Product Description
With the emergence of democracy in the city-state of Athens in the years around 460 BC, public speaking became an essential skill for politicians in the Assemblies and Councils – and even for ordinary citizens in the courts of law. In response, the technique of rhetoric rapidly developed, bringing virtuoso performances and a host of practical manuals for the layman. While many of these were little more than collections of debaters’ tricks, the Art of Rhetoric held a far deeper purpose. Here Aristotle (384–322 BC) establishes the methods of informal reasoning, provides the first aesthetic evaluation of prose style and offers detailed observations on character and the emotions. Hugely influential upon later Western culture, the Art of Rhetoric is a fascinating consideration of the force of persuasion and sophistry, and a compelling guide to the principles behind oratorical skill. ... Read more

Product Description

Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there (367–347); subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343–2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school (of 'Peripatetics'), the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322.

Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda (some are spurious). They can be categorized as follows: I Practical: Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics (Magna Moralia); Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics (on the good of the family); On Virtues and Vices. II Logical: Categories; Analytics (Prior and Posterior); Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical: Twenty-six works (some suspect) including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics: on being as being. V Art: Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes.

Customer Reviews (1)

Useful for the specialist and the student
Like most volumes in the Loeb series, the emphasis is not on word-for-word precision in the translation, but on acheiving greater readability in broader terms. Since the original text in ancient Greek is provided on the facing page, the editors assume that anyone with a little knowledge of Greek can supplement the looseness of the translation by referring to the original. And in general, the compromises made in this way are good ones throughout the series. In this case, perhaps, the translation may be a little too loose, and also given over to some unfortunate jargon that can distort Aristotle's meaning. But even so, this is still a very useful text for the specialist or the student. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A Masterpiece. Exhaustive and Complete!
If you enjoy Aristotle and Aquinas and would like to gain a better understanding on Aristotle's work titled "Physics," then this is definitely a book you need to own. While there are literally hundreds of titles in print and out of print (but able to be found) on Aristotle'sphysics, there is no book that matches this one. This is yet anotherexample of the "dumb ox" rising to the occasion again. Aquinastakes Aristotle's "Physics"lecture by lecture (i.e. passage bypassage) and comments on what Aristotle is espousing. This is 638 pages ofgreat detail, philosophy, and comments by one of the greatest philosophersin philosophical history (Aquinas), about one of the greatest philosopher'swork. The work is translated by Blackwell, Spath, and Thirlkel, and has aforward written by one of the most renown Thomistic scholars of our day,namely, Ralph McInerny. The translators have done a wonderful job of takinga difficult topic and language and making it easy to read and simple tofollow. Aquinas breaks down all of Aristotle's arguments, writings,comments, etc. into helpful and easy to understand comments. Furthermore,Aquinas takes words/phrases that are used by Aristotle and explains theircontext, intent, and meaning. Anybody who is familiar with Aquinas knowsthatAquinas can say more in less than most if not all of the greatestphilosophers. Therefore, if you want a commentary that will exhaustivelyexplain Aristotle's "Physics" then look no further. ... Read more

Product Description

Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there (367–347); subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343–2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school (of 'Peripatetics'), the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322.

Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda (some are spurious). They can be categorized as follows: I Practical: Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics (Magna Moralia); Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics (on the good of the family); On Virtues and Vices. II Logical: Categories; Analytics (Prior and Posterior); Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical: Twenty-six works (some suspect) including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics: on being as being. V Art: Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes.

Customer Reviews (6)

Cheap copy; overrated work
I don't speak Greek so I can't comment on the accuracy of the translation, but it was reasonable English.
You probably want precisely this text if you're looking at it, but if you're looking for personal enlightenment I'd recommend either Plato (I found Plato's Republic much superior in terms of the philosophy) or one of Aristotle's other works -- I haven't read them, but the philosophical discussion here is so relatively poor that I can only presume his fame comes from his mathematical lectures.
The book itself is very cheaply made; it feels possible to just flip the spine over on itself (although actually doing this would probably send a number of pages flying).

Poor Binding
If you are considering this volume for its parallel Greek and English, then it is your only choice.I am not reviewing the Greek or English, as you know what you're in for with a Loeb.The one star is the result of a poorly produced volume.The newer Loeb volumes are very poorly bound.My copy of Nichomachean Ethics has a number of pages stuck together by binding glue to a point beyond the center margins and all the way into the text.Most new Loebs I've examined have this same problem, and I've seen them fall out of the binding in less than a semester of use.Older Loebs that I have seen in libraries seem to be bound much better, and I've known professors with Loeb volumes from the seventies that are holding up all right relative to their use and age.I'll avoid buying these new.

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy.In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore.It is a retrieval of Aristotle.It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state.Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology.What does "good" mean?He suggests good means "a desired end."Something desirable.Means towards these ends.Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good."In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good."Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money.Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself.Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money."Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness."This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle.Eudemonia=happiness.Today we think of happiness as a feeling.It is not a feeling for Aristotle.Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well."It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence."Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of."Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle.Can also mean fulfillment.Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation.What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth."EN isn't formula but a rough outline.Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it.When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle.Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife.He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates.The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good."In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits.Good qualities of a person who would act well.Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person.If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules.Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak.Like a musical virtuoso.Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like."In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason.For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual.Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait.Socrates said same the thing.Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause.Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing.Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good.Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working.Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends!Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation.In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia.Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs.A long interesting list.It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness.Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods.Pleasure is a condition of the soul.In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual.Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature.It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle.These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom."The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good.As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do.Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom.The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods."For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion.Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics.Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept.My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues?Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves.Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are.The virtues are capacities of a person to act well.All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis.There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated.Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually."We reach our complete perfection through habit."Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them.Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey.Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp.Learning by doing is important for Aristotle.Hexis= "state," "having possession."Theoria= "study."The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good."Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean.Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance.Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity.Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities.Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies.Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well.For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day.Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in.It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience.Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will.Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis.Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated.Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue.Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength.Continence.We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness.This is akrasia incontinence.Happens in real life.
4. Vice.The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"?Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term.Ethical weakness is not a full vice either.This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue."No one can knowingly do the wrong thing.Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires.Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this.Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees.The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4.A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

about halfway through it.
this book is beautiful for context when reading kierkegaard or thomas aquinas. for instance, take patience; where on the scale between passivity and wrath does turning the other cheek fit in? it is necessary to understand this in order to understand the teleological suspension of the ethical or to understand the theological virtues, faith, hope and charity, as departures from ethics. btw, father messick in an earlier review writes that the writers of the declaration of independence had an aristotelian mindset and i will not argue that point. i would just like to point out that life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is commandeered, so to speak, from the writings of adam smith, i.e., life, liberty and the pursuit of property. also that thomas jefferson much preferred continental philosophers, such as locke and rousseau, to the ancient greeks as is evident in his letters. loeb library is the right choice for poor students of greek such as myself. i also have homer and hesiod.

