The Good or the Wild at Aristotle Eudemian Ethics 8.3?

IF 0.7 2区 历史学 0 CLASSICS CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY Pub Date : 2023-04-01 DOI:10.1086/724184
Christopher Bobonich
{"title":"The Good or the Wild at Aristotle Eudemian Ethics 8.3?","authors":"Christopher Bobonich","doi":"10.1086/724184","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The traditional understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics 8.3 requires emending the text at least two places, the more important of which changes the manuscripts’ characterization of the Spartans as “wild men” (ἄγριοι) to “good men” (ἀγαθοί). Neither emendation has any manuscript support and if they are rejected, we avoid some apparent philosophical problems. This article examines a new proposal to reject both emendations and argues that, despite the attractions of rejecting them, this chapter’s rhetorical and logical structure shows that they should be accepted. It also suggests a way to defuse the problems to which the emendations apparently give rise.","PeriodicalId":46255,"journal":{"name":"CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY","volume":"118 1","pages":"172 - 193"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/724184","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The traditional understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian Ethics 8.3 requires emending the text at least two places, the more important of which changes the manuscripts’ characterization of the Spartans as “wild men” (ἄγριοι) to “good men” (ἀγαθοί). Neither emendation has any manuscript support and if they are rejected, we avoid some apparent philosophical problems. This article examines a new proposal to reject both emendations and argues that, despite the attractions of rejecting them, this chapter’s rhetorical and logical structure shows that they should be accepted. It also suggests a way to defuse the problems to which the emendations apparently give rise.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
亚里士多德《伦理学》8.3:善还是野?
对亚里士多德《欧德美伦理学》8.3的传统理解要求至少在两个地方对文本进行校订,其中更重要的是改变了手稿对斯巴达人“野人”的描述(ἄγρις)改为“好人”(ἀγαθιί)。这两个校订都没有任何手稿支持,如果它们被拒绝,我们会避免一些明显的哲学问题。本文考察了拒绝这两种校订的新建议,并认为,尽管拒绝它们很有吸引力,但本章的修辞和逻辑结构表明,它们应该被接受。它还提出了一种解决校订显然引起的问题的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
61
期刊介绍: Classical Philology has been an internationally respected journal for the study of the life, languages, and thought of the Ancient Greek and Roman world since 1906. CP covers a broad range of topics from a variety of interpretative points of view. CP welcomes both longer articles and short notes or discussions that make a significant contribution to the study of Greek and Roman antiquity. Any field of classical studies may be treated, separately or in relation to other disciplines, ancient or modern. In particular, we invite studies that illuminate aspects of the languages, literatures, history, art, philosophy, social life, and religion of ancient Greece and Rome. Innovative approaches and originality are encouraged as a necessary part of good scholarship.
期刊最新文献
Turkish validity and reliability of telemedicine awareness, knowledge, attitude and skills questionnaire. Escaping Cicero: “Dionysius” and the Limits of the Archive Achilles and the Resources of Genre: Epitaph, Hymnos, and Paean in Iliad 22.386–94 Fragmentary Texts and the Limits of Literary Reference: Ennius’ Hannibal and Cicero’s Pro Balbo in Lucan’s Bellum civile Caligula, Midas, and the Failure to Make Gold
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1