Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base...Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base his ethics on an externalist, naturalistic basis （including a theory of human nature）; second, that attempts to read him as an ethical naturalist are a modem anachronism, generated by the supposed need to ground all viable philosophical claims on claims analogous to the natural sciences; and third, that a suitably construed Aristotelian conception of ＂second nature＂ can form the basis of a viable contemporary philosophy of mind, world, and normativity. This paper challenges each of these three claims. Aristotle＇s ethics, we will claim alongside Terence Irwin, Bemard Williams, Philippa Foot, and many premodem commentators, is based in the kind of physics, metaphysics, and metaphysical biology that McDowell says it cannot be. Historically, we will argue that McDowell＇s argument that Aristotle＇s ethical reasoning is ＂autonomous＂ or ＂self-standing＂ is distinctly modem, citing evidence from the leading medieval commentators on the Nicomachean Ethics. The felt need to which McDowell responds, of reading Aristotle＇s ethical or political thought as wholly non-metaphysical, arises from out of the successes of the natural sciences in the modem world, which he agrees discredit the Aristotelian, teleological account of nature. In the final part of the paper, we propose that McDowell＇s account of normativity, rooted in the non-metaphysical ＂second nature＂ he reads into Aristotle, we will contend, is as it stands inescapably relativistic. On a different note, we need also to recognize, as McDowell does not, that this is a new Aristotle, one shaped by our requirements and space of reasons, not the mind and world of the Greek Philosopher himself.展开更多
This article discusses the role that nature plays in ethnic literature and films in the Seventeen-Year Period(1949-66).It takes the story of Daji and Her Fathers as an example and investigates the ways in which nature...This article discusses the role that nature plays in ethnic literature and films in the Seventeen-Year Period(1949-66).It takes the story of Daji and Her Fathers as an example and investigates the ways in which nature features in the reconstruction of ethnic identity in the formation of a multiethnic nation as in the case of China.I will explore three aspects:first,the debate on humanism,which was closely related to ethnic minority film production at the time.A central issue of the debate then was the question of“humanistic”-that is,affective,emotional,subjective,and most importantly,natural-expression in literary and art works.Ethnic minority identity,with its unique status,was given some latitude for humanistic expression and“natural”understanding.Second,due to ethnic minority groups’special significance in China’s nation-building,a reconstruction of ethnic minority nature became imperative for the People’s Republic of China.This reconstruction involves mostly restructuring a“second nature,”or dialectic nature of minority under the socialist mandate.This dialectic nature demands something more than natural,immediate constituents and requires a socially and politically mediated ethnic minority nature that is aligned with multiethnic nationality.Third,this dialectic nature is to be formed following Marxist dialectical materialism,mainly through the means of social(ist)labor that changes nature.展开更多
文摘Aristotle＇s Nicomachean Ethics is central to John McDowell＇s classic Mind and World. In Lectures IV and V of that work, McDowell makes three claims concerning Aristotle＇s ethics： first, that Aristotle did not base his ethics on an externalist, naturalistic basis （including a theory of human nature）; second, that attempts to read him as an ethical naturalist are a modem anachronism, generated by the supposed need to ground all viable philosophical claims on claims analogous to the natural sciences; and third, that a suitably construed Aristotelian conception of ＂second nature＂ can form the basis of a viable contemporary philosophy of mind, world, and normativity. This paper challenges each of these three claims. Aristotle＇s ethics, we will claim alongside Terence Irwin, Bemard Williams, Philippa Foot, and many premodem commentators, is based in the kind of physics, metaphysics, and metaphysical biology that McDowell says it cannot be. Historically, we will argue that McDowell＇s argument that Aristotle＇s ethical reasoning is ＂autonomous＂ or ＂self-standing＂ is distinctly modem, citing evidence from the leading medieval commentators on the Nicomachean Ethics. The felt need to which McDowell responds, of reading Aristotle＇s ethical or political thought as wholly non-metaphysical, arises from out of the successes of the natural sciences in the modem world, which he agrees discredit the Aristotelian, teleological account of nature. In the final part of the paper, we propose that McDowell＇s account of normativity, rooted in the non-metaphysical ＂second nature＂ he reads into Aristotle, we will contend, is as it stands inescapably relativistic. On a different note, we need also to recognize, as McDowell does not, that this is a new Aristotle, one shaped by our requirements and space of reasons, not the mind and world of the Greek Philosopher himself.
文摘This article discusses the role that nature plays in ethnic literature and films in the Seventeen-Year Period(1949-66).It takes the story of Daji and Her Fathers as an example and investigates the ways in which nature features in the reconstruction of ethnic identity in the formation of a multiethnic nation as in the case of China.I will explore three aspects:first,the debate on humanism,which was closely related to ethnic minority film production at the time.A central issue of the debate then was the question of“humanistic”-that is,affective,emotional,subjective,and most importantly,natural-expression in literary and art works.Ethnic minority identity,with its unique status,was given some latitude for humanistic expression and“natural”understanding.Second,due to ethnic minority groups’special significance in China’s nation-building,a reconstruction of ethnic minority nature became imperative for the People’s Republic of China.This reconstruction involves mostly restructuring a“second nature,”or dialectic nature of minority under the socialist mandate.This dialectic nature demands something more than natural,immediate constituents and requires a socially and politically mediated ethnic minority nature that is aligned with multiethnic nationality.Third,this dialectic nature is to be formed following Marxist dialectical materialism,mainly through the means of social(ist)labor that changes nature.