Doing the right thing
Aristotle was a philosopher in search of the chief good for human beings. This chief good is eudaimonia, which is often translated as 'happiness' (but can also be translated as 'thriving' or 'flourishing'). Aristotle sees pleasure, honour and virtue as significant 'wants' for people, and then argues that virtue is the most important of these.

In the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle makes the claim that happiness is something which is both precious and final. This seems to be so because it is a first principle or ultimate starting point. For, it is for the sake of happiness that we do everything else, and we regard the cause of all good things to be precious and divine. Moreover, since happiness is an activity of the soul in accordance with complete and perfect virtue, it is necessary to consider virtue, as this will be the best way of studying happiness.

How many of us today speak of happiness and virtue in the same breath? Aristotle's work in the Nicomachean Ethics is considered one of his greatest achievements, and by extension, one of the greatest pieces of philosophy from the ancient world. When the framers of the American Declaration of Independence were thinking of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, there is little doubt they had an acquaintance with Aristotle's work connecting happiness, virtue, and ethics together.

When one thinks of ethical ideas such as an avoidance of extremes, of taking the tolerant or middle ground, or of taking all things in moderation, one is tapping into Aristotle's ideas. It is in the Nicomachean Ethics that Aristotle proposes the Doctrine of the Mean - he states that virtue is a 'mean state', that is, it aims for the mean or middle ground. However, Aristotle is often misquoted and misinterpreted here, for he very quickly in the text disallows the idea of the mean to be applied in all cases. There are things, actions and emotions, that do not allow the mean state. Thus, Aristotle tends to view virtue as a relative state, making the analogy with food - for some, two pounds of meat might be too much food, but for others, it might be too little. The mean exists between the state of deficiency, too little, and excessiveness, too much.

Aristotle proposes many different examples of virtues and vices, together with their mean states. With regard to money, being stingy and being illiberal with generosity are the extremes, the one deficient and the other excessive. The mean state here would be liberality and generosity, a willingness to buy and to give, but not to extremes. Anger, too, is highlighted as having a deficient state (too much passivity), an excessive state (too much passion) and a mean state (a gentleness but firmness with regard to emotions).

Aristotle states that one of the difficulties with leading a virtuous life is that it takes a person of science to find the mean between the extremes (or, in some cases, Aristotle uses the image of a circle, the scientist finding the centre). Many of us, being imperfect humans, err on one side or the other, choosing in Aristotle's words, the lesser of two evils. Aristotle's wording here, that a scientist is the only one fully capable of virtue, has a different meaning for scientist - this is a pre-modern, pre-Enlightenment view; for Aristotle, the person of science is one who is capable of observation and calculation, and this can take many different forms.

Aristotle uses different kinds of argumentation in the Nicomachean Ethics. He uses a dialectical method, as well as a functional method. In the dialectical method, there are opposing ideas held in tension, whose interactions against each other yield a result - this is often how the mean between extremes is derived. However, there are other times that Aristotle seems to prefer a more direct, functional approach. Both of these methods lead to the same understanding for Aristotle's sense of the rational - that humanity's highest or final good is happiness.

There is a discussion of the human soul (for this is where virtue and happiness reside). Aristotle argues that virtue is not a natural state; we are not born with nor do we acquire through any natural processes virtue, but rather through 'habitation', an embedding process or enculturation that makes these a part of our soul. However, it is not sufficient for Aristotle's virtue that one merely function as a virtuous person or that virtuous things be done. This is not a skill, but rather an art, and to be virtuous, one must live virtuously and act virtuously with intention as well as form.

Of course, one of the implications here is that virtue is a quantifiable thing, that periodically resurfaces in later philosophies. How do we calculate virtue?

This is a difficult question, and not one that Aristotle answers in any definitive way. However, more important than this is the key difference that Aristotle displayed setting himself apart from his tutor Plato; rather than seeing the possession of 'the good' or 'virtue' as the highest ideal, Aristotle is concerned with the practical aspects, the ethics of this. Based on Aristotle's lectures in Athens in the fourth century BCE, this remains one of the most important works on ethical and moral philosophy in history.
... Read more

Product Description
Written by renowned Aristotle scholar Sir David Ross, this study has long been established as one of the foremost surveys of Aristotle's life, work and philosophy. With John L. Ackrill's introduction and updated bibliography, created for the sixth edition, the book continues to serve as a standard guide, both for the student of ancient history and the general reader. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Only recommended for those who need a detailed study of Aristotelian philosophy
I was thoroughly looking forward to this book on Aristotle and was greatly dissappointed. The biographical sketch of Aristotle is meager (and admittedly may be all that is available) and 90% of the book is devoted to a detailed study of Aristotelian philosophy which is extremely tedious to read. Part of the problem is that the book was originally written in the 1920s using a style of writing that is clearly directed towards a graduate level study of Aristotle. The book is also full of typographical errors which is quite unacceptable for a book that is over 80 years old and in its 6th edition.

I imagine this book will be valuable for someone looking for an exhaustive (although ponderously written) study of Aristotelian philosophy, but everyone else will likely wish to save their hard earned money for something more enjoyable. We definitely need a modern look at Aristotle along the lines of Luis Navia's wonderful book on Socrates.

Aclassic review of Aristotle
Unfortunately I can not be extremely positive about this work of Ross. Still how you will benefit from the work will depend on your expectations.If you need some summary to draw upon in an undergraduate course, this work will be helpful.But the work will not give you real insight, either because it does not intend it, or simply because it can not achieve it.Sorry that I have to talk like this on a great scholar's book.

Aristotle unraveled
Sir David Ross' explication of Aristotle's philosophy is most helpful. Aristotle's works that have survived to today seem to be post-lecture notes, a sort of "here's what I covered in today's lecture"recap. As such, Aristotle's books are sometimes confusing, occasionallycontradictory and often just plain difficult to understand. In addition,Aristotle was a scientist first and philosopher second. This makes hisworks, which we read for their philosophical content, more difficult tograsp in some cases. Further, as with any translated works, varioustranslators convey Aristotle's assertions in different ways, some of themmore useful than others.

Ross' deep understanding of The Philosopher,gained through years of study, teaching and translation, gives him thebackground needed to help the reader understand more clearly Aristotle'sposition on various subjects. Ross is able to reconcile some apparentcontradictions, to point out some of Aristotle's underlying assumptions andmake confusing passages clear.

