Sergio Alejandro Ariza Vargas

This study provides a methodological and methodical interpretation of the first three chapters of Book VII of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics. By this interpretation is meant one that focuses primarily on the passages in which Aristotle states what his investigative procedure is or will be, and on the passages in which he is presumably following this stated procedure. The work examines the relationship between the investigative method outlined in Chapter 1 and Aristotle’s investigative practice in Chapters 1–3, focusing on methodological, methodical, and structural elements. A rigorous analysis of these chapters determines how Aristotle employs this method to investigate the relationship between specific character dispositions (héxeis, incontinence, continence, softness, endurance, vice, and virtue). The study demonstrates that these chapters are intricately and meticulously organized around methodological considerations. It reveals that Aristotle already possesses the definitions of at least incontinence and continence as foundational starting points (archai) for the inquiry, which he employs alongside the method to examine a set of opinions concerning the essential characteristics of these dispositions and the relationship between these dispositions. The work analyzes the rules of the method, concluding that it involves: (1) compiling reputable opinions (endóxa) and (2) formulating and resolving aporiai (puzzles) about these opinions to confirm or reject them. The investigation concludes that there is complete coherence between Aristotle’s methodological guidelines and his investigative practice in these chapters, offering a significant contribution to understanding Aristotelian methodology and its practical application.

¿Cuál es la diferencia entre los sentidos de la vista y el tacto si las propiedades espaciales que perciben estos sentidos son, al parecer, las mismas? ¿Cuál es la diferencia entre ver y tocar formas? Este es el tema del artículo “Sight and touch” (1992) de Michael Martin. En este breve texto, es mi propósito concentrarme en algunos desarrollos de Martin sobre el sentido del tacto y poner esos desarrollos en relación con dos experiencias táctiles particulares. La idea principal en la que quiero concentrarme es la del contraste interno-externo como la característica de la conciencia corporal que “proporciona lo que necesitamos para un sentido del tacto” (Martin 1992 203). Las experiencias táctiles particulares con las que quiero relacionar esta idea son la de la ingesta de alimentos y el estar anestesiado. Pretendo ver si estas experiencias pueden constituir algún tipo de objeción a dicho contraste interno-externo. // What is the difference between the senses of sight and touch, if the spatial properties perceived by these senses are apparently the same ones? What is the difference between seeing and touching shapes? This is the subject matter of Michael Martin’s article “Sight and touch” (1992). In this short text, my purpose is to focus on some of Martin’s developments on the sense of touch, and to put those developments in relation with two tactile experiences. The main idea I want to focus on is that of the inner-outer contrast as the characteristic of body consciousness that “provides what we need for a sense of touch” (Martin 1992 203). The tactile experiences with which I want to relate this idea are those of food intake and being anesthetized. I try to see if these experiences can constitute some objection to this inner-outer contrast.