A Case Study of the Reception of Aristotle in Early Protestantism: The Platonic Idea of the Good in the Commentaries on the Nicomachean Ethics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article examines the philosophical ethics of Protestants teaching in higher education during the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and their reception of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, 1.6. Two theses are illustrated. First, the survey of fourteen commentaries shows clear parallels with the medieval interpretation of the Ethics, which the Protestant authors creatively expanded. Thus, the continuity of Protestantism with the earlier tradition of Christian philosophy is substantiated in this specific case for a representative group of authors. Second, over against the prejudices according to which Protestantism simply censured ethics and subsumed it into moral theology, this article shows that, in truth, Aristotle was still the fundamental philosophical reference in a topic as central as the definition of happiness, and that the Platonic “theological” alternative was not considered appropriate for a philosophical discipline.
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 | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.037 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".