Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • (Cooper, J.) The Aristotelian Ethics (Bokos-Z1) PDF

    Uploaded by

    aseman1389
    42 views13 pages

    Original Title

    [Cooper,_J.]_The_aristotelian_Ethics(Bokos-Z1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    42 views13 pages

    (Cooper, J.) The Aristotelian Ethics (Bokos-Z1) PDF

    Uploaded by

    aseman1389

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 13
    ‘The Aristotelian Ethics, Review Author{s): John M. Cooper Noducire;s, Vol. 15, No. 3. (Sep., 1981), pp. 381-392. Stable URL: bhtp:flinks,jstor-org/sici?sici~0029-4624%28 198 109%29 153 A3ZICIBLZIATAE®IE2.0.CO%B2-3 Noducire:s is currently published by Blackwell Publishing ‘Your use of the ISTOR archive indicates your acceptance of ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available at htp:sseww jstor org/aboutiterms.html. ISTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you hhave obtained prior permission, you may aot download an entie issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and ‘you may use content in the ISTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use Please contact the publisher eegarding aay futher use ofthis work. Publisher contact information ray he abained at tpi jstororpoumnal blac. Each copy of any part ofa JSTOR transenission must contain the same copyright tice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transtnission, ISTOR isan independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to creating and preserving a digital archive ot scholarly journals. For more information regarding ISTOR, please contact suppom@jstor org. hup:thrwwjstor.orgy ‘Tue Ape 11 17:35:15 2006 CRITICAL REVIEWS Anthony Kenny, The Aristotelian Ethics (New York, NY: The Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, 1978), v + 250 pp., $21.00 Jou M. Corer [PRINCETON UNIVERSITY ‘Three treauses on ethies purporting to be by Aristotle have survived from antiquity. We know thac questions about the authenticity of these treatises, and about their incerrelationships, were already raised in Roman times. Since the beginnings of German classical scholarship in the early nineteenth ceneary scholars of every genoration have addres these problem in whats by now an impressive literature. Although each treatise deals with much the same ‘opis and in much the same order, there are philosophically important differ- ‘ences among them (in addition, of cause, co other differences, af language and xyyle, and manner of presentation), One naturally wants to know, then, which of the reatises chat are actually by Aristotle is most authoritative. Where should ane go w find Aristade's moral philosophy in its most developed and ‘Carefully considered form? Icis generally assumed, though without sufficient warrant, that chronologically the latest authentic treatise will also be philo- sophically the richest and best; sa the crucial question is generally taken to be, ‘which ethical crease is the last surviving one compased by Aristole? Anthony Kenny's tich and interesting new book ig a contribution o this debate. He believes the Eudemian Eukios has unjustfiably been downgraded and disre- garded by scholars and philosaphers in favor of the Nizemachean, and his ‘central avowed purpose in the present book is ea cause the balance co be redressed. Officially his aims are limited, Everything considered, he thinks, the evidence of chronology indicates that the Eudemian Ethic is a work of Ariscade's full maturity, and not the early, preNicomachean treatise: most scholars have accustomed themselves ca think. Asa result, assuming that chronological Iateness bespeaks philosophical richness, one is entitled ta ree ‘open the question af che comparative merits of the wwo treatises, Only when the Eudenian Bikes hasbeen studied as widely and carefully as the Nicrmacheays has been for centuries, Kenny argues, will we be able to replace the currently prejudiced andill informed estimate of ts worth with an unclouded judgment, eis to this reevaluation that Kenny exhorts us; and indeed the record of scholarly work in the past decade indicates that it has already begun. ‘This statement of Kenny's official purposes makes it clear that he is a partisan of the Endemian Ethics, But ic does nat reveal the full excent af his ammitment. For some things that he says and the tone and manner of much of the book give the unmistakable impression that his actual beliefs are more sitive than these relatively agnostic affical conclusions—that in fact he eves the Eudemian Ethics is che last and best ethical reatise Aristotle wrote and thac the Nicawackean should be read as earlier, less polished, more tentae tive, and more immature philosophically. ‘Thus in his opening paragraphs he aa ae woos