Does Aristotle have a dialectical attitude in EE I 6? A negative answer

Authors

  • Fernando M. Mendonça Universidade Federal de Uberlândia (Brasil)

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_20_7

Keywords:

Dialectic, Causality, Endoxa, Phainomena

Abstract

In this paper, I analyse EE I 6, where Aristotle presented a famous methodological digression. Many interpreters have taken this chapter as advocating a dialectical procedure of enquiry. My claim is that Aristotle does not keep a dialectical attitude towards endoxa or phainomena in this chapter. In order to accomplish my goal, I shall show that EE I 6 does not provide enough evidence for the dialectical construal of it, and that this construal, in turn, hangs on some assumptions brought out from other Aristotelian works (EN and Top.), which do not provide good evidence either. By the examination of these assumptions, I intend to show that Aristotle is not carrying out any sort of dialectic, especially dialectic conceived as conceptual analysis seeking to save phainomena or endoxa.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

ANGIONI, L. (2012). Três tipos de argumento sofístico. Dis-sertatio, v.36, p.187-220BOLTON, R. (1990). The epistemological basis of Aristote-lian dialectic. In: DEVEREUX, D.; PELLEGRIN, P. (eds.).Bio-logie, Logique et Métaphysique chez Aristote. Paris, Éditions du CNRS, p.185-236

BOSTOCK, D. (2000). Aristotle’s Ethics. Oxford, Oxford Uni-versity Press.

COOPER, J. M. (2009). Nicomachean Ethics VII. 1-2: Introduction, Method, Puzzles. In: NATALI, C. (ed.). Aristotle’s Nico-machean Ethics, Book VII. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

FREDE, D. (2012). Endoxon Mistique. Oxford Studies in An-cient Philosophy 43. p.185-215

INWOOD, B.; WOOLF, R. (2013). Aristotle: Eudemian Ethics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

IRWIN, T. H. (1988). Aristotle’s First Principles. Oxford, Clarendon Press

KENNY, A. (2011). Aristotle $e Eudemian Ethics. Oxford, Oxford University Press

KARBOWSKI, J. (2015). Phainomena as Witnesses and Examples: $e Methodology of Eudemian Ethics 1.6. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 49. p 193-226

KRAUT, R. (2006). The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, OUP https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470776513

LESHER, J. H. (2010). Saphêneia in Aristotle: Clarity, Pre-cision and Knowledge. Apeiron 43, p.143-156. https://doi.org/10.1515/apeiron.2010.43.4.143

LIDDELL, H. G.; SCOTT, R. (1996). Greek-English Lexicon: with a revised supplement. Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MENDONÇA, F. M. (2014). A utilidade dos Tópicos em re-lação aos princípios das ciências. In: ANGIONI, L. (ed.). Lógica e Ciência em Aristóteles. Campinas, Editora PHI.

MENDONÇA, F. M. (2015). Os Tópicos e a Competência Dialética: Lógica e Linguagem na Codificação do Debate Dialético (Tese de Doutorado). Campinas, Universidade Estadual de Campinas

OWEN, G. E. L. (1986). Tithenai ta phainomena. In: NUS-SBAUM, M. C. (ed.). Logic, Science and Dialectic. New York, Cornell University Press, p.239-251

ROBERTS, W. R. (1991). Aristotle’s Rhetoric. In: BARNES, J. (ed.). The complete works of Aristotle. Princeton, Princeton University Press

ROSS, W, D. (1995). Aristotle. 6ed. London and New York, Routledge

ROWE, C.; BROADIE, S. (2002). Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford, Oxford University PressSMITH, R. (1997). Aristotle’s Topics: Books I and VIII with excerpts from related texts. Oxford, Clarendon Press

WARD, J. (2008). Aristotle on Homonymy: Dialectic and Science. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

WOODS, M. (1992). Aristotle Eudemian Ethics. Oxford, Clarendon Press

ZILLIG, R. (2014). As relações entre o proêmio da Ética Eu-dêmia e restante da obra: uma discussão a partir da análise de Ética Eudêmia I.7. Philósophos 19, n.2, p.221-243

ZINGANO, M. (2007). Aristotle and the Problems of Method in Ethics. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 32, p.297-330.

Downloads

Published

2017-05-02

How to Cite

Mendonça, F. M. (2017). Does Aristotle have a dialectical attitude in EE I 6? A negative answer . Revista Archai, (20), 161. https://doi.org/10.14195/1984-249X_20_7

Issue

No. 20 (2017): No. 20 (2017): Revista Archai nº20 (May, 2017)

Section

Dossier

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Fernando M. Mendonça

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Given the public access policy of the journal, the use of the published texts is free, with the obligation of recognizing the original authorship and the first publication in this journal. The authors of the published contributions are entirely and exclusively responsible for their contents.

1. The authors authorize the publication of the article in this journal.
2. The authors guarantee that the contribution is original, and take full responsibility for its content in case of impugnation by third parties.
3. The authors guarantee that the contribution is not under evaluation in another journal.
4. The authors keep the copyright and convey to the journal the right of first publication, the work being licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License-BY.
5. The authors are allowed and stimulated to publicize and distribute their work on-line after the publication in the journal.
6. The authors of the approved works authorize the journal to distribute their content, after publication, for reproduction in content indexes, virtual libraries and similars.
7. The editors reserve the right to make adjustments to the text and to adequate the article to the editorial rules of the journal.