Thesis advisor: Gary M. Gurtler / Aristotle’s Sophistical Refutations (SE) investigates the five devices which sophists employ to appear wise in dialogue. The sophist’s primary device is the sophistical refutation which is a particular kind of fallacy. A sophistical refutation is a merely apparent refutation. Thus, the fallacy has two causes: the “causa apparentiae” and the “causa non existentiae." A genuine refutation is a syllogism based on an interlocutor’s opinions that leads necessarily to a conclusion which contradicts some other established position of the interlocutor. The sophist desires especially the apparent refutation of his opponent because the greatest glory follows upon seeming to expose the ultimate defect in opponent’s understanding, a contradiction. The SE neither accounts for every cause of error nor every type of false reasoning; “ad” arguments like ad baculum or ad hominem are not in investigated in the SE because they are not apparent refutations. After a description of the SE’s subject matter, the dissertation’s introduction locates the role of the SE in Aristotle’s Organon and explains why a dialectician would investigate and untie sophisms. Sophistic is the sham portion of the dialectic which is a universal art (τέχνη) of syllogizing from endoxes to the contradiction of an interlocutor. Unlike principles of demonstrations, endoxes are premises that are in accord “with the expectation (ἔνδοξος) of all or most or the wise, and of all the latter or most or of the most knowing.” They do not need to be certain or true; instead, they must be acceptable to a dialectical opponent. Dialecticians derive endoxes from dialectical places (τόποι), i.e., extrinsic and most universal principles which usually affirm relations between logical intentions and may be employed in any given subject matter. Sophists use sophistical places which may be expressed as universal propositions and provide the foundation for the apparent reasonability of the sophistical refutations. That said, unlike dialectical places, Aristotle does not present sophistical places as universal conditional statements of logical intentions; they are presented as common distinctions—such as the distinction between the different senses of a word—that a sophist may exploit to produce a sophistical refutation. A dialectician will study sophistic for the same reasons he will learn dialectic; it is useful for exercise, conversation, and in the philosophical sciences. Moreover, investigating sophisms facilitates appreciation of distinctions that are fundamental to Aristotelian philosophy, protects the philosopher from error, and preserves his reputation. Although translation of Aristotelian logical works is difficult—especially one which contains many examples of linguistic fallacies—the dissertation provides a faithful and consistent translation of the treatise. The line by line commentary contains explanation of the order, purpose, and meaning of the text, clarification of Aristotle’s difficult examples, discussion of scholarly treatment of controversial passages, and references to other relevant passages in the Organon. The dissertation ends with two appendices to provide a thorough treatment of Aristotle’s two most deceptive fallacies: the fallacy of equivocation and the fallacy of the accident. The first appendix locates equivocation as a kind of proper naming (as opposed to figurative) and offers an original interpretation of Aristotle’s argument for the necessity of equivocation based on his understanding of how we name. Afterward, the appendix unfolds the nature and solution to the fallacy, explains Aristotle’s places (τόποι) for detecting equivocation, and categorizes the kinds of equivocation. The second appendix unfolds a unique and overlooked explanation of the fallacy of the accident that allows Aristotle to be read consistently, distinguishes the fallacy from the other fallacies, and accounts for Aristotle’s examples. The fallacy of the accident occurs when a middle term’s connection to one extreme term is accidental to its connection to the other. The appendix locates the fallacy through a reduction of all fallacies outside of speech to ignorance of refutation, offers four distinct meanings of ‘accident’ in Aristotle, shows which meaning Aristotle attributes to the fallacy, divides the fallacy into three species, and answers objections to its explanation. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2018. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

Aristotle discusses the nature of soul in De Anima, defining it as the "form of a natural body having life potentially" or "first actuality of a natural, instrumental body." I argue that these definitions characterize soul as the capacity for the activity of life. In chapter one I examine key terminology from Aristotle’s account of soul: the terms used to discuss soul, life, and the vital functions. In particular, the soul and life terminology must be kept separate, as must the terms referring to vital capacities and those referring to vital activities. In chapter two I use these terminological distinctions to trace Aristotle’s arguments for his definition of soul, contending that they begin by positing life as the vital activities and soul as the cause of life. From that beginning, Aristotle twice argues for a definition of soul, in De Anima 2.1 and 2.2. In the transition between the two arguments Aristotle says that the first is sketched in outline and that a proper definition shows the cause. While this is usually taken to mean that Aristotle prefers the second definition, I argue that the definitions reached are the same. In chapter three I argue that Aristotle’s definitions of soul state that it is the capacity for life. He defines it as a first actuality, and upon examination this phrase means that it is a capacity. He also defines it as a form and calls form an actuality, but I explain that due to the relativity of actuality and potentiality, it is permissible to view form as a capacity as well. In chapter four I reconcile the general account of soul as a capacity with Aristotle’s discussions of a particular kind of soul, examining what he says in De Anima and his biological works about the most fundamental kind—the nutritive. Aristotle locates nutritive soul in the heart and says that it is responsible for the size of an organism, but this fits with nutritive soul also being the capacity of an organism to nourish itself. I also discuss why Aristotle says the body is the instrument of soul.