announces “the purpose ofthe present work” tbe 19“demolsh’ the “dogma Gt Ansotelian scholarship" (p 2) that tags 0 the Fudeston Ethie an eae ‘date and. phlosophicllyilesio and rsetcly provisional poston in compari son with che Megmadican He claonsihathe eternal case for tse prsrity and inferioniy of the Badenian Ether ceutobles on close inspection” (p. ) and promises to “endeavor to show that he orthodox theory of Aristotle's ethical Scvetopment i devoid ofall support” (p. 8). Stel. at course, wo demolish ‘dogma snot co prove the falsehood of what assets but oye prove uit tot proved show tha there i oom to entertain adifferent and conic tie, Bucifas Renny aayain he pasage aequoted, there snaking co be aid it favor of she traditional view and there ie strong evidence, a he foreetuly Claims, that implies the Lusonian Eee to be later thaa the Neamachoan (pp. 325.30), theconclusiontodraw isthatthe evidence shows the Budemian Fei bethelater work: Abd that he thinks philosophically more mature and beter IBuhe burden of any remath,pariclaly ais la three chapters where he Compares the two trcaiees doctrines on widon {pnonéus) and happiness, among other matcers. He refers mate thaa orce to the supposedly greater polstor the Eudenion teats, xg, ac. 203, and emphatizes wherever he can What he regards as the lack of oxgaotzation, repettiveness, dnjntedness, Shucurty, and one sidedsess of the Nemacheot Bde in coraparton ‘with comsespanding sections of the Evdamin “This patsanautadecolrs auch of thebook, depriving many of Keany's dliscussoas ofthat a of scholarly abject usslly aught after by wrters an Such subjects, Thus Kenny's ina chapters, ofcaly deveced ro examining te Internal evidence forthe telatve chronology ofthe ethical teaiss and ag tig agains an carly date forthe Eudomion Ets, does wot in fact attempt te Comprehensive carefully balanced and philosophically seasiive eatment of tuany pastages that his anounced task requices. On the side of the view he fejees he devotes special avention tothe inadequacies of che nowadays aot highly regarded view of Jucger, according to which the Eudeniay Be i alia te Nuesmachean because more Paton but oregoes the tsk of fethinking the hole question afresh and dacs not conduct fs argument on thebasisofan independent, impartal survey of the cadence. Kenny evidently thinks thatargumebicin sor ofthe view he rejects ateendusivelytheconcer a bot his oppontencs hus function it ake ther cave as presented, co expe ay treakness he can dlcoyer ov can plausibly claim jms and to make 8 S100 epresentatons on his ovn sie as he thinks he can get aWay with, However Iorecdor paruala treatmentof the evidence thismay eal. See hiscommens on the Eband NE"sarguments forthe desiesbiliy of ends, pp. 2209. 0F fisone paragraph acouncof the two teatsed eritesms af the Patone theory St the We ofthe Good, p. 231) hor this reason his dteusion which i any iene occupies only 26 pages, ie guite inconclusive. Indeed nny apiion, his Site treatment of questons of chronology, with allied reiparks about phil Sphucal meng is disappointing, precaely Because itbetrays toa arongly the turks ofaminimoderate othudain forthe Ewleman Bikes and aeareespand- ing unjustified restraint where the Naomaciea is concerned. Till have something further say about these rvaters below. Meanie, itisimportant chat the defects ofthese pais of thebook notbe allowed to divert. sitenion froze whats in fat the boos major conrbution. For early chee: quarters of Kenny's panes ch. 28, pp. 0.314) are addeesned co. elles and shore manageable quection, the quedson ofthe origin ofthe so-aled “middle” Gr teammos bork’ the tarce bok (on jue, he intelleceaal vires, theontincnce and pleasire) thi our manuripsindiate belong equally the KENNY'S THE ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS 388 Nicomachean (where they are numbered as books, V, VE, and VII) and the Eudemian (books [V, V, VI} treatises. Kenny's thesis is that the eomman books? Delong, just as they stand, ta the Endemtan Fkuzs, from which they were transferred at some date after Aristotle's death ta the Nicomarkean, perhaps by the secand-century A.D. commentator Aspasius. What we know as the Nicamackean Fthics isa late compilation based an an original tarsa (or, a8 he suggestsoa p. 239, a loosecallection of Aristotelian maternal of various dates}! dealing with most ofthe topics dealt with alsoin the Eudewsian Bekics, but lacking any diseussion of justice, che intellectual virtues, and incontinence; the existing Nicomackear treatise is this torso, filled out by the insertion at the appropriate place of the three Eudemuan books dealing wich the missing topics Kenny rightly stresses the importaace of determining the provenance of te cowmon, books as the firs sep toward answering the mare exciting