Cet article se propose d’examiner les rapports complexes qu’entretiennent Eunome et Grégoire de Nysse vis-à-vis de Plotin, en ce qui concerne la capacité du langage humain à dire le divin. D’un côté, Eunome trouve dans le système hiérarchisé des principes plotiniens et dans la théorie néoplatonicienne de l’homonymie des points d’appui pour étayer sa propre vision des rapports entre les Personnes divines. Mais de l’autre, l’apophatisme de Plotin présente de profondes affinités avec le projet de Grégoire de préserver le mystère inconnaissable de l’ousia divine. De ce point de vue, la théorie d’Eunome selon laquelle les noms divins traduisent directement l’essence de Dieu se situe sur la rive opposée au néoplatonisme.

Le Phèdre est considéré comme un dialogue portant sur le beau. Mais du beau il n’est question qu’à travers trois discours qui portent sur l’amour. La tradition des commentaires du Phèdre, telles les scholies d’Hermias, fait état d’une forme d’initiation qui permet de passer de la beauté singulière d’un corps à la beauté des logoi (éloges, discours amoureux), puis à la connaissance de la seule beauté vraie puisque parfaite, la beauté intelligible. C’est la leçon de Diotime, du Banquet, qui serait ainsi appliquée par Socrate à Phèdre dans le dialogue éponyme afin de transformer la fascination pour la rhétorique en amour de la sagesse et passer de l’imitation des belles paroles à la perfection de l’identité avec le beau dans l’Un. Cependant, la beauté évoquée par Socrate est visible et ne correspond pas à cette perfection de l’identité dans l’intelligible à laquelle aspire l’amant de la sagesse, puisque l’âme l’atteint non par un nécessaire exercice sur elle-même mais par un acte de reconnaissance qui la transcende. À l’inverse de ce qui se produit dans le Banquet, dans le Phèdre ce n’ est pas le beau qui conduit à l’amour, mais l’amour qui prépare l’âme à reconnaître le beau. Parler du beau revient alors à confier à l’âme, et à elle seule dans ce cas, l’accès aux vertus épiphaniques du logos. Ces dialogues sont revisités par Plotin dans deux textes consacrés à la question du beau (Ennéades I, 6, «Sur le Beau» [T.1] et V, 8, «Sur la beauté intelligible» [T.31]). Le modèle du discours amoureux demeure toujours le moyen privilégié pour définir le beau en même temps que pour s’exercer au perfectionnement de soi. Pourquoi la réflexivité de l’éros est-elle appelée à jouer un rôle essentiel à l’égard du beau, cette catégorie appelée plus tard transcendantale?

Il y a dans les Dialogues de Platon une idée scénique de l’âme. Le texte lui-même peut-être lu comme une représentation, comme une mise en scène de la pensée qui se déploie dans l’âme. L’âme, à son tour, contient une population psychique avec de nombreux habitants. Ces habitants de l’âme parlent entre eux, et ce sont ces discours qui font (sont) l’âme, parce que la psyche pour Platon a une nature linguistique, est un tissu de mots et d’images. Dans le Philèbe l’âme est assimilée à un biblion, et les textes de Platon, tout autant que les textes du théâtre, sont des biblia. L’écriture des logoi sokratikoi a pour but la mémoire (mneme) et la conservation (sōtēría) de l’enseignement du maître pendant son absence. Cependant – comme dit le Phédre – le discours du maître doit s’écrire dans l’âme des disciples, et tous les discours – comme dit le Protagoras – se gardent uniquement dans l’âme des hommes. L’âme est un texte qui garde les discours et les images, et dans l’âme, comme sur une scène, on parle avec les autres ou avec soi même. L’idée de l’âme comme une scène est fondée aussi bien sur la définition de la pensée qui – dans le Théétète – est «une discussion que l’âme elle-même poursuit tout du long avec elle-même».

Cet article étudie le rapport particulier établi par Plotin entre deux notions, l’antilêpsis et la phantasia, pour penser la prise de conscience par l’âme de certains «objets» et de certaines activités. Car celle-ci pose un problème que Plotin a formulé clairement, à la fin du traité 10 (V, 1), sans lui trouver encore de solution absolument satisfaisante. Si l’antilêpsis a besoin de la phantasia pour s’exercer, peut-il en être de même pour les activités supérieures de l’âme dont elle voudrait prendre conscience, puisque la phantasia se rattache à la sensation dont elle est issue ? La question est alors de savoir si les réalités supérieures échappent à toute conscience ou si cette dernière peut les saisir, au moins sous la forme qui lui est propre. On cherchera ici à exposer les aspects principaux de ce problème, mais surtout, à partir de textes tirés des traités 27 (IV, 3) et 46 (I, 4), à saisir la solution que Plotin lui apporte.

