[KB] Causes of Action

Wed Oct 10 15:28:59 EDT 2018

Thanks Jim, Robert, and Ed. I had no idea this was going to be a difficult
question. Robert's point that this is a practical heuristic rather than a
systematic examination of action is well taken, though the translation says
"The causes of action are..." rather than the more qualified sense of "a
way of thinking about" this or a heuristic. But, we do have to consider the
context of the discussion (within a discussion of forensic address in a
practical book on rhetoric), so perhaps that should be central to our
understanding.

Ed's explanation that the word is physis makes me want to connect it to the
physis-nomos controversy that so animates the sophists' (and others')
binary. The source in this light is beyond human constructions or culture
and fundamentally rooted in something universal.

Whether's he's invoking a fundamental aspect of human nature or offering a
heuristic, I'm still at a loss for examples to illustrate "nature" as the
cause of action that is relevant to forensic considerations. "The man
shamelessly urinated in public because 'nature' called"? "The poor man was
hungry so he stole the bread"? With new understandings of genetics, we
could add "His extra chromosome made him violent." Undoubtedly KB would
point out the paradox of substance makes nailing down the source of action
in such cases difficult. Rhetorically identifying the source as physis
would seem to be a good way to justify action that one might otherwise be
held responsible for. On the other hand, when A later talks about bad men
doing bad acts, lecherous men doing lecherous acts, it isn't clear to me
whether those character traits are "natural" in this sense or not. (I
recall that Isocrates had claimed that he couldn't make a bad seed good by
teaching him morals, even if studying phronesis might help improve moral
feeling.)

Hadn't heard about a new translation of the Rhetoric. I wonder what there
is left to add to earlier translations.

Cheers,

Clarke

On Wed, Oct 10, 2018 at 1:50 PM James Klumpp <jklumpp at umd.edu> wrote:

