DOCSLIB.ORG

'WHAT SIMPLE DESCRIPTION…CAN NEVER GRASP': HEIDEGGER and the PLATO of MYTH a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Schoo

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
'WHAT SIMPLE DESCRIPTION…CAN NEVER GRASP': HEIDEGGER and the PLATO of MYTH a Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Schoo ‘WHAT SIMPLE DESCRIPTION…CAN NEVER GRASP’: HEIDEGGER AND THE PLATO OF MYTH A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate School of the University of Notre Dame in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Megan Halteman Zwart Stephen H. Watson, Co-Director Stephen Gersh, Co-Director Graduate Program in Philosophy Notre Dame, Indiana December 2009 ©Copyright by Megan Halteman Zwart 2009 All rights reserved ‘WHAT SIMPLE DISCRIPTION…CAN NEVER GRASP’: HEIDEGGER AND THE PLATO OF MYTH Abstract by Megan Halteman Zwart It is commonly taken to be the case that Heidegger is a bad reader of Plato. Calling his reading of Plato impatient, violent and coercive, critics argue that Heidegger’s caricature of Plato is driven by his life-long desire to deconstruct the tradition of western philosophy from Plato onward. I argue that this assessment of Heidegger’s unsympathetic Plato is itself a caricature. In an effort to mitigate this critique of Heidegger’s reading of Plato, I argue that Heidegger engages with two different Platos— one with whom he shares deep sympathies even as he is harshly critical of the other. I call the Plato who frequently evokes Heidegger’s ire the ‘logocentric’ Plato; this is the Plato who, in spite of his promising efforts, could never overcome logos or move beyond dialectic, and therefore sets the stage for the tradition’s overreliance on logos as syllogistic logic and propositional truth. But in his better moments as a reader of Plato, Heidegger shines a light on a very different Plato. I will call this Plato the ‘muthocentric’ Plato because this is the Plato who makes his points with myths, images, allegories and stories. This Plato erodes the preeminence of logos to make space for alternative Megan Halteman Zwart discourse and becomes Heidegger’s ally in his effort to re-describe hermeneutic phenomenology as a descriptive method that allows beings to show themselves not merely by means of the theoretical discourse of logos, but also by means of non- theoretical, alternative discourse including myth and poetry. In advancing this claim, I focus on Heidegger’s lectures on Plato which appear from the 1920’s to the early 1940’s, including his lectures on Plato’s Sophist, the cave allegory of the Republic, and the Theaetetus. In each of these lecture courses, I show that the traditional reading of Heidegger’s Plato has obscured his sympathy to the Plato of myth and allegory. These close readings lay the groundwork to view Heidegger’s later move towards non-theoretical discourse as a continuation of his early attention to muthos discourse in Plato, rather than as an abrupt transition. To Jane Bishop Halteman, who twice altered her career for me—once to care for me as a child and once to care for my children. ii CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS .................................................................................................. v INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1: A BRIEF HISTORY OF MUTHOS AND LOGOS.................................. 11 1.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 11 1.2. A Brief History of the Terms Muthos and Logos prior to Plato.................... 12 1.3. Plato’s Use of Myth ....................................................................................... 20 1.4. A Survey of Scholarly Interpretations of Plato’s Use of Myth...................... 35 CHAPTER 2: HEIDEGGER’S HISTORIOGRAPHY AND ITS CRITICS.................... 45 2.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 45 2.2. Heidegger’s Historiography........................................................................... 48 2.3. Attacks on Heidegger’s Plato......................................................................... 51 2.4. Gadamer on Heidegger’s Plato ...................................................................... 61 CHAPTER 3: HEIDEGGER’S SOPHIST LECTURES .................................................. 76 3.1. Introduction.................................................................................................... 76 3.2. Heidegger’s Discussion of Logos in Plato’s Sophist ..................................... 80 3.3. The Phaedrus Detour..................................................................................... 88 3.4. Plato’s Phenomenological Orientation .......................................................... 97 iii CHAPTER 4: ‘PLATO’S DOCTRINE OF TRUTH’ AND THE ESSENCE OF TRUTH HEIDEGGER’S INCONSISTENT INTERPRETATIONS OF PLATO’S CAVE ALLEGORY....................................................................................................... 113 4.1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 113 4.2. Heidegger’s Unsympathetic Plato: ‘Plato’s Doctrine of Truth’ .................. 117 4.3. Heidegger’s Sympathetic Plato: The Essence of Truth................................ 138 4.4. Interpreting the Differences: How We Might Reconcile ‘Plato’s Doctrine of Truth’ and The Essence of Truth............................................................. 168 CHAPTER 5: HEIDEGGER’S THEAETETUS LECTURES ........................................ 174 5.1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 174 5.2. Heidegger’s Reading of the Theaetetus ....................................................... 176 5.3. Commentary on the Theaetetus Lectures..................................................... 206 CONCLUSION............................................................................................................... 