As a graduate student in philosophy, Ifind Ross' work to be very helpful and expect to use it extensively asbackground material for my thesis. But the value derived from reading andunderstanding Aristotle is not limited to students or philosophers, and thevalue of Ross' book is wide-ranging as well. Aristotlewill be helpful tostudents, teachers or lay readers interested in philosophy but strugglingwith some of the archaic attitudes presented in many translations of ThePhilosopher's work. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

What is The Meaning Of Being?
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being.What is the meaning of being?With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form.Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality.One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality.Matter can't answer the question of being without form.Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature.Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being.Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics.We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white."Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being."Word being has flexibility.Other flexible words is essence.(the what it is to be).In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence.Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature.All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word.When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for.Aristotle says you can't find it.Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health.Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy.Aristotle is OK with using examples.Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence.Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy).It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics."This" is ontologically primary.Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics.The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is.Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological?Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge?Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge.Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge.However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy.This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato.In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia.Ousia =form in Metaphysics.In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter.Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form.This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics.In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle.If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable.You never come across things without their form.God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence.The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge.Definition= essence.Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human.When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form.It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form.Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is.Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done.So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1.Grammatically basic.2.Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right.The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule.Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles.It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect.An important governing thought in Western philosophy.A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite.Aristotle thought reality was organized this way.It has to do with both knowledge and being.Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality.In the same respect, what does it mean?It shifts depending on circumstances.From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable.The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction.In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play.Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time.1 of 3 factors has changed, time.A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion.Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things.Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation.This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle.This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state.All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement.Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood.Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature.Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things.He stretches the way Ousia in many ways.Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists.However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being.Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about.The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight).Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form."Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form.A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being.However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is."Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being.If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia?Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato!He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world.Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge.The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things.When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things.Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality.Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point.If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest.This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it.He wants to grasp the final.For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia.Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness.1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity.2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea.Potentiality has idea of negation in it.Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move.Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality.Ontology now moves to theology.This is his theological science.(Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle).In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends.Any actualization has potentiality it is prior.Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement.Two ways Aristotle proves this idea.1st is human reproduction brings us into being.Our parents actually reproduced us.2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas.Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it.Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place.Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential.Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine.God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality.This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought.What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out.Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality.Thus, non-rational movement is very regular.Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality.When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation.There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something.3rd level is big for Aristotle.1st two levels have limitations to them.We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers.He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics.Movement is actualization of potential.Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life.Things in nature that are alive.Soma=body.Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't.Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise.We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Another Excellent Work in the Dumb Ox Series
This is a great translation of Aquinas' comments on Aristotle's worktitled, "Metaphysics." Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame University)wrote the preface and the work was translated by John P. Rowan. Both menare strong in their field of expertise and both are Thomists. The book is aphrase by phrase/paragraph by paragraph commentary written by Aquinas onAristotle's actual work. In other words, Aquinas took what Aristotleespoused in his "Metaphysics" and discussed it in great detail.Aquinas was not shy about admitting what he disagreed and agreed with inAristotle's philosophy. So not only is the reader of this addition gettingthe actual translated text of Aristotle's work, but also Aquinas' remarks.This is an incredible reference/resource work for those who are eitherstudying Aristotle's "Metaphysics," the thoughts of ThomasAquinas, or perhaps both. The book is 839 pages of solid text and very wellorganized so the reader knows the parts that are Aristotle's (which are allitalicized) and Aquinas'(which are in plain type). This book, if for noother reason, at least helps the student of both philosophers gain a betterunderstanding of each; since Aquinas is at his best when commenting aboutAristotle's work and the actual text of Aristotle is present for the readerto digest. This paragraph from the back cover of the book well describeswhat the buyer and reader can expect from such a great work as this -"Thomas Aquinas finds the twelve books he comments on wonderful fortheir order, both overall and in the minutest detail. His reading isgoverned by what he takes to be the clear sense of the text, hisinterpretations keep close to what Aristotle actually said, his account isbreathtaking in its acuity." Thus, this is a work that you will notwant to miss, since, unfortunately, books of this nature have a short ashelf life. ... Read more

Product Description
The Blackwell Guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics illuminates Aristotle’s ethics for both academics and students new to the work, with sixteen newly commissioned essays by distinguished international scholars.

• The structure of the book mirrors the organization of the Nichomachean Ethics itself.
  
• Discusses the human good, the general nature of virtue, the distinctive characteristics of particular virtues, voluntariness, self-control, and pleasure.

Customer Reviews (1)

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy.In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore.It is a retrieval of Aristotle.It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state.Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology.What does "good" mean?He suggests good means "a desired end."Something desirable.Means towards these ends.Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good."In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good."Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money.Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself.Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money."Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness."This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle.Eudemonia=happiness.Today we think of happiness as a feeling.It is not a feeling for Aristotle.Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well."It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence."Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of."Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle.Can also mean fulfillment.Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation.What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth."EN isn't formula but a rough outline.Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it.When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle.Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife.He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates.The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good."In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits.Good qualities of a person who would act well.Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person.If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules.Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak.Like a musical virtuoso.Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like."In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason.For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual.Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait.Socrates said same the thing.Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause.Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing.Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good.Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working.Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends!Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation.In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia.Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs.A long interesting list.It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness.Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods.Pleasure is a condition of the soul.In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual.Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature.It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle.These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom."The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good.As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do.Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom.The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods."For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion.Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics.Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept.My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues?Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves.Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are.The virtues are capacities of a person to act well.All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis.There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated.Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually."We reach our complete perfection through habit."Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them.Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey.Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp.Learning by doing is important for Aristotle.Hexis= "state," "having possession."Theoria= "study."The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good."Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean.Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance.Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity.Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities.Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies.Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well.For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day.Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in.It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience.Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will.Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis.Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated.Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue.Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength.Continence.We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness.This is akrasia incontinence.Happens in real life.
4. Vice.The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"?Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term.Ethical weakness is not a full vice either.This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue."No one can knowingly do the wrong thing.Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires.Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this.Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees.The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4.A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
... Read more

Product Description
Logic is an indispensable tool of a philosophy of reason. That tool and that philosophy came from Aristotle around 330 BC. How did they reach us through all that time?

The Aristotle Adventure answers that question by providing a guide tothe individuals who published, studied, explained, taught, andextended Aristotle's greatest achievement--logic, a tool forunderstanding this world. This reader-friendly account covers 2,000years, 10,000 miles, and four cultures (Greek-Pagan, Greek-Christian,Arabic-Islamic, and Latin-Christian).

The Aristotle Adventure is for:
*General readers seeking a clearly written intellectual adventure.
*Students of the history of ideas, philosophy, Western Civilization, or theology.
*Scholars who want an overview of this wide-ranging story.

The author explains each new philosophical concept as it appears inthe story. (A combined index-glossary allows readers to easily reviewkey concepts and individuals.) Secondary information, set into tablesand charts, allows readers to focus on the main story in the maintext, with little distraction. Extensive end-notes and bibliographyopen avenues to further reading. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Great illustration of the power of good ideas!
Just finished reading this superb book. I thoroughly recommend it to anyone interested in the power and the history of ideas--and the fragility of good ones.

