I’m being too quick. I saw your (2) as partly aimed at capturing the last part of 3.1. Your comment about mixed actions prompted me to see 3.1 as a maximalist account of the voluntary (biting bullet on mixed actions) … and then the ignorance discussion is one small carve out. So the gar…
… is Ari pleased that his account of voluntary leaves non-rational animals capable of voluntary movements too. Understanding the “principle in agent” as proper cause seemed to me to thread together the discussion.
More simply, I was taking 2) just from 1110a15–18, but incautiously ignoring the qualification ἐν ταὶς τοιαύταις πράξεσιν (though encouraged in that by the apparent greater generality of what he then gives to support it.
Comments