Intentionality is a key concept in the phenomenological tradition, but also figures in several other currents of contemporary thought, often as a criteria of consciousness. Husserl adopted the principle of intentionality from Franz Brentano, who was heavily influenced by Aristotle and medieval Aristotelian tradition. Considering that intentionality means a direction of thought or behaviour, it is quite evident that Aristotle remains a major reference in this context : through the idea of natural entelechies, the theory of life, perception and thinking and through the ethical descriptions of dispositions, virtues and decisions. Whatever point of view chosen, it seems obvious that the equivalent of Husserlian intentionality must be something else in Aristotle than a principle of constitution of objects in the sense of modern (Cartesian and Kantian) tradition. What could be called intentionality in Aristotle seems rather to be something like a direction of behaviour, founded on natural tendencies. Such a «physiomorphic» intentionality can shed some light on the contemporary discussions concerning consciousness, knowledge and affectivity and similarly differentiate and situate the «modern» critique of teleology. The present article deals with these questions in relation to phantasia and orexis.

D’après l’oracle d’Apollon, Plotin avait une capacité extraordinaire à ne jamais vraiment succomber au sommeil. Porphyre, dans le commentaire qu’il donne de cet oracle, introduit l’idée remarquable d’une double attention, tournée tout à la fois vers l’intérieur et vers l’extérieur. L’éveil de Plotin ne serait donc pas simplement une autre manière de parler de la contemplation, mais engloberait aussi un pôle «pratique», dirigé vers le monde des sens et de l’action. L’étude des Ennéades nous montre que le commentaire de Porphyre s’appuie vraisemblablement sur Plotin lui-même, lequel soutient que l’éveil du sage, fondé dans la contemplation des intelligibles (des Formes que Plotin présente littéralement comme «insomniaques»), s’exprime également à travers l’action. La thématique de l’éveil se révèle ainsi riche en enseignements, en particulier en ce qu’elle nous force à réviser notre interprétation de la vie du sage selon Plotin, une vie qui ne rejette pas l’action, mais fonde bien plutôt celle-ci dans la contemplation.

The epimeleia tês psyches, that is, the formation and purification of the soul, is an important topic in Ancient Philosophy. As the soul is immaterial it can be difficult to understand what is meant by the idea of a formation of the soul. Many philosophers in Antiquity try to explain the meaning of the formation of the soul by using linguistic imagery, that is, similes, metaphors and myths. In this paper some of these images, in particular, the images of the painter and sculptor of the soul, are presented and analysed. The function of these linguistic forms in the logic of the text and the conceptual differences between the image of the painter and the image of the sculptor are discussed.

The paper raises the question of the relationship between the description of the soul as logos and the description of its cognitive activities as logismos in Plotinus’ Enneads V, 1 [10] et IV, 3 [27]. It first offers an interpretation of the definition of the soul as a logos of the intellect in V, 1 [10]. Then it scrutinises the use of the terms logismos and logizesthai in the same treatise and compares it to a similar use of these terms in IV, 3 [27]. In both treatises, these terms refer to two distinct cognitive activities of the soul, one of which is the activity of a soul remaining in the intelligible realm and contemplating the cognitive contents of the divine intellect, while the other one denotes the defective cognitive activity of an embodied soul. In its concluding section the paper deals with Plotinus’ explanation, in IV, 3 [27], 30, of how the accomplished cognitive activity atthe level of the soul as logos of the intellect becomes a defective logismos at the level of an embodied soul. The author stresses the role of the embodied soul’s faculty of representation.

This article aims at showing that the definition of pleasure in Plato’s dialogues cannot be separated from a political educational program and an anthropology that consider pleasure as the main vehicle towards virtue. The political use of pleasure is as important as its definition, insofar as its manifestation and content are the prerogatives of the legislator. All pleasures are politically meaningful in the Republic and in the Laws, and among them especially the triad hunger, thirst and sex ; in making pleasures a “public” issue, as pleasures are object of surveillance and political control, Plato gives several means in order to shape the way pleasures are felt in the city, and in order to make the community of pleasure and pain a fundamental role in unifying the city under the reason’s commands.

