Volume 3, Issue 2

The significance of imitation for moral development during childhood, in Aristotle’s ethics, has been recognized and studied. However, what role does imitation play in the morally mature agent’s character development? In this paper, I argue that moral development is possible for the advanced moral agent, when she imitates her character-friend. But the mature agent’s imitation is of a thoroughly different type than the imitation of the young moral agent; the mature imitation mechanism is selective and interpretative. The agent selects from the goodness in her friend, depending on the agent’s own sensitivities, and adopts this goodness as a pattern that allows for personalized implementations, depending on her own dispositions and skills. In this way, the morally mature agent develops her moral character by enriching her epistemic tools and experience within the spectrum of the good.

There is discussion among critics about the authenticity of Pseudo-Aristotle’s account on Melissus in the De Melisso , Xenophane , Gorgia , and especially about the refutation of mixture that he attributes to the latter. For there is no clue in the other testimonies and in the fragments that the Eleatic made such a refutation. In this article, I aim to show that the argument as it is presented is not genuinely Melissean, but inspired by some of Aristotle’s considerations on colour-mixture in the De sensu . I then claim that taking this source into account solves many of the difficulties inherent to this demonstration against mixture, and reveals something on Pseudo-Aristotle’s doxographical approach.

A passage from Theon’s Expositio reveals the systematic exegesis of Aristotle’s cosmology provided by Adrastus. By referring to the De caelo , Adrastus affirms the importance of the fifth element for the physical model of heavenly motion. This is the ground for his reading of Metaphysics Λ, which is focused on counteracting spheres: Adrastus aims to reconcile the homocentric model with the epicycle one. This exegesis must be seen in the wider context of the Peripatetic debate on astronomical topics: Adrastus shows a strict allegiance to Aristotle, who ought to be considered the only real auctoritas for him.

This discussion note reviews recent discussions about the causality of the Immovable mover in Aristotle’s Metaphysics Λ, assessing the merits and difficulties of the interpretation according to which the Immovable mover of this book would be an efficient cause.