Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Aristotle Criticism and interpretation.
Статті в журналах з теми "Aristotle Criticism and interpretation"
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Aristotle Criticism and interpretation".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
Santoro, Alessio. "A City of Guardians: Refocusing the Aim and Scope of Aristotle’s Critique of Plato’s Republic." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek and Roman Political Thought 36, no. 2 (June 28, 2019): 313–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340212.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In Politics 2.2-5 Aristotle criticises the state described in Plato’s Republic. The general consensus in the secondary literature (in particular after E. Bornemann) is that Aristotle’s critique is unfair and too narrow in scope. Aristotle unjustifiably ignores significant parts of Plato’s Republic and unreasonably assumes that the community of wives, children and property extends to the whole of Kallipolis. Although R. Mayhew’s defence of Aristotle’s criticism has mitigated this negative assessment, the problem has remained unresolved. This paper questions the traditional view and suggests an explanation of Aristotle’s selective reading of Plato’s Republic. Based on what turns out to be a reasonable interpretation of Plato’s text, Aristotle does not extend Plato’s communism to the whole city, but rather reduces Plato’s city to the community of the guardians. As a result, Aristotle’s arguments in fact hit the mark and present Aristotle as a much fairer reader than is usually acknowledged.
2
Djuric, Drago. "Aristotle: Necessity, contingency, freedom." Theoria, Beograd 51, no. 2 (2008): 99–111. http://dx.doi.org/10.2298/theo0802099d.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In this article the author attempts to present Aristotle's argumentation against the universal fatalism, which is, in the view of fatalists, a necessary consequence of the universal application of the principle of bivalence to the contradictory propositions about the future state of affairs. This problem Aristotle examines in his De Interpretatione ch. 9, wich is the main issue here. Presentation flows trough three steps: 1. Aristotle's formulation of the problem, 2. Aristotle's presentation and criticism of the logical determinism and, finally, 3. Aristotle's libertarian solution of the problem. Author points out that through the history of interpretation of the problem there are different views. These views differ not only concerning the spirit of Aristotle's text or his final solution, but concerning the way in which he refuted the universal validity of the logical determinism and fatalism.
3
Balla, Chloe. "Plato and Aristotle on Rhetorical Empiricism." Rhetorica 25, no. 1 (2007): 73–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/rh.2007.25.1.73.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Current interpretations of early Greek rhetoric often rely on a distinction between the empirical stage of rhetoric (associated with the sophists) and the theory of rhetoric which was invented by the philosophers Plato and Aristotle. But insofar as the distinction between experience and theory is itself a product of philosophical criticism and reflects the philosophical priorities of the authors who introduced it, its application in the interpretation of pre-Platonic rhetoric is anachronistic. By examining the contexts in which Plato's and Aristotle's arguments are cast, I propose to show the ways in which their accounts distort our picture of their predecessors.
4
Mouzala, Melina G. "Aristotle’s Criticism of the Platonic Forms as Causes in De Generatione et Corruptione II 9. A Reading Based on Philoponus’ Exegesis." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 7, no. 1 (March 17, 2016): 123–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2016.1.6.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In the De Generatione et Corruptione II 9, Aristotle aims to achieve the confirmation of his theory of the necessity of the efficient cause. In this chapter he sets out his criticism on the one hand of those who wrongly attributed the efficient cause to other kinds of causality and on the other, of those who ignored the efficient cause. More specifically Aristotle divides all preceding theories which attempted to explain generation and corruption into two groups: i) those which offered an explanation by using the formal cause ii) those which provided an explanation by using the material or the instrumental causes. According to Philoponus, when Aristotle reproaches the other philosophers for adducing no proper notion of the efficient cause he alludes to both Anaxagoras and Plato. Regarding Anaxagoras, in our view this cannot be confirmed by internal textual evidence. In terms of Plato, in this chapter we trace an explicit and an implicit criticism of the Platonic Forms as causes. Aristotle’s implicit criticism is that the Forms are not at all active causes. We can understand better the grounds for this criticism if we also consider his relevant arguments in Book Lambda of his Metaphysics. His explicit criticism, articulated in two arguments, is formulated in GC 335b18–24. We examine the different lines of its interpretation in the secondary literature, but primarily we focus on Philoponus’ exegesis, which contributes significantly, not only to the clarification of Aristotle’s thinking, but also to the manifestation of the arguments articulated in defence of the Platonic theory of the Forms. In this paper, through the analysis of Philoponus’ exegesis we set out to prove that Aristotle’s criticism of the Platonic causes can be construed from the perspective of either Aristotelian theory or the Platonic and Neoplatonic influence. Finally, based on Philoponus’ exegesis, we examine Aristotle’s criticism of those who posited matter or instrumental causes as efficient causes.
