VII.—CRITICAL Noticea the Ethics of Aristotle. Edited with An
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
VII.—CRITICAL NOTICEa The Ethics of Aristotle. Edited with an Introduction and Notes by JOHN BUBNBT, M.A., Professor of Greek in the United College of St. Salvator and St. Leonard, St. Andrews. Intro- duotion, pp. lii., text, etc., pp. 502. FOB several years students of Greek philosophy have looked for- ward with much interest to the publication of a commentary by Prof. Bnmet on the Nicomaohean Ethics. The author's brilliant work on Early Cheek Philosophy naturally led to the highest expectations, and it is just possible that many people may receive this commentary with a slight feeling of disappointment. The brevity of the introductions (general and special) may tend to arouse the suspicion that an undue amount of attention has been given to the text, and that the present work is in the main merely another text of the Ethics. When, however, feelings of this kind are put aside, and the work is considered strictly as a contribution to the interpretation of the Ethics, there can be but one verdict as to its quality and value. Mr. Burnet informs us that the present edition of the Ethics was originally planned, and most of it written, on a more extensive scale. The work was laid aside when it was known that Mr. Bywater was about to publish a revised text, and Mr. Stewart Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics: and is now produced at the request of the publishers in a less elaborate form. No doubt it might be held that a commentary should lean as far as possible to the side of brevity. But it will be noticed that Mr. Burnet abbre- viated his commentary, not for this reason, but because a more elaborate commentary was on the point of being produced. The inconvenience of the present arrangement for the ordinary English student is obvious. He must acquire all three works, Mr. By- water's, Mr. Stewart's and Mr. Burnet'fr: Mr. Burnet's alone, in its original form, would' have served. Besides, the scale of Mr. Burnet's commentary is very different from that of the Notes. The latter must be at least five times greater in amount, so that Mr. Burnet's commentary might have been muoh more elaborate without even approaching the magnitude of the Notes. On the whole, therefore, one cannot help regretting that Mr. Burnet did not carry out his original plan. Everything that he writes about Greek Philosophy is so interesting that one does not like to miss any of it. JOHN BUBNET, The Ethics of Aristotle. 529 The main justification for the present edition is to be found, as Mr. Burnet indicates in the preface, in the fact that the " method of interpretation is a somewhat novel one ". Mr. Bumet'a thesis is that " most of the difficulties that have been raised about the Ethics are doe to the fact that, though the dialectical character of many passages has long been admitted, commentators have never thoroughly recognised that the treatise is dialectical throughout". It is therefore primarily with reference to this theory that the work as a whole must be judged. Mr. Burnet's account of Aristotle's conception of Method is given in §§ 20-26 of the introduction. He begins by reminding us that " the question of method is always vital to Aristotle ". Every science can be regarded as a conscious application of the rules of the special method appropriate to its special subject-matter, and implies a previous general training in method and also a special training that shall enable the student to recognise the appropriate- ness of the special mode of treatment. The general training in method is of course logic. As Mr. Burnet points out, Giphanius. said long ago: " Vocat llle naitxiav habitum quendam recte judicandi de rebus omnibus quod docet doctrina Analytics; contra <JjrtuS«wia oontrarius ab illo habitus dicitur, hoc est ignoratio doctrines Ana- lytics ". It was indeed a commonplace of the time of Giphanius that a study of the Oryanum is a necessary propaedeutic to the other Aristotelian treatises. But recent students of Aristotle have rather lost sight of this point, and Mr. Burnet does well to recall attention to it. The nature of the special training presupposed by a special science is less clear, and it can hardly be said that Mr. Burnet has succeeded in elucidating completely the brief bints given by Aristotle. The question of method in the Ethics is considered under two heads. In Ethics, as in all practical sciences, two problems are presented, (1) to find the apx1? °f tne science, (2) to pass from the ipxn t° *ne conditions of its being