Configuring the Moral Self: Aristotle and Dewey

Focusing on the concept of “the moral self” this essay explores relationships between Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics and John Dewey’s moral pragmatism and tries to evaluate the extent to which in his work on ethics Aristotle may be considered a pragmatist. Aristotle foreshadows pragmatism, for example, in preferring virtue-based to rule-based ethics, in contending that the moral status of a person’s actions and the nature of the person’s selfhood are interdependent, and in stressing the key role of habits in character formation. Aristotle, however, may seem far from the status of pragmatist when he privileges the life of contemplation and posits a moral self that is more static than the one proposed by Dewey. This essay contends that if more attention is paid to Aristotle’s treatment of friendship and to his highlighting of the need for reciprocity then the moral self that emerges from Nicomachean Ethics becomes more dialectical and more at one with that proposed by the American pragmatist. Aristotle, then, may be regarded as setting Dewey on the path towards a model of moral self that is not only deeply concerned about the lives of others but that is also dependent on others for its own existence.     

泰奥弗拉斯特:植物学之父与他的传世之作

古希腊哲学家泰奥弗拉斯特是亚里士多德的大弟子,不论是其学术成就还是人生轨迹都深受导师影响。作为吕克昂第二任管理者,他投身于亚里士多德的学术与教育事业,勤勉教学,潜心研究,同时努力改善学校的基础建设,真正将漫步学派发扬光大。在西方植物学史上,泰奥弗拉斯特因其两部存世植物著作被誉为"植物学之父";书中远超前人的植物知识为之后18个世纪的植物研究奠定了发展基调。身为一代学术大家,泰奥弗拉斯特尊师重道,著作等身,为后人留下了宝贵的精神财富。     

Matter in Z3

In this paper, I will discuss a certain conception of matter that Aristotle introduces in Metaphysics Z3. It is often assumed that Aristotle came to distinguish between matter and form only in his physical writings, and that this lead to a conflict with the doctrine of primary substances in the Categories that he tries to resolve in Z3. I will argue that there is no such conflict. In Z3, Aristotle seems to suggest that matter is what is left over when we strip a thing of all its properties. I take it that he does not want us to strip away these properties by physical means or in our imagination. Rather, we are asked to strip a referring noun phrase of all its predicative parts. We are thus not supposed to be able to refer to something that has no qualities whatsoever, but to construct a phrase that refers to something that has properties without referring to its having them, and without implying which properties it has. The idea that there might be a way of referring to something definite without mentioning any of its qualities is platonic and it still underlies modern predicate logic. In Z3, Aristotle argues against this conception and thus against the basic idea of predicate logic. According to him, matter is at best an inseparable aspect of a primary substance, which substance is best referred to as a compound τóδε τι (“this such”). Matter is what the τóδε refers to as part of this phrase. But it cannot exist in separation from form, and we cannot refer to it by a separated term, without also referring to the substantial form of the substance of which it is an aspect.     

Meaning and Reference in Aristotle’s Concept of the Linguistic Sign

To Aristotle, spoken words are symbols, not of objects in the world, but of our mental experiences related to these objects. Presently there are two major strands of interpretation of Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign. First, there is the structuralist account offered by Coseriu (Geschichte der Sprachphilosophie. Von den Anfängen bis Rousseau, 2003 [1969], pp. 65–108) whose interpretation is reminiscent of the Saussurean sign concept. A second interpretation, offered by Lieb (in: Geckeler (Ed.) Logos Semantikos: Studia Linguistica in Honorem Eugenio Coseriu 1921–1981, 1981) and Weidemann (in: Schmitter (Ed.) Geschichte der Sprachtheorie 2. Sprachtheorien der abendländischen Antike, 1991), says that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is similar to the one presented in Ogden and Richard’s (The meaning of meaning: A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science of symbolism, 1970 [1923]) semiotic triangle. This paper starts off with an introductory outline of the so-called phýsei-thései discussion which started during presocratic times and culminated in Plato’s Cratylus. Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is to be regarded as a solution to the stalemate position reached in the Cratylus. Next, a discussion is offered of both Coseriu’s and Lieb’s analysis. We submit that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign shows features of both Saussure’s and Ogden and Richards’s sign concept but that it does not exclusively predict one of the two. We argue that Aristotle’s concept of the linguistic sign is based on three different relations which together evince his teleological as well empiricist point of view: one internal (symbolic) relation and two external relations, i.e. a likeness relation and a relation katà synthéken.     