5
Nilova, Anna. ""POETICS" OF ARISTOTLE IN RUSSIAN TRANSLATIONS." Проблемы исторической поэтики 19, no. 4 (December 2021): 7–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.15393/j9.art.2021.9822.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The article presents an overview of the existing translations of Aristotle's “Poetics”, characterizes the features of each of them. In the preface to his translation of Aristotle's “Poetics”, V. Zakharov characterized the work of the Greek philosopher as a “dark text.” Each translation of this treatise, which forms the basis of European and world literary theory, is also its interpretation, an attempt to interpret the “dark places.” The first Russian translation of “Poetics” was made by B. Ordynsky and published in 1854, however, the Russian reader was familiar with the contents of the treatise through translations into European languages and its expositions in Russian. For instance, in the “Dictionary of Ancient and New Poetry” Ostolopov sets out the Aristotelian theory of drama and certain other aspects of “Poetics” very close to the original text. Ordynsky translated the first 18 chapters of “Poetics”, focusing on the theory of tragedy. The translator presented his interpretation of Aristotle’s concept in an extensive preface, commentaries and a lengthy “Statement.” This translation set off a critical analysis by Chernyshevsky, and influenced his dissertation “Aesthetic relations of art to reality”, in which the author polemicizes with the aesthetics of German romanticism. In 1885 V. Zakharov published the first complete Russian translation of “Poetics”, in which he offered his own interpretation of Aristotle's teaching on language and epic. The author of this translation returns to the terminology of romantic aesthetics, therefore the translation itself is outside the main line of perception of the teachings of Aristotle by domestic literary theory, which is clearly manifested in the translations of V. G. Appelrot (1893), N. N. Novosadsky (1927) and M. L. Gasparov (1978). The subject of discussion in these translations was the interpretation of the notions of μῦϑος and παθος, the concepts of mimesis and catharsis, the source of suffering and the tragic, the possibility of modernizing terminology. An important milestone in the perception and assimilation of Aristotle's treatise by Russian literary criticism was its translation by A. F. Losev, which was not published, but was used by the author in his theoretical works and in criticizing other interpretations of “Poetics”. M. M. Pozdnev penned one of the last translations of “Poetics” (2008). The translator does not seek to preserve the peculiarities of the original style and interprets “Poetics” within the framework and terms of modern literary theory, focusing on its English translations. The main subject of the translator's reflection is Aristotle's understanding of the essence and phenomenon of poetic art. Translations of the Greek philosopher's treatise reflect the history of the formation and development of the domestic theory of literature, its main topics and terminological apparatus.
6
Olbricht, Thomas H. "Rhetorical Criticism in Biblical Commentaries." Currents in Biblical Research 7, no. 1 (October 2008): 11–36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1476993x08094023.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Biblical commentators through history have employed various methods to facilitate interpretation, including rhetorical criticism, with emphasis on classical rhetoric. Despite a resurgence of interest in rhetoric in the past two decades, only a few commentators in the New Interpreter's Bible and the Hermeneia series have undertaken in-depth rhetorical analysis. Most observations of these commentators are derived from the rhetorics of Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian and the Rhetorica ad Herennium. This essay sets forth and evaluates the various methods of rhetorical analysis and their employment in the two above-mentioned commentary series.
7
Hale, John K. "Can the Poetics of Aristotle Aid the Interpretation of Shakespeare’s Comedies?" Antichthon 19 (1985): 16–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s006647740000321x.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Because the Poetics has had such importance for the theory and practice of tragedy, the loss of Aristotle’s thought about comedy is greatly to be lamented. The student of Shakespeare laments it all the more in that our understanding of the comedies has lagged behind that of the tragedies. This paper asks, however, to what extent the Poetics as extant can be usefully applied to the comedies of Shakespeare; and to what extent we can thereby remedy some deficiencies of comedy criticism. For instance, it is a strength of Aristotle that he does not flinch from stating the obvious: he extracts from the obvious something useful,or even fundamental. Contrariwise, the interpretation of Shakespeare’s comedies often flinches from the obvious, and falls in consequence into the supersubtle or the arbitrary. A return to the Poetics may therefore be of benefit when it recalls us to fundamentals.
8
Abbate, Michele. "La Repubblica di Platone nell’esegesi simbolica, e metafisico-teologica di Proclo." ΠΗΓΗ/FONS 2, no. 1 (December 14, 2017): 153. http://dx.doi.org/10.20318/fons.2017.3853.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Riassunto: Delle diverse tematiche affrontate da Proclo nella sua articolata interpretazione della Repubblica di Platone, il saggio propone una disamina di alcune fra quelle che appaiono particolarmente significative per comprendere in quale direzione proceda complessivamente l’esegesi procliana del dialogo platonico: lo σκοπός (ossia l’argomento principale) e l’impianto simbolico della Repubblica (dissertazione I); la natura, la funzione e il ruolo della giustizia secondo l’esegesi procliana (dissertazioni III e VII-VIII); l’esame e la critica delle obiezioni mosse da Aristotele alla Repubblica di Platone (dissertazione XVII).Parole chiave: Proclo, Platone, Aristotele, Repubblica, skopós, giustiziaAbstract: Among the various themes faced by Proclus in his articulated interpretation of Plato’s Republic, this essay offers an examination of some of those that appear particularly significant in order to understand what direction Proclus’ exegesis of this dialogue takes: the σκοπός (the main argument) and the symbolic system of the Republic (dissertation I); the nature, function and role of justice according to Proclus’ exegesis (dissertations III and VII-VIII); the examination and criticism of the objections raised by Aristotle to Plato’s Republic (dissertation XVII).Keywords: Proclus, Plato, Aristotle, Republic, skopós, justice
9
Ravitsky, Aviram. "Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī on Human Intellect, Legal Inference, and the Meaning of the Aristotelian Syllogism". Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 26, № 2 (18 жовтня 2018): 149–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1477285x-12341230.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In the fourth treatise of his legal-theological work Kitāb al-Anwār wa-al-Marāqib, Yaʿqūb al-Qirqisānī analyzes a criticism of the Aristotelian syllogism and its epistemological foundations. Qirqisānī defends Aristotelian logic by quoting a passage from an unknown commentary on Aristotle in which the Aristotelian theory of syllogism is explicated. This paper focuses on the historical, theological, and philosophical meanings of the criticism of the syllogism in Qirqisānī’s discussion and analyzes his interpretation of the syllogism as a source of knowledge that should be applied in the realm of legal reasoning and in the interpretation of biblical law.