ques: ‘ions about chronotogical and philosophical priority mentioned above. For fit ‘can be established that chese books belong ta the Eudeaiom treatise and not to the Nizomochaan after all, then in assessing the doctrine and argument of the latter treatise one must resolutely withhold all reference to anything found in tie common books; and for purposes of dating, the now reconstinited Eude- ‘ay Ethics must be taken asa unit. The resuleof adopting sueh a point of view is bound to be significane. Whether it would support the chronological and __ Philosophical conclusions for which Kenny intends ia this book to be laying the groundwork is, however, an apen questian. Kenny constructs his case for the Fudemian origin of the common books sound the results, reported in chapters 4, 5 and 6, of a computer generated survey of the frequencies of certain words in the caramon books (CB), the tunidisputed NE books (IV and VIII-X), and the undisputed EE books GIL and VIL-VIID. He accompanies these by four more specialized chapters ‘There isastudy (ch. 2) of forward references from the first four NE books and the fire chree ££ books to materials in fact found in the CP (to see whether the match between these materials and the one set or the ather of forward refer ences is fuller and exacter}, and a study (ch, 3) of the style and technical terminology of the first chapter of CB A (¢o see whether it conforms more closely o that of the NE or the EE.) Inch. 7 he reviews evidence drawa fromthe textsof the undisputed NE and FE books in an attermpcto show chat the EE and not the NE books give the more satisfactory cantext for the accountof phroncus Cpractical wisdom") contained in CBB. And ch. 8 similarly surveys the doc- tines of eudaimonia developed in EE and NE, arguing that the NB is single- ‘misdedly intelleccualiscand chusin sharp conflict withthe jaclusive view found both in and inCB, which lastshould therefore be regarded as written forche EE and nat the NE. Much in these more specialized studies is well dane, The derailed discus- sion of GB A, chapcer I, skllfally assembles several of che most significane poimts of style and method which fave been recognized as Hnking the CB tothe EE and setting oft from the NE: the method of arguing from "hypotheses", the recuirent talk ofthe “use” (cts) of the virues*—as opposed (0 “exercise” fouergeia), which the NE prefers, apparently am philosophical grounds— the prominence of the notion of things thatare “good withaul qualification” haplés agatha). Taken cogether these are indeed persuasive grounds for regarding CB ‘Aas basically a Budemian book. The chapters on phroneis and eudamania are certainly much less conclusive; a€ most Kenny shows only that the views exe pressed on these topiesin theCi would fitthe £E context somewhat beter than the NE, and this ino very goad argument chat that is where they originally belonged. This is quite clear for phrandis, since there is no evidence that the 3 noos undisputed BE aod NE books differ atalli their doctrines about what plrenie Br how ius reed cote moral wrtuea, and so on, Kenny maker much ofthe Ue InNE X of rout refer toa separable, mma soulopat, and emphasizes the absence of any such decrine she common books. Buc this sto slight Uiference co pucany weight on for Kenny's preseee purposes. This dactine Sppearsnosere lain NE, ether, Perhaps Kenny's point tha this docrige Zines with tha of CB B, which snakes the eheoreieal intellect par of Siied youl but ao calsocanflits with thacof ME; 13, which doeathe same Soileac seem cobe ce fact, Arittle was willing tainclude NE Tand Xin the Same tecanse one cannot argue on tht ground tat CBB emust be part of “ferentane. There ison the other hand, clear evidence that EE acd NE (0 Sy ate io 3) difesagaiicandy over what eudaimonis const in, and Kenay os these difercatesto argue that because the convnon book, expecially CB pay allegiance tothe BE en thateudaonona the exercivea the human txcaiences taken as a whole, aod aot merely ofthe thearecal powers, they mmusthave belonged originally to tha teats. Thiaisunjustified, however, ia Boots ther than Xt AE Hef trays an aractn to che B's moe ccommnodating conception. For in that cate de relevant passages of the fommon boots could feonably be aken simpy a addin places where ths preference fs expressed. Ine this sin fact the case. At 1097D16-20 of NEI Aristotle, as most interpreters wocient swell as medern, i effec interpret iy etadown aban Byreed preonss that rudsimonua the most choiceworthy thing ft & spect thesis thefioal good, the bestcomprchensiveovderingof brat order goods, Sothaconeeannoc make tbeer byaddiag aoything tot, sscne could ft were inerely the best first order good, Good yes that he i, Kenny alin his {reedom, fustclaimed ina 1066 aril, tread the Greekalfferenty