How does Plato conceive the pleasures attendant on the virtuous life? Does he provide a specific account of them ? By reading through key passages from Laws book 5, Republic book 9 and the Philebus, I try to assess the way Plato endeavours to demonstrate that the virtuous life is also happy and thereby pleasant. I investigate to what extent these texts put forward any specificity of the pleasures of being virtuous, and how far the account they provide harmonizes with Plato’s general views about pleasure.

In Protagoras 351b3‑358d4, Socrates apparently admits the use of pleasure and pain as criteria for distinguishing between good and bad. Focusing on this passage, my paper outlines three problems, raising from : (1) the contradiction between Socrates’ objection to pleasure in other platonic dialogues and his assent here to a hypothesis which identifies good with pleasure ; (2) the petitio principii apparently involved in Socrates’ argument to support the thought that knowledge is more powerful than emotions ; (3) the compatibility of his “ hedonist ” hypothesis with his “intellectualist” thought. My paper undertakes to reconstruct Socrates’ argument, in order to answer problem (2). I contend that this argument makes the humans admit they are deprived of the knowledge both of good and evil and of pleasant and painful, a point sufficient to silence them when they speak of “knowledge being defeated by pleasure”. This contention helps answering problem (1), through a distinction between so‑called pleasures (to which Socrates objects) and real ones (which he might accept). My conclusion answers problem (3), by showing that, held together, both the “hedonist” hypothesis and the “intellectualist” thought lead to not take pleasure for granted, as required to secure a philosophical approach.

ARISTOTLE ON PURSUIT AND AVOIDANCE. Pleasure and pain play an essential role in Aristotle’s conception of the goal‑directed activities of animals and human beings, since they trigger the reactions of pursuit or avoidance, and hence the entire behavior. The present paper inquires into Aristotle’s analysis of this phenomenon on the basis of De Anima III , chapter 7 and De Motu Animalium, chapters 6‑7‑8. The crucial move in this analysis is the definition of pleasure and pain given in both treatises : “To feel pleasure or pain is to actualize through the sensitive mean towards what is good or bad, as such”. The paper examines the meaning of this definition and shows how it connects and agrees with the explanation of the principles of the physical motions of animals in the De Motu Animalium.

Aristotle begins the discussion of pleasure in Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics with the claim that pleasure “is thought to be most properly connected with our kind,” (EN X 1, 1172a19‑23). In his positive account of pleasure in X 4, he suggests that we can somehow experience pleasure otherwise than “in time” (1174b2‑10). The aim of this article is to show how the claim that pleasure does not occur ‘in time’ might illuminate the claim that pleasure is most properly connected to our kind. The point, I will argue, is not only that pleasure is complete at every moment – that will be true of many activities – but also that pleasure has the same structure as the best activity available to us, and a structure different from the best activity available to other kinds. Several passages indicate that Aristotle believes that all living things act for the sake of immortality, understood as divine and eternal life, and connect the pursuit of eternal life with the activities that are natural to a species. These offer us a way to understand why the pleasure of contemplation is the best pleasure, and why pleasure is most intimately connected with our kind. I begin in section (ii) with an exploration of the pleasures proper to different activities which are in turn proper to different kinds. In subsequent sections (iii) I take a closer look at contemplation, particularly insofar as it is an activity that does not take place ‘in time’ but rather ‘in a moment’, and consider Aristotle’s reasons for describing such activities as wholes, or indivisible, or without parts ; and (iv) I turn to the relation between the activities and pleasures proper to different kinds and the possibilities available to those different kinds for approximating divine life. In the final section (v) I return to question of pleasure and its intimate connection with our kind.

Given the necessary connection between pleasure and energeia, the value of an aristotelian pleasure depends on the value of its correlative activity. Since the absolute pleasures the philokalos takes in his virtuous activities might go hand in hand with pains, the definition of absolute pleasure cannot rely on the distinction between mixed pleasure (pleasure with pain) versus pure pleasure (pleasure without pain). So, how can we characterize the pleasures of the temperate man (sophron) ? My thesis is that the right way to define the pleasures of the temperate man is to describe them as pleasures derived from differences. A pleasure derived from differences is involved in the pleasure human beings get from the formal use of their senses. It then belongs to the kind of pleasure they take in knowing. This formal use of the senses helps understanding how the pleasures of the temperate man can be separated from the pleasures enjoyed by children and animals.

