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

L’article que nous présentons est une analyse de la lecture que fait Leo Strauss du passage où Aristote distingue entre la justice naturelle et la justice positive. Tout en voulant s’écarter des interprétations thomiste et marsilienne, Strauss suggère une position paradoxale qui, tout en admettant qu’il y a un droit naturel, rejette l’existence des principes de justice immuables. Notre thèse est que l’interprétation de Strauss n’est pas complètement fidèle au texte d’Aristote, et présente en fait sa propre position comme étant aristotélicienne.The article we are submitting intends to analyze the interpretation proposed by Leo Strauss of the passage in which Aristotle makes the distinction between Natural Justice and Positive Justice. While attempting to distance himself from Thomist and Marsilius-based interpretations, Strauss suggests a paradoxical position which, while admitting natural right, rejects the existence of principles of immutable justice. Our thesis is that Strauss’s interpretation is not faithful to Aristotle’s text and that he actually presents his own position as if it were Aristotelian

Aristote, Leo Strauss et le droit naturel