Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-27T17:27:12Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Rodrigues.pdf: 962222 bytes, checksum: 514266debaa8d3210fd6a22ae45eaed0 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2015-11-03 / The katharsis concept exposed in Plato s Fédon was absorbed and incorporated to Epictetus desire exercise. As katharsis was moved from its place of origin to Epictetus s spiritual exercise, it suffered transformations to adapt to the zenonian rule of life conduct. Epictetus strongly believes that to live in conformity with nature one needs to put a lot of effort towards the separation of body and soul. So that, to him, only the men who possesses freedom acquires, at the same time, the ability to accept life as it is, becoming capacitated to receive with complete indifference whatever may destiny bring. To Epictetus the abolition of all soul s enslavement starts with the separation of ours and someone else s and completes itself with the comprehension that someone else s is nothing to us / A noção de katharsis exposta no Fédon de Platão foi absorvida e incorporada à ascese do desejo epictetiana. A katharsis ao ser deslocada de seu lugar de origem para o exercício espiritual epictetiano sofreu transformações para adaptar-se à regra de conduta zenoniana de viver. Epicteto acredita piamente que para se viver em conformidade com a natureza não há como prescindir do esforço de separação da alma do corpo. De modo que, para ele, somente o homem que se apodera da liberdade adquire concomitantemente a habilidade de aceitar a vida como é, capacitando-se a receber com total indiferença seja o que for que o destino traga. Para Epicteto a abolição de todas as escravaturas da alma começa na separação do nosso do alheio e se completa com a compreensão de que o alheio não é nada para nós

Thesis advisor: Arthur Madigan / Thesis advisor: Jorge L. Garcia / The relationship between intention, intentional action, and moral assessment is of fundamental importance to ethical theory. In large part, moral responsibility is based on an assessment of agent responsibility, which in turn is based on the connection between an agent's intentions and the actions which they cause. In the last twenty-five years, there has been a debate in contemporary action theory about the relationship between intentions and intentional action. Objecting to what he calls the "Simple View," which he characterizes as the view that all intentional actions are intended under some description, Michael Bratman, among others, argues that not all intentional actions are intended. In this dissertation, we will defend the Simple View by appealing to Aristotle's theory of action as developed in his psychological and ethical works. In the first part of the dissertation, we argue that all intentional actions are intended under some description; however, we argue that distinctions between different types of intention are essential: specifically, the distinction between deliberate and non-deliberate intentions and the distinction between the intention of the end and the intention of the means. Our account centers on Aristotle's concept of prohairesis, which he identifies as the distinctly human principle of action. The term prohairesis in Aristotle's works seems to have at least three senses: 1) primarily, the deliberate intention with which a person acts, an `occurent' choice; 2) the habitual or `dispositional' choice or resolve of `decent' people; and 3) general purposes that men have which may encompass voluntary action as a whole. The first sense of the term is the primary one that properly signifies the concept. Prohairesis fits within the general framework of animal motion which Aristotle sets out in the De Anima and De Motu Animalium. For Aristotle, orexis or desire is the cause of all animal motion, including human motion. Prohairesis is a deliberate desire for the means to an end. It is a principle of action peculiar to mature human beings capable of deliberating, as it is the intention which is the result of deliberation. It marks off a narrow but important stretch of intentional action. Prohairesis is set off against other types of intention, like boulesis, which is an intention of the end, and epithumia (bodily appetite) and thumos (anger), which are non-deliberate intentions relating to non-rational appetites like lust and anger. Aristotle, in contrast to contemporary accounts of intentional action, is unusually specific in his designation of the different kinds of intention. Different orexeis differ not only with regard to specific objects but also with regard to time, planning, and detail. Aristotle traces both the causal and moral responsibility agents have for their actions to the action of these internal principles of desire. Moral assessment is linked to the operative internal principle of an act. This allows for an action to be voluntary and intentional, even if the agent does not fully understand or plan for the consequences of an action. Intention, for Aristotle, if we correctly understand it as orexis and what results from orexis, is not reducible to one mode but is irreducibly plural. Furthermore, each person's capacity for intentional action is shaped by his character, and each character has correspondingly different kinds of intention, both with respect to the objects of intention and in their relation to action. Finally, the scope of intention is not definite, and depending on the agent, can include those things which attend to the means of which he