Logoi
Maximus’s name for the inner principles or “divine wills” of creatures, precontained in the one Logos. This corpus uses them as a candidate ontological ground of the good — and has not found in the checked primary texts a derived categorical ought.
Plural of logos; in this use, “principles” or “wills”, not “words”.
The logoi, in Maximus, are the inner principles of creatures — also called divine wills — precontained in the one Logos. Ambiguum 7 gives a dense teleology: being, well-being, eternal well-being. That is real ontology of the good, and OTC-022 treats it as such.
What the checked primary texts do not do is derive a categorical, agent-binding ought from that ontology. Tollefsen's interview gloss that the logoi are "also certain obligations" has no matching Maximus sentence in the passages read. The McDowell/Haase "step back and ask why" residual remains. That is a JUDGMENT about a bounded reading, not a claim that Maximus has nothing to say about the moral life.
The mistaken everyday reading is "logos" in the plural, or a list of rules. They are principles of being, not a posted code.
Where this comes up
Sources
- Maximus the Confessor, Ambiguum 7 and Quaestiones ad Thalassium; Debby packet OTC-022 (Maximus logoi ought-bridge)