tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post111504074499780727..comments2023-11-16T07:12:40.867-05:00Comments on Dissoi Blogoi: Veatch's ImpietyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1115084228000532182005-05-02T21:37:00.000-04:002005-05-02T21:37:00.000-04:00I don't think the flourishing of eternal, disembod...I don't think the flourishing of eternal, disembodied, divine beings is going to be of much help here. Ignotus per ignotius. Larry Jost and others have helped us see how vacuous Aristotle's account of divine flourishing really is. And perhaps must be.<BR/>Suppose I had sat down with Veatch and said, "Look, I've decided to center my life on trying to come to a theoretical understanding of Justice and Beauty and Truth and the other eternal verities. Furthermore, I'm conducting the rest of my life as above all an artful attempt to realize or express in concrete terms the visions that I obtain of the Things in themselves. My practical life is not just analogous or similar in some formal respects to my theoretical pursuits. It is in the strongest sense for the sake of expressing or "approximating" those theoretical ideals."<BR/>What kind of reply could Veatch make to this picture of flourishing ? Is there something obviously defective or deficient about it?<BR/>Granted Aristotle, or whomever pasted the NE together, does say anything like this. But we have an important Aristotelian aporia and I think the texts fail us. So what should say for Aristotle? Can we imagine a flourishing life centered on theoria that is also strongly connected to civic virtue, for example, as an attempt to create a just state in this world?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1115060738724464622005-05-02T15:05:00.000-04:002005-05-02T15:05:00.000-04:00I spoke poorly. I was referring to MP's claim tha...I spoke poorly. I was referring to MP's claim that the Unmoved Mover is the principle of goodness for the entire universe. My apologies for any confusion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1115050987196426582005-05-02T12:23:00.000-04:002005-05-02T12:23:00.000-04:00I second MP contra David, and cite EN VI.7: "for i...I second MP contra David, and cite EN VI.7: "for it would be absurd to regard politics or prudence as the best [disposition], if man is not the best of beings in the universe....And if one were to say that man is the best of the animals, this too would make no difference; for there are also other things much more divine in the nature than man, like the most visible objects of which the universe is composed (Apostle trans.--approximately 1141a20-22, a35-41b2).<BR/><BR/>I don't know if this reifies the good, but it certainly makes sophia higher than phronesis by the criteria that MP identifies, viz. the object of the intellect.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11017234.post-1115043267869189942005-05-02T10:14:00.000-04:002005-05-02T10:14:00.000-04:00Since Aristotle never reifies the good in this way...Since Aristotle never reifies the good in this way how can we attribute that thought to him?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com