Aristotle on the Real Object of Philia and Aretē

• Authors: Maciej Smolak

Title variants

PL

O związku między philia a aretē w ujęciu Arystotelesa

Abstracts

PL

W uwadze otwierającej Etykę nikomachejską VIII 1 Arystoteles stwierdza, że „philia jest określoną aretē lub jest nierozłączna z aretē” (EN VIII 1 1155a 1–2). Celem artykułu jest interpretacja tego stwierdzenia, z podziałem na dwie części. W pierwszej autor przeprowadza badanie dotyczące aretē i jej różnych typów, w szczególności aretē ludzkiej. W drugiej bada pojęcie philia, czyli przyjaźń i jej poszczególne typy. Autor wykazuje, że związek pomiędzy philia i aretē można rozumieć na dwa sposoby: a) jeśli philia oraz aretē są rozpatrywane z punktu widzenia możliwości prowadzenia eudaimonicznego życia, to philia oznacza przyjaźń aretologiczną, a aretē - aretē ludzką; b) jeśli philia jest rozpatrywana jako termin wielorako orzekany (pleonachōs legetai), a aretē jako termin względny, czyli „bycie dobrym w czymś”, to philia oznacza każdy typ przyjaźni, czyli przyjaźń aretologiczną, hedonistyczną i utylitarną, a aretē - konkretną umiejętność lub skuteczność w działaniu charakterystycznym dla każdej z wymienionych przyjaźni. Zgodnie z a) związek pomiędzy philia i aretē ogranicza się do przyjaźni aretologicznej, ale kosztem zredukowania aretē do aretē ludzkiej. Zgodnie z b) związek pomiędzy philia i aretē dotyczy każdego typu przyjaźni, jako że każdy typ przyjaźni pozostaje w związku z przynależną do niej aretē, której praktykowanie skutkuje doskonałym spełnieniem jej funkcji, czyli niezawodnym osiąganiem celu przez przyjaciół.

EN

In the opening remark of Nicomachean Ethics VIII 1 Aristotle notices that the next step would be a discussion of philia, since it is a certain aretē or is associated with aretē (NE VIII 1 1155a 1–2). This article is an attempt to determine how the real object of philia and aretē are related from Aristotle’s point of view. The author performs a study into two sections. The first section is focused on the analysis of aretē and its various types, in particular the human one. The second section is concentrated on the typology of philia, namely friendship and its particular kinds. The author shows that the relation between philia and aretē can be described in two ways: if both philia and aretē play the crucial role in leading a eudaimonic life, then philia is the aretological friendship and aretē-the human one, namely the whole consists of the aretē of character in the full sense and the practical wisdom on condition that the aretological friends equate eudaimonia with life focused on the political or practical activity, or even of the theoretical wisdom, providing that they identify it with the highest form of eudaimonic life, that is, the theoretical one. If, however, philia is to be a term said in many ways (pleonachōs legetai) and aretē is to be understood in a broad sense, that is, as “being good at something”, then philia can signify every kind of friendship, namely the aretological, the hedonistic and the utilitarian one, whereas aretē-qualification or skill that makes these friendships perform their functions well. The first possibility is that the relation between philia and aretē is limited to the aretological friendship at the expense of narrowing the meaning of aretē to the human one. The second possibility is that every kind of friendship is considered as the functional thing and, in consequence, defined by their proper function. From this point of view, all friendships are accompanied by appropriate aretai, namely by qualifications or skills that guarantee the perfect fulfillment of their proper function and, therefore, the achievement of the set goal by two persons in question.

Keywords

EN

Aristotle; aretē; eudaimonia; philia; friendship; person of excellence

PL

Arystoteles; aretē; eudaimonia; ludzka doskonałość; przyjaźń; philia

• Publisher: Katolicki Uniwersytet Lubelski Jana Pawła II. Towarzystwo Naukowe KUL
• Journal: Roczniki Filozoficzne
• Year: 2024
• Volume: 72
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 115-151