The Desire To Understand Is Intrinsic in Humans
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
The desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings, it is in our nature.Philosophy is ultimate consequence of desire.Our desires have many aspects such as, food, sex, etc.Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and it comes from within us.Philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder.Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer.Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known.Aristotle always begins his inquiries with the familiar.Difference between Plato and Aristotle, dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions, Aristotle says if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Pursuit of knowledge begins with wonder, breaks thru aporia and satisfies the mind getting to a position of achievement, the goal of knowledge is to eliminate wonder.Faculty of nous is that part of the mind that grasps first principles "First Principles- nous=understanding, demonstration = episteme Dialectic, arche =beginning or rule.Aristotle has a preference for discovering first principles.For Aristotle, one has to start with first principles to proceed to knowledge.These first principles are not just the beginning, but that they govern or rule the procedure for gaining knowledge.Aristotle does not believe humans have these first principles of knowledge innately as Plato believed.Plato thinks knowledge is in the "soul" and innate in humans we just need to find a way to re-learn it.

Potential-Actual Aristotle says we have potential like kids having the capacity to learn language at a young age.For Aristotle, potential for knowledge is innate prior to achieving knowledge.
The "innately" is a swipe at Plato who is similar to Descartes and Liebnitz.Aristotle denies this, nothing is known, it is learned.Even animals have memory.Memory retains perceptions.However, only humans have Logos="reason" and "language."Experience occurs after perception and memory.From our experiences, we get a principle of science.The process of experience arises into the "soul" which then becomes a principle.This all leads to what we know by "induction."

Induction=out of a particular experiences we get a universal.Example, gravity = apple "always" falls.The "always" is the universal principle like Newton's laws.However, sometimes inductions are questionable.Nous=understanding and first principles."Necessary Knowledge" like 2+2=4."Contingent knowledge" is of experiences, which might go through variations.Example, how many dogs are in the backyard?Answer, it actually depends on time of day you ask.It means it can change.The goal is to satisfy our desire to know.

The difference of induction for Plato and Aristotle is "this is a horse.""This" is the particular horse is the universal.Plato believed that basic principles and concepts were already in the mind, humans just have to simply access them.Aristotle disagrees he argues that the concept of horse is an organizing principle that humans can use to understand horses when they confront them; he agrees they will be abstract and different from the particular from the horses they actually encounter.What he disagrees with Plato on is how we get the concept.Aristotle says we have to build the concept of "horse" with a classification system; it is not innate in us, as Plato would argue.

Aristotle came up with up with a classification system.Classification=a name for an object.To get a name you look at composition=what makes things the same, division=how things are different (legs, scales).Aristotle says we do this from experience and observation, memory etc.Concept of "horse" is an organizing principle.This is all induction!Therefore, nous doesn't name anything, it is an arbitrary tag.Aristotle wants a universal concept of knowledge that holds this is a difference with Plato.Key concept- Aristotle says language and reality is two sides of the same coin.Logos originally meant speech.Humans access the world through language according to Aristotle.He believes we were built for speech.

A typical deductive syllogism is "If Socrates is human, and all humans are mortal, then Socrates is mortal."Thus if A=B and B=C, then A=C.Deduction begins with a general principle and move to a specific.Induction leads us to general principle then we use deduction to get to answer or deductive claims.Dialectic=finding first principles through testing them out or using dialogue or debate as in Plato.Thus, we contend with differing beliefs to arrive at first principle.

Important idea--Aristotle and distinction between the "many and the wise."This is subject matter of inquiry or dialectic.The "wise" means people with certain understanding.The "many" means we all understand or know such as, "common sense."Aristotle thinks it is important that when we inquirer we start from the many and then move to the wise in our search for answers.We must always consult both.Plato and Socrates never look to the many.Aristotle says whatever the truth is it can't be so unusual as to leave the rest of human beliefs behind.Example is he doesn't buy Zeno's paradox.In addition, the truth can't be so common as to be able to only have to survey the masses.Sometimes, what most people believe needs help.Example, we all think the best sort of life for us is pleasure; we need the wise to guide us and show it is contemplation.

We begin with questions; knowledge seeks to answer these questions.If we want to know what something is, we already have a sense of the difference of what Plato gave.In a nutshell, what Plato said was that the horse that we encounter is an image of an eternal form "horseness."This is a top down concept.Aristotle's answer is that the particular horse we experience is understood by way of organizing and classifying our perceptions and experiences into a whole.This bottom up approach is a classic distinction that finds itself in many different traditions of philosophy.Aristotle does not have Plato's dualistic two worlds.The eternal world of the forms and then the world of material experience.Whatever the universal is, it is found directly in things through experience, not by rising above to the eternal world of the forms.

Unity-every form of knowledge has some kind of unification, this is how we gather our experiences.If we couldn't gather our experiences into some kind of unity that would hold, then every time we would seek to understand something we would have to start over.We would have to continually deal with differences and variations.Therefore, when we know that, that is a horse, that idea, concept of horse has organized our experiences in a way that it gathers it together.Then the term horse names that unity and then rests in the soul and enables us to go out into the world already armed with some gathered sense of things.Therefore, the next time we confront a horse we already know what it is.

There are different levels of unity for Aristotle, such as, Numerical unity things identical to itself, i.e. two apples and two dogs are equally two.Our experiences teach us this.Therefore, "this" horse is a unity and a singular phenomena.Then, there is unity that would occupy the same genus and same species.Classic definition of humans for Aristotle is- "rational animal."Animal =genus, rational=species.Unity by analogy- a difference that brings something together, like "war on drugs."Aristotle preferred things that were unified in a very exact comprehensive way.So, to classify humans as rational animals is decisive because it captures a general feature and a specific feature in such a way that you are always going to know what humans are by way of that classification.

