Sarah Broadie

(1941 - 2021)

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.

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.

This chapter continues the discussion of Cambiano's on A 1, since Aristotle's chapters A 1-2 are evidently a continuous introduction. The problem of what exactly it is an introduction to, i.e. the perennial question of the unity and diversity of Aristotle's metaphysical treatises, is considered here, although necessarily only in outline. It is also argued that, contrary to some scholarly opinions, this introduction should not be regarded as a protreptic to philosophy as such, i.e. as belonging to the genre of Aristotle's Protrepticus. Whereas that genre aims to promote the pursuit of sophia as a way of life, hence as ultimately an ethical choice or determination of the highest human good, the present text is meant to establish the nature of the highest or most paradigmatic form of cognition as such, leaving aside the question of ranking this in relation to other possible candidates for the highest good overall.

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.

Written over a period of thirty-five years, these essays explore the topics of causation, time, fate, determinism, natural teleology, different conceptions of the human soul, the idea of the highest good and the human significance of leisure. While most of the essays take as their starting-point some theme in Ancient Greek philosophy, they are meant not as exegesis but as distinctive and independent contributions to live philosophizing. Written with clarity, precision without technicality, and philosophical imagination, they will engage a wide range of readers, including scholars and students of Ancient Greek philosophy and others working on more contemporary analytical concerns.

THIS PAPER is concerned with an ancient rebuttal of determinism, possibly the oldest in our Western tradition. It runs as follows: if whatever happens happens of necessity, there is no point at all in deliberating; but the consequent is intolerable, so the antecedent must be rejected. This objection is put forward by Aristotle, and it reappears in elaborated forms in later works of antiquity. But for the most part, philosophers on both sides of the determinist debate have remained unimpressed by the argument. Determinists from early times have rejected it as fallacious, and their opinion is usually shared these days even by opponents of determinism. Here this negative verdict will be contested. It will be maintained in what follows that the Aristotelian objection expresses an important truth, namely that determinism is an absurd position for anyone not prepared to abandon the ordinary assumption that human beings have often good reason to deliberate. The absurdity will be shown to stem from a distinctive feature of the conditional judgments used in practical reasoning.