Thesis advisor: Richard . Kearney / This work responds to the question of community at an ontological level before notions such as identity and subjectivity have been assumed. I ask the question of community in terms of the principles that give rise to the being-togetherness of people. Modern philosophy’s responses are famously a version of Laws, social contracts, universal definitions, ideals, and values. Post-enlightenment philosophy assumes such categories as laws, norms, and religions across the board, applying them to all gatherings of peoples. Especially with respect to the Islamic community, and more particularly during the colonial era, categories such as religion and religious laws were used by orientalists to define Muslims, non-Muslims, and different sectors among them.  Against this background, this work attempts to study the gathering of “a people” and the genesis of the laws at an ontological level. This approach will ultimately show how one’s interpretation of the existence of beings in general reflects one’s reading of the legal or political gatherings in particular. I will argue that Heideggerian and post-Heideggerian phenomenology can serve as allies since they have already initiated this line of questioning by their radical critique of the authority of the subject. Heidegger separates his way from the mainstream phenomenology by formulating his critique of subjectivity by way of reviving the Greek, especially Aristotle’s philosophy. Through what he calls Destruktion, or deconstruction of the tradition, he shows that the above-mentioned modern formulations of the self and the world are ultimately based on a certain scholastic reading of Aristotle, which reduces all meanings of being to a categorial one.  Derrida carries this critique of identity over to the ethical and political realm. He investigates human beings’ interpretive relation to “otherness” by replacing identity or self with “following.” The “otherness” that we are in “following” can be a god, another human being, the animals and the environment, or the tradition of the past. In all these relationships, the hermeneutic strategy towards “otherness” is principally the same. Derrida’s suggestion for the most authentic mode of ‘following’ is deconstruction itself. He shows that there are the same schematic formulations involved in explaining the coming-to-be and gathering of things in nature as are involved with “a people” in a community. The genesis and the function of laws are the same in the creation of events and bodies in a natural world as the actions and productions in a political and ethical realm.  Following such a critique, especially through Derrida’s deconstruction, I try to reveal the forces in Aristotle’s text that can potentially lead to two different formulations of the gathering of a people. For Aristotle, the notions of hylomorphism and teleology explain the genesis of multiplicity and difference. In the political and ethical realm, these principles give rise to the constitution of a just “exchange community.”  The critique of these notions opens the door for alternative modes of gathering. By questioning the predetermined end (telos), I will suggest that the generation of multiplicity and gatherings become “nomadic.” Thus, deconstruction as the most authentic attitude towards “otherness,” when applied to Aristotle’s teleology, turns into “nomadic distribution” and “nomadic following” of the other.  As an example of the effect of this critique and its actual ethical and legal consequence, in the history of philosophy and among actual communities, I examine the genesis of gatherings and laws in Islam and among Muslims. I explain what it means to “follow” the other in nature and in human society in Islam. Finally, I examine what it means to be a nomadic follower of the laws of Islam. I argue that the rituals of Islam, like Hajj, illustrate the being of Muslims as the followers of otherness in the most explicit way. The analysis of Hajj reveals the conflict of laws and justice because the ritual is not about mere obedience to laws. Instead, through performing it, Muslims are led to contemplate and wonder about their relationship to God, nature, and their fellow human beings. In Hajj, the nature of “following” is illustrated and brought to light. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2019. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