Aristotle’s Difficult Relationship With Modern Economic Theory

This paper reviews Aristotle’s problematic relationship with modern economic theory. It argues that in terms of value and income distribution theory, Aristotle should probably be seen as a precursor to neither classical nor neoclassical economic thought. Indeed, there are strong arguments to be made that Aristotle’s views are completely at odds with all modern economic theory, since, among other things, he was not necessarily concerned with flexible market prices, opposed the use of money to acquire more money, and did not think that the unintended consequences of human activity were generally beneficial. The paper argues however, that this interpretation goes too far. The Benthamite neoclassical theory of choice can be seen as a dumbing down of Aristotle’s theory, applicable to animals, not humans. Adam Smith and Karl Marx were deeply influenced by Aristotle’s work and both started their main economic works with Aristotle: Smith ultimately rejecting, and Marx ultimately developing Aristotle’s views of the use of money to acquire more money. Possibilities for the future development of a new Aristotelian Economics are explored.     

‘The Economic’ According to Aristotle: Ethical, Political and Epistemological Implications

A renewed concern with Aristotle’s thought about the economic aspects of human life and society can be observed. Aristotle dealt with the economic issues in his practical philosophy. He thus considered ‘the economic’ within an ethical and political frame. This vision is coherent with a specific ontology of ‘the economic’ according to Aristotle. In a recent paper, I analysed this ontology and left its consequences, especially for Ethics and Politics, for another paper. In this article, I firstly summarise the reasoning and conclusions of the aforementioned paper. Then, I extract the ethical and political “lessons” of the Aristotelian conception. I finally add a section with epistemological “lessons”, and consequences for the teaching of Economics.     

论海德格尔的“四重体”观念与亚里士多德的四因说

晚期海德格尔经常使用作为世界的"天、地、神、人"四重整体来言说存在问题。这种四重整体观念乃是对亚里士多德四因说的一种典型重演:一方面援用了四因说的基本框架,另一方面把专注于自然物的四因说扩展到技术制作物领域,并引入了特殊意义上的"人"这一重要因素。这种处理方式表明海德格尔既再次切近了古代形而上学,但也立足于自身的技术性时代做出了重要更新。     

The Jesuits and the Method of Indivisibles

Alexander’s Infinitesimal is right to argue that the Jesuits had a chilling effect on Italian mathematics, but I question his account of the Jesuit motivations for suppressing indivisibles. Alexander alleges that the Jesuits’ intransigent commitment to Aristotle and Euclid explains their opposition to the method of indivisibles. A different hypothesis, which Alexander doesn’t pursue, is a conflict between the method of indivisibles and the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. This is a pity, for the conflict with the Eucharist has advantages over the Jesuit commitment to Aristotle and Euclid. The method of indivisibles was a method that developed in the course of the seventeenth century, and those who developed ‘beyond the Alps’ relied upon Aristotelian and Euclidean ideals. Alexander’s failure to recognize the importance of Aristotle and Euclid for the development of the method of indivisibles arises from an unwarranted conflation of indivisibles and infinitesimals (Sect. 2). Once indivisibles and infinitesimals are distinguished, we observe that the development of the method of indivisibles exhibits an unmistakable sympathy for Aristotle and Euclid (Sect. 3). Thus, it makes sense to consider an alternative explanation for the Jesuit abhorrence of indivisibles. And indeed, indivisibles but not infinitesimals conflict with the doctrine of the Eucharist, the central dogma of the Church (Sect. 4).     

物质与乌托邦——恩斯特·布洛赫对物质概念的理解与重构

在回溯亚里士多德的质料及其潜能中,布洛赫把物质理解为"客观-现实的可能性",在批判继承亚里士多德左翼传统的世界质料、普遍质料概念中,布洛赫进一步把物质规定为"过程质料"。通过把亚里士多德的物质概念与黑格尔的辩证法有机结合起来,布洛赫辩证地叙述了趋向乌托邦全体的全世界的历史进程。在他那里,物质的开放性与辩证法的开放性构成乌托邦的全体的基础。在此意义上,正是亚里士多德的物质概念与黑格尔的辩证法孕育诞生了布洛赫乌托邦的希望哲学。     

哈维“生理学革命”的社会历史背景

17世纪哈维的生理学革命吸收了亚里士多德的循环思想、对心脏的认识和目的论思想，建立在盖仑的解剖和实验方法、以及由此得到的概念系统和材料基础之上。近代的经验论、数学方法和机械论思想都为其提供了社会基础。哈维是西方传统医学向近代医学转变的枢纽式人物，其革命是累积的结果，对于科学思想形成应从社会历史中寻找原因，其中“错误”的思想也不容忽视。     

Architecture and Technology: A Discontinuous Relation

Technology has a history structured by discontinuities. The first important philosophical expression of such a conception of technology was advanced by Walter Benjamin when he defined art works in relation to specific techniques of production. At the present art and architecture occur within an age defined by the move from ’technical reproducibility’ to digital reproducibility. The move has an impact on how technology is understood and its relation to architecture conceived. Adapting Walter Benjamin’s work in this area provides the basis for a response to Soren Riis’ important treatment of the relationship between architecture and technology in his paper “Dwelling in-between walls: the architectural surround”.     