10
Perälä, Mika. "Affirmation and Denial in Aristotle’s De interpretatione." Topoi 39, no. 3 (September 20, 2019): 645–56. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11245-019-09669-y.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Modern logicians have complained that Aristotelian logic lacks a distinction between predication (including negation) and assertion, and that predication, according to the Aristotelians, implies assertion. The present paper addresses the question of whether this criticism can be levelled against Aristotle’s logic. Based on a careful study of the De interpretatione, the paper shows that even if Aristotle defines what he calls simple assertion in terms of predication, he does not confound predication and assertion. That is because, first, he does not understand compound assertion in terms of predication, and secondly, he acknowledges non-assertive predicative thoughts that are truth-evaluable. Therefore, the implications of Aristotle’s ‘predication theory of assertion’ are not as devastating as the critics believe.
11
Kirby, John T. "The Rhetorical Situations of Revelation 1–3." New Testament Studies 34, no. 2 (April 1988): 197–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0028688500019998.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The publication of George Kennedy'sNew Testament Interpretation Through Rhetorical Criticismmarked the full realization of a growing trend in NT criticism, whereby scholars are beginning to look beyond the limitations of form- and source-criticism for another viable hermeneutical tool. Rhetorical criticism has its origins in the classical canons conceptualized and formulated by the principal rhetoricians of Greek and Roman antiquity, such as Aristotle and Quintilian. This methodology sprang from roots in the ancient world; rhetoric was ‘one of the constraints under which New Testament writers worked’. But it has a universality that transcends its own cultural boundaries, as well as an extraordinary practicality: ‘ … it does study a verbal reality, our text of the Bible, rather than the oral sources standing behind that text, the hypothetical stages of its composition, or the impersonal workings of social forces, and at its best it can reveal the power of those texts as unitary messages’’. Often, too, it is capable of slashing through exegetical Gordian knots that prove otherwise intractable. The ability of rhetorical criticism to evaluate even the more opaque or mystical portions of the NT is a measure of its effectiveness.
12
Biondi, Paolo C. "A Rose by Any Other Name…" Studia Neoaristotelica 17, no. 2 (2020): 239–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/studneoar20201728.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The question of how, according to Aristotle, the principles of science are acquired remains contested among scholars. An aspect of this broader topic concerns the role of induction, and whether it is able to provide us with knowledge of natural necessity without the assistance of intuition (nous). In a recent publication in this journal, David Botting argues in favour of the enumerative/empiricist interpretation of induction and criticizes the intuitive/rationalist interpretation of it, a version of which was defended in one of my publications. He thinks that Aristotle is like Hume: both understand the cognitive process of induction similarly; and, both are equally skeptical about acquiring knowledge of natural necessity through induction. My reply argues that reading Aristotle’s induction in Humean terms is problematic in several respects. I argue, in addition, that natural necessity can be known through induction if nous is involved. My explanation of how this is possible relies on thinking of the act of noēsis in terms of an act of recognition. Botting claims, furthermore, that Aristotle only differs from Hume in that the former does have a non-inductive and non-intuitive method by which natural necessity may become known, and which Botting calls “the constructive proof of necessity”. My reply examines this method, showing how certain steps in it rely on cognitive acts that are really acts of intuition merely expressed in Humean terms. Despite the criticisms, I end with suggestions for how Botting’s account might offer original paths of research to Aristotle scholars seeking to answer the question of the acquisition of principles of science, particularly in the early stages of this process.
13
Lauritzen, Espen Andrè. "Persuading through pity and fear: Aristotle’s account of the emotions in the Rhetoric." Nordlit, no. 33 (November 16, 2014): 139. http://dx.doi.org/10.7557/13.3180.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
<p>The aim of this paper is to examine what has commonly been perceived as a discrepancy between the generally pragmatic or amoral tone of the <em>Rhetoric</em> and Aristotle’s preoccupation with normative questions elsewhere in his works, including in the opening chapter of the Rhetoric itself. I suggest an interpretation that allows for this discrepancy to be avoided. When Aristotle warns against emotional influence in Rhetoric 1.1, this statement must be seen in context with his critique of previous writers of rhetorical handbooks. By looking at other historical sources to the rhetorical practice that Aristotle appears to criticize, we can better understand what the critique is really about. I argue that this historical context makes plausible an understanding of Aristotle’s critique as being directed towards a specific practice in the contemporary judicial practice, namely, that of trying to influence emotionally by means that are foreign to the argument. My main sources in establishing this historical context are Plato’s <em>Apology</em> and Lycurgus’ <em>Against Leocrates</em>. Reading Aristotle’s text in light of the judicial practice of the time offers an alternative understanding ridding us of the apparent contradiction. I suggest that it is the manner in which the emotional influence is made that is is essential. What Aristotle is warning against is emotional influence that is foreign to the subject matter; the critique is directed against influencing through establishing <em>ethos</em> or producing <em>pathos</em> without this having any connection to <em>logos</em>. By seeking a reading where the emotions can be understood as saying something genuine about the situation, something that without the emotions could not be properly understood, the apparent discrepancy in Aristotle can be resolved.</p>
14
Seddon, Fred. "Rejoinder to Roderick T. Long, "Interpreting Plato's Dialogues: Aristotle versus Seddon" (Fall 2008): Long on Interpretation." Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 10, no. 1 (2008): 231–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/41560381.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In this essay, Seddon provides a brief rejoinder to Long's reply to his review of the monograph Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. Despite his criticisms, Seddon maintains that reading Long's monograph will pay rewards for all those interested in the history of philosophy as it impacts Ayn Rand's thought.