realised. The former is dis- cussed in g§ 22-25 of the introduction, the latter in §§ 22 and 26. The apprehension of the Aprf of Ethics (t.e., the definition of €i&ufiovla) presupposes a certain habituation (j&a/uk) in the hearer. When this has been secured, the science is able to commence its search for its &pxo> an^ *^e metn°d it uses is Dialectic. " The word tkaXtKTuc!) properly means nothing more than the art of dia- logue or conversation—it signifies the theoretical formulation of the practice of Socrates. Plato developed this method. ... In his hands it became the only instrument of philosophical thinking, the ideal of a completed science. To this Aristotle could not agree. A dialectio proof was to him no proof at all: for it had no middle term. It could not be the right instrument for arriving at mediate propositions: for we can only be said to know these in the true sense ofthe word when we know them as the conclusions of a syllogism. This was Aristotle's own contribution to Logic, and he is never weary of showing us that the syllogism is the only 34 530 CBITICAL NOTICES : adequate form for the mediate truths of science. But it remains as tane for him as it was for Plato that the dialectic method is the only way of arriving at immediate propositions, propositions which can have no middle term between their subject and their predicate, and we have seen that it is from such propositions that all science must start" (§ 24). This passage is perhaps liable to be misunder- stood. " Dialectic " seems to be used in a limited sense as equi- valent to Plato's technical sense of the word and to a part only of dialectic in the Aristotelian sense. Though the discovery of im- mediate propositions is the speeial function of Dialectic (or more strictly is /uAurra oiKtlov rip SuiAtirnio/?, Topics, 101 b, 2) it is not its only function. A dialeotic proof may be a (nAAoyioyto* SuiAfim- xoc, and a syllogism must have a middle term. The next section (25) is perhaps the most valuable in the general introduction. It contains a most interesting account of the method of dialectic, as used in Ethics for the determination of the apyq of the science. Of special importance is the point that /j^rafitpditty {cf. utTafiaiytw) is the technical term for the process of developing an h>So(ov by means of criticism. The account of the technical term -n-po^K-rj/Mi is hardly satisfactory. " We begin by ' taking' (Xafifiaviw) premisses from the beliefs of the many and the wise to serve as premisses (tv&ofa. ny>oTdcrc«V But our attitude towards these beliefs is by no means uncritical. ... As a general rule, we find that they are contradictory, and when we find such a contra- diction between received beliefs, we have what is called an impia (literally, ' no thoroughfare').... The teohnioal name for a pair of contradictory o&>£a is Trpd/JXij/ia and the solution of it is called the Averts." Also note page xliii. " A irp6f$krnui. (*yx>/?uAA<i>) only differs from a 7rpdra<7w (wportiy<i>) in form (T<JI rpcmp), cf. Top., 101 b, 29." This tends to suggest that a n-po/SAi^a is a pair of contradic- tory premisses, and seems to lose sight of the fact that a irpo/8A.7^ui is essentially a conclusion (not as such of course but before it has been proved). A irpoftkrifia is of the rpoTos, TUTtpov TO C<$OV nt^or Surow bfturfivs c<rri ivOptairov r) OV ; (Which of the alternatives 8 is P, S is not P, is true ?) and there may be no Sd£a with respect to it (Top., 104 6, 1-5. irp6pX.r]/ia 8" ia-rl StaAtfmitov Otiopij/xa . irtpl ov t) ox&tTtpws 8o£a£oufnv 77 barriox; ol iroAAol TCHS <ro<£o« r) ol (rotfxA TW: iroAAotS r) luiripoi avTOt iavrott). On the other hand a wpcrrao-it is of the form &pd yc TO £<j>ov irefov Stirouv opurfiot tarty ivOponrov; and is on the whole «M>O&K and not "problematical". Of course, in general, there is difference of opinion with respect to SP, and in this case, as Mr. Burnet shows, the object of dialectic is, by means of criticism, to qualify the opposed views in such a way as to bring them into harmony, the ultimate assumption of the method being that neither the mass of mankind nor the great thinkers are likely to be altogether wrong. We-may now turn to the second question with respect to method, the question as to the procedure of the science after its ipxj has been determined ($§ 22, 26). Being a x/xun-uo) brurr^iiij, Ethics is JOHN BtJRNET, Tht Ethics of Aristotle. 531 necessarily analytic in method : that is, it starts from its ip^n or (in the order of yivtcns) i-cAot, and has to determine by analysis the steps or means necessary towards the realisation of its end.