imported>Richard Jensen |
imported>Brian P. Long |
| (24 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{subpages}} | | {{subpages}} |
| {{TOC-right}} | | {{TOC|right}} |
| This is extensively ex WP; I've trimmed out some sections and edited others, but anything should be deleted without hesitation as far as I'm concerned. It seemed likely that to me that the historical background and the bibliography and links at least would be useful to keep.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT) | | This is extensively ex WP; I've trimmed out some sections and edited others, but anything should be deleted without hesitation as far as I'm concerned. It seemed likely that to me that the historical background and the bibliography and links at least would be useful to keep.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT) |
| :[[User:Rahmat Muhammad|Rahmat Muhammad]] and I are doing an extensive work here completely from scratch.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:11, 1 January 2008 (CST) | | :[[User:Rahmat Muhammad|Rahmat Muhammad]] and I are doing an extensive work here completely from scratch.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 00:11, 1 January 2008 (CST) |
| = Article =
| |
| '''Aristotle''' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: {{polytonic|Ἀριστοτέλης}}, ''Aristotélēs'') (384–[[March 7]] [[322]] [[Common Era|BCE]]) was a [[Ancient Greece|Greek]] [[greek philosophy|philosopher]], a student of [[Plato]] and teacher of [[Alexander the Great]]. His writings cover a wide array of topics, including [[metaphysics]], [[physics]], [[meteorology]], [[zoology]], [[botany]], [[logic]], [[rhetoric]], [[poetry]], [[ethics]], [[politics]], and [[government]]. His combined works practically constitute an [[encyclopedia]] of Greek knowledge.
| |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle, with Plato and [[Socrates]], was among the most influential of the [[Greek philosophy|ancient Greek philosophers]]. They took [[Presocratic philosophy]], which was fragmented and often vague, and created the first very large, detailed, systematic, and rationally-defended system of thought. Aristotle's system of thought, in particular, is surely one of the widest-ranging in history. In addition, Plato and Aristotle founded two of the most important schools of ancient philosophy.
| | = Comments = |
| | After someone pointed out by e-mail, this link |
| | *[http://www.threescholars.com/ Help with Aristotle essays] |
| | is egregious, and I don't trust the rest of it. Let's start over, perhaps using pieces of this Wikipedia-sourced article in at a time (perhaps not). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:37, 17 October 2007 (CDT) |
|
| |
|
| Although Aristotle wrote dialogues early in his career, only fragments of these have survived. The works of Aristotle that exist today are in [[treatise]] form and were mostly unpublished texts, generally thought to be lecture notes or texts used by his students. Among the most important are ''[[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]]'', ''[[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]] (or [[Ontology]])'', ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'', ''[[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]]'', ''[[De Anima]] (On the Soul)'' and ''[[Poetics]]''. These works, although connected in many fundamental ways, differ significantly in both style and substance.
| | == compare the two introductions == |
| | Wikipedia's article about Aristotle (which I have not read, and am not going to read) begins by telling us who he is: |
| | *'''Aristotle''' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: {{polytonic|Ἀριστοτέλης}} ''Aristotélēs'') (384 BC – 322 BC) was a [[Greeks|Greek]] [[philosophy|philosopher]], a student of [[Plato]] and teacher of [[Alexander the Great]]. He wrote on many different subjects, including [[physics]], [[metaphysics]], [[Poetics (Aristotle)|poetry]], [[theater]], [[logic]], [[rhetoric]], [[politics]], [[government]], [[ethics]], [[biology]] and [[zoology]]. |
| | Something along these lines, although better worded, I think, should be used here.[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:46, 28 December 2007 (CST) |
|
| |
|
| == Biography ==
| | There is good evidence that he was not in fact a teacher of Alexander. Probably chatted at court from time to time though. He actually established many fields--again we are dependent on the works passed down over 2300 years--but saying he wrote about this and that is to belittle his contribution. We have time to work on the inro till then.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:38, 29 December 2007 (CST) |
| ===Early life and studies at the Academy===
| |
| Aristotle was born in a [[apoikia|colony]] of [[Andros]] on the [[Macedon]]ian peninsula of [[Chalcidice]] in 384 BCE. His father, Nicomachus, was court physician to King [[Amyntas III of Macedon]]; it is believed that Aristotle's ancestors held this position under various kings of the Macedons. Little is known of his mother, Phaestis; she died while Aristotle was very young. When Nicomachus also died, in Aristotle's tenth year, he was placed under the guardianship of his uncle, [[Proxenus of Atarneus]], who taught Aristotle [[Greek language|Greek]], [[rhetoric]], and [[poetry]] (O'Connor ''et al.'', 2004). Aristotle also attended Plato's school for young Greek aristocracy, and became Plato's favourite student. Aristotle was also influenced by his father's medical knowledge; when he went to [[Athens]] at the age of eighteen, he was probably already trained in the investigation of natural phenomena.
| |
|
| |
|
| From the age of eighteen to thirty-seven, Aristotle remained in Athens as a pupil of Plato. The relations between Plato and Aristotle have been the subject of various legends, many of which depict Aristotle unfavourably. No doubt there were divergences of opinion between Plato, who took his stand on sublime, idealistic principles, and Aristotle, who even then preferred investigating the facts and laws of the physical world. It is also probable that Plato suggested that Aristotle needed restraining rather than encouragement, but Aristotle's conduct after the death of Plato, his continued association with [[Xenocrates]] and other [[Platonism|Platonists]], and his allusions in his writings to Plato's doctrines indicate that while there were differences of opinion between Plato and Aristotle, there was cordial appreciation and mutual forbearance.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Aristotle as philosopher and tutor===
| | The rewrite of the introduction for the rationale |
| After Plato's death in 347 BCE, Aristotle was considered as the next head of the Academy, but the position went instead to Plato's nephew. Aristotle then went with Xenocrates to the court of [[Hermias]], ruler of [[Atarneus]] in [[Asia Minor]], married his niece, Pythias, and with her had a daughter (also named Pythias). In 344 BCE, Hermias was murdered, and Aristotle went with his family to [[Mytilene]]. It is reported that he stopped on [[Lesbos Island|Lesbos]] and briefly conducted biological research. One or two years later, he was summoned to Pella, the Macedonian capital, by King [[Philip II of Macedon]] to become the tutor of Alexander the Great, who was then thirteen.