asso Catexdamnoue isthe most chokeworthy ting so longa (bt ons ong a) a0 other good Is considered at combined with tthe reul of taking i together ith af such addtional good s yet more choiceworthy. Ths depends upon taking the paciple nunardimounence i ie second occurrence ae 1097DIT as indicative in fore (when iti added together with another good, ie mere ‘holceworthy” rather than countertyetualy Cif were (he Kind of thing to bel Sided together sme good amang others, would be.) and eis isee aely possible Greek. Kenmy now claims that this reading, and hs inference that Aristotle hereshows thacke doesnt regard happiness asan inclusive en, but Ssadominant one, i traditional™(p. 404), going back to Eustracius (a i2eh EEauary shop of Nicsea whovwroteacommentary onWE 1) nd accepted bySt ‘bert and Se Thomas. The facts are not 30 simple. Eustrative does take the grammar of the sentence in Kennys way, but he docs Noe suppose Aristotle there declares euaimonia ta be a dormant end. Quite the contrary. Jn che omtmentary o this patsage he ists the lowing as pat a) af denon the moral and intellectual virtues snd their exerci, bodily goods such a8 Strength, health and pliyscal beau, and excernal goods such'ss wealth and friends. On Eusratigy’ tle sndaimoma cevtiny includes 4 very qreat deal ‘The ‘addtional goods that he considers might be aided to happiness and its pars ate such cvaliies as having actactve fair or an elegant git) ic Rappiness plus one o more of these that he supposes would be mare chiewordly than happiness alone! One might well suspect thae cis sly inverprotation results cmply from Eustatius own incapacity. Surely fhe had though of the other way of reading the passage, or Nad Tead Asp! expost tion he would have preferred ittohis om Peshaps, Bat for a Chesuan,455t ‘Thomas makes clear inhi own commentary, a abe of considerable por RENNY'S THE ARISTOTELIAN ETHICS 385 tance is at stake here, For an the other interpretation Aristotle will he saying that eudaimonia is absolutely the best thing, 2 thing sa good that ic cannot be bettered by adding anything o it. And this threatens the Christian doctrine of God: only God ean be that kind of goad. St. Thomas’ preference for Kenny's reading is very clearly motivated hy hisdesire to make Aristode’s statements consistent with this element of Christian doctrine. Thus on examination Ken- niy's“tradicion’” very quickly reveals iself co bea specifically Christan ane, with therefore no claim to be ranked alongside, much less preferred to, that of Aspasius and Alexander and ather unbiased interpreters." To admit this, a6 ‘one must, is to undermine Kenny's whale argumentin ch. 8, For assaon as one acknowledges that in the undoubted Nicomackean books Aristotle is af (wo minds about eudaimania, one cannot allow such conflicts as there are becween NE VI and X to count against the Nicomachaon origin of the common books. 1€ ‘even NE [shows signs of holding conflicting ideas abet audaimania (1097b6-21 vs. 1098a7-18) itis altogether illegitimate ta argue, as Kenny does, dhat the same conflict between NE VI and X proves they da not belong to the same work, 1 proceed mow to che heart of Kenny's case for the Eudemian hypothesis, the sword-coumts presented in his central chapters. He reports relative fre- ‘quencies for some 38 panicles and connectives (ch. 4) some 19 prepositions, a variety of adverbs, pronouns and demonstratives, and the definite article (ch 5}, and a group of Aristotelian technical werms of logic, psychology, metaphysics and ethics ch. 6). The message the murobers are presented as celling is that che usage of the CB resembles, in case after case, the syle and. usage of the BE much more closely chan that of the NE, and that therefore the restlt af placing the CR with the BE books to form a single treatise would not cause any surprise, from the statistical point of view, whereas, if taken as NE books, dhey would stand out like sore thumbs. ‘One knows, of course, that statistics can be worse than damn lies: depend- ing on what one tests for, and (ever more) on how ane draws up the test, one ‘can support significantly divergenc inferences from precisely the same data. Ie isescential, herefare, toexamine closely the nature of the testimpored. Kenny follows essentially the same procedures in all three statistical chapters. He introduces and explains his method in chapter 4, n particles and connective and in what fallow [sill concentrate on this part of his argument, Since [ wil, ‘mostly he probing his methods, tesing ta see whether they are properly geared. ta pick out significant features of liverary style, such as might offer evidence for the original context of the CB, much of what I say about his treatment. of particles ought ta carry over (o his treatment of the prepositions, ee., and the technical terms for which statistics are provided in chs. 5 and 6. In general, I think, Kenny's methods are not neatly sensitive enought co the ways in which the occurrence of one word in a sentence or other context may significantly increase the likelinood of a reoccurrence of the same word, ar the occurrence of somne specific other word, aiule later on, Thus in his study of particles and connectives he reports the occurrences of each word singty—all the occur rences of kai, of¢e,of man, of de, of oun, and so on, are reported separately. This means that wherever t'_. 