English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This article tries to show the reasons why Aristotle’s ethics cannot be considered deterministic. Hence, it critiques the arguments of three scholars: Alfredo Gomez-Muller, Theodor Gomperz and D.J. Furley, with the aim of showing that Aristotelian ethics are not grounded in matters of necessity but rather in matters of agreement, and that the human character is not fully determined by nature and that once it has been formed Aristotle does conceive of the possibility of further change, although such a change requires more than intentions. Thus, this analysis tries to show, beyond the particular counterarguments to the scholars, that Aristotelian ethics explain the human

Un alegato en contra de las interpretaciones deterministas de la ética aristotélica