This book offers a new account of Aristotle's practical philosophy. Pavlos Kontos argues that Aristotle does not restrict practical reason to its action-guiding and motivational role; rather, practical reason remains practical in the full sense of the term even when its exercise does not immediately concern the guidance of our present actions. To elucidate why this wider scope of practical reason is important, Kontos brings into the foreground five protagonists that have long been overlooked: spectators or judges who make non-motivational (...) judgments about practical matters that do not interact with their present deliberations and actions; legislators who exercise practical reason to establish constitutions and laws; hopes as an active engagement with moral luck and its impact on our individual lives; prayers as legislators' way to deal with the moral luck hovering around the birth of constitutions and the prospect of a utopia; and people who are outsiders or marginal cases of the responsibility community because they are totally deprived of practical reason. Building on a wide range of interpretations of Aristotle's practical philosophy, Kontos offers new insights about Aristotle's philosophical contribution to the current debates about radical evil, moral luck, hope, utopia, internalism and externalism, and the philosophy of law. Aristotle on the Scope of Practical Reason will appeal to researchers and advanced students interested in Aristotle's ethics, ancient philosophy, and the history of practical philosophy. (shrink)

Aristotle's notion of evil is highly elaborate and attractive, yet has been largely overlooked by philosophers. While most recent studies of evil focus on modern understandings of the concept, this volume shows that Aristotle's theory is an invaluable resource for our contemporary understanding of it. Twelve leading scholars reconstruct the account of evil latent in Aristotle's metaphysics, biology, psychology, ethics, and politics, and detect Aristotelian patterns of thought that operate at certain landmark moments in the history of philosophy from ancient (...) thought to modern day debates. The book pays particular attention to Aristotle's understanding of 'radical evil', an important and much disputed topic. Original and systematic, this study is the first to provide a full exploration of evil in Aristotle's work, shedding light on its content, potential, and influence. The volume will appeal to scholars of ancient Greek philosophy as well as to moral philosophers and to historians of philosophy. (shrink)

This volume is a Festschrift in honor of Jacques Taminiaux and examines the primacy of the political within phenomenology. These objectives support each other, in that Taminiaux's own intellectual itinerary brought him increasingly to an affirmation of the importance of the political. Divided into four sections, the essays contained in this volume engage with different aspects of the political dimension of phenomenology: its dialogue with classic texts of political philosophy, the political facets of phenomenological praxis, phenomenology’s contribution to actual political (...) debates, and the impact of Taminiaux’s work in the shaping of phenomenology’s notion of politics. The phrase “the primacy of the political” echoes the “primacy of perception” as it was famously defined by Merleau-Ponty. This book emphasizes, however, the inescapability of the political rather than its “foundational” character, i.e. the fact that various itineraries of thought, explored in different fields of phenomenological research, give rise to politically relevant reflections. It points out and elucidates political connotations that haunt phenomenological concepts, such as ‘world’, ‘self’, ‘nature’, ‘intersubjectivity, or ‘language’, and traces them to a broad range of approaches, concepts, and methods. In its explorations, the book discusses a broad range of thinkers, including, but not limited to, Aristotle and Kant, Bergson, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Gadamer, Ricoeur, and Arendt. (shrink)

This book elaborates a moral realism of phenomenological inspiration by introducing the idea that moral experience, primordially, constitutes a perceptual grasp of actions and of their solid traces in the world. The main thesis is that, before any reference to values or to criteria about good and evil—that is, before any reference to specific ethical outlooks—one should explain the very materiality of what necessarily constitutes the ‘moral world’. These claims are substantiated by means of a text- centered interpretation of Aristotle’s (...) _Nicomachean Ethics_ in dialogue with contemporary moral realism. The book concludes with a critique of Heidegger’s, Gadamer’s and Arendt’s approaches to Aristotle’s ethics. (shrink)

In Aristotle’s world there is no God to answer our prayers (euchê) and yet prayers follow the excellent city of the Politics like a shadow. Nonetheless, as far as I know, people have been content to narrow the focus of investigation to Aristotle’s utopia, its plausibility, structure and infrastructure, leaving prayers out of the picture. The most prayers themselves seem to deserve is a footnote or so. The result is that attention is switched away from the most basic questions: What (...) is the function of practical reason that prayers are meant to perform and why could not, or should not, that function be carried out by deliberate choices, wishes, and action plans? Prayers matter, and matter a lot, so I will argue, for they mirror our understanding of constitutive moral luck. The legislators and the rulers who ignore or overlook this truth are theoretically incompetent and politically perilous. (shrink)