Aristotle recognizes analogies are looser but sometimes performs the function of unifying our experience by bringing things together in some way, however that unification is not going to be exact, decisive full or complete.He prefers demonstration like deduction; it is amore precise form of knowledge and provides so much knowledge.When he talks about logic, which he invented, and he gets into particular investigations like biology he had to confess things are not always exact in nature.Thus, few things are really universal.However, more often in the world we use unity by analogy than unity by numerical, or genus, etc.Remember the "this" is a horse, for Plato, the true object of knowledge was "horseness" not the "this."The "this is a particular limited perceived instance of the super form of horseness.Therefore, what has true being for Plato is the eternal form of horse.The particular horse the "this" does not have absolute true being because it is limited, it is particular, and it comes and goes.Aristotle turns the tables.The true meaning of "being" the question of what does it mean to be something is always a "this."It is not some transcendent form in eternal realm; it is always the particular thing you encounter.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

A Fascinating Work on Western Intellectual History
Burgess Laughlin's *The Aristotle Adventure* provides an interesting and enlightening account of the transmission of Aristotle's treatises on logic.From ancient Greece, to the Arabian Peninsula and the European Continent, this book details the philosophical transmission of Aristotle's Organon, which laid the foundations for western intellectual and scientific thinking.The writing style is clear and concise, provides impressive detail and is extremely well referenced for further study.This book is a gem for anyone interested in the transmission of the fundamental ideas which gave rise to western civilization. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Good Start
This book is a good starting place for a beginner to Aristotelian philosophy. It is somewhat abbreviated, but it is still worth checking out. It gives a brief summary of each of Aristotle's main fields of philosophy, followed by Aristotle's own explanations. I have looked for the `Pocket' version of other philosophers' works, but I haven't seen any. So I guess just Aristotle's works have been condensed in this convenient form. For a novice, or even a student of philosophy, this book is a useful and accessible resource. ... Read more

Product Description
Darwin's theory of evolution remains controversial, even though most scientists, philosophers, and even theologians accept it, in some form, as a well-attested explanation for the variety of organisms. The controversy erupts when the theory is used to try to explain everything, including every aspect of human life, and to deny the role of a Creator or a purpose to life. It is then that philosophers and theologians cry, "Foul!"

The overreaching of many scientists into fields beyond their competence is perhaps explained in part by the loss of an important idea in modern thinking-final causality or purpose. Scientists understandably bracket the idea out of their scientific thinking because they seek natural explanations and other kinds of causes. Yet many of them wrongly conclude from their selective study of the world that final causes do not exist at all and that they have no place in the rational study of life. Likewise, many erroneously assume that philosophy cannot draw upon scientific findings, in light of final causality, to better understand the world and man.

The great philosopher and historian of philosophy Etienne Gilson sets out in this book to show that final causality or purposiveness is an inevitable idea for those who think hard and carefully about the world, including the world of biology. Gilson insists that a completely rational understanding of organisms and biological systems requires the philosophical notion of teleology, the idea that certain kinds of things exist and have ends or purposes the fulfillment of which is linked to their natures. In other words, final causes. His approach relies on philosophical reflection on the facts of science, not upon theology or an appeal to religious authorities such as the Church or the Bible. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Good book philosophy, though mostly a historical examination.
I've always been interested in biology. It is my absolute favorite natural science. When I saw this book by Etienne Gilson relating the thought of Aristotle to evolutionary theory I bought it as soon as I could.

The preface by Cardinal Schonborn is good. He basically contrasts materialistic philosophy with genuine metaphysics, and exposes some of the assumptions upon which an entirely naturalistic and scientific worldview is based. While certainly not disparaging science, he does show that it is not the "be all and end all" of truth.

The first chapter basically describes the Aristotelian understanding of biology and how final causality fits into this. Chapter 2, "The Mechanist Objection" shows from whence comes the usual mechanistic understanding of all things, especially biological organisms. Chapter 3 is by far the largest chapter. Here Gilson talks about the "fixist" understanding of biology, that all species are fixed. He goes on to talk about early theories of evolution, evolutionary theories that are not necessarily concerned with simple biology, and finally Darwin's thought and the thought of his successors. Throughout all this, Gilson shows what people thought of teleology and how it fit into their theories. The author then talks about Bergson, a famous philosopher in the stream of vitalist thought. He shows where this is similar to the teleology of Aristotle, and where it is different. In the last two chapters, we are told why mechanism cannot account for everything and why teleology is an indispensable part of understanding the facts of biology and the facts of life.

With that rather long summary of the book, I have to say that while I was really looking forward to this book, I was slightly disappointed. I thought that the book would mainly apply Aristotelian thought to current biology, with examples, explanations, etc. While it may be partly the fault of the translator, it seems that the author is not entirely clear in describing what teleology is, what final causality is, how it relates to evolution and natural selection, and to what end all organisms point. In short, this is not exactly an in-depth look at what finality is with lots of examples in biology, but rather a history of the thought and a short argument against the opposite position.

While it seems I'm only being critical, still, it's wonderful for history, and for somebody willing to take the time to read through it all it is worth it. There is some genuine argument against mechanistic interpretation and for teleology, I only think that the definitions and conclusions we should come off with from this discovery are not entirely stated. This book deserves four stars.

Harmonizing Teleology and Evolution?
This book is both brilliant and difficult.

The most glaring issue seems to stem from the translation.The work does not flow well, and the wordings are often obtuse, when more common philosophical terms could have been used for an easier read.

Translation aside, there are three things that I dislike about the book:

1.Originally written at the onset of our current post-secular age, Gilson was still required to write according to a mythical neutrality and with even a notion of scorn towards his fellow Christian scholars.Forty years later, the secularists remain among the loudest in the public square, but few academics continue to persist in the old myth of a secular neutrality, nor that we should hide our most cherished values in order to play according to unproven rules of this equally biased perspective.Thus, many words are wasted in arguing that teleology does not necessarily imply theism so as to appease the arbitrarily enforced secular worldview of the academy in his day.

2.As Christoph Schornborn mentions in the foreword, Gilson has an awkward relationship with formal causes.Unfortunately, due to my previous point, it is difficult to tell whether this is due to a philosophical reason or simply as a means to appease the secular worldview and appear more "neutral."

3.Gilson furthers the myth that Darwin lost his faith as a direct result of his scientific findings.Historians of Darwin continue to argue against this myth, although some have championed the propogation of this myth in order to further their own metaphysical perspectives.Nick Spencer's Darwin and God has shown the complexity of Darwins move from a deistic Christian position to an adamant agnosticism.

Despite these three negatives, I still give the book a worthy five stars.

It should be noted from the onset that this book is not arguing against evolution, or the "limits" of evolutionary science or anything similar.The author intends to show instead that current evolutionary thinking lends itself naturally to Aristotelean philosophy.

The book begins with a basic introduction to Aristotle's thinking in regards to mechanism and finalism.It then proceeds into an analysis of the key figures leading up to Darwin's theory.He discusses Lamarck, Wallace, Gray and especially Spencer as well as others.He also discusses how F. Darwin and Huxley continued a variation of Darwin's argument after his death.His concern was not the science, but the underlying metaphysical assumptions of each of these contributors to the discussion.Gilson's concern is to show that they had radically different metaphysical assumptions that led to conflicts in telling the story of evolution.Instead of resolving the difficulties, evolutionary thinking simply tried to exclude the metaphysical from the discussion and continue to progress based on the usefulness of its ideas in hopes that the distinct metaphysical disjunction could be hidden under the rug.Gilson quips, "The root of the difficulties is the fundamental indetermination of the notion of evolution.The notion signified something supposedly enveloped, but Spencer popularized the word in another sense which no one could exactly define."