In an evolutionist theory like that of Darwin, animal pleasure has a properly vital function in directing animals toward pleasant behaviors which also happen to be advantageous. The best example of this is probably sexual pleasure which contributes to the survival of species. Aristotelian fixism does not need such an analysis since Nature has provided living beings with an innate tendency to reproduce and pleasure cannot have an adaptative function, because adaptation is given to animals once and for all and cannot improve. The idea that pleasure induces an animal to adopt some useful behavior by trials and errors is unacceptable to Aristotle. Animals, on the other hand, being deprived of the perception of the good and the beautiful because they do not partake in reason, do not get pleasure from things in the world but in a coincidental way : the odor of the hare is pleasant to the dog because it is associated, in the dog’s perception, to the fact that dogs do eat hares. Far from being pleasant by itself, the odor of the hare is not attractive at all for a fed up dog. It remains for pleasure to be the sign of the good functioning of the organism, that is an hymn to the perfection of Nature.

Catharsis and tragic pleasure according to Aristotle. According to Aristotle, tragedies induce three different kinds of pleasures. First, there is the cognitive pleasure of imitation, since it is pleasurable to recognize in the imitation an object one already knows. Second, there is the aesthetic pleasure linked to the material parameters of the tragedy, that is the language, the show, and the performance (verses, singing, acting). Third, there is the “specific” pleasure of tragedy. This specific pleasure is linked to the affects of pity and fear through the process of catharsis. Although pity and fear are two opposite affects depending on the position of the subject relatively to an event, the spectator of the tragedy is bound to experience both of them simultaneously because of the ethical similarity the playwright must keep between him and the tragic hero. But pity and fear are also two opposite affects on the physiological level : pity is a warm affect, fear a cold one. Catharsis is then a physiological balancing of pity by fear, of warmth by cold, and reciprocally, and this continuous suppression of excesses of temperature through the tragic imitation, while bringing a feeling of relief and pleasure, rids the spectator of all excessive affects. Catharsis provides a healthy and hygienic pleasure, and so can Aristotle effectively reply to Plato’s criticism of tragedy.

This study aims at providing a global explanation of the good life or happiness according to Aristotle. By applying the method used in ethics by Aristotle, the specific content of happiness is determined, of which meditation is the essence, together with the practice of moral virtues. The article rests on a relatively new perspective, neither ‘exclusive’ nor ‘inclusive’, considering the results of each type of traditional interpretation, and shedding light upon the richness of all happiness’ dimensions.

The aim of this paper is to study some aspects of the Medieval Latin reception of Aristotle’s theory of pleasure (Eth. Nic. X). First, I introduce Aristotle’s position, with special attention to the problem of the ontological status of pleasure and the relationship between pleasure and the different genera of causes (viz. formal and final causality), as well as the somehow ambiguous exegesis of Michael of Ephesus. Second, I take into account the interpretation given by Albert the Great in his first commentary on the Ethics. Finally, I present some theological issues raised by Albert’s interpretation, in the discussions about beatific vision. The authors taken in account are James of Viterbo, Radulphus Brito, Peter Auriol and William of Ockham.

According to some testimonies, the Aristotelian ethics have been torn between a hedonist reading, as much as an anti‑hedonist one, throughout Antiquity. From Critolaos to Verginius Rufus and Sosicrates, pleasure is considered both as “an evil [that] gives birth to many other evils” and as the first appropriate thing and the supreme good. This noteworthy disagreement stems from a famous difficulty within the Aristotelian corpus, raised by Aspasius, i.e. the alleged coexistence of two ‘definitions’ of pleasure in Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics VII and X. In this paper, I offer a reconstruction of Alexander’s treatment of this difficulty, based on some passages from Alexander’s Ethical Problems and the Mantissa. I try to show that Alexander does not dismiss the so‑called “definition A” of pleasure (the unimpeded activity of one’s natural state) as being spurious, although he obviously values more the definition B (according to which pleasure perfects the activity as a kind of supervenient end). Even if he never openly brands the definition A as “dialectic” (like Aspasius), Alexander takes it as a reputable endoxon, which however needs to be emended in that it blurs the distinction between pleasure and activity. Pleasure only supervenes on the activity to which it is appropriate, and this supervenience is precisely what accounts for the inaccuracy of the definition A. As much as the child conflates the apparent good and the good, so the hedonist takes pleasure to be identical with the activity and the telos of human life. On the contrary, for Alexander, pleasure is actually only a sign of happiness and the shadow of the activity.