209 6.1. Amplifying the Attack on Metaphysics and its Consequences.................... 212 6.2 Muthos of the Early Greeks: The First Beginning..................................... 216 6.3 Heidegger’s Poetics: The Other Beginning .................................................. 228 BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................................................................... 238 iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Writing a dissertation can feel like a lonely enterprise; locked away in a windowless carrel, working through dusty texts, one might get the sense that she is in this alone. I am very thankful to many people that this was not the case during my work on this project. I am, of course, grateful to my co-directors, Stephen Watson and Stephen Gersh who were always patient as I worked at my own pace, but who were astonishingly quick to give feedback and help when approached for it. They seemed always to strike just the right balance between offering suggestions for improvement and encouraging forward momentum. I am also thankful to the rest of my committee—Karl Ameriks, Gary Gutting and Gretchen Reydams-Schils—for their willingness to read my dissertation and offer helpful suggestions. I cannot imagine life on Notre Dame’s campus without those who made up my community of friends and colleagues; these were the people who were willing to trade ideas and commiserate in the library or over coffee, particularly Suse and Jamie Hebbeler, Joel Dodson and Maryam Zomorodian I am endlessly grateful to my family for all the help I received from them through this process. My husband Jeff’s quite, unwavering support is remarkable—from his willingness to follow me to South Bend almost a decade ago, to his commitment to working very hard to support our family, he has never been anything but helpful, patient and proud. I credit my children, James and Amelia, for giving me the sense of balance v and perspective I needed to finish this project. One cannot allow herself to become overly obsessed with her work if there are the pressing matters of diapers to be changed, stories to be read and towers to be built. I am also blessed with extended families who provide not only an emotional support system, but who also are helpful in myriad practical ways. I must say a special thanks to my brother, Matthew Halteman who paved my path in so many ways—from stoking my initial interest in philosophy as a high school student, to offering specific textual resources and general academic advice throughout my work at Notre Dame. I have remarkable parents and parents-in-law, Jim and Jane Halteman and Carrie and Able Zwart, who have selflessly shared substantial amounts of their resources with us, particularly their time, which has made the lengthy process of writing this dissertation possible. Special thanks must go to my mother, Jane Halteman, who has logged thousands of miles driving weekly from Chicago to provide the bulk of our childcare. Her endless energy for nurturing our children and the selflessness with which she rearranged her own career to make mine possible, are the greatest acts of generosity of which I have been the recipient. vi INTRODUCTION It is commonly taken to be the case that insofar as Heidegger is a reader of Plato at all, he is not a good reader of Plato. One doesn’t have to look far for evidence that Heidegger unfairly cites Plato as the arch-villain at the beginning of the history of metaphysics. After all, Heidegger locates in Plato the moment when ‘already at the beginning of its history, Western philosophy takes off on an erroneous and fateful course.’1 Heidegger elsewhere explicitly claims that ‘Metaphysics is Platonism,’2 an oft- cited equation that is taken to disparage
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Skepticism and Pluralism Ways of Living a Life Of
    SKEPTICISM AND PLURALISM WAYS OF LIVING A LIFE OF AWARENESS AS RECOMMENDED BY THE ZHUANGZI #±r A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI'I IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN PHILOSOPHY AUGUST 2004 By John Trowbridge Dissertation Committee: Roger T. Ames, Chairperson Tamara Albertini Chung-ying Cheng James E. Tiles David R. McCraw © Copyright 2004 by John Trowbridge iii Dedicated to my wife, Jill iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In completing this research, I would like to express my appreciation first and foremost to my wife, Jill, and our three children, James, Holly, and Henry for their support during this process. I would also like to express my gratitude to my entire dissertation committee for their insight and understanding ofthe topics at hand. Studying under Roger Ames has been a transformative experience. In particular, his commitment to taking the Chinese tradition on its own terms and avoiding the tendency among Western interpreters to overwrite traditional Chinese thought with the preoccupations ofWestern philosophy has enabled me to broaden my conception ofphilosophy itself. Roger's seminars on Confucianism and Daoism, and especially a seminar on writing a philosophical translation ofthe Zhongyong r:pJm (Achieving Equilibrium in the Everyday), have greatly influenced my own initial attempts to translate and interpret the seminal philosophical texts ofancient China. Tamara Albertini's expertise in ancient Greek philosophy was indispensable to this project, and a seminar I audited with her, comparing early Greek and ancient Chinese philosophy, was part ofthe inspiration for my choice ofresearch topic. I particularly valued the opportunity to study Daoism and the Yijing ~*~ with Chung-ying Cheng g\Gr:p~ and benefited greatly from his theory ofonto-cosmology as a means of understanding classical Chinese philosophy.
