Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics PDF
Preview Levels of Argument: A Comparative Study of Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics
Levels of Argument Levels of Argument ’ A Comparative Study of Plato s ’ Republic and Aristotle s Nicomachean Ethics Dominic Scott 1 3 GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries #DominicScott2015 Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2015 Impression:1 Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2014949760 ISBN 978–0–19–924964–0 Printedandboundby CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork. Acknowledgements I have incurred numerous debts in writing this book. It was completed whileIwasinthePhilosophyDepartmentattheUniversityofVirginia, and I am grateful to the university for its support, as well as to my colleaguesinthedepartment,especiallyDanDevereuxandJorgeSecada, department chair for most of my time there. I also benefited from teaching this materialin seminars tomystudents,graduateand under- graduate,especiallyLisaHechtman,IanHensley,GwenNally,Douglass Reed,andStacieThyrion. I received encouragement from several colleagues and friends, par- ticularlyGailFineandTerryIrwin.IwasveryfortunatetobeaVisiting FellowatMertonCollege,Oxfordduring2010,whereIwasabletofocus oncrucialpartsofthebook.Alongtheway,somechaptersweregivenas talksatvariousinstitutions,includingCornellUniversity,CUNYGradu- ate Center, Johns Hopkins University, King’s College London, Peking University, and the universities of Cambridge, Oxford, São Paulo, and Virginia. I would like to thank members of these audiences for their feedback. Towards the end, Dan Devereux and David Sedley read the manuscriptinitsentiretyandgavemeextraordinarilyusefulcomments. IamverygratefultoPeterMomtchiloffforhispatienceandsupportover alongperiod,andtothetworeadersforOxfordUniversityPress,oneof whom subsequently revealed his identity as Eric Brown. Their incisive feedbackhassavedmefromnumerouserrors.Iwouldalsoliketothank KimRichardsonforinvaluablehelpinthefinalstagesofproduction. ToLauraBironIowemorethanIcan possiblyexpress; herwisdom, humour, and forbearance have been a constant support. For her, it has beenthelongerroute. This book is dedicated to the memory of my father, Rivers Scott (1921–2014). He was a man of extraordinary charm and intelligence, whohadalongcareerasajournalist,literaryreviewer,publisher,editor, andagent.Brilliantathisjob,hewasnonethelesshappyforotherstotake the applause. It was he who originally steered me towards the Classics, andtohisalmamater,Cambridge,whereIwaseducated(thoughhewas delightedformetopublishwithOxford).Asaneditor,hesethimselfthe vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS highest standards of insight, clarity, and elegance. If I have come any- whereclose,letthatbemytribute. Finally,Iwouldlike tothankthepublishers of theProceedings ofthe Boston Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy and Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophyfor permission toreusetheoccasionalparagraphor sentencefromScott(2000a)and(2000c)respectively. Contents Introduction 1 Part I. Plato’s Republic 1. TheShorterRouteinRepublicII–IV 9 2. TheAdequacyoftheShorterRoute 30 3. TheLongerRoute 42 4. TheRoleofMetaphysicsinRepublicVIII–IX 61 5. TheCaveAllegoryandtheStructureoftheRepublic 84 Part II. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics 6. PoliticalScienceandtheLongerRoute 105 7. TheLimitsofPrecision 123 8. ExplanationinNEI4and7 142 9. AristotleandtheRaceCourse 168 10. The‘EndoxicMethod’ 187 Conclusion 210 Bibliography 217 IndexLocorum 225 GeneralIndex 231 Introduction This book is a comparative study of Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, two of the most important works in ancient Greek philosophy, and indeed any period of philosophy. Given the extensive areas of overlap, the scope for comparison is enormous: both concern virtue, vice, moral psychology, education, pleasure, friendship, and eudaimonia (‘happiness’), to name the most obvious topics. Of course, one should not exaggerate the similarity between the two works; it is not as if the NE was written as a direct response to the Republic. And there are certainly disparities between the two, which shouldbeadmittedattheoutset.TheRepublicisaboutdoublethelength of the NE and this, in part, is because it concerns both the life of the individualandthatofthestate.ForAristotle,bycontrast,detailedissues about the state tend to be found in the Politics. In another sense the Republic seems narrower than the NE, in that its principal topics are justiceandinjustice,whileAristotleisinterestedinanalysingsomething more general: the human good, which turns out to include justice, but onlyasoneofitsmanycomponents. AnothermajordifferenceisthattheRepublicisadialogue,acarefully craftedliterarywork,containingmanylayersnotfoundintheNicoma- cheanEthics.Thedepictionofthecharactersishighlycomplex,asisthe interplaybetweenthem,andthereaderhastobeawareofthedialectical context of any particular argument. The Republic is also a work that drawsonarichliterarytradition,asisincreasinglyrecognized.1Forthese reasons (and others besides), it offers opportunities for different, but complementary,typesofanalysis.Butthisdoesnotmeanthatitcannot bestudiedasaworkofphilosophicalargumentandsetalongsidetheNE. 1 SeeHunter(2012)chapter2.
The list of books you might like
