most popular and attractive persons across many centuries, his influence on the church has continued to our current day. He is also renowned for his influ- ence in philosophy and psychology and even (in an indirect way) art, music and architecture.

  • I-Ii, Question 55, Article 4

    Cambridge University Press 978-1-107-16578-6 — Commentary on Thomas Aquinas's Virtue Ethics J. Budziszewski Excerpt More Information i-ii, question 55, article 4 Whether Virtue Is Suitably Dei ned? TEXT PARAPHRASE [1] Whether virtue is suitably dei ned? Is the traditional dei nition of virtue i tting? “Virtue is a good quality of the mind that enables us to live in an upright way and cannot be employed badly – one which God brings about in us, with- out us.” St. Thomas respectfully begins with this widely accepted dei nition because it would be arrogant to dismiss the result of generations of inquiry without examination. The ultimate source of the view which it encapsulates is St. Augustine of Hippo, but Augustine did not use precisely this wording. His more diffuse remarks had been condensed into a formula by Peter Lombard, 2 and the formula was then further sharpened by the Lombard’s disciples. Although St. Thomas begins with the tradition, he does not rest with it – he goes on to consider whether the received dei nition is actually correct. The i rst two Objections protest calling virtue a good quality. The third protests calling it a quality of the mind . The fourth objects to the phrase that it enables us to live rightly and the i fth to the phrase that it cannot be employed badly . Finally, the sixth protests the statement that God brings it about in us, without us . Although, in the end, St. Thomas accepts the dei nition, he does not accept it quite in the sense in which some of his predecessors did.
  • 7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul

    7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul

    7 Aristotle on Greatness of Soul Roger Crisp n the recent revival of interest in Aristotelian ethics, relatively little attention has been paid to the virtue of greatness of soul (megalopsuchia). This is partly Ibecause of the focus on the more structurally central concepts of Aristotle’s theory, in particular happiness (eudaimonia) and virtue (aret¯e). But in fact a study of greatness of soul can reveal important insights into the overall shape of Aristotelian ethics, including the place of external goods and luck in the virtuous life, and the significance of “the noble” (to kalon). Further, Aristotle describes the great-souled person in more detail than any other, and calls greatness of soul a “sort of crown of the virtues” (NE IV.3.1124a1–2). Many have found aspects of the portrait of the great-souled person in the Nicomachean Ethics repellent or absurd, but that is no good reason for the student of Aristotle to shy away from it. In this chapter, I shall elucidate Aristotle’s account of greatness of soul, addressing some puzzles internal to that account and bringing out its place in, and implications for, the ethics of Aristotle and of those modern writers influenced by him. Greatness of Soul as a Virtue To understand greatness of soul as an Aristotelian virtue requires first understand- ing Aristotle’s conception of virtue itself. Aristotle distinguishes virtues into two classes – intellectual virtues and virtues of character – corresponding to distinct aspects of the human soul (NE I.13). Greatness of soul is a virtue of character, though, like all such virtues, it requires its possessor to have the intellectual virtue of practical wisdom (phron¯esis; NE VI.13).
  • Rosalind Hursthouse, on Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999

    Rosalind Hursthouse, on Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999

    Rosalind Hursthouse, On Virtue Ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999. Pp. x, 275. Reviewed by Gilbert Harman, Department of Philosophy, Princeton Univer- sity Virtue ethics is atype of ethicaltheory in which the notion of virtue or good character plays a central role. This splendid new book describes a “program” for the development of a particular (“Aristotelian”) form of virtue ethics. The book is intended to be used as a textbook, but should be read by anyone interested in moral philosophy. Hursthouse has been a major contributor to the development of virtue ethics and the program she describes, while making use of the many contributions of others, is very much her program, with numerous new ideas and insights. The book has three parts. The first dispels common misunderstandings and explains how virtue ethics applies to complex moral issues. The sec- ond discusses moral motivation, especially the motivation involved in doing something because it is right. The third explains how questions about the objectivity of ethics are to be approached within virtue ethics. Structure Hursthouse’s virtue ethics takes as central the conception of a human be- ing who possesses all ethical virtues of character and no vices or defects of character—”human being” rather than “person” because the relevant char- acter traits are “natural” to the species. To a first approximation, virtue ethics says that a right action is an action among those available that a perfectly virtuous human being would charac- teristically do under the circumstances. This is only a first approximation because of complications required in order accurately to describe certain moral dilemmas.
  • THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD Beatus Rhenanus, a Close Friend Of

    THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD Beatus Rhenanus, a Close Friend Of

    CHAPTER THREE MEDIEVAL HISTORY: THE SCHOLASTIC PERIOD Beatus Rhenanus, a close friend of Erasmus and the most famous humanist historian of Germany, dated the rise of scholasticism (and hence the decay of theology) at “around the year of grace 1140”, when men like Peter Lombard (1095/1100–1160), Peter Abelard (1079–1142), and Gratian († c. 1150) were active.1 Erasmus, who cared relatively little about chronology, never gave such a precise indication, but one may assume that he did not disagree with Beatus, whose views may have directly influenced him. As we have seen, he believed that the fervour of the gospel had grown cold among most Christians during the previous four hundred years.2 Although his statement pertained to public morality rather than to theology,3 other passages from his work confirm that in Erasmus’ eyes those four centuries represented the age of scholasticism. In his biography of Jerome, he complained that for the scholastics nobody “who had lived before the last four hundred years” was a theologian,4 and in a work against Noël Bédier he pointed to a tradition of “four hun- dred years during which scholastic theology, gravely burdened by the decrees of the philosophers and the contrivances of the sophists, has wielded its reign”.5 In one other case he assigned to scholasti- cism a tradition of three centuries.6 Thus by the second half of the twelfth century, Western Christendom, in Erasmus’ conception, had entered the most distressing phase of its history, even though the 1 See John F. D’Amico, “Beatus Rhenanus, Tertullian and the Reformation: A Humanist’s Critique of Scholasticism”, Archiv für Reformationsgeschichte 71 (1980), 37–63 esp.
  • Three Early Biblical Translations

    Three Early Biblical Translations

    * * * * * * * Three Early Biblical Translations We do not have any of the original manuscripts of the books that have been included in the Bible. All we have is copies of copies. Most of the original manuscripts of the Old Testament were written in Hebrew, although a few chapters of Ezra and Daniel were recorded in Aramaic, the language of Jesus. The books of the New Testament were first written in Greek. The first translations of the Bible were of the Hebrew Bible. The Septuagint (SEP-too-a-jint) was a Greek translation written about three centuries before the birth of Christ. Two other early translations, composed after the birth of Christ, were the Peshitta in Syriac and the Vulgate in Latin. These three translations, the Septuagint, Peshitta, and Vulgate became the official translations of the Old Testament for the Greek-, Syriac-, and Latin-speaking churches respectively. Each also became the basis for other translations of the Bible. The Septuagint The Septuagint (from the Latin word septuaginta meaning seventy) was a Greek version of the Bible created during the reign of Ptolemy II Philadelphus (ca. 285-246 BCE) in Alexandria, Egypt for Diaspora Jews. Most of Jews living outside of Palestine were Greek-speaking as a result of Alexander the Great's (357-323 BCE) campaign to Hellenize his empire. First verses of Genesis (click for larger picture) At first, the Septuagint (LXX) consisted only of the Pentateuch (Torah, first five books of the Bible). Different books were translated from the Hebrew over a span of two centuries, including the books of the Apocrypha, and were added to the LXX.
  • The Etienne Gilson Series 21

