After Theophrastus, energeia passed into neglect among the Peripatetics, but the notion of an activity that is at once restful and creative continued to fascinate philosophers up to the time of Plotinus, who used energeia to explain how things can come forth from the One, energeia becoming a sort of “emission.” One of Bradshaw’s theses is that this concept was transformed into that of the Thomistic esse. This theory, however, does not agree with the secondary place assigned to being in (...) Neoplatonism. (shrink)

The text argues against the Stoics that the soul is incorporeal and is not in a subject. Pages 127–50 of the Greek text are concerned with vision and reject the different theories of the pre-Socratics. The last part explains how seeing comes about according to Aristotle. Alexander then passes to a study of man’s basic inclinations and of virtue, correcting views of the Stoa. With thirty-seven arguments he shows that virtue alone is not enough for happiness and also reminds the (...) reader that female and male are not different species. The closing sections on luck and fate are preceded by an interesting consideration of what depends on us, that is, those things about which we deliberate. The paragraph on luck sets forth Aristotle’s doctrine of Physics 2; the pages on fate bring together material from Alexander’s De fato: what is in accordance with fate is in accordance with nature. (shrink)

The two last chapters of the book are a personal addition of Aquino giving a communal dimension to the illative sense and mapping how people ordinarily reach certitude by transmission of knowledge and by relying on the reason of others. He leaves behind certain limitations of Newman, his “personality quirks and cultural biases”, and stresses the need of the virtues and the damaging influence of the vices on the illative sense. Christian wisdom is a mature form of the illative sense. (...) In chapter 5 we are told that even in theology one needs this communal exchange to reach an informed judgment. Instead of solitary theological discernment we must form “communities of theological judgment.” This part of the book describes what happens in teaching and learning as an application of Newman’s illative sense. A good number of modern authors are quoted to strengthen the argument. (shrink)

The majority of the twenty-two essays of this festschrift start from the assumption that after Kant's critique and Nietzsche's work metaphysics has become problematic. About half of the articles concern Nietzsche's thought. This is understandable inasmuch as Wolfgang Müller-Lauter, to whom this festschrift is dedicated, devoted much of his work to Nietzsche.

In a following section of the book, under the heading “Causes and Analysis” causes per se and causes per accidens are studied. Predication is per se when the attribute belongs to the intrinsic structure of the subject, or when it is not accidental, and finally when it belongs to the thing itself. All causes can be reduced, Bastit believes, to formal causality.

Reale points out that the good and the demiurgic intelligence are radically distinct, a conclusion denied by J. Seifert in the last paper of the book. Fourteen characteristics of the idea of the good are listed by T. A. Szlezák. It is obvious, he argues, that the theory of principles of Plato’s unwritten doctrines is not identical with what Republic 6 and 7 say about the good, but there is no real opposition. In the next paper, however, H. W. Ausland, (...) after a sober evaluation of the esoteric teachings, suspects that Reale and Szlezák succumb to a certain romanticism. According to L. Brisson, the good belongs to the sphere of being, even if it is not being ; it is not in every way beyond being. Plotinus was the first to place it above being. M. Erler shows what must be the attitude of the philosopher with regard to the information orally received by him. Although Plato did not want to define the good, he pointed out several of its characteristics. The good, M. Migliori notes, combines in itself beauty, proportion, and unity. The Philebus pursues the doctrine of the Republic and goes into the direction of the unwritten doctrines. The ultimate reality, however, is beyond our understanding. E. Cattanei attempts to explain how for Plato mathematics is a way of access to the knowledge of the good. R. Ferber, on the other hand, stresses that Plato nowhere directly says that the essence of the good is the one. Beauty, symmetry, and truth are not the good itself. According to C. Gill, Gadamer demystified the idea of the good, a view which shows some common ground with the position of analytical philosophy: the good is not a transcendent entity. M. Vegetti, however, upholds the transcendent character of the good as a cause of being. G. A. Press argues that over the past hundred years Plato was considered a dogmatic philosopher, and it was believed that the leading speaker in the dialogues states Plato’s own views, but the situation is far more complex. Plato wants us to acquire a vision rather than propositional knowledge. The idea of the good should not be accorded a special position. C. Rowe tries to demystify some current interpretations, whereas F. Ferrari insists on the causality of the good, and sees Plato’s teaching as the origin of the entire tradition of negative theology. Yet some texts give the impression that the good belongs to the ontological order. C. Porebski reminds us that problems of ethics are the starting point of what Plato says about the good in the Republic. According to F. Trabattoni, Aristotle’s description of Plato’s theory of principles is wrong and his philosophy differs fundamentally from Plato’s. The School of Tübingen is a prisoner of Aristotle’s interpretation. Plato’s reluctance to describe the good in detail may mark the beginning of a skeptic trend in the Academy. The Parmenides tells us, E. Berti says, that one has first to remove all hypotheses before a definition of the Good can be given. E. Moutsopoulos draws attention to some simplistic and wrong qualifications of Plato’s thought as related to idealism and mentions Kant and Hegel’s attitudes with regard to Platonism. J. F. Crosby points to a clear leaving behind of the Socratic “no one knowingly does wrong” in the Alcibiades 216b: as Plato explains in the Protagoras, one may live according to one’s lower appetite or follow the insight of the rational soul. G. Santos makes a strong stand in favor of the identity of goodness and reality. L. P. Gerson examines theories of Platos’s development: there is no evidence of a theory of the form of the good earlier than the Republic. Aristotle, J. Dudley writes, upheld an ethical ideal resembling that of Plato, substituting the contemplation of the unmoved mover for that of the idea of the good. In the last paper J. Seifert argues that Plato identified the demiurge and the good. (shrink)