Never Say Never AgainBut This Cannot Be the Correct Reading!Whiting on Philanthropia
From the latest post:
We should distinguish: an interpretation which aims to get it right about Aristotle's thought, from an interpretation in which the interpreter, really, is engaging in a kind of 'systematic' philosophy, though using a discussion of Aristotle as a means to doing so.How very true.
The latter is, to my mind, disreputable, although it is extremely common. Systematic philosophy should stand on its own. To such interpreters I would say: "Instead of giving us an interpretation of Aristotle as a Rawlsian, please write an essay on justice using Rawls' ideas. Instead of an article arguing that Aristotle is a 'naturalist' (in our sense), write an article defending philosophical naturalism (if you can). " And so on. Each philosopher is what he is, and not another philosopher. Aristotle is not a naturalist (in our sense) or a materialist; he is not an exponent of Rawlsianism or Parfitianism; Aristotle is not a thomist or a neo-platonist. Aristotle is Aristotle.
But the alternative, the only legitimate path, in my view--to get it right about Aristotle's thought--most definitely requires great accuracy in reading and understanding an Aristotelian text. So these are not simply small points.
Dr. Pakaluk has been looking at select essays from The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, edited by Richard Kraut. Previously he dealt with the essays by Susan Sauvé Meyer and Rosalind Hursthouse.
His most recent posts on Myer's essay.
Precise of Myer on the Voluntary
Meyer on the Voluntary--One Last Loose Thread
Note: look up Aristotle on light
Annette Baier lecture
One has to wonder about the quality of scholarship these days and how the passing on of wisdom and knowledge has suffered because the academy has succumbed to political correctness and the multiculturalist/diversity-for-diversity's-sake agenda.