| | :"(Introduction is uncritical and does not reflect diversity of opinions. I have tried to do this!)" |
| | Not getting how this has been accomplished. 50 words in favour of A. as an important part of human history etc and 200 (as of 18/11/08) to say he was at the root of a great deal that was/is wrong. Diversity of opinion has not really been reflected here, Timon, Theocritus, Tyndall and Popper against, and who has a kind word to say for the man? Not really balanced in my opinion.[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| [[Plutarch]] wrote that Aristotle imparted to Alexander a knowledge of ethics and politics, and the 'most profound secrets' of philosophy. Alexander provided Aristotle with ample means to acquire books and to pursue his scientific investigations. It is possible that Aristotle also participated in the education of Alexander's boyhood friends, who included [[Hephaestion]] and [[Harpalus]]. Aristotle maintained a long correspondence with Hephaestion, eventually collected into a book, unfortunately now lost.
| | ::I still think that the first couple of paragraphs here are *terrible*. They simply don't tell the general reader who the devil Aristotle was. What's wrong with putting some substantive info in these paragraphs, a la WP? As people keep saying (or at least from time to time), "Just because George Bush says it, it doesn't mean it's *always* wrong." [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| According to Plutarch and [[Diogenes]], Philip had Aristotle's hometown of Stageira burned during the 340s BCE, and Aristotle successfully requested that Alexander rebuild it. During his tutorship of Alexander, Aristotle was reportedly considered a second time for leadership of the Academy; his companion Xenocrates was selected instead.
| | ==Striking a balance over Aristotle (the golden mean?)== |
|
| |
|
| ===Founder and master of the Lyceum===
| | This stuff about 50 words in favour and 200 words against is a bit disingenuous - the whole article is an uncritical account which really should be rewritten to reflect all the criticisms of Aristotle - his science, his logic, his ethics. |
| In about 335 BCE, Alexander departed for his Asiatic campaign, and Aristotle, who had been his informal adviser since Alexander ascended the Macedonian throne, returned to Athens and opened his own school of philosophy. He may, as [[Aulus Gellius]] says, have conducted a school of rhetoric during his former residence in Athens; but now, following Plato's example, he gave regular instruction in philosophy in a [[gymnasium (ancient Greece)|gymnasium]] dedicated to [[Apollo Lyceios]], from which his school came to be known as the [[Lyceum]]. (It was also called the [[Peripatetic]] School because Aristotle preferred to discuss problems of philosophy with his pupils while walking around (''peripateo'') the shaded walks (''peripatoi'') around the gymnasium.)
| |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle composed most of his writings in the thirteen years (335–322 BCE) that he spent as teacher of the Lyceum. Imitating Plato, he wrote ''[[Dialogue]]s'' in which his doctrines were expounded in somewhat popular language. He also composed treatises on physics, metaphysics in which the exposition is more [[didactic]] and the language more technical than in the ''Dialogues''. These writings brought together the works of his predecessors in Greek philosophy, and how he pursued his investigations of natural phenomena. [[Pliny the Elder]] claimed that Alexander placed under Aristotle's orders all the hunters, fishermen, and fowlers of the royal kingdom and all the overseers of the royal forests, lakes, ponds and cattle-ranges. Aristotle was fully informed about the doctrines of his predecessors, and [[Strabo]] asserted that he was the first to accumulate a great library.
| | <blockquote> Though much of Aristotle’s thought is historically interesting, it is also fascinating because it is a comprehensive picture of the world that differs, in some ways dramatically, from that of modern people. The works of Aristotle, however, can be daunting to the uninitated. </blockquote> |
|
| |
|
| In the last years of his life, relations between Aristotle and Alexander were strained, owing to the disgrace and punishment of [[Callisthenes]], whom Aristotle had recommended to Alexander. Nevertheless, Aristotle continued to be regarded as a friend of Alexander and a representative of Macedonia. Consequently, when Alexander's death became known in Athens, and the outbreak occurred which led to the [[Lamian war]], Aristotle shared in the general unpopularity of the Macedonians. The charge of [[impiety]], which had been brought against [[Anaxagoras]] and [[Socrates]], was now brought against Aristotle. He left the city, saying, "I will not allow the Athenians to sin twice against philosophy" (''Vita Marciana'' 41). He took up residence at his country house at [[Chalcis]], in [[Euboea]], and died there the following year, 322 BCE. His death was due to a disease, reportedly 'of the stomach', from which he had long suffered; the story that his death was due to [[Conium|hemlock]] poisoning, as well as the legend that he threw himself into the sea "because he could not explain the [[tide]]s," are without historical foundation.
| | However! To do that would take some time and doubltess would be very controversial. Easier then to add the fact that there are 'different opinions' of his greatness/ contribution to knowledge etc somethere. Now, IMO the BEST place is right up there, in the intro - if Aristotle-traditionalists can't bear to see it there, well, maybe we need a new section: Critical views of Arstotle. In this case, the intro can simply 'point' to the new section, and the new section can really go into what's wrong with him/ why his contribution has been hotly debated (to use a silly phrase) over the centuries. |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle's legacy had a profound influence on Islamic thought and philosophy during the [[Middle Ages]]. Muslim thinkers such as [[Avicenna]], [[Al-Farabi]], and Yaqub ibn Ishaq al-Kindi<ref name="kindi">http://www.ummah.net/history/scholars/KINDI.html</ref> were some of the major proponents of the Aristotelian school of thought during the ''[[Golden Age of Islam]]''. | | But I think anyone wanting to give a nice introduction to Aristotle ought really to also start off the counter-balancing critique section. Aristotle is very influential, so it is really worth a bit of extra toing- and froing over this one, isn't it? |
|
| |
|
| == Methodology ==
| | Here's what I think we need at minimum': |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle defined his philosophy as "the science of the universal [[essence]] of that which is [[actual]]", in contrast to Plato's definition of it as the 'science of the [[idea]]', the unconditional basis of [[phenomena]]. Both regarded philosophy as concerned with the [[Universality (philosophy)|universal]], but Aristotle found the universal in [[particular]] things, and called it the essence of things, while Plato held that the universal exists apart from particular things, and is related to them as their [[prototype]] or [[exemplar]]. For Aristotle, philosophical method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato it means the descent from a knowledge of universal ideas to a contemplation of particular imitations of those ideas. In a sense, Aristotle's method is both [[Inductive reasoning|inductive]] and [[Deductive reasoning|deductive]], while Plato's is deductive from ''[[a priori]]'' principles.
