tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post111491299273417873..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: How Would Approximation Work Here?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1114950469252534512005-05-01T08:27:00.000-04:002005-05-01T08:27:00.000-04:00Sean Kelsay writes:"But this much is clear, that i...Sean Kelsay writes:<BR/><BR/>"But this much is clear, that it will be from a fairly abstract and theoretical point of view that we are asking whether or not the idea seems correct or helpful."<BR/><BR/>Okay, but then doesn't this expose Lear to the objection that an account involving 'approximation' belongs to natural science or metaphysics, that it's not proper (<I>oikeion</I> ) to ethics--<I>and that's why we don't find it discussed in NE!</I><BR/><BR/>Annas complained that, if approximation were at work in NE, then large portions of Aristotle's natural philosophy and metaphysics would have to be presupposed. Now add: approximation is not explicitly stated in NE; approximation makes sense, if at all, from a fairly abstract and theoretical point of view. And it begins to seem best to conclude that the doctrine is somewhere else, not in the <I>Ethics</I>! <BR/><BR/> <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Michael PakalukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1114944107988351782005-05-01T06:41:00.000-04:002005-05-01T06:41:00.000-04:00The comparison with Plato would work, it seems to ...The comparison with Plato would work, it seems to me, if Aristotle counted ethical ideals (even stories, paradigms, exemplars, heros) as among the things one would want to contemplate. But he doesn't seem to think that. He doesn't even say (which would make the whole problem a lot easier, I think) that the <I>Nicomachean Ethics</I>  gives material for contemplation. (If it did, then, again, we could say that in acting rightly we were merely <I>doing </I>what we had previously been <I>contemplating</I>.) He seems to count the <I>Ethics </I>as an expression of <I>phronesis</I>, not <I>theoria</I>. <BR/><BR/><A></A><A></A>Posted by<A><B> </B></A>Michael PakalukAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1114933345531928352005-05-01T03:42:00.000-04:002005-05-01T03:42:00.000-04:00Is it useful to think of approximation as a famili...Is it useful to think of approximation as a familiar kind of Platonic mimesis?<BR/>Imagine, first, an artist blessed with a noesis of the Beautiful and moved by it to try to express that vision by making or doing something humanly beautiful ( a statue, a play, a ballet ). The statue of course can at best imitate some formal harmonies or ratios that he intuits in the Beautiful. But the artist is moved to this artful poeisis as a natural response to his noesis/vision, which is the cause of it if you wish.<BR/>Just so, the philosopher contemplates Justice and is inspired by it to make just laws and administer justice in a fashion that resembles perfect justice as far as this is possible. The philosopher sees himself as artfully creating a just state as a natural response to his vision of Justice.<BR/>We should appreciate this sort of statue, or statute, making as art that aims deliberately to realize a sensible imitation of Beauty or Justice. Arguably, this is the best kind of art, the highest form of poeisis a human can aspire to, directly inspired by a noesis of the transcendent verities.<BR/>Michael’s example of returning the $10 is a little too pedestrian an act of honesty to quickly connect with this account , but the rule of returning what is not yours is intuitively a good law to enact in the just state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com