A reader asks:

I’ve been studying Aristotle’s ethics and he takes a very naturalistic approach. It seems that Aristotle is able to examine human nature and is able to say that from the “is’s” of human nature, or how human nature is, to reach “oughts” of the ways that we should act. How would you respond to this with your notion of not being able to come to “oughts” from the “is’s” of science. Thanks.

Not knowing Aristotle and having no training in the categories of his thought, I’m afraid I can’t give an intelligent answer to that question. I’m not at all convinced that Aristotle would line up with the modern materialist who says that everything, including the human person, is simply and solely an epiphenomenon of time, space, matter, and energy. I may be wrong, but I suspect I’m not. If that’s not what he says, then I’m skeptical that my critiques of current flat-footed materialists has much bearing on Aristotle.

This is a job for Mike Flynn, I’ll bet.