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy. Volume 31, Winter 2006
    LIVING IN DOUBT: CARNEADES’ PITHANON RECONSIDERED SUZANNE OBDRZALEK I though the interpretation of ancient texts is inevitably di¶cult, Carneades presents what one might call a worst-case scenario. In the first place, he wrote nothing. To complicate matters, Carneades’ views were so obscure that his faithful disciple Clitomachus con- fessed that he could never figure out what Carneades actually be- lieved (Cic. Acad. 2. 139). Showing remarkable fortitude in the face of such an obstacle, Clitomachus, attempting to play Plato to Carneades’ Socrates, reportedly recorded Carneades’ teachings in 400 books (D.L. 4. 67). Not one remains. None the less, Clito- machus’ attempt to make a philosophy of Carneades’ anti-theoreti- cal stance was not a complete failure; Carneades had a tremendous influence on the later Academy as well as the Stoa, and his views (or lack thereof) have been handed down to us by both Sextus Em- piricus and Cicero. These sources are, however, problematic. As a Pyrrhonist, Sextus was critical of the Academy and may have ex- aggerated what he took to be Carneades’ dogmatism. Cicero, on the other hand, a student of Philo, was undoubtedly influenced in his interpretation of Carneades by his teacher’s dogmatic scepti- cism. Carneades is perhaps best known for proposing the pithan»e phantasia (probable impression) as a criterion for life. However, the status of his theory of the pithanon (probable) is completely unclear.1 Was it merely a dialectical move against the Stoic charge of apraxia (inaction)? Was it a theory that Carneades himself en- ã Suzanne Obdrzalek 2006 I would like to thank Alan Code, Tony Long, Julius Moravcsik, and David Sedley for their comments on this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • And Comprehension (Katalêpsis)
    BREAKING THE STOIC LANGUAGE: PHILO’S ATTITUDE TOWARDS ASSENT (SUNKATATHESIS) AND COMPREHENSION (KATALÊPSIS) CARLOS LEVY, Paris IV-Sorbonne University Neither Cicero nor Philo are generally considered true philosophers. However they made rather significant contributions to philosophy. Cicero was the first to think that philosophy could be exposed in a language other than Greek. The beginning of the first book of the Libri Academici shows how strange this decision, which now appears as evident, seemed at the time.1 Philo did not have to contend with this kind of problem since Greek was his native language, the one which the Jewish community of Alexandria considered as perfectly legitimate to express the word of God.2 But, by connecting philosophy and monotheism, after some others whose works did not survive, he opened a new chapter in the history of philosophy.3 At the time of Cicero and Philo, Stoicism was still the predominant philosophical system. Of course, it was in a way “le début de la fin,” since the revival of Aristotelianism after a long period of decay, and the irruption of Middle Platonism were going to break the triad which characterized the Hellenistic period: Stoicism, Epicureanism, and the Scepticism (even if the term is perhaps inadequate) of the New Academy. In this triad Stoicism was indubitably the most active element, especially because Stoic philosophers succeeded in imposing their conceptual innovations even to their opponents, especially in the fields of psychology and gnoseology so that it can be said that our actual gnoseological vocabulary is deeply rooted in this doctrine. Among these innovations, the concept of assent, sunkatathesis had a central role, since it was at the same time the mark of a personality, the factor of all kind of decisions and the transition between knowledge and ethics.4 Stoicism was for Philo both a treasure of philosophical notions and an enemy since it represented the most perfect form of immanentism in ancient philosophy, a form of thought that a thinker who 1 Lib.
