Aristotle’s Non-‘Dialectical’ Methodology in the Nicomachean Ethics

Abstract

Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics is often seen as a paradigm case of a 'dialectical' work, on a certain understanding of that term. The ubiquity of this interpretation is evidenced by its presence in the introductions or commentaries accompanying most recent translations of the treatise. Irwin 1999Irwin , 326-327 (cf. 1998 sets forth the view as follows:The method of ethical inquiry is dialectical, described in Top. i 1-4, 10-12. Hence it begins from common beliefs [viz. endoxa], what seems or appears to the many or the wise… He takes common beliefs as starting points because they are known (or 'familiar') to us… Discussion of these common beliefs shows that they raise puzzles, aporiai, when we find apparently convincing arguments from common beliefs for inconsistent conclusions… To solve (or 'loose' 1146b7) the puzzles, Aristotle looks for an account that will show the truth of most and the most important of the common beliefs (1145b5). This account will provide us with a principle that is 'known by nature'…because it justifies claims to knowledge. A defense of a theoretical principle shows how it vindicates many of the common beliefs (1098b9). But it does not vindicate them all. Hence a proper defense should also show why false common beliefs appear attractive and rest on explicable misunderstandings. 1 We can break down this interpretation into four claims:C1. The starting-points from which Aristotle argues are endoxa-opinions held by all or most of the many or the wise. 2

In What Sense Wrong Conceptions of Eudaimonia Get at Least Some Things Right

“…Instead of being concerned with saving opinions, Aristotle is investigating facts 4 , which is in accordance with some important aspects of his doctrine of scientific inquiry. I think that this kind of interpretation, which can be found for instance in Karbowski (2015;, Devereux (2015), and Salmieri (2009) is fundamentally correct as it grasps the relation between ethics and scientific inquiry correctly and generally locates I.8 within that relation. However, my focus is not to discuss whether Aristotle's procedure is dialectical or not 5 , but to offer a closer reading of the whole chapter and a more detailed discussion for a more complete understanding of the meaning of T1.…”

Carlo Natali. Il metodo e il trattato. Saggio sull’Etica Nicomachea. Roma: Edizioni di Storia e Letteratura, 2017

“…Recordemos que la discusión sobre este tópico tiene un largo recorrido contemporáneo: la visión que preponderó desde 1960 sugiere que la metodología de la filosofía práctica es prioritariamente dialéctica, es decir, que argumenta sobre la base de opiniones reconocidas, que avanza resolviendo aporías y alcanza su validez por medio de la coherencia. Esta perspectiva, que sostiene la discrepancia entre la prédica metodológica de los Analíticos y la práctica científica de los tratados particulares, se fundó en los trabajos seminales de Burnet (1900), Le Blond (1939 y Owen (1961) y se desarrolló ampliamente con los de Cooper (1975), Barnes (1980), Nussbaum (1986) e Irwin (1988;2009). Natali reconoce que él mismo sostuvo anteriormente esta tesis pero que, con el correr de las nuevas investigaciones en las décadas de 1980-90 dedicadas especialmente a las obras de biología (cf.…”

“…El debate sobre el tema es de suma actualidad, como lo atestigua la reciente publicación de D. Bronstein (2016) sobre el mismo tópico (naturalmente, Natali no contó con este material para el desarrollo de su trabajo). Pero la discusión es muy actual: además de los trabajos mencionados, los antecedentes para contextualizar el trabajo de Natali son los textos de Salmieri (2009), Karbowski (2013) y la compilación de D. Henry y K. M. Nielsen (2015), mientras que la discusión continúa con Angioni (2017), Falcon (2019) y Karbowski (2019) (éste último dedicado exclusivamente al método de la ética). Como se observa, Natali abreva de y discute con estas fuentes para aportar genuinamente a la vigente discusión sobre cuál es el método científico en la ética.…”

Dialética e o Método da Ética em Aristóteles

“… Ver, por exemplo, Cooper (2009, p. 29, n. 35).8 Nos últimos anos, no entanto, tem crescido a tendência de buscar nos Analíticos um marco metodológico alternativo para a compreensão do método da ética. Ver, por exemplo, Natali (2007 e 2010);Salmieri (2009); Karbowski (2015a e 2015b) e Devereux (2015).9 Para uma exposição geral do conteúdo e estrutura dos Tópicos, verBrunschwig : 1967, p. xviiilv ePereira : 2000, p. 361-369. …”