has cognizance, for instance, harmful side-effect consequences or other costs of his action. In the second part of the dissertation, we examine at length the objections to the Simple View, lodged by Bratman, Gilbert Harman, and Joshua Knobe. We give an overview of objections by Bratman, Harman, and Knobe which center on three cases and four objections. The cases are: 1) a hypothetical video game; 2) unexpected success; and 3) unintended consequences. The objections are: 1) with respect to the hypothetical video game, the Simple View ascribes an irrational intention to a gamer playing the game; 2) When agents are doubtful of the success of an action they undertake, the Simple View requires that they intend the act the perform rather than that they merely try to perform the act, which opponents argue that this is irrational and false; 3) The Simple View entails the rejection of the distinction between intention and foresight which itself entails that agents intend all the results of their actions, even when those results are merely foreseen and not intended; 4) The Simple View does not adequately explain ordinary language usage with respect to ascriptions of intention for side-effect consequences, and therefore does not reflect basic, commonly shared notions of intentional action. The first two objections center on cases where it seems irrational for an agent to intend the act he performs. In the case of the video game, the scenario is so set up that the player wins a prize for hitting either target but knows that he cannot hit both or the game will shut down. It seems irrational for him to intend to hit both if he cannot; however, in order to maximize his chance winning, it would be rational to aim at both. In the case of unexpected success, it seems that agents do not intend acts whose chances of success they doubt because intending seems to require the positive belief that one will succeed; rather, it is argued that agents merely try but do not intend the act they perform. Against these cases and objections, we argue that agents are capable of conditional and complex intentions, such that one may conditionally intend to hit whichever target is opportune, while aiming at both. Likewise, we argue that intending to act does not require the positive belief that one will succeed; only that it is possible for one to succeed. Furthermore, the distinction between trying and intending is specious. Finally, we respond to the third and fourth objections centering on the intentionality of side-effect consequences. It is argued by Bratman et al. that the Simple View entails the rejection of the distinction between intention and foresight, and that such a rejection further entails consequentialism. Likewise it is also argued that the Simple View fails to account for ordinary language ascriptions of intentionality for side-effect consequences. We agree that the Simple View entails rejecting the distinction between intention and foresight as it is currently applied, but deny that this entails consequentialism, i.e., the view that the consequences of an action are the primary basis for moral evaluation and not the agent's intentions. Likewise, we agree that the Simple View does not model ordinary language ascriptions of intention; however, this is not necessarily a defect since such ascriptions are inconsistent and imprecise. Furthermore, we argue that the Simple View might be used to more adequately explain such usage. We center our response to these objections on the Doctrine of Double Effect. We argue that the doctrine arises from a mistaken interpretation of St. Thomas Aquinas' treatment of defensive killing. We argue that Aquinas does not hold that the death of an attacker is a foreseen but not intended side-effect, as proponents of Double Effect and opponents of the Simple View hold; rather it is intended as a means to the end of self-defense. Therefore, the two effects are not the desired end and a side-effect but rather the intended end and the intended means. Furthermore, we argue that this does not entail doing evil for the sake of good because Aquinas' Aristotelian account of action specification incorporates circumstances as essential components of intentions which give an act its moral quality. Furthermore, the necessary references to an agent's intentions show how the rejection of the application of the distinction between intention and foresight does not entail consequentialism. Finally, we tackle the underlying assumptions about intention and desire which lead to the rejection of the Simple View. Opponents of the Simple View hold that intention is not a form of desire because then it would not have an essential role in the genesis of action or in rational deliberation. We, however, argue that the major objections to the Simple View are defeasible once one understands intention as a species of desire, i.e. a deliberate desire, whose scope includes consequences beyond acts performed and goals achieved. The paradoxes at the heart of the debate hinge on the ambiguity of the English word `intention' and its usage, as well as the inherent difficulty of examining psychological concepts. `Intention' has several senses unified by the purposiveness of the mental states to which the word is referred. These senses can often, but not always, be distinguished in English usage by the degree and kind of deliberation attendant to them. / Thesis (PhD) — Boston College, 2009. / Submitted to: Boston College. Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. / Discipline: Philosophy.