In this thesis, I identify and engage an orthodox view in Aristotelian scholarship. Many scholars maintain that Aristotle, in the third book of his Nicomachean Ethics, claims that we should always blame people who act badly with ignorance of what is moral. This view, which I label the “common view” is widespread and unquestioned in the literature. I disagree with the orthodox view, and maintain that we can read Aristotle as not always holding people who act badly in ignorance of what is moral as blameworthy. There are three essential steps in my argument. First, I show that it is not certain that Aristotle commits himself to the common view in the passages usually cited as evidence for the view. I review the evidence in favor of the common view, and argue that other interpretations of Aristotle are equally compatible with his text. Second, I argue that there is textual evidence elsewhere in the Nicomachean Ethics which is contrary to the common view. Thirdly and finally, I suggest that an alternate reading – on which Aristotle allows for pardon in some cases where people act badly in ignorance of what is moral – chimes well with other portions of his ethics, and with scholarly literature: I take two such cases, moral education and ethical deliberation. Given the evidence against the common view, and the evidence in favor of an alternate reading, I suggest that the orthodox view should be abandoned by scholars. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / In this thesis I identify and engage an orthodox view in Aristotelian scholarship. Many scholars maintain that Aristotle, in the third book of his Nicomachean Ethics, claims that we should always blame people who act badly with ignorance of what is moral. This view, which I label the “common view” is widespread and unquestioned by scholars. I disagree with this reading of Aristotle. I do not think that Aristotle commits himself to this view in his writings. Moreover, I argue that the common view is a bad fit with other passages from the Nicomachean Ethics. If the common view is false, as I claim, it is important for us to formulate an alternate reading of Aristotle’s comments. I proffer one such reading, a reading on which people are not always worthy of blame when they act badly in ignorance of what is moral.

Thesis advisor: Eileen Sweeney / Motion is the central phenomenon that Aristotle's physics endeavors to explain, and the whole superstructure of his natural philosophy is bound to it. This was certainly understood by Thomas Aquinas, who produced a most careful and thorough account of the Aristotelian theory of motion. What is rarely recognized is that in so doing he developed and improved that theory in a number of respects. This dissertation is a study of the theory of physical motion in Aquinas. It has two principal results. The first regards the concept of motion itself. Aquinas accepts Aristotle's definition of motion, but gives his own explanation of it, one which employs non-Aristotelian ideas like participation, and places motion in a more general and cohesive system of relations between non-being and being. The second regards what is called natural motion, i.e., that which inanimate matter exhibits of its own accord. How Aquinas explains this has rarely been understood and has frequently been misunderstood. I provide a thorough, systematic treatment that sets forth the principles underlying Aquinas's theory of natural motion, explains in what sense such motion is said to be caused, and notes – what commentators are prone to overlook – the critical role played by analogy as an aid to grasp the causality of natural motion. Chapter 1 briefly introduces Aquinas as a medieval "physicist", i.e., natural philosopher, specifies the scope of the dissertation, and lays out the path to be followed in the succeeding chapters. Chapter 2 summarizes what Aristotle says about motion in his Physics. His definition of motion is presented, and the terms in which it is given are analyzed. As the definition is famously perplexing, and its meaning a matter of debate, the opinions of a number of modern commentators are reviewed. After having explained the primacy that Aristotle assigns to locomotion and the connection he establishes between motion and time, the chapter concludes with a section on the causes of motion. This covers Aristotle's arguments for the eternity of motion, his denial of pure self-motion, introduces his views on animal, natural, and violent motion, and concludes with the first mover and first motion reached at the end of the Physics. Chapter 3 is a short introduction to the tradition of Aristotelian commentary. It contains brief reviews of some of what Simplicius, John Philoponus, Averroes, and Avicenna say about the Aristotelian theory of motion, with especial attention given to those aspects of it with which they disagree or which they find troublesome. The next three chapters are devoted to Aquinas. Chapter 4 covers how Aquinas interprets Aristotle's definition of motion and how he integrates it into his own metaphysics. The chapter begins with two