Bernard Yack reviews a volume on Macintyre’s debt to Marx and concludes that he is not the “revolutionary Aristotelian” he has claimed to be:
His Aristotelianism may be critical, unseasonable, alienated, and anti-hierarchical; it is not really revolutionary. True, MacIntyre would like to transform the character of our social world. But he would have us seek such change through means, tending to the virtues in our local communal gardens, which neither attack nor are prohibited by the powers that be. These means may run counter to the most influential modern ideas about morality. And they may be undermined by the power and rewards of social practices that promise more immediate and tangible forms of gratification. But there is still plenty of room within modern society to cultivate them.
More here . The Marx & Philosophy Review of Books also has a review of a previous edition of the book.
YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE
Notes on Anosmia
One morning several years ago, as my wife, Wendy, and I were having breakfast together, I had…
Empire of Unreality
Shiva Naipaul (1945–1985) was the author of three novels and two books of mordant dispatches from places…
The Dreadful Christ of Pär Lagerkvist
It’s dangerous to meet a god,” says the disgraced Pythia in Pär Lagerkvist’s The Sibyl. Her observation…
