尤德米安·埃尔根论证的“属于一种”解读

Q1 Arts and Humanities Ancient Philosophy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5840/ancientphil202242232

Daniel Ferguson

{"title":"尤德米安·埃尔根论证的“属于一种”解读","authors":"Daniel Ferguson","doi":"10.5840/ancientphil202242232","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aristotle does not uniquely specify, much less define, eudaimonia in the EE’s ergon argument (1218b31-1219a39). He concludes simply that eudaimonia belongs to a certain kind. That Aristotle claims to have offered a horos of eudaimonia (1219a39-40) does not show that he has uniquely specified eudaimonia. This interpretation has implications for our understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian account of eudaimonia; of Eudemian methodology; and of his use of ergon argument more generally.","PeriodicalId":38413,"journal":{"name":"Ancient Philosophy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The ‘Belonging to a Kind’ Reading of the Eudemian Ergon Argument\",\"authors\":\"Daniel Ferguson\",\"doi\":\"10.5840/ancientphil202242232\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aristotle does not uniquely specify, much less define, eudaimonia in the EE’s ergon argument (1218b31-1219a39). He concludes simply that eudaimonia belongs to a certain kind. That Aristotle claims to have offered a horos of eudaimonia (1219a39-40) does not show that he has uniquely specified eudaimonia. This interpretation has implications for our understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian account of eudaimonia; of Eudemian methodology; and of his use of ergon argument more generally.\",\"PeriodicalId\":38413,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ancient Philosophy\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ancient Philosophy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil202242232\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ancient Philosophy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5840/ancientphil202242232","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

亚里士多德并没有在EE的ergon论证(1218b31-1219a39)中唯一地指定，更不用说定义快乐了。他的结论很简单，快乐属于某种类型。亚里士多德声称他提供了一种快乐的恐惧(1219a39-40)，这并不表明他唯一地指定了快乐。这种解释对我们理解亚里士多德对快乐的描述有启示;Eudemian方法论;以及他对ergon论证的广泛运用。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

The ‘Belonging to a Kind’ Reading of the Eudemian Ergon Argument

Aristotle does not uniquely specify, much less define, eudaimonia in the EE’s ergon argument (1218b31-1219a39). He concludes simply that eudaimonia belongs to a certain kind. That Aristotle claims to have offered a horos of eudaimonia (1219a39-40) does not show that he has uniquely specified eudaimonia. This interpretation has implications for our understanding of Aristotle’s Eudemian account of eudaimonia; of Eudemian methodology; and of his use of ergon argument more generally.

求助全文

通过发布文献求助，成功后即可免费获取论文全文。去求助

来源期刊