Ce travail ambitionne inaugurer la thématisation d'une phénoménologie de la perception chez Heidegger. En prenant le contre-pied de bien des interprétations récentes concernant de questions cruciales de l'ontologie heideggerienne, notamment celles de l'articulation temporelle du présent et de la distinction entre Zuhandenheit et Vorhandenheit, il défend la thèse inattendue que la temporalité de la perception sert de fil conducteur de l'ontologie heideggerienne du temps, dans la mesure où elle impose la scission de la temporalité en modes authentiques et modes inauthentiques. (...) Notre commentaire serré sur les textes de l'époque de Marbourg fera apparaître que l'opposition entre la temporalité authentique de la perception `naturelle', identifiée positivement à la circonspection, et la temporalité inauthentique de la perception `théorique' ne résume pas simplement la critique heideggerienne de Husserl, mais contribue, avant tout, à ouvrir un espace critique dans la problématique phénoménologique de la perception dans son évolution de Husserl jusqu'à Merleau-Ponty. This book claims to inaugurate the thematization of a phenomenology of perception in Heidegger. Running counter to many recent interpretations concerning crucial questions of Heideggerian ontology (particularly the temporal articulation of present and the distinction between Zuhandenheit and Vorhandenheit), it defends the unexpected thesis that the temporality of perception serves as a conductor of the Heideggerian ontology of time, by splitting temporality into authentic and unauthentic modes. Concise commentary on the texts of the Marburg period show that the opposition between the authentic temporality of `natural' perception (positively identified as circumspection) and the unauthentic temporality of `theoretical' perception does not merely summarize the entire Heideggerian critique of Husserl but, above all, helps to open a decisive path in the phenomenological account of perception in its evolution from Husserl to Merleau-Ponty. (shrink)

Nous posons à Aristote une question bien claire : en quoi consiste l'autonomie de la Raison pratique? Cette autonomie ne sera pas assuree par la Raison kantienne et sa prétention à l'universalité mais par une " perception morale " (aisthesis), par la phronésis. Notre entreprise fait avancer la question d'un pas supplémentaire. Elle prétend imprimer à la réponse aristotelicienne une orientation précise, étant donné qu'elle fait dépendre cette autonomie de la possibilite d'une ontologie (c'est-à-dire, d'une phénoménologie) de l'action morale. Notre (...) position peut donc s'annoncer ainsi : la phronésis, en tant qu'accès aux principes de la prakis, constitue la condition de possibilite de toute action morale. La fonction de la phronésis se trouvera éclairée à travers l'analyse du problème de l'altérité, de la reconnaissance de l'autre. Cet autre " en chair et en os ", nous le rechercherons dans l'ami aristotélicien. La structure de l'amitié sera déterminée dans son opposition par rapport aux modèles de la techné et de la Sophia, ce qui conduira finalement à l'autonomie de la sphère pratique. Si cette description de la praxis s'avère être effectivement en adéquation avec les phénomènes eux-mêmes, nous aurons ouvert une voie destinée à faire apparaitre une coïncidence de l'ontologie et de la morale, auquel cas l'ontologie de la praxis reflétera les principes du " bien agir " lui-même. (shrink)

In _Phenomenology and the Metaphysics of Sight,_ the contributors investigate the multifarious ways in which phenomenology adopts and progressively dissents from the metaphysical paradigm of sight, from Husserl up until today.

Ce recueil vise à interroger un versant moins connu, mais essentiel, de la pensée de Gadamer, sa méditation des philosophes grecs, des Présocratiques à Plotin, qui occupe un tiers de ses œuvres complètes.