    [Show full text]
  • Porchat's Neo-Pyrrhonism: an Introductory Exposition
    SKÉPSIS, ISSN 1981-4194, ANO VIII, Nº 12, 2015 33 PORCHAT’S NEO-PYRRHONISM: AN INTRODUCTORY EXPOSITION. PLÍNIO JUNQUEIRA SMITH. (Escola de Filosofia, Letras e Ciências Humanas - UNIFESP) Email: [email protected] Porchat’s seminal paper, “On What Appears”, lays the foundations and the main lines of his neo-Pyrrhonism. It was published in 1991, before Fogelin’s well-known book (Pyrrhonian Reflections on Knowledge and Justification , 1994). It was a turning point in Oswaldo Porchat’s philosophical thought. His neo-Pyrrhonism was further developed in a number of papers written since then. I hope to show not only that Porchat was a good historian of ancient Pyrrhonism, but also that he up-dated Pyrrhonism in a highly interesting way, proposing insightful solutions to some philosophical problems that are still with us today. One of the merits of Porchat’s proposal is that his neo-Pyrrhonism allows us to see the Pyrrhonian stance as a global, coherent philosophical position, not subject to many often- repeated criticisms. Porchat’s neo-Pyrrhonism is not confined to epistemological questions, but constitutes a broad, articulated philosophical perspective. I will try to be as brief and clear as I can. But before presenting its basic ideas I would like to sketch out some of Porchat’s previous thoughts and connect them to his sceptical worries. Though always interested in scepticism, he resisted in adopting a sceptical position, until at last he surrendered to it. Perhaps this will help to understand better how his neo- Pyrrhonism emerged and was shaped. I. Some information about his background: Formerly, Porchat’s thought had two phases: A) Structuralism (1961-1967) and the refusal of philosophy (1968-1969).
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Account of Akrasia
    ARISTOTLE’S ACCOUNT OF AKRASIA Elena Cagnoli Fiecconi University College London Mphil Stud I hereBy declare that the work presented in this thesis is my own and the work oF other persons is appropriately acknowledged. Signed: 1 Table of Contents Abstract......................................................................................................................................................... 3 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 4 Chapter 1: the Socratic Interpretation and the desire-based Interpretation of Akrasia .. 8 1.1 Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................8 1.2 The “Socratic” solution ....................................................................................................................................8 1.3 The desire-based account............................................................................................................................ 15 1.4 Conclusion.......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Chapter 2: Reconciling the Ignorance Account and the Motivational conflict Account of Akrasia: Is the Akratic’s Failure a Failure of Phantasia?............................................................23 2.1 Introduction .....................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Ethical Psychology: the Role of Reason in Virtue and Happiness,(PDF)
    Aristotle's Ethical Psychology: Reason's Role in Virtue and Happiness CUP Ancient Ethics Volume - Jessica Moss - DRAFT January 2015 Since happiness is an activity of the soul expressing complete virtue, we must examine virtue... But by human virtue we mean not the virtue of the body but that of the soul, and we also say that happiness is an activity of the soul.. .The student of politics therefore must study the soul, but for the sake of these things and to the extent that is sufficient for the things sought. (EN 1102a5-25)1 The study of the human good requires the study of the human soul; Aristotelian ethics requires Aristotelian psychology. Not too much psychology, Aristotle warns us, but enough for the purpose at hand (1102a23-6) - the Ethics' purpose of defining the human good and explaining how it is achieved. Thus as ethicists we can for instance ignore questions about the ontological status of soul-parts. What do we need to know? Aristotle's answer comes from the function argument (EN 1097b21-98a20), whose conclusion he restates in our opening quotation. The human good consists in the excellent performance of the human function; the human function consists in distinctively human activity, i.e. a distinctively human life; this can only be the activity of the distinctive parts of the human soul.2 The ethicist must thus study these parts enough to understand what they do - their functions - and what makes them do that excellently - their virtues. Aristotle assumes without argument that we know something general but crucial about these distinctive parts: they are those that “have logos” - usually glossed as “share in reason,” “are rational.”3 He states this already in the function argument (EN 1098a3-5); later discussions give us more detail.