15
Seddon, Fred. "Rejoinder to Roderick T. Long, "Interpreting Plato's Dialogues: Aristotle versus Seddon" (Fall 2008): Long on Interpretation." Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 10, no. 1 (2008): 231–33. http://dx.doi.org/10.5325/jaynrandstud.10.1.0231.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In this essay, Seddon provides a brief rejoinder to Long's reply to his review of the monograph Reason and Value: Aristotle versus Rand. Despite his criticisms, Seddon maintains that reading Long's monograph will pay rewards for all those interested in the history of philosophy as it impacts Ayn Rand's thought.
16
CERAMI, CRISTINA. "THOMAS D'AQUIN LECTEUR CRITIQUE DU GRAND COMMENTAIRE D'AVERROÈS À PHYS. I, 1." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 19, no. 2 (September 2009): 189–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0957423909990026.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe present article aims to provide a reconstruction of the interpretation offered by Thomas Aquinas of the cognitive process described at the beginning of Aristotle's Physics and of his criticism of Averroes' interpretation. It expounds to this end the exegesis of ancient Greek commentators who opened the debate on this question; then, it puts forward a reconstruction of Aquinas' doctrine by means of other texts of his corpus, as well as an explanation of his criticism of Averroes' exegesis; it finally reconstructs Averroes' interpretation worked out in his Great Commentary to Phys. I, 1, in order to show that Aquinas' disapproval is partly due to an incorrect interpretation of Averroes' divisio textus of Phys. I, 1. It suggests as well that, concerning some fundamental points, Aquinas' exegesis doesn't diverge from the interpretation proposed by Averroes.
17
Cordero, Nestor Luis. "Les deux manières d’expliquer la réalité proposées par Parménide." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 13, no. 1 (December 23, 2022): 13–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2022.1.1.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Towards the end of fragment 1 of his Poem, Parmenides puts forward two methods or paths that a priori explain the same object of study: the existence of the fact or state of being. One of the options leads to the core of the truth and is, therefore, pursued. The other is merely a set of contradictory opinions and is, accordingly, abandoned. These two paths are expounded in the rest of the Poem, while fragment 4 shows that even the erroneous conception, which had to be set aside, can still be fruitful. Once the firm foundation of truth has been established, fragments 10 and 11 propose to widen the inquiry to the whole of reality. This interpretation suggests a rejection of the arrangement of the Poem that has become canonical, and a criticism of the doxographic tradition that since Aristotle has “Platonised” the philosophy of Parmenides by assimilating the “opinions” (which are only points of view) to the “appearances” (in the Platonic sense of the term).
18
d’Hoine, Pieter. "Aristotle’s Criticism of Non-Substance Forms and its Interpretation by the Neoplatonic Commentators." Phronesis 56, no. 3 (2011): 262–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852811x575916.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAristotle’s criticism of Platonic Forms in the Metaphysics has been a major source for the understanding and developments of the theory of Forms in later Antiquity. One of the cases in point is Aristotle’s argument, in Metaphysics I 9, 990b22-991a2, against Forms of non-substances. In this paper, I will first provide a careful analysis of this passage. Next, I will discuss how the argument has been interpreted ‐ and refuted ‐ by the fifth-century Neoplatonists Syrianus and Proclus. This interpretation has played an important role in the broader context of the Neoplatonic debates on the range of Plato’s theory of Forms, which was one of the traditional problems discussed about the Forms in later Platonism.
19
Eisenmann. "Gersonides' Criticism of the Aristotelian System and of Averroes's Interpretation of Aristotle in his Supercommentary on the Epitome of the Physics." Aleph 21, no. 1 (2021): 79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2979/aleph.21.1.0079.
Повний текст джерела
20
Cruz Sousa, André Luiz. "Thoughts on Leo Strauss's Interpretation of Aristotle's Natural Right Teaching." Review of Politics 78, no. 3 (2016): 419–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0034670516000334.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe essay discusses the interpretation of Aristotle's natural right teaching by Leo Strauss. This interpretation ought to be seen as the result of an investigation into the history of philosophy and of an attempt to philosophically address political problems. By virtue of this twofold origin, the Straussian commentary is unorthodox: it deviates from traditional Aristotelianism (Aquinas and Averroes) and it seems alien to the text of the Nicomachean Ethics. Strauss's criticism of medieval variants results from their incapacity—shared by contemporary political thought—to address a perplexing issue: political exception. He sees in Aristotle's political teaching a way to escape from this failure: the unification, in natural right, of the requirements of statesmanship and ethics. The discovery of this way allowed Strauss to produce an interpretation of natural right that articulates important points pertaining to Aristotelian political science.
21
MUELLER, IAN. "PHYSICS AND ASTRONOMY: ARISTOTLE'S PHYSICS II.2.193b22–194a12." Arabic Sciences and Philosophy 16, no. 2 (August 10, 2006): 175–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0957423906000300.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In the first part of chapter 2 of book II of the Physics Aristotle addresses the issue of the difference between mathematics and physics. In the course of his discussion he says some things about astronomy and the ‘ ‘ more physical branches of mathematics”. In this paper I discuss historical issues concerning the text, translation, and interpretation of the passage, focusing on two cruxes, ( I ) the first reference to astronomy at 193b25–26 and ( II ) the reference to the more physical branches at 194a7–8. In section I, I criticize Ross’s interpretation of the passage and point out that his alteration of ( I ) has no warrant in the Greek manuscripts. In the next three sections I treat three other interpretations, all of which depart from Ross's: in section II that of Simplicius, which I commend; in section III that of Thomas Aquinas, which is importantly influenced by a mistranslation of ( II ), and in section IV that of Ibn Rushd, which is based on an Arabic text corresponding to that printed by Ross. In the concluding section of the paper I describe the modern history of the Greek text of our passage and translations of it from the early twelfth century until the appearance of Ross's text in 1936.