The starting point of the dissertation is a special kind of intentional action -- Aristotelian praxis, or, in a more metaphysical register, energeia -- a kind whose agent's intention in acting must be expressible as the deliverance of one's prohairesis (``deliberate choice''), action that is the embodiment of one's conception of eupraxia (``acting well''), and, equivalently, of eudaimonia (``happiness''). It is special, since not all that we intentionally do can be intelligibly expressed as the deliverance of our conceptions of acting well. Recognition of the gaps between action in general and intentional action more specifically, and between intentional action and prohairetic action, sets the stage for a reinterpretation, not only of core aspects of Aristotle's Ethics, but also of central features of Aristotle's political recommendations. The interpretation defended here centers on the claim that, for Aristotle, defective political communities are often marked, not so much by an erroneous conception of human virtue, but by defective forms of action, forms in which agents fail to apply certain concepts to what they do. Importantly, such failures do not hang on the different failure to apply concepts correctly: the failure to act prohairetically need not come to the failure to grasp the correct conception of human virtue or of human happiness. / Government

Dans l’histoire de la construction philosophique de l’individualité, le système stoïcien, le plus unitaire et déterministe qui soit, semblait en principe être le moins susceptible d’engendrer une conception forte de l’individu. Celle-ci suppose en effet une séparation qui, dans le cas de l’individualité humaine, s’incarne dans une « volonté » propre. Or pour les Stoïciens, chaque être concourant inexorablement comme partie du tout à l’unité organique du monde, il paraissait difficile de l'en dégager, même en tenant compte de l’autonomie proclamée de l’assentiment, principe de jugement et d’action. Notre recherche espère montrer que c’est pourtant la philosophie stoïcienne qui construit une combinatoire conceptuelle inédite qui n’avait jamais été jusque-là à ce point unifiée et qui en vertu de la nature systématique de cette pensée conduit de l’unicité qu’elle reconnaît à tout être, ancrée dans un corps, à la personnalité qui réalise cette unicité au niveau de l’éthique, du fait d’une capacité subjective qui n’est plus non seulement quelque chose de l’individu mais ce à quoi il s’identifie, son principe d’identité personnelle. Nous nous attachons à mettre en évidence les conditions qui ont rendu possible ce « surgissement » de l’individu à la faveur d’une série de mutations internes au système stoïcien mais aussi d’une mutation politique et culturelle majeure, celle que constitua l’Empire romain. A travers ces mutations, la physique stoïcienne de l’identité, sous-bassement de la conception stoïcienne de l’individu, produit diachroniquement et synchroniquement, dans le champ de la psychologie et de l’éthique, une véritable conception de la subjectivation avec la notion sénéquienne de voluntas et le concept épictétéen de prohairesis qui en viennent à occuper la centralité dévolue au destin dans le premier stoïcisme. Par-delà la singularité des apports sénéquien et épictétéen, la voluntas et la prohairesis font de la faculté de choix le principe d’identité personnelle : l’identité personnelle est décrite comme celle du sens que nous décidons de donner à notre existence qui définit celle ou celui que nous sommes en propre et qui autorise et façonne la plasticité d’un usage de soi qui réside exclusivement en nous. Les usages stoïciens de la métaphore théâtrale permettent enfin d’éclairer cette conception de la subjectivité sous un jour irréductible : ils déploient chacun à leur manière la dialectique de la distance et de l’engagement au cœur du rapport à l’existence, et, avec eux, la non- coïncidence constitutive du rapport à soi qui situe l’identité dans l’entre-deux d’un rapport d’identification toujours à rejouer. / The Stoics, who elaborated the most coherent deterministic system in the history of philosophy, seemed unlikely to produce a concept of the individual. Such a concept is necessarily founded on separateness and implies personal agency. And although the Stoics insisted on the autonomy of assent as a principle of judgement and of action, they believed that each being contributed to the organic whole of the cosmos, making