    [Show full text]
  • Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism
    Sceptical Paths Studies and Texts in Scepticism Edited on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies by Giuseppe Veltri Managing Editor: Yoav Meyrav Editorial Board Heidrun Eichner, Talya Fishman, Racheli Haliva, Henrik Lagerlund, Reimund Leicht, Stephan Schmid, Carsten Wilke, Irene Zwiep Volume 6 Sceptical Paths Enquiry and Doubt from Antiquity to the Present Edited by Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, and Emidio Spinelli The series Studies and Texts in Scepticism is published on behalf of the Maimonides Centre for Advanced Studies ISBN 978-3-11-058960-3 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-059104-0 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-059111-8 ISSN 2568-9614 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives 4.0 Licence. For details go to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Control Number: 2019947115 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Giuseppe Veltri, Racheli Haliva, Stephan Schmid, Emidio Spinelli, published by Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Cover image: Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Hamburg, Ms Cod. Levy 115, fol. 158r: Maimonides, More Nevukhim, Beginn von Teil III. Printing & binding: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com Contents Introduction 1 Carlos Lévy Philo of Alexandria vs. Descartes: An Ignored Jewish
    [Show full text]
  • Sextus Empiricus and the Scientific Scepticism
    ENCEPHALOS 50, 62-74, 2013 SEXTUS EMPIRICUS AND THE SCIENTIFIC SCEPTI- CISM STAVROS J.BALOYANNIS* Summary philosophical books, which survived, but remained for long in obscurity, been rediscovered in the late Renaissance. Two Sextus Empiricus is the most eminent representative of these works on the title, “Adversus Mathematikus”, include of the ancient sceptisism, which is a Post-Classical, Hellenis- large number of strong arguments against the Logicians, the tic philosophy based on the criterion of life, the experience Physicists and the Ethicists. The third and most important of and the analysis of phenomena, aiming to provide a straight the books on the title “Outlines of Pyrrhonism” provides an out- and practical way of life, leading to interior peace and mental line of Pyrrhonian scepticism, incorporating at the same time tranquility, sharply opposed to a purely theoretical pursuit of his own philosophical doctrines. Sextus offers thoroughly a dogmatic philosophy. The term “sceptic” is a derivative of the general overview of scepticism, describing and explaining the noun, skepsis (σκέψις), which means thought, examination, meaning of the sceptical investigation, the value of suspen- inquiry, consideration, meditation and investigation. The scep- sion of judgment and the importance of the sceptical dialectics. tical school was connected for a long period of time with the Sextus insists that the skepticism does not accept or reject any Empirical school of physicians, who based the good medical impression and substantially does not affirm or deny anything. practice on the clinical experience rather than on the theoret- Sextus claims that appearances (φαινόμενα) are the practical ical erudition, dedicating themselves to observation, memory criteria of approaching to the truth and by the continuous inves- and continuous clinical practice.
    [Show full text]
  • The Influence of Pyrrho of Elis and the Pyrrhonian Praxis of Aporetic
    The Influence of Pyrrho of Elis and the Pyrrhonian Praxis of Aporetic Language by © Christopher Craig Dupuis A Thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Philosophy, Faculty of Arts, Department of Philosophy Memorial University of Newfoundland May, 2014 St. John’s Newfoundland and Labrador 2 Table of Contents Abstract 4 Introduction and Overview 5 Chapter One 1 Pyrrho’s Aporetic Linguistic Praxis 12 1.1 Ataraxia in Epictetus and Epicurus 21 1.2 The Role of Epoche and Ataraxia in Pyrrho 23 1.3 Plato’s Socrates as Pyrrho’s Sage 43 1.4 Pyrrho and Plato’s Phaedo 45 1.5 Pyrrho, the Meno, and The Soul of The Hellenes 48 1.6 Appearances, Customs, and The Soul of the Sceptic 51 1.7 Pyrrho and Plato’s Theaetetus 55 1.8 Chapter One Conclusion 62 Chapter Two 2.1 Introduction: Academic Scepticism 64 2.2 Scepticism up to this Point 65 2.3 Arcesilaus And the Early Academic Sceptics 68 2.4 Carneades And the ‘New’ Academic Sceptics 81 2.5 Connecting with Pyrrho 91 Chapter Three 3.1 Introduction: Later Pyrrhonian Scepticism 95 3.2 Aenesidemus and the Revival of Pyrrhonism 97 3.3 Aenesidemus, Relativity, and Language Practice 107 3.4 Later Pyrrhonism: Sextus Empiricus 112 3.5 Outline of Sextus 118 3.6 Phantasiai 119 3.7 Apprehension 122 3.8 What the Sceptics Do 125 3.9 Ataraxia and Epoche 128 3.10 The Five Ways to Epoche 133 3 3.10.1 The First Trope: Diaphonia 136 3.10.2 The Second Trope: Infinite Regression 138 3.10.3 The Third Trope: Relativity 139 3.10.4 The Fourth
