Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aristotle’s account of desire is extremely suggestive and worth considering in greater detail. There are a number of passages that warrant close consideration, and part of my goal here is to provide a detailed analysis of a key one: N.E . vii .6, 1149a25–b3. This passage is interesting in its own right, but when placed alongside some other key texts, it becomes significant for our understanding of non-rational desire in Aristotle’s moral psychology, in particular, concerning: (i) the ways in which non-rational desires can obey reason; (ii) the role various cognitive capacities have in the formation of non-rational desires; (iii) what it is that makes a desire count as “non-rational”; and (iv) the status of non-rational desires in virtue. My chapter has two parts. In the first, I consider the N.E . vii .6 passage in detail (sections 1–3); in the second, I address, in relation to it, the broader issues just mentioned (sections 4–7). Before I begin, I should note that Aristotle divides desire, “orexis”, into three kinds: “epithumia” (variously translated “appetite,” “desire,” “bodily desire”), “thumos” (“spirit,” “anger,” “passion,” “temper”), and “boulêsis” (“wish,” “volition,” “rational desire”), and holds that epithumia and thumos are non-rational, whereas boulêsis is rational. To avoid potentially confusing translations, I shall leave these key terms (plus epithumia’s plural: epithumiai) untranslated (and unitalicized). I shall do the same with “akrasia” (“incontinence,” “lack of self-control”), “enkrateia” (“continence,” “self-control”) and “phantasia” (“imagination,” “appearance”) for the same reason.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".