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

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分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY CLASSICS-

CiteScore

0.70

自引率

0.00%

发文量

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.