| | brief exposition followed by a critical assessment (+/-) |
|
| |
|
| For Aristotle, "natural philosophy" corresponded to the phenomena of the natural world, including [[Motion (physics)|motion]], [[light]], and the [[laws of physics]]. Many centuries later, these subjects would become the basis of modern science, and the term "philosophy" has come to be narrowly understood as metaphysics, distinct from empirical study of the natural world. However, for Aristotle, philosophy encompassed all facets of intellectual inquiry, and he made philosophy coextensive with [[reasoning]], which he also called 'science'. His use of the term "science" has a different meaning to that which is covered by the scientific method: "All science (''dianoia'') is either practical, poetical or theoretical". By "practical" science, he meant ethics and politics; by "poetical", he means the study of poetry and the other fine arts; while by 'theoretical philosophy' he meant physics, [[mathematics]], and metaphysics, defined as "the knowledge of [[immaterial]] being", the "theological science", or of "being in the highest degree of abstraction". If logic, or, as Aristotle calls it, [[analytic]], is regarded as a study preliminary to philosophy, we have as divisions of Aristotelian philosophy:
| | of his logic, |
| # [[Logic]]
| | of his science, |
| # Theoretical philosophy, including [[metaphysics]], [[physics]], [[mathematics]]
| | and of his ethics. |
| # Practical philosophy
| |
| # Poetical philosophy
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Aristotle's epistemology==
| | [[User:Martin Cohen|Martin Cohen]] 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC) |
| ===Logic===
| |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle's conception of logic was the dominant form of logic until the advances in [[mathematical logic]] in the 19th century. [[Kant]] himself thought that Aristotle had done everything possible in terms of logic.
| | == Medieval rediscovery == |
|
| |
|
| | I miss the rediscovery of Aristotle in the 13th century and acceptance of his ideas by the Church (Thomas of Aquino, Albertus Magnus, etc.). Is this in the pen?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:25, 29 December 2007 (CST) |
|
| |
|
| | Might be. Lot of rewriting to do till then--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:35, 29 December 2007 (CST) |
|
| |
|
| ====Analytics and the ''Organon''==== | | == Questia links == |
| What we today call "Aristotelian logic", Aristotle himself would have called "analytics"; he reserved the term "logic" to mean "dialectics". His logical works were compiled into six books in about the early 1st century CE:
| | Can we, please, remove the links to Questia in the bibliography? I am also concerned that items were added to the bibliography ''just because'' they appear in Questia. That's not a good reason to include an item. The Questia links don't belong because (1) most people don't subscribe to Questia, and (2) this favors only one such service, when others might be available. It would be better, instead, to include the Questia links via the ISBN mechanism. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:00, 3 January 2008 (CST) |
| #''Categories''
| | ::Questia provides unique FREE services that no one else has. It does NOT sell books like Amazon. It gets copyright permission to use books, unlike google, which ignores copyright. I check every book that goes in my bibliographies. They are there because I think they are good quality and relevant. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:37, 3 January 2008 (CST) |
| #''On Interpretation''
| | As far as the books selected go--fine. But the books linked-to in the article are ''not'' free. Questia sells subscriptions ($20/month). There is absolutely no reason to give them this free advertisement in preference to other similar services. If you can't provide a more cogent reason to include these links, please remove them. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:43, 3 January 2008 (CST) |
| #''Prior Analytics''
| |
| #''Posterior Analytics''
| |
| #''Topics''
| |
| #''On Sophistical Refutations''
| |
| | |
| The order of the books (or the teachings from which they are composed) is not certain, but this list was derived from analysis of Aristotle's writings. It goes from the basics, the analysis of simple terms in the Categories, to the study of more complex forms, namely, syllogisms (in the Analytics) and dialetics (in the Topics and Sophistical Refutations). There is one volume of Aristotle's concerning logic not found in the ''Organon'', namely the fourth book of ''Metaphysics''. (Bocheński, 1951).
| |
| | |
| ====Modal logic====
| |
| Aristotle is also the creator of [[syllogism]]s with modalities ([[modal logic]], concerning the modes of [[truth]]. Aristotle introduced the qualification of 'necessary' and 'possible' premises.
| |
|
| |
|
| ===Science===
| | I will get to them this weekend and match up the ISBNs. I do not know what the ISBN mechanism refers to here. Do we have a way to link that? --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 16:50, 3 January 2008 (CST) |
| Aristotelian discussions about science had only been qualitative, not quantitative. By the modern definition of the term, Aristotelian philosophy was not science, as this [[worldview]] did not attempt to probe how the world worked through experiment.
| | ::"similar services" -- which ones are those? I don't know of any in English.[[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 19:26, 3 January 2008 (CST) |
|
| |
|
| ==Aristotle's metaphysics== | | == Overhaul == |
| ===Causality===
| |
| In ''[[Metaphysics]]'' and ''[[Posterior Analytics]]'', Aristotle argued that all causes of things are beginnings; that we have scientific knowledge when we know the cause; and that to know a thing's existence is to know the reason for its existence. He set the guidelines for all subsequent causal theories by specifying the number, nature, principles, elements, varieties, and order of causes as well as the modes of causation. According to Aristotle, causes fall into several groups, which amount to the ways in which the question 'why' may be answered; namely by reference to the matter or the ''substratum''; the essence, the pattern, the form, or the structure; the primary moving change or the agent and its action; the goal, the plan, the end, or the good. As a consequence, the four major kinds of causes are:
| |
|
| |
|
| # The [[Material Cause]] is that from which a thing comes into existence (i.e., its parts, constituents, substratum or materials). This reduces the explanation of causes to the parts that comprise the whole system (the part-whole causation).
| | This article needs some serious work. Is anyone besides me paying attention? [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 00:00, 13 September 2008 (CDT) |
| # The [[Formal Cause]] tells us what a thing is, that any thing is determined by the definition, form, pattern, essence, whole, synthesis, or archetype. It embraces the account of causes in terms of fundamental principles or general laws, as the whole (macrostructure) is the cause of its parts (the whole-part causation).
| |
| # The [[Efficient Cause]] is that from which the change or the ending of the change begins. It identifies "what makes of what is made and what causes change of what is changed" and so suggests all sorts of agents, nonliving or living, acting as the sources of change or movement or rest. This covers the modern definitions of 'cause' as either the agent or agency or particular events or states of affairs.
| |
| # The [[Final Cause]] is that for the sake of which a thing exists or is done, including both purposeful and instrumental actions and activities. The final cause or ''telos'' is the purpose that something serves, or that ''from which'' and ''to which'' the change is. This also covers modern ideas of mental causation involving such psychological causes as volition, need, motivation, or motives, rational, irrational and ethical, that give purpose to behavior.
