亚里士多德与情欲的目的,还是亚里士多德的情欲崇高?

IF 0.5 3区 哲学 0 PHILOSOPHY
Emanuela Bianchi
{"title":"亚里士多德与情欲的目的,还是亚里士多德的情欲崇高?","authors":"Emanuela Bianchi","doi":"10.1163/15691640-12341552","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>While Eros has a central philosophical function in the dialogues of Plato, it all but disappears as a philosophical term in the thought of Aristotle, and is replaced by the more rational and reciprocal relation of friendship, <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">φιλία</styled-content>. This essay asks what becomes of Eros in Aristotle’s thinking, whether as deity, natural or cosmic force, or mode of human relation. Drawing on the ancient epithet of Eros, <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">Ἔρως λυσιµελής</styled-content><i>,</i> unbinder of limbs, Aristotle’s usages of both <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">ἔρως</styled-content> and <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">λύσις</styled-content> (loosening, unbinding), respectively are traced in their ambivalence for his fundamentally organismic philosophy, insofar as they disturb the organism’s ontological integrity. With the assistance of Kristeva’s notion of the abject, it is argued that while Aristotle’s overt stance is a polemic against eros, his principal metaphysical innovations – the recasting of <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">ἀρχή</styled-content> as divine <styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">τέλος</styled-content>, and the separation of material and moving causes – are solutions (<styled-content lang=\"el-Grek\" xmlns:dc=\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\" xmlns:ifp=\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\">λύσεις</styled-content>) to aporias that may involve a traversal of the sublime that is also irreducibly corporeal and erotic.</p>","PeriodicalId":44158,"journal":{"name":"RESEARCH IN PHENOMENOLOGY","volume":"188 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aristotle and the Ends of Eros, or Aristotle’s Erotic Sublime?\",\"authors\":\"Emanuela Bianchi\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/15691640-12341552\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>While Eros has a central philosophical function in the dialogues of Plato, it all but disappears as a philosophical term in the thought of Aristotle, and is replaced by the more rational and reciprocal relation of friendship, <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">φιλία</styled-content>. This essay asks what becomes of Eros in Aristotle’s thinking, whether as deity, natural or cosmic force, or mode of human relation. Drawing on the ancient epithet of Eros, <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">Ἔρως λυσιµελής</styled-content><i>,</i> unbinder of limbs, Aristotle’s usages of both <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">ἔρως</styled-content> and <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">λύσις</styled-content> (loosening, unbinding), respectively are traced in their ambivalence for his fundamentally organismic philosophy, insofar as they disturb the organism’s ontological integrity. With the assistance of Kristeva’s notion of the abject, it is argued that while Aristotle’s overt stance is a polemic against eros, his principal metaphysical innovations – the recasting of <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">ἀρχή</styled-content> as divine <styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">τέλος</styled-content>, and the separation of material and moving causes – are solutions (<styled-content lang=\\\"el-Grek\\\" xmlns:dc=\\\"http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/\\\" xmlns:ifp=\\\"http://www.ifactory.com/press\\\">λύσεις</styled-content>) to aporias that may involve a traversal of the sublime that is also irreducibly corporeal and erotic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":44158,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"RESEARCH IN PHENOMENOLOGY\",\"volume\":\"188 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"RESEARCH IN PHENOMENOLOGY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341552\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"PHILOSOPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"RESEARCH IN PHENOMENOLOGY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15691640-12341552","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然爱神在柏拉图的对话中具有核心的哲学功能,但在亚里士多德的思想中,爱神作为一个哲学术语几乎消失了,取而代之的是更为理性和互惠的友谊关系,即φιλία。这篇文章探讨了爱神在亚里士多德思想中的地位,无论是作为神灵、自然或宇宙力量,还是作为人类关系的模式。亚里士多德借用古代对厄洛斯的称谓Ἔρως λυσιµελής, unbinder of limbs,分别追溯了他对 ἔρως和 λύσις (松弛、松绑) 的使用,以及它们对其基本有机体哲学的矛盾性,因为它们扰乱了有机体本体论的完整性。借助克里斯蒂娃的 "卑贱 "概念,本文认为,虽然亚里士多德的公开立场是反对情欲,但他的主要形而上学创新--将ἀρχή重塑为神圣的 τέλος、以及物质原因与运动原因的分离--都是解决困境的方法(λύσεις),这些困境可能涉及对崇高的穿越,而崇高也是不可或缺的肉体和情欲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aristotle and the Ends of Eros, or Aristotle’s Erotic Sublime?

While Eros has a central philosophical function in the dialogues of Plato, it all but disappears as a philosophical term in the thought of Aristotle, and is replaced by the more rational and reciprocal relation of friendship, φιλία. This essay asks what becomes of Eros in Aristotle’s thinking, whether as deity, natural or cosmic force, or mode of human relation. Drawing on the ancient epithet of Eros, Ἔρως λυσιµελής, unbinder of limbs, Aristotle’s usages of both ἔρως and λύσις (loosening, unbinding), respectively are traced in their ambivalence for his fundamentally organismic philosophy, insofar as they disturb the organism’s ontological integrity. With the assistance of Kristeva’s notion of the abject, it is argued that while Aristotle’s overt stance is a polemic against eros, his principal metaphysical innovations – the recasting of ἀρχή as divine τέλος, and the separation of material and moving causes – are solutions (λύσεις) to aporias that may involve a traversal of the sublime that is also irreducibly corporeal and erotic.

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
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: Research in Phenomenology deals with phenomenological philosophy in a broad sense, including original phenomenological research, critical and interpretative studies of major phenomenological thinkers, studies relating phenomenological philosophy to other disciplines, and historical studies of special relevance to phenomenological philosophy.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信