Openly accessible

Changing Aristotle's mind and world : critical notes on McDowell's Aristotle

Sharpe, Matthew 2012, Changing Aristotle's mind and world : critical notes on McDowell's Aristotle, Philosophy study, vol. 2, no. 11, pp. 804-821.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
sharpe-changingaristotles-2012.pdf Published version application/pdf 187.77KB 82

Title Changing Aristotle's mind and world : critical notes on McDowell's Aristotle
Author(s) Sharpe, Matthew
Journal name Philosophy study
Volume number 2
Issue number 11
Start page 804
End page 821
Total pages 18
Publisher David Publishing Company
Place of publication Libertyville, Ill.
Publication date 2012-11
ISSN 2159-5313
2159-5321
Keyword(s) John McDowell
Aristotle
Mind and World
naturalism
second nature
Summary Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell’s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle’s ethics: first, that Aristotle did not base his ethics on an externalist, naturalistic basis (including a theory of human nature); second, that attempts to read him as an ethical naturalist are a modern anachronism, generated by the supposed need to ground all viable philosophical claims on claims analogous to the natural sciences; and third, that a suitably construed Aristotelian conception of “second nature” can form the basis of a viable contemporary philosophy of mind, world, and normativity. This paper challenges each of these three claims. Aristotle’s ethics, we will claim alongside Terence Irwin, Bernard Williams, Philippa Foot, and many premodern commentators, is based in the kind of physics, metaphysics, and metaphysical biology that McDowell says it cannot be. Historically, we will argue that McDowell’s argument that Aristotle’s ethical reasoning is “autonomous” or “self-standing” is distinctly modern, citing evidence from the leading medieval commentators on the Nicomachean Ethics. The felt need to which McDowell responds, of reading Aristotle’s ethical or political thought as wholly non-metaphysical, arises from out of the successes of the natural sciences in the modern world, which he agrees discredit the Aristotelian, teleological account of nature. In the final part of the paper, we propose that McDowell’s account of normativity, rooted in the non-metaphysical “second nature” he reads into Aristotle, we will contend, is as it stands inescapably relativistic. On a different note, we need also to recognize, as McDowell does not, that this is a new Aristotle, one shaped by our requirements and space of reasons, not the mind and world of the Greek Philosopher himself.
Notes Reproduced with the kind permission of the copyright owner.
Language eng
Field of Research 220209 History of Ideas
220304 Epistemology
220314 Philosophy of Mind (excl Cognition)
Socio Economic Objective 970122 Expanding Knowledge in Philosophy and Religious Studies
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2012, David Publishing Company
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30050029

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Humanities and Social Sciences
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Access Statistics: 123 Abstract Views, 87 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Wed, 02 Jan 2013, 18:08:02 EST by Matthew Sharpe

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.