| |
|
| |
|
| Additionally, things can be causes of one another, causing each other reciprocally, as hard work causes fitness and vice versa, although not in the same way or function, the one is as the beginning of change, the other as the goal. Thus Aristotle first suggested a reciprocal or circular causality as a relation of mutual dependence or action or influence of cause and effect. Also, Aristotle indicated that the same thing can be the cause of contrary effects, its presence and absence may result in different outcomes.
| | == Popper quotation == |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle marked two modes of causation: proper (prior) causation and accidental (chance) causation. All causes, proper and incidental, can be spoken as potential or as actual, particular or generic. The same language refers to the effects of causes, so that generic effects are assigned to generic causes, particular effects to particular causes, operating causes to actual effects. Essentially, causality does not suggest a temporal relation between cause and effect.
| | Martin, isn't it rather odd that you don't give a reference to Popper himself when you quote him?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| All further investigations of causality will be consisting in imposing the favorite hierarchies on the order causes, like as final > efficient> material > formal ([[Thomas Aquinas]]), or in restricting all causality to the material and efficient causes or to the efficient causality (deterministic or chance) or just to regular sequences and correlations of natural phenomena (the natural sciences describing how things happen instead of explaining the whys and wherefores).
| | Not so much odd, as lazy! Would you be happy sourcing it to say, the Stanford E of P? Feel free to track it back further - but the quote is quite genuine. I read the Popper book some years ago and took notes for my own books. All the page details long lost now though. Maybe it can be tracked online? |
|
| |
|
| | The Greek 'critics' are also covered by the reference to my book, otherwisw we would need sources for every few words. Is that necessary? Clearly if I quote my book it can look like 'spam' but I would suggest that if it is clearly making a relevant and orignial point, then that is the 'proper' way to proceed. |
|
| |
|
| | CZ has a terrible dearth of content, I would like to 'raid' my exisitng work to try to put up substantial amounts - so as to act as a first 'draft' of the missing pages. Obviously, it will take about 100 times longer (no, literally!) if I have to re-research and source every few words. |
|
| |
|
| ===Substance, potentiality, and actuality===
| | But if others wish to track quotes back, that is in my view A VERY GOOD IDEA. |
| Aristotle examines the concept of [[substance]] (''ousia'') in his [[Metaphysics]], Book VII and he concludes that a particular substance is a combination of both matter and form. As he proceeds to the book VIII, he concludes that the matter of the substance is the [[substratum]] or the stuff of which is composed e.g. the matter of the house are the bricks, stones, timbers etc., or whatever constitutes the ''potential'' house. While the form of the substance, is the ''actual'' house, namely "covering for bodies and chattels" or any other [[differentia]]. The formula that gives the components is the account of the matter, and the formula that gives the differentia is the account of the form (Metaphysics VIII, 1043a 10-30).
| |
|
| |
|
| With regard to change (''kinesis'') and its causes now, as he defines in his [[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]] and [[On Generation and Corruption]], he distinguishes the ''coming to be'' from
| | [[User:Martin Cohen|Martin Cohen]] 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC) |
| # ''growth and diminution'', (change in quantity)
| |
| # ''locomotion'', (change in space) and
| |
| # ''alteration'', (change in quality).
| |
|
| |
|
| The ''coming to be'' is a change where nothing persists of which the resultant is property. In that particular change he introduces the concept of [[potentiality]] (''dynamis'') and [[actuality]] (''entelecheia'') in association with the matter and the form.
| | == Biased opening == |
|
| |
|
| Referring to [[potentiality]], is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if it is not prevented from something else. For example, a seed of a plant in the soil is potentially (''dynamei'') plant, and if is not prevented by something, it will become a plant. Potentially beings can either "act" (''poiein'') or "be acted upon" (''paschein''), as well as can be either innate or come by practice or learning. For example, the eyes possess the potentiality of sight (innate - being acted upon), while the capability of playing the flute can be possessed by learning (exercise, acting).
| | The introductory section of this article was, to me, shockingly biased. I have moved most of the content of the section, which consisted mainly of a series of very harsh criticisms of Aristotle through the ages. This section (now at the bottom of the article) still needs balance and to be more than simply a list of quotations with little comment: a list of quotations does not make an encyclopedia article. More importantly, articles even about widely rejected and disrespected figures do and should not begin with such a catalog of criticisms. There really is not any excuse for this. What makes it even worse is that there is nothing about Aristotle's views or accomplishments in the introductory section, which is what the introduction should mainly consist of. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| Referring now to [[actuality]], this is the fulfillment of the end of the potentiality. Because the end (''telos'') is the principle of every change, and for the sake of the end exists potentiality, therefore actuality is the end. Referring then to our previous example, we could say that actuality is when the seed of the plant becomes a plant.
| | ::The content is historically descriptive and the context is that mentioned above on this talk page. Larry's edit left certain structural problems: notably a dangling last sentecne and a new 'split' between the complimentary view of Aristotle (in the opener) and the negative ones (in the conclusion). I think it made the assessment harsher rather than more neutral. Thus I have reverted it. |
|
| |
| :"For that for the sake of which a thing is, is its principle, and the becoming is for the sake of the end; and the actuality is the end, and it is for the sake of this that the potentiality is acquired. For animals do not see in order that they may have sight, but they have sight that they may see." (Aristotle, ''Metaphysics'' IX 1050a 5-10). | |
|
| |
|
| In conclusion, the matter of the house is its potentiality and the form is its actuality. The [[Formal Cause]] (''aitia'') then of that change from potential to actual house, is the [[reason]] (''logos'') of the house builder and the [[Final Cause]] is the end, namely the house itself. Then Aristotle proceeds and concludes that the actuality is prior to potentiality in formula, in time and in substantiality.
| | ::Now I can accept Larry's view - as fellow philosophy editor - that the present text may give an excessively negative view of Aristotle, given the general 'public' consensus, and indeed Aristotle's many admirers today, and thus criticism may be better located in its own paragraph, perhaps as Larry says at the end (but note the problem with THAT just mentioned.) However, there are different opinions on Aristotle, and reflecting this is the proper role of the introductory paragraph. So I am reluctant to accept his statement of the proper role of encyclopedias in this matter. Can we have some examples, please, Larry, of how controversial figures are properly summarised, if not by mentioning both sides? Or shoudl we AVOID value judgements int the opening paragraph and stick to neutral facts. That might do it. |
|
| |
|
| With this [[definition]] of the [[particular]] substance (matter and form) Aristotle tries to solve the problem of the unity of the beings; e.g., what is that makes the man one? Since, according to [[Plato]] there are two Ideas: animal and biped, how then is man a unity? However, according to Aristotle, the potential being (matter) and the actual one (form) are one and the same thing. (Aristotle, Metaphysics VIII 1045a-b).
