David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Phronesis 47 (4):336-358 (2002)
This paper is an analysis of Aristotle's "Nicomachean Ethics 7.3." Aristotle's discussion in this chapter is motivated by the Socratic doctrine, elaborated in Plato's "Protagoras," according to which it is impossible to know what is good and act against this knowledge. Aristotle wants to rebut this doctrine and show that there is a sense of "know" such that this is possible. I argue that this is all that he wants to do in EN 7.3, and that his discussion is not meant to provide an explanation of akrasia, as is usually supposed by commentators. Since the akratic knows that the action she is performing is not good for her, and actions are particulars, the akratic's knowledge is about a particular. I argue that Aristotle's discussion in EN 7.3 adds strength to the idea that knowledge of a particular is explainable only in terms of knowledge of a universal. More determinately, knowledge of a particular is explainable in terms of the actualization or use of knowledge of a universal, and such an actualization is in turn explainable by means of the syllogistic form. Thus, I argue that syllogisms in 7.3 (esp. at 1146 35-1147 10) are not "practical syllogisms", but that their function is epistemological: they are meant to reveal the structure and content of the akratic's knowledge, not to explain her actions
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Greg Bassett (2013). Incontinence and Perception. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 16 (5):1019-1028.
Similar books and articles
Filip Grgić (2002). Aristotle on the Akratic's Knowledge. Phronesis 47 (4):336 - 358.
Devin Henry (2002). Aristotle on Pleasure and the Worst Form of Akrasia. Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 5 (3):255-270.
Alfred R. Mele (1983). Akrasia, Reasons, and Causes. Philosophical Studies 44 (3):345-368.
Christopher Bobonich (2007). Why Should Philosophers Rule? Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Protrepticus. Social Philosophy and Policy 24 (2):153-175.
Daniel Guevara (2009). The Will as Practical Reason and the Problem of Akrasia. Review of Metaphysics 62 (3):525-550.
Arthur F. Walker (1989). The Problem of Weakness of Will. Noûs 23 (5):653-676.
Mariska Leunissen (2010). Aristotle's Syllogistic Model of Knowledge and the Biological Sciences: Demonstrating Natural Processes. Apeiron 43 (2-3):31-60.
Huiming Ren (2012). The Distinction Between Knowledge-That and Knowledge-How. Philosophia 40 (4):857-875.
Rachel Barney (2008). The Carpenter and the Good. In D. Cairns, F. G. Herrmann & T. Penner (eds.), Pursuing the Good: Ethics and Metaphysics in Plato's Republic. University of Edinburgh
Lubomira Radoilska (2007). Aristotle and the Moral Philosophy of Today (L’Actualité D’Aristote En Morale). Presses Universitaires de France.
Michael Golluber (2001). Aristotle on Knowledge and the Sense of Touch. Journal of Philosophical Research 26:655-680.
Jonathan E. Adler (2002). Akratic Believing? Philosophical Studies 110 (1):1 - 27.
Phil Corkum (forthcoming). Is Aristotle's Syllogistic a Logic? History and Philosophy of Logic.
Added to index2010-08-31
Total downloads14 ( #252,449 of 1,796,465 )
Recent downloads (6 months)3 ( #281,430 of 1,796,465 )
How can I increase my downloads?