22
Lunt, Peter. "Virtue Ethics and Social Psychology." History & Philosophy of Psychology 7, no. 1 (2005): 12–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.53841/bpshpp.2005.7.1.12.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Virtue ethics has emerged as an alternative to deontological and utilitarian theory in recent moral philosophy. The basic notion of virtue ethics is to reassert the importance of virtuous character in ethical judgement in contrast to the emphasis on principles and consequences. Since questions of virtue have been largely neglected in modern moral theory, there has been a return to Aristotle’s account of virtue as character. This in turn has been questioned as the basis of virtue ethics and there has been a search for alternative accounts of moral agency. One aspect of this critical reflection on virtue ethics is an engagement with social psychology as a source of criticism of the Aristotelian conception of character and as a more plausible alternative foundation for a theory of moral character with contemporary relevance. This paper aims to introduce this area of moral theory to a psychological audience and reflect on the interpretation of social psychological theory and evidence in criticisms of virtuous character, focusing on the use of Milgram’s (1974) experiments on obedience to authority as an argument for situationism. A number of questions emerge concerning the interpretation and use of social psychological theory and evidence in debates within moral philosophy.
23
Svirsky, Yakov I. "Conceptual Features of a Complex Vision of the World." Voprosy Filosofii, no. 10 (2021): 49–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.21146/0042-8744-2021-10-49-52.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Today, almost all spheres of human existence are interpreted – directly or indirectly – as permanently becoming, interpreted from a processing point of view realities that do not imply either final fixation or predetermined ultimate goals or states. The world appears not so much in the form of difficult composite dynamic formation in mechanistic sense, but in the form of mobile, continuously becoming environment, which presupposes special technical researches and ways of staying in it. Such techniques and methods lead to the formation of a non-trivial vision of the universe. And such a vision, aimed at comprehending of emerging realities, presupposing conceptual shifts in modern natural science, technology, humanitarian activity, and more broadly in the very perception of nature and society, V.I. Arshinov endows with the epithet “complexity”. In the proposed text, a small fragment from the creative heritage of one of the most influential philosophers J. Simondon will be considered, allowing to partially reveal the features of such complexitly oriented thinking. The central theme of Simondon's philosophical strategy is the conceptualization of how the becomings of beings are realized, or how beings (inanimate, living, technical, mental, social) are individuated. Simondon begins the discussion of this plot with criticism of the hylemorphic scheme, which posits the genetic principle of existence in the form-matter dichotomy and, above all, in the interpretation and theoretical use of such a dichotomy by Aristotle, since, according to Simondon, it was this pair that contributed to the formation of a static view on the world, man and society. In different performances, the form-matter dichotomy can be interpreted in the form of mind-body dichotomies, artificial-natural, living-nonliving, etc. Note that Simondon begins his criticism with the technological substantiation of the hylemorphic scheme, referring to the operation of making a parallelepiped brick from clay
24
Tazhibaeva, Sh A., and A. Zhienbayeva. "SPECIFICS CHRONOTOPE IN THE MODERN PROSE OF KAZAKHSTAN." BULLETIN Series of Philological Sciences 76, no. 2 (June 15, 2021): 80–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.51889/2021-2.1728-7804.10.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The chronotope issue has been relevant in literary criticism for several decades. Furthermore, Plato argued that the essence of art is an imitation of real life. Aristotle pointed out that art creates its own world as something possible or probable and thereby reveals the essential properties of the real world. This article attempts to summarize the main research results on the problem of spatial images and the chronotope as a whole and thereby determine what is the specificity of the image of space, what is its role in a particular work. The purpose of the study is to establish the role of the chronotope in the recreation of the artistic image of Kazakhstan. In modern prose, chronotopic parameters are traced, the topography and symbolism of urban space are examined and its essential characteristics are given. In our opinion, the chronotope is an important modeling tool of literature. The appeal to this problem is due to the fact that the organization of the chronotope in the modern literature of Kazakhstan has become much more complicated in comparison with the traditional space-time paradigms. Anel Meken and Anastasia Skripnikova demonstrate their virtuoso «play with time and space». Time and space set the parameters of the artistic world of the work. Their relationship in prose reflects the structure of the author's consciousness, their worldview, and the system of philosophical ideas and, therefore, their interpretation is a search for means of expressing the author's idea. The study of the categories of time and space allows one to penetrate deeper into the «fabric» of a work of art, to reveal the specifics of its construction, to determine the concept of the writer's world. However, despite such different positions of researchers, controversy continues to this day in literary criticism.
25
Hrabovska, Iryna. "The Ideas of Fairness in Philosophy Grygorii Skovoroda in the Context of Western Philosophical Tradition of Interpretation of the Concept of Justice (To the 300th Anniversary of the Philosopher)." Ukrainian Studies, no. 2(83) (July 24, 2022): 26–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.30840/2413-7065.2(83).2022.261056.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The article examines the specifics of philosophical criticism in the period of the “late” UkrSSR Western concepts of philosophy, psychology, and arts using Larysa Levchuk’s books “Art in the Struggle of Ideologies” and her “Psychoanalysis: From the Unconscious to ‘Fatigue of Consciousness’”. Annotation. The article is dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Ukrainian philosopher Hryhoriy Savych Skovoroda.Each epoch has its own view of an outstanding person and their creative work, in particular when it comes to philosophical heritage. Along with the image of the philosopher evolves and understanding of his fundamental ideas and teachings. Their reading and mastering acquire consonance with the problems of the modern time, or lose relevance in it.The article examines one of the cross-cutting ideas of Skovoroda's philosophy – the idea of justice. A comparative analysis of the Ukrainian philosopher's interpretation of fairness with the Western European tradition of considering this idea for many centuries of human history has been made – from the works of the Aristotle, the biblical texts and to the contemporaries of the Ukrainian traveling philosopher, with whose works he was familiar due to the journey to Europe of the time and teaching at the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.The special importance of fairness in the mentality of Ukrainians is pointed out. Special attention is paid to the concept of justice in connection with the events of the Revolution of Dignity and the war of Ukraine against the Russian fascists and the neo-totalitarian Putin regime.The conclusions state that celebrating the 300th anniversary of the birth of the outstanding Ukrainian philosopher Hryhoriy Skovoroda in this turbulent year in the history of modern Ukraine in 2022, particular emphasis should be placed on the Ukrainian nation's assertion of its ideas of fairness, freedom and human dignity in practice.