    [Show full text]
  • Aristotle's Theory of Powers
    Aristotle’s Theory of Powers by Umer Shaikh A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Philosophy) in the University of Michigan 2019 Doctoral Committee: Professor Victor Caston, chair Professor Sara Abhel-Rappe Professor David Manley Professor Tad Schmaltz Umer Shaikh [email protected] ORCID iD: 0000-0002-8062-7932 © Umer Shaikh 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ....................................... v Chapter 1 Introduction ................................... 1 1.1 The Question ............................... 1 1.2 Powers and Dispositions ......................... 2 1.3 Remark on Translation and Texts .................... 3 1.4 Preliminary Answers ........................... 3 1.4.1 Powers are Efficient Causes ................... 4 1.4.2 Powers and Change ....................... 5 1.4.3 Being in Potentiality and Possibility .............. 6 1.4.4 The Foundation of Modality .................. 8 1.4.5 Possibilities from Powers .................... 9 1.4.6 Conclusion ............................ 11 1.5 Remarks About Scope of Discussion and About the Development of the δύναμις Concept ........................... 12 1.5.1 Scope ............................... 12 1.5.2 Δύναμις in Various Texts .................... 12 1.5.3 Previous Attempts to Find Consistency ............ 18 1.5.3.1 Kenny .......................... 18 1.5.3.2 Hintikka ......................... 21 1.5.4 Drawing Some Morals ..................... 22 2 Powers and Efficient Causation ......................... 24 2.1
    [Show full text]
  • Perception in Aristotle's Ethics
    Perception in Aristotle's Ethics Author: Sharon Eve Rabinoff Persistent link: http://hdl.handle.net/2345/3323 This work is posted on eScholarship@BC, Boston College University Libraries. Boston College Electronic Thesis or Dissertation, 2013 Copyright is held by the author, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise noted. Boston College The Graduate School of Arts and Sciences Department of Philosophy PERCEPTION IN ARISTOTLE’S ETHICS A Dissertation By SHARON EVE RABINOFF Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy December 2013 © Copyright by SHARON EVE RABINOFF 2013 Perception in Aristotle’s Ethics Dissertation by Eve Rabinoff Under the Supervision of Dr. Marina McCoy Abstract The project of this dissertation is to examine the role that perception plays in Aristotle’s ethics. Aristotle is famous for offering what might be called a situational ethics: discerning what one ought to do is not derivable from universal laws, but must be assessed with respect to the particulars that make up the situation in which one must act. Aristotle argues that what virtue calls for is acting and feeling in an appropriate manner, i.e. at the right time, to the right degree, in the right manner, with respect to the right people, and so on (Nicomachean Ethics 1106b21-24). Moreover, because of the situational specificity of right action, one must also have the right character in order to discern what virtue calls for—only the virtuous person sees what is truly good. If one has a faulty character, the particulars will appear in a distorted manner, just as the wine tastes bitter to those who are ill (1113a25-29).
    [Show full text]
  • The Meaning of Phantasia in Aristotle's De Anima, III, 3-8
    The Meaning of Phantasia in Aristotle's De Anima, III, 3-8 KEVIN WHITE University of Ottawa Introduction Aristotle's account of phantasia in De anima, III, 3, occurs at a critical juncture of his inquiry into the nature and properties of the soul. Having just completed a long discussion of sensation (II, 5-III, 2), and wishing now to turn to a consideration of the power of thought (nous), which he regards both as distinct from and as analogous to sensation, he suggests that an explanation of phantasia is necessary at this point, since there is no thought without phantasia, just as there is no phantasia without sensation.' But while this sketch of a complex dependency among the soul's cognitive powers makes clear the importance of phantasia and the need for some explanation of it, the intermediate place of phantasia in the discussion and the incidental way in which it is introduced are indications that Aristotle does not treat it for its own sake, but rather is compelled to turn to a consideration of it by the exigencies of the subject-matter at hand. The analysis of sensation, the characteristic power of animals, could, it seems, be adequately carried out with littl.e reference to phantasia, even though Aristotle is elsewhere led to stress ~\_ the closeness, and even, in some respect, the identity of these two -, powers;2 the discussion of thought, on the other hand, and specifically of the human thought which is Aristotle's concern in De anima, III, 4-8, apparently requires a special preliminary treatment of phantasia.
    [Show full text]