Dates

published

2024

Contributors

author

Maciej Smolak

• Jagiellonian University in Kraków

• https://orcid.org/0000000245955068

References

• Ackril, John, L. 1974. Aristotle on Eudaimonia. Proceeding of the British Academy 60:3–23.
• Adkins, Arthur W. H. 1972. Moral Values and Political Behaviour in Ancient Greece: From Homer to the End of the Fifth Century. New York: W.W. Norton & Co.
• Aquinas, Thomas. 1949. In decem libros Ethicorum Aristotelis ad Nichomachum expositio. Torino: cura et studio R.M. Spiazzi.
• Aquinas, Thomas. 2011. Traktat o roztropności. Summa teologii II-II, q. 47–56. Translated and edited by W. Galewicz. Kęty: Wydawnictwo Marek Derewiecki.
• Aristotle. 1885. The Ethics of Aristotle. Vol. 2. Essays and notes by Alexander Grant. London: Longman, Green, and Co.
• Aristotle. 1940. On Friendship; Being An Expanded Translation of the Nicomachean Ethics, Books VIII & IX. Translated by Geoffrey Percival. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Aristotle. 1956. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translated by: H. Rackham. London: The Loeb Classical Library.
• Aristotle. 1958. L’ Éthique à Nicomaque. Vol. 1. Translation, introduction and commentary by R. Antoine Gauthier and Jean-Yves Jolif. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
• Aristotle. 1959a. L’ Éthique à Nicomaque. Vol. 2. Part 2. Translation, introduction and commentary by R. Antoine Gauthier and Jean-Yves Jolif. Louvain: Publications Universitaires.
• Aristotle. 1959b. Éthique à Nicomaque. Translation, introduction and commentary by J. Tricot. Paris: Librairie Philosophique J. Vrin.
• Aristotle. 1960. Nicomachische Ethik. Translated by Franz Dirlmeier. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
• Aristotle. 1975. The Nicomachean Ethics. Translation and commentary by H. G. Apostle. Boston: D. Reidel Publishing Company.
• Aristotle. 1998. Nicomachean Ethics. Book VIII and IX. Translation and commentary by Michael Pakaluk. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Aristotle. 1999. The Nicomachean Ethics. Introduction, translation and commentary by Terence H. Irwin. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Aristotle. 2000. Nicomachean Ethics. Translated and edited by Roger Crisp. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Aristotle. 2002. Nicomachean Ethics. Translation with a historical introduction by Christopher Rowe. Philosophical introduction and commentary by Sarah Broadie. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Broadie, Sarah. 1991. Ethics with Aristotle. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Burnet, John. 1900. The Ethics of Aristotle. New York: Oxford University Press.
• Cooper, John, M. C. 1977. “Aristotle on the Forms of Friendship.” Review of Metaphysics 30 (4): 619–48.
• Cooper, John, M. C. 1986. Reason and Human Good in Aristotle. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
• Düring, Ingemar. 1966. Aristotelis. Heidelberg: Carl Winter.
• Fortenbaugh, Wiliam, W. 1975. “Aristotle’s Analysis of Friendship: Function, Analogy, Resemblance, and Focal Meaning.” Phronesis 20:51–62.
• Guthrie, Wiliam K. C. 1967. The Greek Philosophers from Thales to Aristotle. London: Methuen & Co.
• Heinaman, Robert. 1988. “Eudaimonia and Self-Suficiency in the Nicomachean Ethics.” Phronesis 33:35–41.
• Jaeger, Werner. 1923. Aristoteles. Grundlegung einen Geschichte seiner Entwicklung. Berlin: Weidmann.
• Joachim, Harold H. 1955. Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Kenny, Anthony. 1978. The Aristotelian Ethics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Konstant, David. 1996. “Greek Friendship.” American Journal of Philology 117:71–94.
• Lawrence, Gavin. 1993. “Aristotle and the Ideal Life.” Philosophical Review 102:1–34.
• Lawrence, Gavin. 2001. “The Function of the Function Argument.” Ancient Philosophy 21:445–75.
• Macintyre, Alasdair. 1985. After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory. London: Gerald Duckworth & Co.
• Pakaluk, Michael. 2005. Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Price, Anthony W. 2011. Virtue and Reason in Plato and Aristotle. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Ricouer, Paul. 1990. Soi-même comme un autre. Paris: Édition du Seuil.
• Schleiermacher, Friedrich. 1835. Über die ethischen Werks des Aristoteles. Berlin: Samtliche Werke.
• Segvic, Heda. 2008. “Deliberation and Choice in Aristotle.” In From Protagoras to Aristotle: Essays in Ancient Moral Philosophy, edited by Heda Segvic, 144–71. Princeton–Oxford: Princeton University Press.
• Smith, David. 1996. “Character and Intellect in Aristotle’s Ethics.” Phronesis 41:56–74.
• Smolak, Maciej. 2018. “Etymology and Meaning of προαίρεσις in Aristotle’s Ethics.” Aither, no. 20, 90–109.
• Stern-Gillet, Suzanne. 1995. Aristotle’s Philosophy of Friendship. Albany: State University of New York Press.
• Vlastos, Gregory. 1973. “The Individual as an Object of Love in Plato.” In Platonic Studies, 3–42. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
• Wiggins, David. 1980. “Deliberation and Practical Reason.” In Essays on Aristotle’s Ethics, edited by Amelie D. Rorty, 221–40. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Whiting, Jennifer. 1988. “Aristotle’s Function Argument: A Defence.” Ancient Philosophy 8:33–48.
• Whiting, Jennifer. 1991. “Impersonal Friends.” Monist 74:3–29.
• Whiting, Jennifer. 1996. “Self-Love and Authoritative Virtue: Prolegomenon to a Kantian Reading of Eudemian Ethics viii 3.” In Aristotle, Kant, and the Stoics: Rethinking Happiness and Duty, edited by Stephen Engstrom and Jennifer Whiting, 162–199. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Zeller, Eduard, and Rodolfo Mondolfo. 1969. La filosofia dei Greci nel suo sviluppo storico. Vol. 6, part 2. Edited by A. Plebe. Florence: La Nuova Italia.

Identifiers

DOI

10.18290/rf24721.7

Biblioteka Nauki

31233213