it difficult to consider beings separately from that whole. This inquiry seeks to show that the Stoics nevertheless elaborated a previously unexamined complex of notions that - as a result of the systematic nature of the Stoic thought - moved from the idea of uniqueness of all beings, to personality, which achieves uniqueness on an ethical level. Personality requires agency, which is not of the individual, but is instead that with which the individual is identified. It is the principle of personal identity. We will examine the conditions that enabled the “emergence” of the individual thanks to a series of transformations in the Stoic system as well as another major political and cultural transformation, the constitution of the Roman Empire. As a result of these changes, the Stoics’ conception of the individual, founded on their physical conception of identity, produced - diachronically and synchronically - a notion of both psychological and ethical subjectivation. Seneca’s notion of voluntas and Epictetus’s concept of prohairesis came to occupy the central position once held by fate for the early Stoics. Both these contributions were highly original, but voluntas and prohairesis further identified the principle of personal identity with the faculty of choice: personal identity was described as the meaning we decide to give our lives, defining who we are. It conditions our adaptability and shapes the way we make use of what is irreducibly ours. The Stoics’ use of the actor metaphor sheds light on the nature of subjectivity since it foregrounds the gap between the actor and his role. The dialectic between disengagement and commitment that is at the heart of the relationship to existence, and the consequent discrepancy in the relationship to oneself, leaves identity in the entre-deux of a continually renewed attempt at identification.

Cette recherche vise à cerner la complexité du concept du soi (heauton) dans la philosophie stoïcienne de l’empereur Marc Aurèle. Dans un premier temps, il s’agira de poser les bases de la physique stoïcienne qui nous permettent de saisir le paradoxe de l’existence d’individualités singulières au sein du grand Tout universel. Nous étudierons, pour ce faire, la théorie corporéiste stoïcienne ainsi que les concepts d’idia poiotês et d’oikeiôsis forgés par l’ancien stoïcisme, mais aussi la prohairesis épictéenne. Cela nous conduira à traiter du concept d’hêgemonikon central dans la conception du soi chez Marc Aurèle. Dans un deuxième temps, nous aborderons les caractéristiques de la partie dirigeante de l’âme par l’entremise de l’étude des disciplines du soi et de son altérité intérieure. Ainsi nous verrons comment le soi ne se présente pas comme un donné fixe, mais comme un espace relationnel en développement constant. Finalement, nous nous pencherons sur la question de la construction du soi, ce qui nous mènera à considérer l’importance du travail sur soi pour l’empereur Marc Aurèle. La problématique qui guidera notre recherche est celle qui vise à saisir ce qui constitue essentiellement le soi alors que celui-ci se présente comme un espace en aménagement constant, ouvert à l’altérité et qui n’est pas donné une fois pour toutes, mais construit. / This research aims to identify the complexity of the concept of the self in the Stoic philosophy of Emperor Marcus Aurelius. First, we will lay the bases of Stoic physics which allow us to grasp the paradox of the existence of singular individualities within the great universal Whole. To do this, we will study the Stoic corporeist theory as well as the concepts of idia poiotês and oikeiôsis forged by ancient Stoicism, but also the Epictean prohairesis. This will lead us to address the concept of hêgemonikon which is central in the conception of the self for Marcus Aurelius. Secondly, we will approach the characteristics of the ruling part of the soul through the study of the disciplines of the self and its interior otherness. Thus, we will see how the self is not a fixed datum, but a relational space in constant evolution. Finally, we will address the question of self-construction, which will lead us to consider the importance of the work on oneself for Emperor Marcus Aurelius. The question that will guide our research is to grasp what essentially constitutes the self when it is presented as a space in constant development, open to otherness and which is not given once and for all but constructed.