Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study

Sayı: 22 30 Nisan 2014
  • Sinem Hatipoğlu
PDF İndir

Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study

Öz

The concept of prohairesis in Aristotelian ethics, usually translated as deliberate choice or policy decision, is later revived by Epictetus, a major figure among the Stoics. In this paper I critically examine how the concept of prohairesis is employed by Aristotle and by Epictetus and the differences involved. Aristotle’s concept of prohairesis acquires its meaning in a framework according to which we live in a world where at least some things are up to us whereas Epictetus’s concept of prohairesis acquires its meaning in a framework where nothing is up to us. As such, Aristotle’s concept of prohairesis is essentially about choice and assumes freedom and thereby more ethical in character, whereas Epictetus’s concept of prohairesis is used to provide a metaphysical basis for freedom and as such less ethical in character.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

  1. ARISTOTLE (1984) The Complete Works of Aristotle, the revised Oxford translation, edited by J. Barnes, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  2. BENNETT, Byard (2001) “Review of Emotion and Peace of Mind: From Stoic Agitation to Christian Temptation, by Richard Sorabji”, Bryn Mawr Classical Review, 2001.10.38.
  3. BOBZIEN, Susanne (2001) Determinism and Freedom in Stoic Philosophy, New York: Oxford University.
  4. DOBBIN, Robert (1991) “Prohairesis in Epictetus”, Ancient Philosophy, 11(1)/1991: 111-135.
  5. EPICTETUS (1966-7) The Discourses as reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments, translated by W. A. Oldfather, vol. I and II, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  6. KAHN, Charles (1988) “Discovering the Will: From Aristotle to Augustine”, The Question of ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, eds. John Dillon and Anthony Long, Berkeley: University of California Press.
  7. LONG, Anthony (2002) Epictetus - A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life, New York: Oxford University Press.
  8. SORABJI, Richard (1973-4) “Aristotle on the Role of Intellect in Virtue”, Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, New Series, 74/1973-4: 107-129.

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

eng

Konular

-

Bölüm

-

Yazarlar

Sinem Hatipoğlu Bu kişi benim

Yayımlanma Tarihi

30 Nisan 2014

Gönderilme Tarihi

25 Şubat 2016

Kabul Tarihi

-

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2014 Sayı: 22

Kaynak Göster

APA
Hatipoğlu, S. (2014). Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, 22, 45-64. https://doi.org/10.20981/kuufefd.19827
AMA
1.Hatipoğlu S. Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study. Kaygı. 2014;(22):45-64. doi:10.20981/kuufefd.19827
Chicago
Hatipoğlu, Sinem. 2014. “Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, sy 22: 45-64. https://doi.org/10.20981/kuufefd.19827.
EndNote
Hatipoğlu S (01 Nisan 2014) Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi 22 45–64.
IEEE
[1]S. Hatipoğlu, “Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study”, Kaygı, sy 22, ss. 45–64, Nis. 2014, doi: 10.20981/kuufefd.19827.
ISNAD
Hatipoğlu, Sinem. “Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi. 22 (01 Nisan 2014): 45-64. https://doi.org/10.20981/kuufefd.19827.
JAMA
1.Hatipoğlu S. Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study. Kaygı. 2014;:45–64.
MLA
Hatipoğlu, Sinem. “Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study”. Kaygı. Bursa Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi, sy 22, Nisan 2014, ss. 45-64, doi:10.20981/kuufefd.19827.
Vancouver
1.Sinem Hatipoğlu. Prohairesis in Aristotle and Epictetus: A Comparative Study. Kaygı. 01 Nisan 2014;(22):45-64. doi:10.20981/kuufefd.19827

Cited By

Aristoteles Düşüncesinde Politik Biyoloji ve Prohairesis

Kaygı. Uludağ Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Dergisi

https://doi.org/10.20981/kaygi.539668

e-ISSN: 2645-8950