    The Etienne Gilson Series 21

    The Etienne Gilson Series 21 Remapping Scholasticism by MARCIA L. COLISH 3 March 2000 Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies This lecture and its publication was made possible through the generous bequest of the late Charles J. Sullivan (1914-1999) Note: the author may be contacted at: Department of History Oberlin College Oberlin OH USA 44074 ISSN 0-708-319X ISBN 0-88844-721-3 © 2000 by Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies 59 Queen’s Park Crescent East Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 2C4 Printed in Canada nce upon a time there were two competing story-lines for medieval intellectual history, each writing a major role for scholasticism into its script. Although these story-lines were O created independently and reflected different concerns, they sometimes overlapped and gave each other aid and comfort. Both exerted considerable influence on the way historians of medieval speculative thought conceptualized their subject in the first half of the twentieth cen- tury. Both versions of the map drawn by these two sets of cartographers illustrated what Wallace K. Ferguson later described as “the revolt of the medievalists.”1 One was confined largely to the academy and appealed to a wide variety of medievalists, while the other had a somewhat narrower draw and reflected political and confessional, as well as academic, concerns. The first was the anti-Burckhardtian effort to push Renaissance humanism, understood as combining a knowledge and love of the classics with “the discovery of the world and of man,” back into the Middle Ages. The second was inspired by the neo-Thomist revival launched by Pope Leo XIII, and was inhabited almost exclusively by Roman Catholic scholars.
  • Aristotelian Phronãªsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, And

    Aristotelian Phronãªsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, And

    Bryn Mawr College Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College Political Science Faculty Research and Scholarship Political Science 2013 Aristotelian Phronêsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice Stephen Salkever Bryn Mawr College, [email protected] Let us know how access to this document benefits ouy . Follow this and additional works at: http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs Part of the Political Science Commons Citation Salkever, Stephen, "Aristotelian Phronêsis, the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice" (2013). Political Science Faculty Research and Scholarship. Paper 25. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs/25 This paper is posted at Scholarship, Research, and Creative Work at Bryn Mawr College. http://repository.brynmawr.edu/polisci_pubs/25 For more information, please contact [email protected]. DRAFT—NOT FOR QUOTATION OR CITATION. Aristotelian Phronêsis , the Discourse of Human Rights, and Contemporary Global Practice Stephen Salkever Bryn Mawr College August, 2013 (A version of this paper was presented at a conference on Practical Wisdom and Globalizing Practice held in November 2012 at Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China. For questions and comments I thank my fellow conferees and especially the conference organizer, Prof. Xu Changfu of the SYSU Philosophy Department.) In this paper, I will outline some fundamental differences between the evaluative and explanatory language of Aristotelian practical reason based on his empirical psychological
  • Augustine's Ethics

    Augustine's Ethics

    15 BONNIE KENT Augustine’s ethics Augustine regards ethics as an enquiry into the Summum Bonum: the supreme good, which provides the happiness all human beings seek. In this respect his moral thought comes closer to the eudaimonistic virtue ethics of the classical Western tradition than to the ethics of duty and law associated with Christianity in the modern period. But even though Augustine addresses many of the same problems that pagan philosophers do, he often defends very different answers. For him, happiness consists in the enjoyment of God, a reward granted in the afterlife for virtue in this life. Virtue itself is a gift of God, and founded on love, not on the wisdom prized by philosophers. The art of living In Book 8 of De civitate Dei Augustine describes “moral philosophy” (a Latin expression), or “ethics” (the Greek equivalent), as an enquiry into the supreme good and how we can attain it. The supreme good is that which we seek for its own sake, not as a means to some other end, and which makes us happy. Augustine adds, as if this were an uncontroversial point, that happiness is the aim of philosophy in general.1 Book 19 opens with a similar discussion. In his summary of Varro’s treatise De philosophia, Augustine reports that no school of philosophy deserves to be considered a distinct school unless it differs from others on the supreme good. For the supreme good is that which makes us happy, and the only purpose of philosophizing is the attainment of happiness.2 Both of these discussions cast philosophy as a fundamentally practical discipline, so that ethics appears to overshadow logic, metaphysics, and other comparatively abstract areas as a philosopher’s chief concern.