For many of these scientists of a previous age, the observation of clear teleology means they are now in the realm of physics and teleology may lead to theology and scientists are not equipped to adequately discuss either of these fields.Somehow this admitted humility in regards to other spheres of knowledge led to an exclusion of other forms of knowledge, and as the scientific world rapidly progressed through the functionality and usefulness of their products, they began to present themselves as the only sphere of actual knowledge.Unfortunately, this move happened only as the result of a willful exclusion (in partiality as we will see) of the teleological and not as a result of scientific endeavor.

Gilson, after discussing this progression and showing along the way the constant reliance on teleological thinking says, "The long detour in which we have been involved with evolutionism will not have been useless.It allows us to see in the first place that the problem of final causality is just as unavoidable in the perspective of the evolution of species as in that of their creation" (i.e. Creationism).Strangely enough, Darwin and many of his contemporaries were thrilled by the fact that he had reunited teleology with their mechanistic view of the world.For instance, when Asa Gray thanked Darwin for restoring the role of the teleological to scientific thinking, Darwin responded, "What you say about teleology pleases me especially."It is no surprise that even after the neo-Darwinian synthesis, today many scientists constantly rely on teleological language and processes in order to make their determinations.Any time a scientist mentions the evolutionary "struggle" for survival they are inevitably resorting to an idea that species intentionally move toward and end.Any time they discuss the evolutionary "purpose" of some feature of a species they are likewise invoking teleology.

It would be fair to note at this point that Gilson would have no time for Intelligent Design (ID).Unsurprisingly, he reserves harsh criticism for some of the ideas underlying the grandfather of ID, William Paley.Whether correct or incorrect, he would see ID theorists as embracing the mechanistic worldview that he resists.

The final two chapters of Gilson's work are on the limits of mechanism and the constants of biophilosophy.This is where his argument takes off and shows that despite the desire of Bacon to separate certain philosophical notions in order to promote utility, these notions cannot be excluded.In a discussion of quantum realities and more contemporary biology, he comes back to Aristotle.As he says, "The facts that Aristotle's biology wished to explain are still there...up to the present no one has explained them any better.Mechanist interpretations of these facts, which Aristotle formerly said had failed, have not ever been satisfactory; they have only displayed more and more the inevitability of the notions of organization and teleology...in order to explain the existence of mechanistic structures of which science is the study."He makes the brilliant distinction early on in these chapters between how a mechanistic philosophy must exclude final causes a priori, often against common sense and empirical reasons, yet how a finalist philosophy can completely embrace the very mechanism at the heart of the other philosophy while giving a more complete explanation for things that mechanistic philosophy cannot per definition.He even suggests that whereas science may have no need for final causes to progress in its utilitarian endeavor for knowledge, they still exist in reality.There is a distinct difference between a methodological abstraction (or exclusion) and a real elimination and the constant reliance of science upon teleological language and methods only proves this point.

This review is already long, but gives the underlying ideas in this work.Whereas my explanation thus far is surely inadequate, if one takes the time to work through this book giving ample thought to what is being said, one will be rewarded with seeing the inevitability of complete explanations resorting to teleology.As Gilson concludes, if teleology so annoyingly continues to refuse to go away from the sciences, simply excluding it a prior only leaves it as an unexplained fact of nature.Let us instead seek to pursue knowledge from every angle, even if it means that we once again take up Aristotle and consider that after all these years, it may have been we who went astray.

Ancient Work too Often Left Behind
How have modern Darwinian scientists handled Aristotle's rational achievements? Largely by ignoring his notions on causality and teleology. Etienne Gilson, as a philosopher, reveals the weakness of the theory of evolution's explanatory power regarding teleology.

The back cover notes: "The overreaching of many scientists into matters beyond self-imposed limits of scientific method is perhaps explained in part by the loss of two important ideas in modern thinking: final causality or purpose and formal causality."

This historian of philosophy in this volume provides chapters on:

- Aristotle
- The Mechanistic Objection
- Finality and Evolution
- The Constants of Biophilosophy

Christoph Schonborn writes a thought-provoking foreword. 240 pages.

The author proves that "organization and teleology invoked by Aristotle in order to explain the existence of mechanistic structures" remain satisfying and convincing.
Letter to an Atheist Nation: Presupositional Apologetics Responds To: Letter to a Christian ... Read more

Product Description
These concise and enlightening explorations of our greatest thinkers bring their ideas to life in an entertaining and accessible fashion.Philosophical thought is deciphered and made comprehensible and interesting to almost everyone.Far from being a novelty, each book is a highly refined appraisal of the philosopher and his work, authoritative and clearly presented. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

British Wit, Greek Philosophy: A Wonderful Mix
This book is a delightful addition to Paul Strathern's Philosophers in 90 Minute series. Though the title might seem a trifle flippant, don't underestimate this short but potent book.

Strathern himself is a truly remarkable individual, a polymath, widely travelled, with award winning fictional and non-fictional books.He knows his stuff, and speaks with an enthusiasm and fluidity that clearly illustrates Strathern's love of his subject matter.He approaches philosophy with a perspective far broader and (to me) more interesting than can anyone whose home base is limited to philosophy alone.

In a two part approach that mirrors other books in the 90 Minute series, Strathern presents a sparkling biography of Aristotle, including his family life, his rise to fame, and his near brush with execution late in life.Concluding Aristotle's life story, Strathern moves on to examine the enormous impact that Aristotle's thinking, for better or for worse, had on Western civilization.Aristotle's key concepts are discussed with lucidity, and cogent criticisms of Aristotelian limitations are presented respectfully and clearly.

In proof of the concept that pursuit of knowledge need not be dreary, Strathern's Aristotle in 90 Minutes is permeated by dry and excellent British wit.No pre-requisite knowledge of philosophy is required to fully enjoy this wonderful review of the life and thoughts of one of the West's most influential thinkers.Both fascinating and funny, it's a definite two thumbs up!

Review of Strathern's Aristotle in 90 Minutes
There are several points of keep in mind while reading any of Strathern's '90 Minutes' works:
1. Where possible, Strathern loves to attach psychological typologies to his subjects, and then weaves his analysis into the philosopher's known, objective biography.
2. Strathern's works are highly biographical, and should not be seen as an introduction to philosophical doctrines, at least not in their primary capacity.
3. Strathern does not mind using flimsy sources if their information suits his psychological theories.
4. Some of Strathern's '90 Minutes' are terrible, others bearable.