26
Lockwood, Thornton. "Servile Spartans and Free Citizen-soldiers in Aristotle’s Politics 7–8." Apeiron 51, no. 1 (January 26, 2018): 97–123. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/apeiron-2016-0055.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In the last two books of the Politics, Aristotle articulates an education program for his best regime in contrast to what he takes to be the goal and practices of Sparta’s educational system. Although Aristotle never refers to his program as liberal education, clearly he takes its goal to be the production of free male and female citizens. By contrast, he characterizes the results of the Spartan system as ‘crude’ (φορτικός), ‘slavish’ (ἀνδραποδώδης), and ‘servile’ (βάναυσος). I argue that Aristotle’s criticisms of Spartan education elucidate his general understanding of Sparta and provide an interpretative key to understanding Politics 7–8. But although Aristotle contrasts the goals and methods of Spartan education with that of his own best regime, the citizens of his best regime are more like Spartan citizen-soldiers than Athenian participatory-citizens.
27
MECHOUET, Terkia, and Farid ZIDANI. "LUKASIEWICZ’S APPROACH TO SYLLOGISTIC: A CRITICAL ANALYSIS STUDY." RIMAK International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 04, no. 04 (July 1, 2022): 491–507. http://dx.doi.org/10.47832/2717-8293.18.32.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
There is no theory which has received a big interest historically as Aristotelian syllogistic, despite the criticisms to which the theory was exposed by philosophers and logicians like Francis Bacon and Jean Stuart mill in their philosophical and logical works, they considered it as an epistemological obstacle to the development of scientific knowledge, and there is a need to get over it to new method and process, but It is still an interesting subject of study and updated by many logicians to nowadays. The most prominent attempts: the Intentional approach opposite to the comprehensive one, then the approach of the logician and philosopher Ian Łukasiewicz, who tried to read the syllogistic theory with the use of accurate and rigorous analysis tool in classical logic, which is the calculi of propositions where he considered the real form of Aristotelian syllogism moods is conditional (If ... so), i.e., as computable logical laws not inferential rules (If ... then). In order to reach this purpose Łukasiewicz present his hypotheses, some of them are verified for the others he have had to make several interpretations to make his theory consistent. These interpretations took him away from the spirit of the theory and from the essence of what did Aristotle. This made his approach the subject of numerous and harsh criticisms. This is what we will try to show it through a critical analysis to some hypotheses which he presented in his book “Aristotle’s Syllogistic from the standpoint of Modern Formal Logic”.
28
Al.Sobh, Mahmoud A., Ameen Z. Al Khamaiseh, and Samer M. Al-Zoubi. "The Artistic Truth in Aristotle’s Criticism." European Journal of English Language and Literature Studies 10, no. 4 (March 15, 2022): 58–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.37745/ejells.2013/vol10n4pp5863.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The present study examines Aristotle's definition of art. This examination helps in understanding the nature of art and the artistic truth it ought to carry. Aristotle believes that there is truth in art because it is not independent from the reality from which it emerges. The study advances the thesis that all arts are mimetic; therefore, they are produced by imitation. This notion has misled many thinkers by thinking that art is three times separated from the truth, as Aristotle's teacher, Plato has demonstrated in his argument on the nature of imitative arts. However, Aristotle does not repudiate this assumption, but he tries to create a natural bond between art and the reality it produces. In short, Aristotle invites his readers to enjoy the artistic truth in art by separating it from the actual one in reality.
29
Woleński, Jan. "Aristotle and Tarski." Peitho. Examina Antiqua 8, no. 1 (October 24, 2017): 261–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/pea.2017.1.17.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Alfred Tarski frequently declared that his semantic definition of truth was inspired by Aristotle’s views. The present paper discusses this issue in the context of Marian Wesoły’s criticism of the thesis that there is an affinity between Tarski’s views and those of Aristotle. The article concludes with an inquiry into whether Aristotle’s definition of truthfulness can be identified with the correspondence theory of truth.
30
Woleński, Jan. "Aristotle and Tarski." Peitho. Examina Antiqua, no. 1(8) (October 24, 2017): 261–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.14746/peitho.2017.12230.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Alfred Tarski frequently declared that his semantic definition of truth was inspired by Aristotle’s views. The present paper discusses this issue in the context of Marian Wesoły’s criticism of the thesis that there is an affinity between Tarski’s views and those of Aristotle. The article concludes with an inquiry into whether Aristotle’s definition of truthfulness can be identified with the correspondence theory of truth.
31
Tarrant, Harold. "Eudorus and the Early Platonist Interpretation of the Categories." Dossier 64, no. 3 (July 14, 2009): 583–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.7202/037692ar.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract The hermeneutic tradition concerning Aristotle’s Categories goes back to Eudorus and his contemporaries in the first century bc. Initially a perplexing text, it forces the Platonist to consider a variety of new dialectical questions. The criticisms of Eudorus demonstrate the desire for orderly arrangements, and pose questions that the hermeneutic tradition, culminating in the magnificent commentary of Simplicius, would try to answer. His pursuit of a critical agenda does not warrant the label “anti-Aristotelian” or “polemical”, but it does show why he preferred to be known as an Academic than as a Peripatetic.