1¢ (both... and) occurs, it gets counted a5 10 ‘occurrences afte, rather than one of tt (similarly for men. ..de and bai. . aij; that no discrimination among the various forces and uses of dai gets recorded: that noattention is paid tothe many significantly different combina- tions in which individual particles may appear. cis the use of these combina tions, and not che individbal particles, that hetrays an author's style. Ta speak, as his statistics do, oF "the" Frequency af kai ar ofd2,r oF oun, isto say nothing 386 Nous yetabout possible variations in style and usage. Ie isna feature of Greek style co Use kai or # or dz, for example, mare often, of relatively less aften, than other authors; whatmattersishow they are used, and Kenay'sstatistiesare simply oo crudely assembled co say anything at all about this. Moreover {and datnag- ingly), where under one head are atsembled statistics relating to several differ- cent usages it may well happen that cwo texts will differ significantly in the ‘overall frequency unthout differing significantly inthe frequency of any but one of the sudisidual usages that are lumped together wo get che overall result Far this reason, to know whether a difference in overall frequency of any particle speesevidence of an important difference of syle one would certainly eed (0 ac the breakdawn into individual usages, Since he does nat pravide these, ‘much of Kenny's evidence in the chapter on particles is inconchusive. ‘The way in which Kenny exploies what statisticians call che chi-squared test of internal homogeneity in 2 sample population raises similar suspicions (see pp-89 (). He employsthis esti the chapter on particles, and presupposes its results in dhe Later chapters, where (see Lables 5.8, 5.9, 6.9, 6.10) he regards himself as entitled eo calculate and employan "expected vate of occurrence” far certain word-graups per 1000 words af text this depends upon the assumption ‘of homogeneity. Ia the chapter on particles, le considers how many of 24 separate Words are distributed roughly uniformly within each of the three Cexts, EB, NE and CB. This he does with the aid of chi-squared tests on all hhypacheses:thac each word is uniformly discributed in each text. Fareach word he ealculeatesa chi-squared value per texcby suraming chat word's chi-squared values across the different books making tp the text, On the basis of these sums, he concludes that the NE is very unhomagencaus {few individual wards distributed evenly), whereasEE and CB axe, he claims, quite homogeneous (CB very much 50). This is misleading, and, I ama told, violates the standard use of the chi-squared text by statisticians, Given the sensitivity of word-choice 10 variation in subject matter and ather Features af the context, and given that itis the choice among alternative particles ox combinations that is sigaificant as 4 ‘measure of suylstic variation, che only significant application of the chi-squared (esis co particle-usage as @ whole, not word by word. Statistically, cis is borne ‘out by the manner in which expecced frequencies far the individual words in. particular hooks are calculated—sce pp. 91-2.) If one takes che statistics Kenny provides (pp. 93, 94, 96) one cam estimate the overall cht-quared for each text by surnming the chi-squared values he gives for the particles in i; if one does this, allsAzegunits (NE, EE, CB) earn ut to be significantly unhomageneans by thestandards ofhomegentiy he himself pula. Les noc leicimateio argue that any hamageneicy there isin che use of particular particles in one ar the other of the competing contexts ought ta be preserved by theCA,ifitbelongs in that context. And so faras homogeneity in overall particle usage goes—ard this isthe only significant sore of homogeneity to consider—it appears that no argumencatalfcanbejusufed, since al hse untsare internally sigificany nhomogeneaus.© In these and other ways one must be dissatisfied with Kenny’s statistical argument. His dara, being entirely computer-generated, are themselves much agrosser than they need have been; and even with more refined raw data the Process of evaluation would have to be catried ane stage further than Kenny

    You might also like