| | ::As a matter of detail, Aristotle's views were NOT influential until well after 350 BCE and why is Aristotle's influence cut off in the C16 ? It looks rather odd - and this claim is unsourced. Can Larry offer a more precise span, indicating the reasons behind it, and sourcing? [[User:Martin Cohen|Martin Cohen]] 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Aristotle's ethics == | | == Plato == |
| Although Aristotle wrote several works on [[ethics]], the major one was the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'', which is considered one of his greatest works; it discusses [[virtue]]s. The ten books which comprise it are based on notes from his lectures at the [[Lyceum]] and were either edited by or dedicated to his son, [[Nicomachus]]. Aristotle believed that ethical knowledge is not ''certain'' knowledge, like [[metaphysics]] and [[epistemology]], but ''general knowledge''. Also, as it is a practical discipline rather than a [[theory|theoretical]] one; he thought that to be "good", one could not simply study what virtue ''is''; one must actually do virtuous deeds. To do this, he had first to establish what was virtuous, and he began by determining that everything was done with some goal in mind and that goal is good. The ultimate goal he called the Highest Good.
| |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle contended that happiness could not be found only in pleasure or only in fame and honor. He finally finds happiness "by ascertaining the specific function of man". But what is this function that will bring happiness? To determine this, Aristotle analyzed the soul and found it to have three parts: the Nutritive Soul (plants, animals and humans), the Perceptive Soul (animals and humans) and the Rational Soul (humans only). Thus, a human's function is to do what makes it human, to be good at what sets it apart from everything else: the ability to reason. A person that does this is the happiest because they are fulfilling their purpose or nature as found in the rational soul. Depending on how well they did this, Aristotle said people belonged to one of four categories: the Virtuous, the Continent, the Incontinent and the Vicious.
| | I respectfully disagree. You sadly underestimate the knowledge level of the general public. Also the raison d'etre for CZ. Is Plato an Archon of Athens? The guy who wrote the Illiad? A Roman general? Who knows, unless you tell them. |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle believed that every ethical virtue is an intermediate condition between [[excess]] and [[deficiency]]. However, this does not mean that he believed in moral relativism; he considered some emotions (e.g., hate, envy, jealousy, spite.) and some actions (e.g., adultery, theft, murderas to be always wrong, regardless of circumstances. In the ''Nicomachean Ethics'', Aristotle often focused on how to find the mean between two extremes; for example; too much courage leads to ignorant choices, and too little would be cowardice. Aristotle says that finding this middle ground is essential to reaching eudemonia, the ultimate form of godlike consciousness. This middle ground is often referred to as The ''Golden Mean.'' Aristotle also wrote about justice in the ''Nicomachean Ethics'', defining ''General justice'' as a universal justice that can only exist in a perfect society, and ''Particular justice'' as where punishment is given out for a particular crime. Aristotle says an educated judge is needed to apply just decisions regarding any particular case. This is where we get the concept of he scales of justice, the blindfolded judge symbolizing blind justice, balancing the scales, weighing all the evidence and deliberating each particular case individually. Homonymy is an important theme in Aristotle’s justice because one form of justice can apply to one, while another would be best suited for a different person/case. Aristotle says that developing good habits can make a good human being and that practicing the use of The golden mean when applicable to virtues will allow a human being to live a healthy, happy life.
| | Rather than play the revert game, however, I will try to find another Editor who agrees with me. [[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == The loss of his works == | | == Where is the Catalog page referred to in the main article? == |
| Although we know that Aristotle wrote many elegant treatises ([[Cicero]] described his literary style as "a river of gold"), the originals have been lost. All that we have now are the literary notes of his pupils, which are often difficult to read (the ''[[Nicomachean Ethics]]'' is a good example). It is now believed that we have about one fifth of his original works.
| |
|
| |
|
| Aristotle never published his books, only his dialogues. The story of the original manuscripts of his treatises is described by [[Strabo]] in his Geography and [[Plutarch]] in his "[[Parallel Lives]], Sulla": The manuscripts were left from Aristotle to [[Theophrastus]], from Theophrastus to [[Neleus of Scepsis]], from Neleus to his heirs. Their descendants sold them to [[Apellicon of Teos]]. When [[Lucius Cornelius Sulla]] occupied Athens in 86 BCE, he carried off the library of Appellicon to [[Rome]], where they were first published in 60 BCE from the grammarian [[Tyrranion of Amisus]] and then by philosopher [[Andronicus of Rhodes]].
| | The main article states: "''Please refer to this page’s catalog for a complete list of Aristotle’s works, and to the subpage on the [[spurious works of Aristotle]].''" ... but I cannot find that catalog page. [[User:Milton Beychok|Milton Beychok]] 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC) |
|
| |
|
| == Bibliography ==
| | :I don't think it was ever created, sadly. The 'spurious works of Aristotle' page is going to take someone who really knows their stuff-- it's certainly not a subject tyros like me can handle. (I looked at some of the discussion around the fourth book of the Meteorology). Something basic on the works of Aristotle shouldn't be too difficult to put together, though. The bigger problem is the mess the text of the main article is in... [[User:Brian P. Long|Brian P. Long]] 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC) |
| ''Note: [[Bekker numbers]] are often used to uniquely identify passages of Aristotle. They are identified below where available.''
| |
| | |
| === Major works ===
| |
| The extant works of Aristotle are broken down according to the five categories in the ''[[Corpus Aristotelicum]]''. Some, such as the ''Athenaion Politeia'' or the fragments of other ''politeia'' are generally regarded as products of Aristotle's "school", compiled under his direction. Others, including ''On Colours'' may have been written by Aristotle's successors at the Lyceum, e.g., [[Theophrastus]] and [[Straton]]. Still others acquired Aristotle's name through similarities in doctrine or content, such as the ''De Plantis,'' possibly by [[Nicolaus of Damascus]]. A final category, omitted here, includes medieval [[palmistries]], [[astrological]] and [[magical]] texts whose connection to Aristotle is purely conjectural. Those that are seriously disputed are marked with an asterisk.