32
Denkel, Arda. "Matter, Form and Object: Rejoinder to Sidelle." Dialogue 34, no. 2 (1995): 381–88. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0012217300014785.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Aristotelian notions such as matter, form and substance (or object) should be used carefully; not only is the rich tradition in their background marked by variety of interpretation, even Aristotle's own use of these concepts is far from uniform. In his different works, matter, form and (primary) substance display contents that do not always agree. There is reason for believing that in the Metaphysics Zeta the notion of form embodies (or amounts to) essence, and that accordingly something without essence does not qualify as substance. This cannot be generalized or regarded as Aristotle's standard view, however, for in the Physics there are contexts in which the form is not conceived as (or does not embody) essence. There, “the form or shape” is the arrangement of the substance's parts, or the object's shape, in addition to either all or some of its qualities (i.e., the sensible shape). Outside the Metaphysics, substance, too, seems to be a less distinguished entity. In the Physics, and especially in the Categories, substance is anything capable of independent existence, any particular concrete thing that is a bearer of attributes. To the extent that our modern “object” corresponds to Aristotle's primary substance, it has a similar polysemy. While in some contexts it will mean an articulated object belonging to a specific kind, in others it will denote bodies without organized structure, that is, it will have as extension the particular bits and pieces that fill the world. A similar diversity applies to matter. When understood, for example, as a chunk out of which an artist casts her statue, matter is an object (a substratum), a body, itself endowed with a boundary (a form) and a multitude of properties. But matter can be much simpler than that; it can be a plain homoeomere, a mere element, or as in prime matter, may lack every actual attribute. When in my “Matter and Objecthood” I criticized Henry Laycock's views propounded in “Some Questions of Ontology” I found comparable ambiguities transposed to contemporary discourse. In the paper just cited, Laycock examines the ontic status of matter, contrasting it with objects as particular concrete things; throughout his discussion no radical distinction is made between articulated objects and unorganized bodies. In my criticism I employed ‘object’ in the same inclusive sense.
33
TONER, CHRISTOPHER HUGH. "Aristotelian Well-Being: A Response to L. W. Sumner's Critique." Utilitas 18, no. 3 (August 21, 2006): 218–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0953820806002007.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Aristotle's ethical theory is often seen as instructing agents in the prudent pursuit of their own well-being, and therefore labeled egoistic. Yet it is also subject to the opposing charge of failing to direct agents to their well-being, directing them instead to perfection. I am here concerned chiefly with the second criticism, and proceed as follows: I first articulate Sumner's version of the criticism, and second assess his argument for his own (subjective) account of well-being. Third, I present reasons motivating a more objective account of well-being, reasons for taking another look at Aristotle. Finally, granting that Aristotle does indeed direct agents to pursue their perfection, I argue that perfection includes well-being within it. This shows how Aristotle escapes the second criticism, while at the same time pointing the way toward a defense against the first.
34
Curzer, Howard J. "Colloquium 2 Commentary on Pearson." Proceedings of the Boston Area Colloquium of Ancient Philosophy 35, no. 1 (September 16, 2020): 59–67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/22134417-00351p06.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract The Humean interpretation of Aristotle takes him to say that the goals of action are ultimately specified by desire. The Combo interpretation takes Aristotle to say that the goals of action are ultimately specified, sometimes by reason, other times by desire, and yet other times by both. I agree with Pearson that there are passages supporting each side and that the passages Pearson introduces into the debate support the Combo interpretation. To further support the Combo interpretation, I identify four features that Humeans want in a moral theory, and then show that a Humean interpretation of the passages bearing directly on the debate blocks the attribution of these features to Aristotle. A Humean interpretation may produce an Aristotle who is technically Humean, but this Aristotle will not accept the doctrines that make a Humean theory of motivation attractive to Humeans in the first place.
35
Zaret, David, and Michael Walzer. "Interpretation and Social Criticism." Contemporary Sociology 17, no. 1 (January 1988): 122. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2069485.
Повний текст джерела
36
Senchuk, Dennis M., and Michael Walzer. "Interpretation and Social Criticism." Noûs 26, no. 3 (September 1992): 389. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2215966.
Повний текст джерела
37
Gorski, Philip S. "SCIENTISM, INTERPRETATION, AND CRITICISM." Zygon� 25, no. 3 (September 1990): 279–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9744.1990.tb00793.x.
Повний текст джерела
38
Rosen, Bernard. "Interpretation and Social Criticism." Journal of Higher Education 59, no. 6 (November 1988): 704–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221546.1988.11780237.
Повний текст джерела
39
Rosen, Bernard, and Michael Walzer. "Interpretation and Social Criticism." Journal of Higher Education 59, no. 6 (November 1988): 704. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1982241.
Повний текст джерела
40
Fendt, Gene. "Camus and Aristotle on the Art Community and its Errors." Labyrinth 22, no. 2 (February 17, 2021): 40. http://dx.doi.org/10.25180/lj.v22i2.236.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The purpose of this paper is to show the agreement of Camus and Aristotle on the cultural function of the art community (the community of artist and audience), in particular their criticism of what should be called barbarian or nihilistic practices of art. Camus' art and criticism have been frequent targets of modern critics, but his point is and would be that such critics have the wrong idea of the purpose of art. His answer to such critics and the parallelism of his ideas with Aristotle's criticism of barbarian culture, show that the real issue between Camus and his critics is cultural.
