The last Oxford academic, who spoke in my philosophy seminar was Dr Anthony Kenny, the Master of Balliol College. I devoted to the event the 'Pursuit of Philosophy', published in History of Political Thought (Vol. V, No 3, Winter 1984). Let me quote: 'My discussion with Anthony Kenny on the right pursuit of philosophy took place in Prague in April 1980. At that time my philosophy seminar had been harassed by the Czech police, but we still managed to meet. The arrival of the Master of Balliol was anticipated with great expectations. Some expected a catastrophe which would definitely finish my seminar. I could not imagine the police interfering once Kenny was granted the visas. That is why I hoped for a breakthrough. If the police refrained from harassing us in this case they would hardly interfere on future occasions. My aspirations would have been fulfilled. Prague would have had a place where once a week young people could discuss philosophy. Our philosophy seminar would have been a step on the road towards society which would maintain the social and economic framework of socialism and would allow free development of individuals.
Kenny arrived at our department about half an hour before the actual beginning of the seminar. He said that in his talk he would concentrate on a passage from the Nicomachean Ethics and a passage from the Eudemian Ethics: 'Would you translate these two passages in Czech to your students at the beginning of our session?'
I was relieved when I saw the Nicomachean passage (10th book 1177a12-1177b5). In my text it was heavily underlined and marked by an exclamation mark. I began to sweat when I saw the lengthy passage in the Eudemian Ethics (1218b31-1219a39); I had never read the Eudemian Ethics. I excused myself and retired into the kitchen. I barely managed to read the passage once when my wife summoned me to open the seminar.
Kenny began by asking me to translate the two passages. I accepted the task, reading each passage sentence by sentence aloud in Greek before interpreting it in Czech. Kenny chose those two passages for he intended to talk about the pursuit of happiness in the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics. He dealt with the problem in his recently published The Aristotelian Ethics (Oxford 1978), where he proved, against the dominant opinions of scholars, that the three books, which the Nicomachean and the Eudemian Ethics have in common, belonged originally to the Eudemian Ethics, which he viewed as genuinely Aristotle's, while the Nicomachean Ethics he saw as students' imitations. Let me quote from his book: 'A person who organised his life entirely with a view to the promotion of philosophical speculation would not be wise but cunning, not phronimos but panourgos. The type of person whom many regard as the hero of the Nicomachean Ethics turns out, by the standards of the Eudemian Ethics, to be a vicious and ignoble character.' (p. 214)
When Kenny got to this point, I had to exchange the role of an interpreter for that of a discussion partner: 'In the Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle puts forward reasons why philosophy is the accomplished source of good life. He points to its being most continuous and independent of external circumstances. It reminds me of Socrates who says in the Apology: 'As long as I live I will not stop doing philosophy.' Kenny did not oppose the 'Socratic' interpretation, but asked: 'wouldn't you consider Plato a much better philosopher than Socrates?' I replied: 'How can I accept that Plato was a better philosopher when he is full of Socrates?' - At this point dozens of policemen stormed into the room.
No comments:
Post a Comment