Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

The view that Aristotle considered the separate, self-thinking, unmoved substance described in Metaphysics Λ to be a god has come under fire in recent decades, notably from Richard Bodéüs. On Bodéüs’s account, Aristotle’s gods are in fact (a) composites of soul and body that are (b) beneficent towards mankind in particular ways, as an unmoved mover allegedly could not be; furthermore, (c) references to god or the gods that may seem to identify them with the unmoved movers are not in fact intended to suggest an identification, but are rather analogies serving the didactic purpose of rendering abstract realities more intelligible to Aristotle’s audience.In the present essay I respond to each of these three claims, first presenting them in summary form and supplying evidence in their favor, and then offering criticism of the conclusions that Bodéüs draws. The claim of psycho-corporeality, (a), I show to be unwarranted by the facts that the evidentiary texts are in themselves inconclusive and that Aristotle’s natural philosophy does not permit within the cosmos beings that have the characteristics he attributes to the gods. The gods’ beneficence, meanwhile, part of claim (b), does seem to have been maintained by Aristotle. But I argue that it only need be understood as being in conflict with a ‘universal’ cause, such as that of the unmoved movers, if one supposes that this sort of action is not praiseworthy or is incapable of producing particular benefits, conclusions that the texts themselves do not warrant; even apart from this, Aristotle’s gods seem incapable of the ‘particular’ and conscious causation Bodéüs suggests. Lastly, the gods are invoked in metaphysical and cosmological texts, as I try show, not simply as didactic devices, as in claim (c): both the rhetorical presentation and the structure of the Aristotelian cosmos render the presence of the supposed analogies unlikely and their content doubtful. With all this in mind, I the...

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

It has been argued that there is a major inconsistency between Rawls two most famous contributions to political philosophy: A Theory of Justice, his theory of justice for a domestic liberal society and The Law of People, his theory of international relations. It has been suggested that the ethical universalism that underlies A Theory of Justice should lead to a cosmopolitan theory of international relations, which The Law of Peoples is not. This paper will discuss Rawls particular approach to normative justification which he calls Kantian constructivism, and argue that it is his commitment to this unique approach to justification which accounts for some of the most important developments in A Theory of Justice as well as the seeming inconsistencies in The Law of Peoples.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)