41
Corkum, Phil. "Aristotle on Ontological Dependence." Phronesis 53, no. 1 (2008): 65–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156852808x252594.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAristotle holds that individual substances are ontologically independent from non-substances and universal substances but that non-substances and universal substances are ontologically dependent on substances. There is then an asymmetry between individual substances and other kinds of beings with respect to ontological dependence. Under what could plausibly be called the standard interpretation, the ontological independence ascribed to individual substances and denied of non-substances and universal substances is a capacity for independent existence. There is, however, a tension between this interpretation and the asymmetry between individual substances and the other kinds of entities with respect to ontological independence. I will propose an alternative interpretation: to weaken the relevant notion of ontological independence from a capacity for independent existence to the independent possession of a certain ontological status.
42
Müller, Jörn. "Aristoteles und der naturalistische Fehlschluß." Bochumer Philosophisches Jahrbuch für Antike und Mittelalter 11 (December 31, 2006): 25–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/bpjam.11.04mul.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Is Aristotle’s ethics founded on a naturalistic fallacy? This article examines in detail the criticism which was levelled at Aristotle by George Edward Moore in his Principia Ethica in 1903. In order to check the correctness of this assumption, Aristotle’s notion of goodness is reconstructed by an analysis of his theoretical as well as his ethical writings. The picture which emerges shows that Aristotle does not understand goodness as a univocal term but as an analogical concept the focal meaning of which is closely related to the perfection of the different natural things or species. Since Moore’s criticism presupposes a univocal definition of goodness, Aristotle’s treatment of this notion does not fall prey to it. Although his understanding of goodness is connected with his teleology of nature, Aristotle is not guilty of deriving ›ought‹ from ›is‹; therefore, his ethics is also immune to the second argument against the naturalistic fallacy which is usually traced back to David Hume.
43
READ, STEPHEN. "Aristotle and Łukasiewicz on Existential Import." Journal of the American Philosophical Association 1, no. 3 (2015): 535–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/apa.2015.8.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
ABSTRACT:Jan Łukasiewicz's treatise on Aristotle's Syllogistic, published in the 1950s, has been very influential in framing the contemporary understanding of Aristotle's logical systems. However, Łukasiewicz's interpretation is based on a number of tendentious claims, not least, on the claim that the syllogistic was intended to apply only to nonempty terms. I show that this interpretation is not true to Aristotle's text and that a more coherent and faithful interpretation admits empty terms while maintaining all the relations of the traditional square of opposition.
44
Yu, Jiyuan. "C. H. Chen’s Developmental Interpretation of Aristotle." Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, no. 4 (February 19, 2005): 559–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15406253-03204002.
Повний текст джерела
45
YU, JIYUAN. "C. H. CHEN's DEVELOPMENTAL INTERPRETATION OF ARISTOTLE." Journal of Chinese Philosophy 32, no. 4 (December 2005): 559–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6253.2005.00321.x.
Повний текст джерела
46
Green, Joel B. "Rethinking "History" for Theological Interpretation." Journal of Theological Interpretation 5, no. 2 (2011): 159–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/26421422.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In recent years, theological interpretation of Christian Scripture has often been distinguished by its wholesale antipathy toward history and/or to historical criticism. Working with a typology of different forms of "historical criticism," this essay urges (1) that historical criticism understood as reconstruction of "what really happened" and/or historical criticism that assumes the necessary segregation of "facts" from "faith" is inimical to theological interpretation; (2) that this form of historical criticism is increasingly difficult to support in light of contemporary work in the philosophy of history; and (3) that contemporary theological interpretation is dependent on expressions of historical criticism concerned with the historical situation within which the biblical materials were generated, including the sociocultural conventions they take for granted.
47
Green, Joel B. "Rethinking "History" for Theological Interpretation." Journal of Theological Interpretation 5, no. 2 (2011): 159–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/jtheointe.5.2.0159.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract In recent years, theological interpretation of Christian Scripture has often been distinguished by its wholesale antipathy toward history and/or to historical criticism. Working with a typology of different forms of "historical criticism," this essay urges (1) that historical criticism understood as reconstruction of "what really happened" and/or historical criticism that assumes the necessary segregation of "facts" from "faith" is inimical to theological interpretation; (2) that this form of historical criticism is increasingly difficult to support in light of contemporary work in the philosophy of history; and (3) that contemporary theological interpretation is dependent on expressions of historical criticism concerned with the historical situation within which the biblical materials were generated, including the sociocultural conventions they take for granted.
48
Morrow, Jeffrey L. "The Politics of Biblical Interpretation: A ‘Criticism of Criticism’." New Blackfriars 91, no. 1035 (August 12, 2010): 528–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-2005.2009.01342.x.
Повний текст джерела
49
Rosenberg, Ruth, and Jerome J. McGann. "Textual Criticism and Literary Interpretation." South Central Review 3, no. 4 (1986): 119. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3189693.
Повний текст джерела
50
Segev, Mor. "Aristotle on Plato’s Republic VIII-IX: Politics v. 12, 1316a1-b27." Polis: The Journal for Ancient Greek Political Thought 35, no. 2 (September 17, 2018): 374–400. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340190.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Toward the end of Politics V. 12, Aristotle criticizes Plato’s discussion of political change in Republic VIII-IX. Scholars often reject Aristotle’s criticism, especially because it portrays Plato’s discussion, allegedly unfairly, as developing a historically testable theory. I argue that Aristotle’s criticism is adequate, and that the seriousness with which he considers Plato’s account of political change as an alternative to his own is both warranted and instructive. First, apart from criticizing Plato’s account for its historical inaccuracies, Aristotle also exposes theoretical insufficiencies and internal inconsistencies within it. Second, Aristotle’s criticisms of historical inaccuracies in Plato’s discussion of political change are not misdirected, since there are reasons to think that Plato does intend that discussion to accord with the historical facts.