Abstract
As recently demonstrated by C. Muratori in Renaissance Vegetarianism. The Philosophical
Afterlives of Porphyry’s On Abstinence (2020), the Renaissance debate about the philosophical
justification of vegetarianism is often based on Porphyrian sources. In this paper, the attention
is dedicated to the question of rationality/irrationality of animals and to the correlative problem
whether it is morally acceptable to eat them, with a special focus on Montaigne and Campanella.
Montaigne develops the possibility, shown by Porphyry, to win Aristotle, traditionally considered
a great opponent to the theories of animal rationality, to the vegetarian side. Campanella,
on the contrary, while acknowledging the rationality of animals, ends up juxtaposing Porphyry
and Aristotle; in addition, he does not justify – against Porphyry – the practice of abstaining
from the consumption of meat. The aim of this paper is showing how Aristotle’s legacy in the
Renaissance, mediated by Porphyry, leads to a complex game of balance and negotiation.
Titolo tradotto del contributo | [Autom. eng. transl.] More or less rational. Porphyry's Talking Beasts |
---|---|
Lingua originale | Italian |
pagine (da-a) | 547-557 |
Numero di pagine | 11 |
Rivista | RIVISTA DI FILOSOFIA NEOSCOLASTICA |
Volume | CXIV |
DOI | |
Stato di pubblicazione | Pubblicato - 2022 |
Keywords
- Porphyry
- animal ethics