Abstract

Historically, interpretations of Aristotle's ethics could be divided into two schools based on the interpreter's analysis of eudaimonia, human flourishing. Inclusivists maintain Aristotle believed that eudaimonia consists of the exercise of all the virtues balanced together into a complete life. Intellectualists argue Aristotle believed that eudaimonia consists in theoria, contemplation, alone. ;There are problems with each of these interpretive schools. Intellectualist interpretations have trouble accounting for the special status Aristotle grants to practical virtue. Inclusivist interpretations have difficulty explaining Aristotle's remarks in Nicomachean Ethics X 7-8, and their interpretations of eudaimonia do not work with Aristotle's analysis of practical reason. ;My chief purpose is to develop and defend an interpretation of Aristotle's conception of eudaimonia which makes Aristotle's remarks on the subject consistent. In part one, I consider the contemporary interpretations, and I argue that both intellectualist and inclusivist interpretations fail. Inclusivists are unable to provide an adequate account of Aristotle's remarks in the Metaphysics, De Anima, and Nicomachean Ethics 10 because they reject the priority of theoria. Intellectualists are unable to explain why Aristotle thought there would be no conflict between the pursuit of theoria and the demands of the practical virtues because they ignore the relationship between theoria and the lower activities of human beings. In part two, I develop a compatibilist interpretation of Aristotle's remarks. I begin by examining Aristotle's remarks in the physical and metaphysical works. Here Aristotle considers the end of human life from a perspective external to the agent. What, from the standpoint of theoretical science, is the end of human life? Aristotle answers that it is the highest activity, theoria. Finally I turn to the ethical works, which are written from a perspective internal to the agent. Aristotle's question in these works is, What is it rational for a human being to pursue? Once again, his answer is that the individual's good is theoria. But why this is so and how theoria is to be pursued is only answerable from the perspective of the individual who possesses practical wisdom. I conclude that Aristotle's remarks about eudaimonia are consistent