Fallibility and Infallibility in Heidegger's and Aristotle's Conception of <i>Phronesis</i>

ABSTRACT In a recent paper, Dimitris Vardoulakis (2022b) criticises Heidegger's interpretation of Aristotelian phronesis by explaining how it conflates several important distinctions Aristotle makes concerning phronesis and techne and thus how it glosses over phronesis' intrinsic fallibility. My main contention with Vardoulakis' critique is that it is not entirely sensitive to Heidegger's own epistemological leanings that may be informing said interpretation, and to how they are not necessarily anathema to a differently construed kind of phronetic fallibility, one based not on a fallible calculability of final ends by instrumental ones but on a categorical distinction between different kinds of disclosures. So even if Vardoulakis is accurate in assessing that Heideggerian phronesis requires the calculability of ends to be the sole jurisdiction of techne, this fails to show that phronetic fallibility itself requires a calculability of its own ends.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Philosophical Forum
Published
2025-04-01
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/phil.70010
Primary Topic
Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Fallibility and Infallibility in Heidegger's and Aristotle's Conception of Phronesis

Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra
The Philosophical Forum
Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
article

Fallibility and Infallibility in Heidegger's and Aristotle's Conception of Phronesis

Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra
article en

Abstract

ABSTRACT In a recent paper, Dimitris Vardoulakis (2022b) criticises Heidegger's interpretation of Aristotelian phronesis by explaining how it conflates several important distinctions Aristotle makes concerning phronesis and techne and thus how it glosses over phronesis' intrinsic fallibility. My main contention with Vardoulakis' critique is that it is not entirely sensitive to Heidegger's own epistemological leanings that may be informing said interpretation, and to how they are not necessarily anathema to a differently construed kind of phronetic fallibility, one based not on a fallible calculability of final ends by instrumental ones but on a categorical distinction between different kinds of disclosures. So even if Vardoulakis is accurate in assessing that Heideggerian phronesis requires the calculability of ends to be the sole jurisdiction of techne, this fails to show that phronetic fallibility itself requires a calculability of its own ends.

The Philosophical ForumVol. 56(4)
Macquarie University (AU)
Macquarie University
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 21%
Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Fallibility and Infallibility in Heidegger's and Aristotle's Conception of <i>Phronesis</i> — Iñaki Xavier Larrauri Pertierra · The Philosophical Forum (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS