The active/passive distinction, once a hallmark of classical metaphysics, has largely been discarded from contemporary thought. The revival of powers theory has not seen an equally vigorous rehabilitation of the real distinction between active and passive powers. I begin an analysis and vindication with a critique of E.J. Lowe's discussion. I then argue that the active/passive problem is a metaphysical one, not a logical or logico‐linguistic one, and so logic is impotent to solve it. Following this is a discussion of the rights and wrongs of Aristotle's and Aquinas's (identical) defence of the distinction. We will see that one main part of their analysis is a bright red herring while the other part contains the solution to the problem. I then state and clarify the key Scholastic principle concerning action and passion, which I call the Fundamental Thesis – one that will appear scandalous to contemporary ears, yet from which we can derive the tools needed to understand action and passion in the right way. I end with a definition of what I call the Minimal Metaphysical Agent, where the formulation is to be understood as an epistemic criterion for identifying agent and patient in a given causal interaction.

中文翻译：

---

 行动、激情、力量


主动/被动的区别曾经是古典形而上学的标志，但在当代思想中已基本被抛弃。权力理论的复兴并没有同样有力地恢复主动权力和被动权力之间的真正区别。我首先对 EJ Lowe 的讨论进行分析和论证。然后我认为主动/被动问题是一个形而上学的问题，而不是逻辑或逻辑语言学的问题，因此逻辑无力解决它。接下来是对亚里士多德和阿奎那（相同）对这种区别的辩护的正确与错误的讨论。我们将看到他们的分析的一个主要部分是一个鲜明的红鲱鱼，而另一部分则包含了问题的解决方案。然后，我陈述并澄清了关于行动和激情的关键学术原则，我将其称为基本论点——这一论点在当代人看来可能是可耻的，但从中我们可以得出以正确方式理解行动和激情所需的工具。最后，我给出了我所说的“最小形而上学主体”的定义，其中的表述应被理解为在给定的因果相互作用中识别主体和患者的认知标准。