All of Strathern's books include the following:
30-60 pages of biographical information, introducting some philosophical ideas
10-20 pages of quotes from the philosophers works or about the philosopher

This is a bearable '90 Minutes.' It does an excellent job of introducing Aristotle, and covers all of the major periods of his life. Like all of Stratern's writings, this piece is readable and lightly humorous. Stratern's bias is tolerable hardly noticeable in this volume; he is generally objective. Finally, there is a nice afterword discussing Aristotelianism after Aristotle's death.

I recommend 'this' Strathern piece in accordance with other writings on Aristotle, or, best of all, with Aristotle himself.

Not an Objective Summary
First I must say that it is impossible to understand Aristotle in 90 minutes. Also, most of the book is history/biography, and not enough goes into his actual philosophy. However bad these may be, my real problem with this short little book is that the author uses up too much space discussing where Aristotle supposedly went wrong.

List of attacks/criticisms:

A brief discussion of Aristotle's take on happiness turns into:
"This is very much an innocent professorial view of happiness: hedonism as a purely theoretical pursuit."

The author on several pages of this tiny read relates Aristotle's axioms to the Medieval Christian approach, and in the afterword finally reveals a dichotomy between Aristotle's reason, and the Medievalists' faith. This seems to be a contradiction.

The author becomes very biased in the afterword:
"Viewing the world in this way, they were bound to arrive at a number of wrongheaded conclusions, such as those which marred even Aristotle's thought."

The author reveals his own personal belief in modern philosophy:
"The conclusion we reach simply depend on the paradigms we adopt: the way we decide to think about the world. In other words, there is not such thing as absolute truth."

Conclusion:
This book was nothing but 87 pages of attacks and criticisms. For an objective presentation of Aristotle, find another source.

Whirlwind tour of the life of a genius
I enjoyed this 90-minute romp through the world of Aristotle. Starting with a discussion of his obscure birthplace in Macedonia through his involvement with Plato's Symposium and the estiablishment of his own rival Lyceum, the book gave shape to the world Aristotle inhabited. One will hear of personalities, politics and marriage. But one cannot do justice in under 2 hours to the subtlety of Aristotle's thought. Instead, author Paul Strathern focuses on the effect of Artistotle on Arab philossophers like Avicenna and Averroes and on the medieval Christian Church, notably Thomas Aquinas's effort to intergate Aristotle with Church teaching. The major shortcoming of the book is that it slights Aristotle's actual teaching -- you do not hear much Aristotle. This is unfortunate but probably necessary -- it's not possible for the lay reader to understand the subtelty of the arguments without much cogitation and effort.

Strathern does a decent job of describing both Aristotle's contributions (logic, categorization, the focus on the world being real) as well as his errors (the flatness of the Earth, the theory of the humors, etc.) and his biases (democracy bad, tyranny OK). While his book does not succeed in transmitting detailed knowledge of Aristotelian thought, it does succeed in making Aristotle a real person whose inquisitiveness and openness to new ideas, unfortunately, was not always practiced by those who spoke in his name.

Masterful if Not Exactly Perfect Insight
Strathern has done a marvelous job of summarizing everything men need to know about Aristotle, and placed it in a context that most can understand. However, the great flaw from a woman's perspective is that "the author protests not enough," the railroad of philosphy that humanity has been on to explain everything from soup to nuts in a world that viewed the world as essentially homogenous. Women, and minorities, may have much to say about how how they have been left out of the organization of mankind, and about how timid Aristotle was about upsetting the then acceptable view of male beauty as the only standard of conscience, or how reluctant he was to ignore his own, or the homosexuality of others, to make that standard one the Romans and Catholic Church was forced to cloak and hide by conveniently losing for 300 years or more the writings that justified that reality. He also sheepishly leaves out the fact that most authors who write about Plato and Aristotle presume their close relationship to have been more a marital one without children for those twenty years where Aristotle's jewelled and shaven appearance may have been the discernable facts most men embarassingly leave out. Better not to recognize a society formed for the elevation of male bisexuality and promiscuity than to have to deal with deliberation of its morality. The fact that this might be catching up to us is all the more reason it might have been included as an essential to inclusion rather than ignored as it has been, perhaps the ultimate flaw by Plato and Aristotle, as well as Strathern. It might have saved many a child from becoming the victim of convenient morality, and the acceptance of predatory confusion through which many thousands of years of philosophizing has been unable to tame, but deterred quite effectively. In the finishing paragraph of the selected writings of Aristotle, he has left open the question of whether mankind has chosen to be blind to the fact that lack of representation has worked to man's advantage or his detriment, an equally valid observation that brings mankind to his own personal precipice, and of which women would be well advised to finally enter the fray, given the fact that for centuries upon centuries they have been denied the voice that would exhalt their own rights of free expression to define, interpret, and alter the world - for their own pursuit of happiness - if, indeed, they are yet up to the challenge, and willing to assume the responsibility and privilege. ... Read more

Product Description
Interprets Heidegger’s phenomenological reading of Aristotle’s philosophy. ... Read more

Product Description
Winner of the Journal of the History of Ideas's Morris D. Forkosch prizeThis book traces the development thought about God and the relationship between God's being and activity from Aristotle, through the pagan Neoplatonists, to thinkers such as Augustine, Boethius, and Aquinas (in the West) and Dionysius the Areopagite, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas (in the East). The resulst is a comparative history of philosophical thought in the two halves of Christendom, providing a philosophical backdrop to the schism between the Eastern and Western churches. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (7)

Aristotle and much more!
This wonderful book underrates itself in its modest title. Bradshaw virtually offers a deep and deeply interesting account of Christian philosophy in the first millennium, with a serious and helpful look at the consequences in later medieval thought. These include not only the schism, in which the West fell away from its spiritual unity with the central tradition of the Orthodox Faith, but also an impoverished understanding of the notions of power and energy. Though Philip Sherrard addressed some of these themes in his comparative works--still well worth consideration--, he did so far less accessibly than Bradshaw.

The Latin tradition is intelligently and even sympathetically discussed in a predominantly irenic spirit. Bradshaw manages to balance the prevailing atmosphere of Western ignorance and prejudice (well illustrated in a couple of the less sympathetic reviews here) with a lucid account of the thinking of important but underemphasized figures in philosophical scholarship; e.g., the Cappadocians, St. Dionysius and St. Maximus. While there have been a number of helpful studies of these thinkers in recent years, they have been mostly concerned with what is now called spirituality, or with dogmatic theology. The unity of faith, practice and intellectual life which has prevailed in the Christian East has not been generally appreciated. Bradshaw appreciates it.

I have shared this fine book with colleagues and students; they have always profited and appreciated its helpful treatment of an issue and of thinkers who are still far too little appreciated or ill understood in prevalent schools of philosophical scholarship. It is hard reading, but well worth the effort.

