亚里士多德对民主正义的理解及其两种平等的区分:回应

IF 0.3 3区 历史学 0 CLASSICS
POLIS Pub Date : 2023-04-25 DOI:10.1163/20512996-12340405
M. Knoll
{"title":"亚里士多德对民主正义的理解及其两种平等的区分:回应","authors":"M. Knoll","doi":"10.1163/20512996-12340405","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis short article is a response to Douglas Cairns, Mirko Canevaro, and Kleanthis Mantzouranis, who in Polis 39 (2022) explicitly criticize both of my previous interpretations of Aristotle’s view of democratic justice and of the relation of proportional and numerical equality. Against Cairns et al., I argue that there is no tension or contradiction between Aristotle’s statements on these two kinds of equality and on democratic justice. The paper suggests a new reading of Aristotle’s texts that strictly distinguishes between Aristotle’s own views and his references to ‘respected opinions’ (endoxa). It concludes that Aristotle consistently identifies democratic justice with ‘numerical’ or ‘arithmetic’ equality and not with proportional equality, which he usually identifies with equality ‘according to worth or merit’ (kat’ axian).","PeriodicalId":43237,"journal":{"name":"POLIS","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Aristotle’s Understanding of Democratic Justice and His Distinction between Two Kinds of Equality: A Response\",\"authors\":\"M. Knoll\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/20512996-12340405\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThis short article is a response to Douglas Cairns, Mirko Canevaro, and Kleanthis Mantzouranis, who in Polis 39 (2022) explicitly criticize both of my previous interpretations of Aristotle’s view of democratic justice and of the relation of proportional and numerical equality. Against Cairns et al., I argue that there is no tension or contradiction between Aristotle’s statements on these two kinds of equality and on democratic justice. The paper suggests a new reading of Aristotle’s texts that strictly distinguishes between Aristotle’s own views and his references to ‘respected opinions’ (endoxa). It concludes that Aristotle consistently identifies democratic justice with ‘numerical’ or ‘arithmetic’ equality and not with proportional equality, which he usually identifies with equality ‘according to worth or merit’ (kat’ axian).\",\"PeriodicalId\":43237,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"POLIS\",\"volume\":\"33 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"POLIS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340405\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"0\",\"JCRName\":\"CLASSICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"POLIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/20512996-12340405","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"CLASSICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇短文是对Douglas Cairns, Mirko Canevaro和Kleanthis Mantzouranis的回应,他们在Polis 39(2022)中明确批评了我之前对亚里士多德民主正义观和比例与数量平等关系的解释。与凯恩斯等人的观点相反,我认为亚里士多德关于这两种平等的论述与关于民主正义的论述之间并不存在张力或矛盾。本文建议对亚里士多德的文本进行新的阅读,严格区分亚里士多德自己的观点和他对“尊重意见”的引用(endoxa)。它的结论是,亚里士多德始终将民主正义等同于“数字”或“算术”平等,而不是比例平等,他通常将比例平等等同于“根据价值或功绩”(kat ' axian)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Aristotle’s Understanding of Democratic Justice and His Distinction between Two Kinds of Equality: A Response
This short article is a response to Douglas Cairns, Mirko Canevaro, and Kleanthis Mantzouranis, who in Polis 39 (2022) explicitly criticize both of my previous interpretations of Aristotle’s view of democratic justice and of the relation of proportional and numerical equality. Against Cairns et al., I argue that there is no tension or contradiction between Aristotle’s statements on these two kinds of equality and on democratic justice. The paper suggests a new reading of Aristotle’s texts that strictly distinguishes between Aristotle’s own views and his references to ‘respected opinions’ (endoxa). It concludes that Aristotle consistently identifies democratic justice with ‘numerical’ or ‘arithmetic’ equality and not with proportional equality, which he usually identifies with equality ‘according to worth or merit’ (kat’ axian).
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
POLIS
POLIS CLASSICS-
CiteScore
0.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信