> Thanks guys.  I am passing this along to Clarke with thanks to him for
> posing an interesting question.  Our colleague Bob Wess weighed in too.
>
> "Commentary on these seven causes of action appears on pp. 218-34 in E. M.
> Cope, An Introduction to Aristotle's Rhetoric, London: Macmillan, 1867.
> This commentary includes references to other works by Aristotle, so that it
> provides substantial material on which to draw in developing an
> interpretation of the passage.
>
> "For Aristotle, nature is an internal principle of change (1369b1), by
> contrast to the external principle of change involved in something like
> building a house (wood would not become a house by itself). Maybe this
> internal principle could be conceived as encompassing Burkean "thinking of
> the body." Not sure. "
>
> That seems consistent with Ed's notion.  And it makes sense to me that
> nature is the "oak is in the acorn" sense of things fulfilling their
> telos.  Yvonne in pondering this, raised the issue of whether "appetite"
> was less physical (hunger or thirst) or more a human-driven playing out of
> character.  1969b15 does make it seem other than hunger or thirst.  It
> seems to relate to the pursuit of pleasure.  For what it is worth I note
> Rhys Roberts in his introduction classifies the first three causes as
> "involuntary" the last four as voluntary.   And A says "We do things
> voluntarily when we do them consciously and without constraint."  Clearly
> Roberts interprets nature as outside consciousness or constraint which is
> also consistent with our thinking here.
>
> And Gaines, thank you for pointing to the context in forensic.  A
> certainly writes this from a volitional notion of rhetoric so that his
> notion of action here is a bit displaced from Burke's notion of action as a
> constant ground of human life.
>
> Thanks again.  Great to have such intellectual buddies.
>
> Jim K
>
>
>
> On 10/10/2018 1:50 PM, Gaines, Robert wrote:
>
> Dear Colleagues:
>
>
> I do not have anything definitive to say about this passage. However, I
> think it is safe to offer two cautions about its interpretation:
>
>
> 1. Aristotle's purpose in this part of Rh. 1 (beginning 1.10.1; 1368b) is
> to discuss the premises from which it is necessary to construct
> [rhetorical] syllogisms concerning accusation and defense. Accordingly, as
> regards Aristotle's list of causes for "all" human actions
> at 1.10.8 (1369a), he is philosophically committed only to its utility in
> framing syllogisms for forensic cases.
>
>
> 2. Aristotle's list of causes at 1369a seems to mix distinguishable levels
> of his own explanations for actions throughout his corpus (see, e.g.,
> levels of teleological, rational, psychophysical causal, and physical
> causal explanation in Charles, *Aristotle's Philosophy of Action*, 1984).
> This apparently supports the notion that the list is provided as a summary
> heuristic for argument-finding about actions rather than as a nuanced
> explanation of their nature.
>
>
> Most cordially,
>
> Robert
>
>
> Robert N. Gaines
> Professor of Communication Studies
> The University of Alabama
> 203 Reese Phifer Hall
> Box 870172
> Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172
> Phone 205-348-8074
> rngaines at ua.edu | http://robertgaines.academy
>
> Volvito aestus
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Edward Schiappa <schiappa at mit.edu> <schiappa at mit.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2018 9:19:52 AM
> *To:* James Klumpp
> *Cc:* Gaines, Robert
> *Subject:* Re: [KB] Causes of Action
>
> Jim:  The Greek word Aristotle uses here translated as “nature” is *
> physis*.  I do not have Grimaldi’s Commentary available; that would be a
> place I would go to see if there is any discussion of the passage.  There
> is a new translation of A’s *Rhetoric* by C.D.C. Reeve that has a couple
> of lengthy footnotes about the section this quote is from on Reeve’s pages
> 225-226.  Most of the discussion, however, is about the causes other than
> nature.
>
> The sentence quoted is a preview; A then proceeds to discuss each cause.
>
> There is a bit of explanation further in the passage (1369a35) about
> nature.  Reeve’s translation is “those that are by nature are the ones
> whose cause is within themselves and is orderly” and this is contrasted to
> those caused by force.  Kennedy’s translation is similar: “[Things that
> happen] “by nature are those whose cause is in themselves and ordained; for
> the result is always or for the most part similar.”
>
> So the only thing I can say with confidence is that appetites are treated
> quite distinctly.  Perhaps Bob has a brighter light to shed on the passage.
>
> Ed
>
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 3:24 PM, James Klumpp <jklumpp at umd.edu> wrote:
>
> A wonderful question this.  Any ideas from my favorite classical scholars?
>
> Jim K
>
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: [KB] Causes of Action
> Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2018 12:36:45 -0500
> From: Clarke Rountree <rountrj at uah.edu> <rountrj at uah.edu>
> To: kb at kbjournal.org
>
> Dear Burkelers:
>
> I have a question concerning Aristotelian action (about which I have no
> recollection whether Burke commented upon it). In the Rhetoric, Aristotle
> (1369) claims that all actions are due to one of seven causes: chance,
> nature, compulsion, habit, reasoning, anger, or appetite. (Surely Burke
> mentions this somewhere!) I'm trying to figure out what he means by
> "nature." Someone online suggests things like thirst are nature, but that
> could be appetite, perhaps. On the other hand, appetite seems aimed at
> seeking pleasure, which slaking thirst would do only in a minimal kind of
> way.
>
> Anyone have insight into what Aristotle means here?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Clarke
>
> --
> Dr. Clarke Rountree
> Professor of Communication Arts
> Associate Dean for Recruitment and Outreach for the College of Arts,
> Humanities, and Social Sciences
> 212D CTC
> University of Alabama in Huntsville
> Huntsville, AL  35899
> 256-824-6646
> clarke.rountree at uah.edu
>
> --
> -------------
> James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus
> Department of Communication, University of Maryland
> 409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754
> Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
> Voice: 828.689.4456
> Website: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm
>
> <Attached Message Part.txt>
>
>
>
> --
> -------------
> James F. Klumpp, Professor Emeritus
> Department of Communication, University of Maryland
> 409 Upper Haw Dr., Mars Hill, NC 28754
> Email: jklumpp at umd.edu
> Voice: 828.689.4456
> Website: http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~jklumpp/home.htm
>
>

-- 
Dr. Clarke Rountree
Professor of Communication Arts
Associate Dean for Recruitment and Outreach for the College of Arts,
Humanities, and Social Sciences
212D CTC
University of Alabama in Huntsville
Huntsville, AL  35899
256-824-6646
clarke.rountree at uah.edu
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kbjournal.org/pipermail/kb_kbjournal.org/attachments/20181010/88f5d422/attachment.htm>