Sarah Broadie

(1941 - 2021)

In De Interpretatione 9 Aristotle considers the proposition that everything that is or comes to be, is or comes to be of necessity. From the supposition that this is so, he draws the following consequence: ‘[In that case] there would be no need to deliberate or take trouble, [saying] that if we do this there will be so and so, and if we do not do this there will not be so and so’. Finding this result absurd, he rejects the supposition and concludes that some events or states of affairs are contingent.

Abstract We act so as to make things better than they would have been but for the action; we are horrified by an uncontrollable catastrophe because it made things so much worse than they would have been without it. Such attitudes are reasonable only if it is reasonable to make the associated counterfactual conditional judgments. But making such judgments cannot be reasonable if one holds both (1) that this world is absolutely and uniquely actual (?absolute actualism?), and (2) that everything is settled (?ES?). Determinism (strictly understood) figures as the most obvious example of ES theory, but ES can occur in an indeterministic form too: both forms are considered

Part 1 examines the roles of (a) intelligent cause, (b) empirical materials (fire, earth etc.), and (c) the resulting cosmos, in the account of world-making in the Timaeus. It is argued that the presence of (b) is essential for the distinctness of (a) and (c); and an explanation is proposed for why the biblical idea of creation faces no such problem. Part II shows how different suggestions implicit in Plato's doctrine of the intelligible model give rise to radically different kinds of Platonic metaphysics.

Plato's Sun-Like Good is a revolutionary discussion of the Republic's philosopher-rulers, their dialectic, and their relation to the form of the good. With detailed arguments Sarah Broadie explains how, if we think of the form of the good as 'interrogative', we can re-conceive those central reference-points of Platonism in down-to-earth terms without loss to our sense of Plato's philosophical greatness. The book's main aims are: first, to show how for Plato the form of the good is of practical value in a way that we can understand; secondly, to make sense of the connection he draws between dialectic and the form of the good; and thirdly, to make sense of the relationship between the form of the good and other forms while respecting the contours of the sun-good analogy and remaining faithful to the text of the Republic itself.

There are various motives for refining the notion of cause. Aristotle's was an interest in providing the most informative and illuminating method of explaining the central natural phenomena of his universe. A different sort of motive is created by problems of free will and responsibility, of which readers may have been reminded by the reference to indeterminism. The thought that our free and responsible behaviour is caused by factors over which we have no control has often seemed impossible to accept and impossible to reject. The challenge then is to refine the notion of cause either so that the thought becomes more acceptable or so that it becomes more rejectable.

Le sujet de l’étude est la relation entre le bonheur et la chance selon Aristote. Ce problème est abordé à partir de la question de savoir si la sagesse et la vertu suffisent au bonheur. Si tel était le cas, une personne pauvre et malade serait heureuse. Pour Aristote, au contraire, le bonheur nécessite des biens non moraux pour être complet. Le bonheur n’est pas seulement ce qui rend les autres choses bonnes, il est aussi ce qui est complet et désirable. Dans ce cas, la question du rapport du bonheur à la chance se pose : le bonheur dépend-il de la chance? Ce problème est lui-même examiné dans le cas particulier d’un bien non moral : la fin de la vie. Aristote est-il d’accord avec le mot de Solon : « Ne pas dire “heureux” ceux qui sont encore vivants, mais seulement une fois la fin atteinte. » Peut-on dire qu’une vie est heureuse même si sa fin est inconnue? Peut-on dire qu’elle est heureuse maintenant, quand on sait qu’elle se terminera misérablement? L’auteur fait une lecture détaillée des deux traitements qu’Aristote donne à cette question en EE II 1 et EN I 10-11. Elle montre que, selon l’ Éthique à Nicomaque, il est possible de dire que quelqu’un est heureux même si l’on ne connaît pas la fin de sa vie. Le bonheur ne dépend pas du hasard dans la mesure où le bonheur dépend entièrement de l’activité vertueuse qui, à son tour, ne dépend que de l’agent. L’article se termine par une analyse plus brève de ce qu’on appelle la « chance constitutive » en EN III 7 et X 10.