Already a subscriber? - Login here
Not yet a subscriber? - Subscribe here

Displaying: 101-110 of 2435 documents


session vi: action, willing, and knowing
101. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Traci Phillipson The Will in Averroes and Aquinas
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Despite the drastic differences in their views of the intellect and the location and specific function of the will both Aquinas and Averroes are able to claim that their systems allow for moral agency because they both place the will—a faculty that is of prime importance to the process of moral action—in the individual. Both philosophers think that they are following Aristotle in making their claims about the will and the intellects. This paper will examine the issue of will and the related issue of the intellects as it appears in the Aristotelian texts and in the subsequent work of Averroes and Aquinas. It will argue that at least some of the divergence in Averroes and Aquinas can be attributed to (1) an issue of translation regarding De Anima, and (2) a difference in the role of cogitation and the intellects regarding will.
102. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
John Schwenkler On Doing and Knowing
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
I propose that the knowledge of what one is intentionally doing counts as “non-observational” because of the role it plays in guiding the action itself. I then consider an objection: is it possible for the knowledge of one’s present action to contribute to the guidance of what one presently does? I argue that this is indeed possible, and that the failure to see how this is rests on questionable metaphysical assumptions about the nature of causality.
session vii: persons and practices
103. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Douglas Kries Leo Strauss on Why Aristotle Is the Founder of Political Science but Not of Political Philosophy
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
This paper explores Leo Strauss’s puzzling claim, published in an essay on Aristotle’s Politics, that Aristotle was the founder of political science even though Socrates was the founder of political philosophy. In order to explain Strauss’s claim, the paper analyzes the distinction between political science and political philosophy as Strauss understood the matter. This analysis shows that Strauss offers us a very “Socratic” view of Aristotle’s Politics; that is, Aristotle’s political science shares the concern of Socrates for initiating the philosophical quest with a naïve inquiry into the question of the human good and then urging the inquiry toward the questions of the theoretical or contemplative life. Such a view of Aristotle’s political science, if pursued seriously, would radically alter common approaches to reading Aristotle.
104. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Daniel P. Maher Friendship and Teaching Philosophy in Nicomachean Ethics IX.1
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle discusses the relation between teachers and students during his treatment of “non-uniform friends.” These friends exchange goods differing in kind (e.g., something useful is exchanged for pleasure). Such friendships depend on the needs of the friends, and we are invited to ask whether some need induces a philosopher to teach a not-yet-philosophical student. In this paper I argue that the philosophical teacher does not approach his pupil out of need nor as he would approach a contemplative friend who is an equal. The teacher chooses to benefit students as a morally virtuous human being would, although not as if his happiness depends upon their success in learning. A teacher is not an ordinary benefactor, intent upon seeing his power made actual in some other person. Aristotle’s philosophical teachers seem to be simultaneously more generous and less interested in their students.
session viii: humorous or serious?
105. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Mathew Lu Getting Serious about Seriousness: On the Meaning of Spoudaios in Aristotle’s Ethics
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
In the following paper I discuss the under-appreciated role that the concept of the morally serious (spoudaios) person plays in Aristotle’s moral philosophy. I argue that the conventional English rendering of spoudaios as “good” has a tendency to cut us off from important nuances in Aristotle’s consideration of the virtuous person. After discussing aspects of his use of the concept in the Nicomachean Ethics and the Politics I dismiss a misunderstanding of seriousness as a kind of morally indifferent personality trait. I close by briefly reflecting on how an absence of moral seriousness characterizes much contemporary moral theorizing and produces what Anscombe described as the “corrupt mind.”
106. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Joshua Schulz How Do You Know If You Haven’t Tried It?: Aristotelian Reflections on Hateful Humor
abstract | view |  rights & permissions | cited by
Howard Curzer argues that Aristotle’s virtue of wit is a social virtue, a form of philia: conversation with a witty person is pleasing rather than offensive or hateful. On the basis of an analogy between wit and temperance, Curzer holds that the witty person is good at detecting (and avoiding) hateful humor but is not necessarily an expert in judging the funniness of jokes. Curzer thus defends a moderate position in contemporary philosophy of humor—a Detraction Account of hateful humor—arguing that the humorousness of a joke is an aggregate pleasure resulting from several factors in addition to funniness. While sympathetic to Curzer’s overall approach to wit, this essay criticizes the Detraction Account as inconsistent with Aristotle’s text and implausible in its own right, and suggests a friendly amendment based on those criticisms.
acpa reports and minutes
107. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
R. E. Houser Minutes of the 2013 Executive Council Meeting
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
108. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
R. E. Houser Secretary’s Report (2012–2013)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
109. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Treasurer’s Report (2012)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by
110. Proceedings of the American Catholic Philosophical Association: Volume > 87
Financial Statements (2011 and 2012)
view |  rights & permissions | cited by