| |
| | |
| ==== Logical writings ====
| |
| * [[Organon]] (collected works on logic):
| |
| ** (1a) [[Categories (Aristotle)|Categories]] (or ''Categoriae'')
| |
| ** (16a) [[On Interpretation]] (or ''De Interpretatione'')
| |
| ** (24a) [[Prior Analytics]] (or ''Analytica Priora'')
| |
| ** (71a) [[Posterior Analytics]] (or ''Analytica Posteriora'')
| |
| ** (100b) [[Topics (Aristotle)|Topics]] (or ''Topica'')
| |
| ** (164a) [[On Sophistical Refutations]] (or ''De Sophisticis Elenchis'')
| |
| | |
| ==== Physical and scientific writings ====
| |
| * (184a) [[Physics (Aristotle)|Physics]] (or ''Physica'')
| |
| * (268a) [[On the Heavens]] (or ''De Caelo'')
| |
| * (314a) [[On Generation and Corruption]] (or ''De Generatione et Corruptione'')
| |
| * (338a) [[Meteorology (Aristotle)|Meteorology]] (or ''Meteorologica'')
| |
| * (391a) [[On the Cosmos]] (or ''De Mundo'', or ''On the Universe'') *
| |
| * (402a) [[On the Soul]] (or ''De Anima'')
| |
| * (436a) [[Little Physical Treatises]] (or ''Parva Naturalia''):
| |
| ** [[On Sense and the Sensible]] (or ''De Sensu et Sensibilibus'')
| |
| ** [[On Memory and Reminiscence]] (or ''De Memoria et Reminiscentia'')
| |
| ** [[On Sleep and Sleeplessness]] (or ''De Somno et Vigilia'')
| |
| ** [[On Dreams]] (or ''De Insomniis'') *
| |
| ** [[On Prophesying by Dreams]] (or ''De Divinatione per Somnum'')
| |
| ** [[On Longevity and Shortness of Life]] (or ''De Longitudine et Brevitate Vitae'')
| |
| ** [[On Youth and Old Age]] (On Life and Death) (or ''De Juventute et Senectute'', ''De Vita et Morte'')
| |
| ** [[On Breathing]] (or ''De Respiratione'')
| |
| * (481a) [[On Breath]] (or ''De Spiritu'') *
| |
| * (486a) [[History of Animals]] (or ''Historia Animalium'', or ''On the History of Animals'', or ''Description of Animals'')
| |
| * (639a) [[On the Parts of Animals]] (or ''De Partibus Animalium'')
| |
| * (698a) [[On the Gait of Animals]] (or ''De Motu Animalium'', or ''On the Movement of Animals'')
| |
| * (704a) [[On the Progression of Animals]] (or ''De Incessu Animalium'')
| |
| * (715a) [[On the Generation of Animals]] (or ''De Generatione Animalium'')
| |
| * (791a) [[On Colours]] (or ''De Coloribus'') *
| |
| * (800a) ''[[De audibilibus]]''
| |
| * (805a) [[Physiognomics]] (or ''Physiognomonica'') *
| |
| * [[On Plants]] (or ''De Plantis'') *
| |
| * (830a) [[On Marvellous Things Heard]] (or ''Mirabilibus Auscultationibus'', or ''On Things Heard'') *
| |
| * (847a) [[Mechanical Problems]] (or ''Mechanica'') *
| |
| * (859a) [[Problems (Aristotle)|Problems]] (or ''Problemata'') *
| |
| * (968a) [[On Indivisible Lines]] (or ''De Lineis Insecabilibus'') *
| |
| * (973a) [[Situations and Names of Winds]] (or ''Ventorum Situs'') *
| |
| * (974a) [[On Melissus, Xenophanes and Gorgias]] (or ''MXG'') * The section On Xenophanes starts at 977a13, the section On Gorgias starts at 979a11.
| |
| | |
| ==== Metaphysical writings ====
| |
| * (980a) [[Metaphysics (Aristotle)|Metaphysics]] (or ''Metaphysica'')
| |
| | |
| ==== Ethical writings ====
| |
| * (1094a) [[Nicomachean Ethics]] (or ''Ethica Nicomachea'', or ''The Ethics'')
| |
| * (1181a) [[Great Ethics]] (or ''Magna Moralia'') *
| |
| * (1214a) [[Eudemian Ethics]] (or ''Ethica Eudemia'')
| |
| * (1249a) [[Virtues and Vices]] (or ''De Virtutibus et Vitiis Libellus'', ''Libellus de virtutibus'') *
| |
| * (1252a) [[Politics (Aristotle)|Politics]] (or ''Politica'')
| |
| * (1343a) [[Economics (Aristotle)|Economics]] (or ''Oeconomica'')
| |
| | |
| ==== Aesthetic writings ====
| |
| * (1354a) [[Rhetoric (Aristotle)|Rhetoric]] (or ''Ars Rhetorica'', or ''The Art of Rhetoric'' or ''Treatise on Rhetoric'')
| |
| * [[Rhetoric to Alexander]] (or ''Rhetorica ad Alexandrum'') *
| |
| * (1447a) [[Poetics]] (or ''Ars Poetica''); (first book only; second book on Comedy since lost)
| |
| | |
| ==== A work outside the ''Corpus Aristotelicum'' ====
| |
| * The [[Constitution of the Athenians]] (or ''Athenaion Politeia'', or ''The Athenian Constitution'')
| |
| | |
| === Specific editions===
| |
| * [[Princeton University]] Press: ''The Complete Works of Aristotle: The Revised Oxford Translation'' (2 Volume Set; Bollingen Series, Vol. LXXI, No. 2), edited by [[Jonathan Barnes]] ISBN 0-691-09950-2 (The most complete recent translation of Aristotle's extant works)
| |
| * [[Oxford University Press]]: ''Clarendon Aristotle Series''. [http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/series/ClarendonAristotleSeries/?view=usa Scholarly edition]
| |
| * [[Harvard University]] Press: ''[[Loeb Classical Library#Aristotle|Loeb Classical Library]]'' (hardbound; publishes in Greek, with English translations on facing pages)
| |
| * [[Oxford Classical Texts]] (hardbound; Greek only)
| |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| ==Notes==
| |
| <references/>
| |
| | |
| ==See also==
| |
| *[[Aristotelian view of God]]
| |
| *[[Aristotelian theory of gravity]]
| |
| *[[Philia]]
| |
| *[[Phronesis]]
| |
| *[[Potentiality and actuality (Aristotle)]]
| |
| | |
| ==External links==
| |
| * {{MacTutorBio|id=Aristotle}}
| |
| *[http://www.non-contradiction.com/ An extensive collection of Aristotle's philosophy and works, including lesser known texts]
| |
| *{{gutenberg author | id=Aristotle | name=Aristotle}}
| |
| *[[Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy]]:
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-biology/ Biology]" -- by James Lennox.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-causality/ Causality]" -- by Andrea Falcon.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-ethics/ Ethics]" -- by Richard Kraut.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-logic/ Logic]" -- by Robin Smith.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-mathematics/ Mathematics]" -- by Henry Mendell.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/ Metaphysics]" -- by S. Marc Cohen.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-natphil/ Philosophy of Nature]" -- Istvan Bodnar.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-politics/ Political Theory]" -- by Fred Miller.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-psychology/ Psychology]" -- by Christopher Shields.