The God Concept: Aristotle and the Philosophical Tradition

Before beginning a paper on metaphysics, it is wise to acknowledge the paper’s own “metaphysical” assumptions. In what follows, we must bear in mind that the history of philosophy is as interpretively diverse as it is long. We will begin with the premise that Metaphysics is indeed a foundational science. We will posit that Aristotle’s corpus is unified; that is, that Aristotle can be read as a “systematic” philosopher. Moreover, we will assume that the history of philosophy is itself a unity. If we posit such, “philosophy” can be read as a comprehensible continuity: a certainly contestable position. We must bear in mind that similitude is decidedly not identity; however, similitude does imply a certain conceptual correlation, one which, when pressed, may yield interesting, if not unexpected, results. Thus, we will travel at lightning speed through what took a snail’s pace to develop, “mapping,” so to speak, the structure of the unmoved mover of Aristotle’s Metaphysics (1941) onto the traditional historical divisions of the history of philosophy. We will begin with Aristotle himself in the Ancient period, move to Averroes (the Ibn-Rushd of this paper) in the Medieval period, focus on Descartes and Spinoza as Modern thinkers and, finally, end in Heidegger and Sartre in Contemporary philosophy. This is philosophy with a capital “P,” which may or may not be the reader’s preferred position, let alone the writer’s. But, for our purposes here, it is, nonetheless, inevitable.     

吉利斯的概率哲学理论述评

英国哲学家吉利斯的主要研究领域为概率基础、逻辑哲学与数学哲学,对概率哲学的学习和研究至今已有四十余年。在吉利斯关于概率哲学的研究中,他对当今各种主要的概率解释都给予过深刻的检视。他对这些概率解释所面临的困难的讨论使他得出了自己关于概率这个概念的相当具有原创性的见解。本文试图勾勒出吉利斯的概率哲学理论的一个基本轮廓,并对其中的一些观点给予分析和评价。     

亚里士多德的理论化方式和理性路线

亚里士多德的第一哲学既是关于世界之本体的学说,也是关于知识的思想理论体系;从而形成了通向关于世界(或宇宙)知识的理性路线,并且导向了他的逻辑理性方式。在自然哲学方面,他将对自然世界的解释和使解释作为永恒的和必要的知识这两个目标统一了起来。因此,在他的科学研究中,存在着基于观察的逻辑归纳方法和基于(主要是常识性的)共识的逻辑演绎方法两条方法论路线。亚里士多德对经验证据的接受,标志了认知境界的重大转换,从而对科学理性主义的生长做出了贡献。     

A Non-Aristotelian Model: Time as Space and Landscape in Postmodern Theatre

In his Poetics, Aristotle articulated certain ideas on the structure of drama that dominated both dramatic literature and theatre practices for the centuries to come. In this article I show how the thorough analysis of his statements leads us to believe that he endorses causality, narrativity, and temporal linearity as primary factors in the organization of dramatic and stage texts. Tracing various modifications of causality throughout theatre history, I use the work of the two prominent contemporary directors, Eimuntas Nekrosius and Anatoly Vasilyev, to demonstrate how postmodernist theatre has arrived at non-Aristotelian theatrical model based on the unity of a time–space continuum rather than temporal development.     

钱三强科学史贡献初探

钱三强不仅是一位杰出的科学家,而且对科学史学科的发展也贡献卓越。本文梳理了钱三强公开发表的有关科学技术史方面的著述,探讨了他对科学史的贡献,认为,钱三强是原子能科学技术史的开拓者和传播者,是中国近现代科学技术发展史的记录者与研究者,是中国科学技术史事业的组织者与推动者。重视科学史的学术价值、科普功能、教育功能和资政功能是钱三强科学史学思想的主要特征。     

Mario Bunge on Gravitational Waves and the Reality of Spacetime

I discuss the recent claims made by Mario Bunge on the philosophical implications of the discovery of gravitational waves. I think that Bunge is right when he points out that the detection implies the materiality of spacetime, but I reject his identification of spacetime with the gravitational field. I show that Bunge’s analysis of the spacetime inside a hollow sphere is defective, but this in no way affects his main claim.     

阻碍法国科学发展的学界陋习例证

法国曾是世界科学的中心,物理学也曾是法国的传统强势学科。但是19世纪后半叶尤其20世纪前50年左右,法国的物理学与英国、德国的该学科发展相比,明显滞后了。贝尔纳在其著作中,表达了他对法国科学发生这一变化的原因的看法。贝尔纳的观点扼要却没有通过具体事例予以说明。通过著名的法国科学家迪昂与居里等人的遭遇,可以看出贝尔纳的说法是准确的,即科学界的老人统治以及政府的不重视是法国科学发展滞后的关键症结。法国科学界老人统治的后果值得中国科学界引以为戒。