preparatory notes. First, it introduces Aquinas as a commentator, and stresses the importance of having the context of the commentary tradition in mind when reading Aquinas, because he belongs to it and approached Aristotle in much the same way as earlier commentators. This has the consequence that his own developments are somewhat concealed, since what he says in his commentary on the Physics is presented as straightforward exposition, without any suggestion of originality. Second, modern readers are cautioned not to import modern senses of "motion" unwittingly into Aquinas, as this leads to confusion. The point is made that his Latin usage is regular and well-defined. After this, Aquinas's interpretation of the definition of motion is presented and what he means by calling it "imperfect act" is explained. This involves a sophisticated theory of the order of act to act, and incorporates the Neoplatonic language of participation and perfection. The next section of the chapter presents some of the analyses that Aquinas makes of motion, including its mental character and categorization. It is noteworthy, yet in fact quite unnoticed, that Aquinas provides a subtle and inventive solution to a modern debate over the proper interpretation of the definition of motion (the so-called "process" vs. "non-process" debate) which reconciles the two sides. Finally, I present a visual analogy as an aid for grasping how motion fits into a larger Thomistic metaphysical scheme concerning the relationship between non-being and being. Chapter 5 treats Aquinas's account of natural motion. It begins by noting some of the problems involved with Aristotle's explanation of natural motion, including, critically, that of the cause of such motion. It then highlights the work of James Weisheipl, who rejected a motor coniunctus interpretation of natural motion and offered in its stead his own, one which has since become well-known. But a careful examination of what Aquinas says shows that Weisheipl's interpretation of him is incorrect, and must also be rejected. The chapter then lays out (1) the principles of motion and their schematic organization; (2) Aquinas's theory of efficient causality and how we are to understand his denial of the possibility of action at a distance; (3) his use of analogies to indicate how we are to understand the efficient cause of natural motion; and then finally (4) shows, first, how the multiplicity and variation of the analogies lead commentators to misread Aquinas, and, then, how they illuminate other aspects of his theory of motion. Chapter 6 treats, in turn, the much debated principle that "everything that is moved is moved by another", and then the arguments that Aquinas gives for the existence of an unmoved mover, which he takes to be God. With regard to the first, it is pointed out that the theory of inertia is not nearly so fatal to the principle as many historians of science assume. Indeed, understood in light of what was said about Aquinas's understanding of the efficient causality involved in natural motion in the preceding chapter, it is compatible with inertia. However, a review of the three arguments Aquinas takes from Aristotle purporting to prove the principle are all found to be subject to serious objections. Greatest attention is given to the argument drawn from the claim that a thing cannot simultaneously be in act and in potency in the same respect. With regard to the second, it is shown that what Aquinas has to say about the unmoved mover is perplexed and inconsistent. Aquinas accepts two series of arguments from Aristotle, one from the Physics that concludes to a first moving cause, another from the Metaphysics that concludes to a final cause. From the former, Aquinas constructs his own argument from motion, most famously presented as the prima via, but at times he attempts to combine the two Aristotelian series. It is shown that these attempts at harmonization involve Aquinas in inconsistencies. What the prima via revision concludes to is also discussed. An important observation is that the prima via is manifestly intended by Aquinas to be an argument from physical motion. Yet numerous commentators, perceiving its weakness, attempt to recast it in a non-physical form, such that "motion" no longer signifies what Aquinas intends. The chapter ends with some cautious remarks on the state of these highly controversial topics. Chapter 7 concludes the dissertation, first, with a brief recapitulation of some of its major points, and then with some speculation as to what use its results may have for future scholarship. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2023. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

No description available.

No description available.