| |
| **"[http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/stanford/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ Rhetoric]" -- by Cristof Rapp.
| |
| *[http://www.ellopos.net/blog/?p=44 Aristotle OnLine Resources & Anthology of his works]
| |
| *[[Catholic Encyclopedia]]: "[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm Aristotle]" — by William Turner.
| |
| *Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "[http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/aristotl.htm Aristotle]".
| |
| *[http://www.epistemelinks.com/Main/Philosophers.aspx?PhilCode=Aris Aristotle section at EpistemeLinks]
| |
| *[http://Aristotle.thefreelibrary.com/ A brief biography and e-texts presented one chapter at a time]
| |
| *[http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0505172 Aristotle and Indian logic]
| |
| *[http://www.greektexts.com/library/Aristotle/index.html Large collection of Aristotle's texts, presented page by page]
| |
| *[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm Source of most of the Biography and Methodology sections, as well as more overview]
| |
| * [http://www.clown-enfant.com/leclown/eng/quizz2.htm Test : Are you Aristotelian? (cf. ''Poetics'')]
| |
| * [http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/4causes.htm "The Four Causes", Lecture by S. Marc Cohen]]
| |
| | |
| *{{planetmath|id=5840|title=Aristotle}}
| |
| | |
| = Comments =
| |
| After someone pointed out by e-mail, this link
| |
| *[http://www.threescholars.com/ Help with Aristotle essays]
| |
| is egregious, and I don't trust the rest of it. Let's start over, perhaps using pieces of this Wikipedia-sourced article in at a time (perhaps not). --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 05:37, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
| |
| | |
| == compare the two introductions ==
| |
| Wikipedia's article about Aristotle (which I have not read, and am not going to read) begins by telling us who he is:
| |
| *'''Aristotle''' ([[Greek language|Greek]]: {{polytonic|Ἀριστοτέλης}} ''Aristotélēs'') (384 BC – 322 BC) was a [[Greeks|Greek]] [[philosophy|philosopher]], a student of [[Plato]] and teacher of [[Alexander the Great]]. He wrote on many different subjects, including [[physics]], [[metaphysics]], [[Poetics (Aristotle)|poetry]], [[theater]], [[logic]], [[rhetoric]], [[politics]], [[government]], [[ethics]], [[biology]] and [[zoology]].
| |
| Something along these lines, although better worded, I think, should be used here.[[User:Hayford Peirce|Hayford Peirce]] 21:46, 28 December 2007 (CST) | |
| | |
| There is good evidence that he was not in fact a teacher of Alexander. Probably chatted at court from time to time though. He actually established many fields--again we are dependent on the works passed down over 2300 years--but saying he wrote about this and that is to belittle his contribution. We have time to work on the inro till then.--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:38, 29 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Medieval rediscovery ==
| |
| | |
| I miss the rediscovery of Aristotle in the 13th century and acceptance of his ideas by the Church (Thomas of Aquino, Albertus Magnus, etc.). Is this in the pen?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 04:25, 29 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| Might be. Lot of rewriting to do till then--[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 04:35, 29 December 2007 (CST)
| |
| | |
| == Questia links ==
| |
| Can we, please, remove the links to Questia in the bibliography? I am also concerned that items were added to the bibliography ''just because'' they appear in Questia. That's not a good reason to include an item. The Questia links don't belong because (1) most people don't subscribe to Questia, and (2) this favors only one such service, when others might be available. It would be better, instead, to include the Questia links via the ISBN mechanism. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:00, 3 January 2008 (CST)
| |
| ::Questia provides unique FREE services that no one else has. It does NOT sell books like Amazon. It gets copyright permission to use books, unlike google, which ignores copyright. I check every book that goes in my bibliographies. They are there because I think they are good quality and relevant. [[User:Richard Jensen|Richard Jensen]] 16:37, 3 January 2008 (CST)
| |
This is extensively ex WP; I've trimmed out some sections and edited others, but anything should be deleted without hesitation as far as I'm concerned. It seemed likely that to me that the historical background and the bibliography and links at least would be useful to keep.Gareth Leng 10:19, 15 August 2007 (CDT)
- Rahmat Muhammad and I are doing an extensive work here completely from scratch.--Thomas Simmons 00:11, 1 January 2008 (CST)
After someone pointed out by e-mail, this link
is egregious, and I don't trust the rest of it. Let's start over, perhaps using pieces of this Wikipedia-sourced article in at a time (perhaps not). --Larry Sanger 05:37, 17 October 2007 (CDT)
compare the two introductions
Wikipedia's article about Aristotle (which I have not read, and am not going to read) begins by telling us who he is:
- Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many different subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.
Something along these lines, although better worded, I think, should be used here.Hayford Peirce 21:46, 28 December 2007 (CST)
There is good evidence that he was not in fact a teacher of Alexander. Probably chatted at court from time to time though. He actually established many fields--again we are dependent on the works passed down over 2300 years--but saying he wrote about this and that is to belittle his contribution. We have time to work on the inro till then.--Thomas Simmons 04:38, 29 December 2007 (CST)
The rewrite of the introduction for the rationale
- "(Introduction is uncritical and does not reflect diversity of opinions. I have tried to do this!)"
Not getting how this has been accomplished. 50 words in favour of A. as an important part of human history etc and 200 (as of 18/11/08) to say he was at the root of a great deal that was/is wrong. Diversity of opinion has not really been reflected here, Timon, Theocritus, Tyndall and Popper against, and who has a kind word to say for the man? Not really balanced in my opinion.Thomas Simmons 02:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- I still think that the first couple of paragraphs here are *terrible*. They simply don't tell the general reader who the devil Aristotle was. What's wrong with putting some substantive info in these paragraphs, a la WP? As people keep saying (or at least from time to time), "Just because George Bush says it, it doesn't mean it's *always* wrong." Hayford Peirce 04:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Striking a balance over Aristotle (the golden mean?)
This stuff about 50 words in favour and 200 words against is a bit disingenuous - the whole article is an uncritical account which really should be rewritten to reflect all the criticisms of Aristotle - his science, his logic, his ethics.