Kant denies that Reason is intuitive, but demands that we must - in some way - 'make' Reason intuitive, and follow its guidance, particularly in matters of morality. In this book, a group of scholars attempt to analyze and explore this central paradox within Kantian thought. Each essay explores the question from a different perspective - from political philosophy, ethics and religion to science and aesthetics. The essays thus also reformulate the core question in different forms, for example, how are (...) we to realize the moral good in personal character, political arrangements, or religious institutions? (shrink)

This book elaborates a moral realism of phenomenological inspiration by introducing the idea that moral experience, primordially, constitutes a perceptual grasp of actions and of their solid traces in the world. The main thesis is that, before any reference to values or to criteria about good and evil—that is, before any reference to specific ethical outlooks—one should explain the very materiality of what necessarily constitutes the ‘moral world’. These claims are substantiated by means of a text- centered interpretation of Aristotle’s (...) Nicomachean Ethics in dialogue with contemporary moral realism. The book concludes with a critique of Heidegger’s, Gadamer’s and Arendt’s approaches to Aristotle’s ethics. (shrink)

Aristotle tries to solve the riddle of future-directedness and luck-awareness by offering an account of what he calls ‘good hope’ or hoping-well. I concede that hope does not hold Aristotle’s attention for long. However, his allusions to hope (in the Nicomachean Ethics, the Eudemian Ethics, and the Rhetoric) allow us to articulate a quite detailed, illuminating, and rich phenomenology of hope that will prove to be decisive when inquiring into how hopefulness belongs to the core of practical life, thereby making (...) an important contribution to contemporary discussions of hope. (shrink)

This book provides a balanced and accessible introduction to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. It carefully and comprehensively follows the thread of Aristotle’s argument and sheds light on topics that all too often receive little attention or are entirely ignored in the existing textbooks (such as self-control, legislative science and the legislator, the life of the money-maker, craft-knowledge, comprehension, and beastliness). Its objective is not only to offer an academically reliable presentation of Aristotle’s Ethics but to also defend Aristotle’s main tenets—or, at (...) least, to present them in their most defensible form. It places the Nicomachean Ethics within the study of ethics generally; students are invited to understand Aristotle’s claims in the light of, or in contrast to, other ethical theories or their own intuitions about ethical matters. It follows the reader of the Nicomachean Ethics in action, registering questions, expectations and progress within an insightful exegesis of Aristotle's philosophical argument. It is replete with pedagogical tools including examples from our concrete everyday experience, paintings, films, and literature, end of chapter summaries, internet resources, suggestions for further reading, study questions, and essay questions. (shrink)

In diesem Artikel versuche ich deutlich zu machen dass, und aus welchem Grund, Kant den Kategorien der Freiheit eine Doppelfunktion zugeschrieben hat. Es wird sich zeigen, dass die Kategorien der Freiheit nicht nur als die ratio cognoscendi von freien Handlungen innerhalb der Sinnenwelt fungieren, sondern auch geeignet sind, die Begriffe von Gut und Böse als echte moralische Relevanzregeln zu begründen; mit anderen Worten, sie eignen sich als Regeln dafür, wie Umstände und Ereignisse mit moralischer Wichtigkeit aufzuspüren und zu bewerten sind. (...) This paper attempts to bring to light and to justify the double task that Kant confers on the categories of freedom. It will be maintained that the categories of freedom do not only function as the ratio cognoscendi of free actions within the sensible world but they are also well appropriated to ground the concepts of the good and the evil as genuine rules of moral salience , that is to say, as rules of how to detect and appraise circumstances and deeds bestowed with moral significance. (shrink)

What I want to call the “Myth of Performativity” is a theoretical conception, mistakenly attributed to Aristotle, about what distinguishes praxis in the strict sense from other kinds of human activities. According to the Myth, actions constitute pure performances—i.e., a sheer display of ethical virtue—and do not leave behind themselves concrete traces in the world—i.e., any traces significant for appraising their goodness. If that is what performativity would amount to, it can only be mythical. So how can the Myth be (...) a pitfall? The reason is that the Myth takes inspiration from a correct understanding of actions: to differentiate actions from other kinds of human activities—for instance, from productions —it is useful to ascribe a sort of performativity to the former. The Myth becomes, however, a real risk once one distorts the performativity proper to actions and, instead, celebrates pure performativity. And the Myth of Performativity in this latter form becomes an irresistible temptation for those who hold inappropriate views about the political realm and the role assumed therein by certain Promethean activities which are supposed to be performative in a paradigmatic way. In this paper I mean to show that, throughout his work, Taminiaux’s concern remains one and the same: to alert us to the dangerous attractions of the Myth of Performativity. I will expound the above claims in two steps; first, by showing—pace Arendt and Taminiaux—that Aristotle himself had militated against the Myth and, second, by demonstrating that the phenomenology of action casts doubt on the legitimacy of the Myth. (shrink)

Name der Zeitschrift: Kant-Studien Jahrgang: 107 Heft: 3 Seiten: 585-586.