Joshua Taccolini

Even today, some Thomists follow the Early Modern, Neo-Scholastic tradition in reading Thomas Aquinas’s ethics as an Aristotelian, reason-dominant model in which emotions play a secondary role in the virtuous life. The virtuous person is one for whom reason is superior to and rules over the emotions. Alternatively, Eleonore Stump dissociates Thomas Aquinas’s ethics from Aristotle in an effort to overcome intellectualist interpretation. In this paper, I draw on Eugene Garver’s Aristotle scholarship to offer a reading of Aristotle’s ethics free of its Neoplatonic intellectualist reception in the Thomistic Commentary tradition. In doing so, I support Thomists who see emotivist elements in Thomas Aquinas’s ethics but do not yet see them in Aristotle. For these Thomists, Thomas Aquinas’s ethics will turn out, once again, Aristotelian.

Even today, some Thomists follow the Early Modern, Neo-Scholastic tradition in reading Thomas Aquinas’s ethics as an Aristotelian, reason-dominant model in which emotions play a secondary role in the virtuous life. The virtuous person is one for whom reason is superior to and rules over the emotions. Alternatively, Eleonore Stump dissociates Thomas Aquinas’s ethics from Aristotle in an effort to overcome intellectualist interpretation. In this paper, I draw on Eugene Garver’s Aristotle scholarship to offer a reading of Aristotle’s ethics free of its Neoplatonic intellectualist reception in the Thomistic Commentary tradition. In doing so, I support Thomists who see emotivist elements in Thomas Aquinas’s ethics but do not yet see them in Aristotle. For these Thomists, Thomas Aquinas’s ethics will turn out, once again, Aristotelian.

Normativni teoretičari pogreške nastoje braniti teoriju pogreške koja kaže da normativni sudovi pripisuju normativna svojstva, a takva svojstva, uključujući razloge za vjerovanje, nikada nisu instancirana. Mnogi filozofi su iznijeli prigovore obrani teorije koja podrazumijeva da ne možemo imati razloga vjerovati u nju. Spencer Case prigovara da teoretičari pogreške jednostavno ne mogu izbjeći samopobijanje. S druge strane, Bart Streumer tvrdi da ne možemo vjerovati u normativnu teoriju pogreške, ali da to, pomalo iznenađujuće, pomaže njenim zagovornicima da je obrane od ovih prigovora. Smatram da, ako je Streumerov argument uspješan, on omogućuje teoretičarima pogreške izbjegavanje Caseovog prigovora o samopobijanju. Međutim, nadograđujem i poboljšavam Caseov argument kako bih pokazao da nikada ne bismo mogli uspješno obraniti normativnu teoriju pogreške, bez obzira na to možemo li vjerovati u nju ili ne. Dakle, samopobijanje ostaje. Rad zaključujem nudeći neke razloge za mišljenje da naša nesposobnost da obranimo normativnu teoriju pogreške znači da bismo je trebali odbaciti, što bi posljedično značilo da je ona neistinita.

The phenomenon of the little—the weak, the veiled, the lowly—is, by right, overlooked. Its revelation passes unnoticed while the self remains inflated. The arrival of the little awaits its selfless reducer, not the nihilating selflessness of an absolute alterity but a way of becoming little which occasions its fullest manifestation. So little, so revealed. I advance toward a phenomenology of becoming little according to its spirituality’s namesake, Thérèse of Lisieux. I build on the phenomenologies of Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Luc Marion pausing at three moments along the way: the return to childhood; the discovery, after me, of self-confidence; and an imbalanced audacity. The upshot is that the significance of the little is big: littleness makes possible the immanent glimpse of unconditional revelation, a glimpse of beauty.

In this paper, I argue for the necessity of including what I call “categorical norms” in Thomas Aquinas’s account of the ground of obligation (normativity theory) by drawing on the value phenomenology of Dietrich von Hildebrand. A categorical norm is one conceptually irreducible to any non-normative concept and which obligates us irrespective of pre-existing aims, goals, or desires. I show that Thomistic normativity theory on any plausible reading of Aquinas lacks categorical norms and then raise two serious objections which constitute master arguments against it. The upshot is that this theory requires reform. I end by proposing work remaining for such reform, namely, an expansion of the Thomistic metaphysic and anthropology.

One desideratum for contemporary theories of emotion both in philosophy and affective science is an explanation of the relation between emotions and objects that illicit them. According to one research tradition in emotion theory, the Evaluative Tradition, the explanation is simple: emotions just are evaluative judgments about their objects. Growing research in affective science supports this claim suggesting that emotions constitute (or contribute to) evaluative judgments such as moral judgments about right and wrong. By contrast, recent scholarship in two historical emotion theories, Augustinian and Thomistic, emphasize their sharp distinction between cognitive judgments and affectivity or between reason and emotion. For these historical models, reason, not emotion, is responsible for moral judgment. Are the evaluative and historical models at irreconcilable odds? Should we discard old models that fail to satisfy intuitions about the intricate role of emotions in moral judgment? This paper compares these research programs and suggests a roadmap for collaboration.