Though much of Aristotle’s thought is historically interesting, it is also fascinating because it is a comprehensive picture of the world that differs, in some ways dramatically, from that of modern people. The works of Aristotle, however, can be daunting to the uninitated.
However! To do that would take some time and doubltess would be very controversial. Easier then to add the fact that there are 'different opinions' of his greatness/ contribution to knowledge etc somethere. Now, IMO the BEST place is right up there, in the intro - if Aristotle-traditionalists can't bear to see it there, well, maybe we need a new section: Critical views of Arstotle. In this case, the intro can simply 'point' to the new section, and the new section can really go into what's wrong with him/ why his contribution has been hotly debated (to use a silly phrase) over the centuries.
But I think anyone wanting to give a nice introduction to Aristotle ought really to also start off the counter-balancing critique section. Aristotle is very influential, so it is really worth a bit of extra toing- and froing over this one, isn't it?
Here's what I think we need at minimum':
brief exposition followed by a critical assessment (+/-)
of his logic,
of his science,
and of his ethics.
Martin Cohen 13:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Medieval rediscovery
I miss the rediscovery of Aristotle in the 13th century and acceptance of his ideas by the Church (Thomas of Aquino, Albertus Magnus, etc.). Is this in the pen?--Paul Wormer 04:25, 29 December 2007 (CST)
Might be. Lot of rewriting to do till then--Thomas Simmons 04:35, 29 December 2007 (CST)
Questia links
Can we, please, remove the links to Questia in the bibliography? I am also concerned that items were added to the bibliography just because they appear in Questia. That's not a good reason to include an item. The Questia links don't belong because (1) most people don't subscribe to Questia, and (2) this favors only one such service, when others might be available. It would be better, instead, to include the Questia links via the ISBN mechanism. --Larry Sanger 12:00, 3 January 2008 (CST)
- Questia provides unique FREE services that no one else has. It does NOT sell books like Amazon. It gets copyright permission to use books, unlike google, which ignores copyright. I check every book that goes in my bibliographies. They are there because I think they are good quality and relevant. Richard Jensen 16:37, 3 January 2008 (CST)
As far as the books selected go--fine. But the books linked-to in the article are not free. Questia sells subscriptions ($20/month). There is absolutely no reason to give them this free advertisement in preference to other similar services. If you can't provide a more cogent reason to include these links, please remove them. --Larry Sanger 16:43, 3 January 2008 (CST)
I will get to them this weekend and match up the ISBNs. I do not know what the ISBN mechanism refers to here. Do we have a way to link that? --Thomas Simmons 16:50, 3 January 2008 (CST)
- "similar services" -- which ones are those? I don't know of any in English.Richard Jensen 19:26, 3 January 2008 (CST)
Overhaul
This article needs some serious work. Is anyone besides me paying attention? Brian P. Long 00:00, 13 September 2008 (CDT)
Popper quotation
Martin, isn't it rather odd that you don't give a reference to Popper himself when you quote him?--Paul Wormer 12:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Not so much odd, as lazy! Would you be happy sourcing it to say, the Stanford E of P? Feel free to track it back further - but the quote is quite genuine. I read the Popper book some years ago and took notes for my own books. All the page details long lost now though. Maybe it can be tracked online?
The Greek 'critics' are also covered by the reference to my book, otherwisw we would need sources for every few words. Is that necessary? Clearly if I quote my book it can look like 'spam' but I would suggest that if it is clearly making a relevant and orignial point, then that is the 'proper' way to proceed.
CZ has a terrible dearth of content, I would like to 'raid' my exisitng work to try to put up substantial amounts - so as to act as a first 'draft' of the missing pages. Obviously, it will take about 100 times longer (no, literally!) if I have to re-research and source every few words.
But if others wish to track quotes back, that is in my view A VERY GOOD IDEA.
Martin Cohen 12:50, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Biased opening
The introductory section of this article was, to me, shockingly biased. I have moved most of the content of the section, which consisted mainly of a series of very harsh criticisms of Aristotle through the ages. This section (now at the bottom of the article) still needs balance and to be more than simply a list of quotations with little comment: a list of quotations does not make an encyclopedia article. More importantly, articles even about widely rejected and disrespected figures do and should not begin with such a catalog of criticisms. There really is not any excuse for this. What makes it even worse is that there is nothing about Aristotle's views or accomplishments in the introductory section, which is what the introduction should mainly consist of. --Larry Sanger 16:34, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
- The content is historically descriptive and the context is that mentioned above on this talk page. Larry's edit left certain structural problems: notably a dangling last sentecne and a new 'split' between the complimentary view of Aristotle (in the opener) and the negative ones (in the conclusion). I think it made the assessment harsher rather than more neutral. Thus I have reverted it.
- Now I can accept Larry's view - as fellow philosophy editor - that the present text may give an excessively negative view of Aristotle, given the general 'public' consensus, and indeed Aristotle's many admirers today, and thus criticism may be better located in its own paragraph, perhaps as Larry says at the end (but note the problem with THAT just mentioned.) However, there are different opinions on Aristotle, and reflecting this is the proper role of the introductory paragraph. So I am reluctant to accept his statement of the proper role of encyclopedias in this matter. Can we have some examples, please, Larry, of how controversial figures are properly summarised, if not by mentioning both sides? Or shoudl we AVOID value judgements int the opening paragraph and stick to neutral facts. That might do it.
- As a matter of detail, Aristotle's views were NOT influential until well after 350 BCE and why is Aristotle's influence cut off in the C16 ? It looks rather odd - and this claim is unsourced. Can Larry offer a more precise span, indicating the reasons behind it, and sourcing? Martin Cohen 18:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Plato
I respectfully disagree. You sadly underestimate the knowledge level of the general public. Also the raison d'etre for CZ. Is Plato an Archon of Athens? The guy who wrote the Illiad? A Roman general? Who knows, unless you tell them.
Rather than play the revert game, however, I will try to find another Editor who agrees with me. Hayford Peirce 16:23, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Where is the Catalog page referred to in the main article?
The main article states: "Please refer to this page’s catalog for a complete list of Aristotle’s works, and to the subpage on the spurious works of Aristotle." ... but I cannot find that catalog page. Milton Beychok 02:05, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
- I don't think it was ever created, sadly. The 'spurious works of Aristotle' page is going to take someone who really knows their stuff-- it's certainly not a subject tyros like me can handle. (I looked at some of the discussion around the fourth book of the Meteorology). Something basic on the works of Aristotle shouldn't be too difficult to put together, though. The bigger problem is the mess the text of the main article is in... Brian P. Long 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