A Theology for a Real Growing Experience with God
This is an intellectually challenging work, but it is very clearly written and shows the way of the Fathers of the Church who walked with God constantly.Book knowledge is not enough, but this solid knowledge provides the way to walk in faith in the Living and True God.
The book deals with the concept of energy is all its historic nuonces, but then shows how the Apostle Paul and the great teachers who followed him in the East used the concept to help us grasp the Biblical experience of Our Lord Jesus and His doctrine of communion with the Holy Trinity.
It also shows how conceptual blocks in some of the Western Fathers created a divide between theology and practice.

Moderation in all things.Don't use this book to "prove" preconceived conclusions of Orthodoxy.
I would like to compliment Dr. Bradshaw for his hard work. My review will be, hopefully, an open-minded critique to give a scholar or theologian/philosopher some serious considerations.
1.) Dr. Bradshaw is a UT Austin Man. I imagine that he was in the Ancient Philosophy/Greek program. It is academically rigorous, speaking as a former UT Greek student. Dr. Bradshaw enlarged upon his doctoral thesis on Aristotle to venture into Christian theology, perhaps that's where he went wrong.
2.) The Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies hosted a public presentation of the book by doctor Bradshaw and provided a rebuttal by a well versed theologian. The Q&A was wonderful. See:http://www.snvteam.com/iocs/videos/index.php?page=play&groupid=0&movieid=1&q=lowHowever, for Dr. Bradshaw, I imagine he was humiliated by the whole thing.
3.) If you don't have time to watch the film, consider the following: The title of his book is theologically oriented. After Dr. Bradshaw was "hammered" in the discussion, his reply to several objections was a.) professing that he's not a theologian and so was ignorant of several important controversies and figures with regard to the very topics he was attempting to influence b.) He openly admitted that he had probably some major holes in not reading all pertinent authors c.) amazingly, he pronounced his ignorance about Duns Scotus. If you know this controversy well...this is inexcusable! The outstanding philosopher-theologian Gennadius Scholarios (Patriarch of Const. and appointed Successor of Mark Eugenicus/Ephesus) professed to have reconciled Palamas with Scotistic theology (brilliantly!). John Romanides ripped (see his website) poor Meyendorff for not understanding Scotus (among other Latins), not unlike Bradshaw. I was horrified that the good Doctor was "shocked" to see that there were parallels in Scotus' metaphysics and Gregory's. It was a bloodbath.
To select but one more point, our Good Doctor suggested a form of divine-human relation which explicitly meant that God should be determined in his actions by contingent human beings in relation to him. His opponent then reduced him to a pile of ash (for that and his errors on Aquinas).

Conclusions: 1.) Great study of Greek, and the use of terms in "the Philosopher" and in history and the Bible; a UT Austin strong point 2.) Weak on showing that post-Dionysian Phil/Theol was historically enslaved by a quasi-moral necessity to follow this PSEUDO-Denys, who although quite talented, is arguablely able to help us know anything about God, and was accepted perhaps more on his authority as an "apostle" than for his intrinsic merit. Furthermore, Denys' sources and dependence on pagan theology calls into question the contributions of Dionysian Christians, who are conscious, or unconscious, neo-Platonists.Thus, those who slavishly follow Denys are going to have big philosophical problems to resolve 3.) He admits that he is approaching theology (in his interview) as a "philosopher", ironically making a division (perhaps saving face after being humiliated) that would not have been admitted by many theologians of the scholastic period on both sides. In the East, if one tried to theologize as a "Philosopher", what would have happened to him (11th century synods condemned the "atheistic ratiocinations" of Hellenic philosophy in theology)? Real theologians are pretty easy to find in the Eastern tradition, to quote Evagrius Ponticus (On Prayer): "The theologian prayers truly, and he who prays truly is a theologian."
Dr., a noble effort, hard work, but a lot of holes and shortcomings. Perhaps it best to stay in in your field.
[...]

Starts out well, then crashes
There is indeed some impressive scholarship in this book, except where the author attempts to make sense of figures he has failed to study in depth, such as Aquinas, where the errors are numerous and elementary.Behind the project, of course, is an agenda, a familiar anti-Western polemic dressed up in good historical research and extremely clumsy philosophy.
I notice that the publishers quote David Burrell's review in Nova et Vetera--funny, since that review was anything but positive in its final conclusions regarding this book.
Bradshaw is a bad philosopher, but he gives his audience what they want.He will be praised extravagantly.

Revealed God or Philosophical Idol?
First, the negative review is pure B.S.

Dr. Bradshaw is not polemical and goes right to the primary texts (and I believe he does so in the original languages).Hence, his supposed "oversight" of the best western scholarship is nonsense, as Dr. Bradshaw's work IS the best western, secondary writing on his topic.No need to bow to the clouded and prejudiced views of those who have gone before.

Moving on:

Dr. Bradshaw's painstakingly documented and detailed demonstration and explication of the fundamental difference between the views about God held by the Christian East and West (since the ascendency of Augustinian theology) is a must read for all serious 'theologians,' Eastern and Western, Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox alike.

The first crucial point that Bradshaw argues, and which I believe he has demonstrated, is that Eastern Christianity used the language of the ancient Greek philosphy to go beyond the concepts and content of that philosophy to explain the new information about God offered by Christian revelation.More importantly, Bradshaw precisely demonstrates how Eastern Christianity employed Greek philosophical words and embued them with extended or new meaning to explain that God is personal and beyond conceptualization and, furthermore, that mankind can really participate in divine life without pantheistic absorption.Indeed, the notion that God as personal, not an idea, set of ideas, or an impersonal force of somekind -- and more, that man can partificate in divine life without pantheistic absorption -- was entirely alien to pre-Christian Hellenic thinking.

The second crucial point that Bradshaw argues, and I believe that he demonstrates, is that Augustinian theology not only used certain terminology of ancient Greek philosophy but also conflated the God of Christian revelation with certain concepts from the content of philosphy, thereby trapping God into a conceptual box, so to speak.Specifically, by limiting God to "being itself" in agreement with neoPlatonic philosophy (an apparently self-evident human logic) but contrary to the often mysterious traditions of authentic, apostolic Christian revelation, the Christian West developed an inauthentic systematic theology (both in neoPlatonic Augustianism and Aristolelian Thomism), which was based on a conceptual idol, not the unlimited God of revelation, and worse yet, an idol whose 'life' no man could ever participate in or share -- a God of intellectual contemplation of estatic beholding (an neat idea?; a beautiful picture?) but nothing more.

Finally, Bradshaw invites further scholarship and hard thinking about the possibility that western theology (or perhaps more appropriately western intellectual idolatry) created the fertile ground for the Enlightenment and all the disaster it birthed:the genocidal Twentieth Century.Of course, the fact that the Christian East experienced no Enlightenment and no Reformation is not proof that the idiocyncracies of western theology caused those events, but it does raise the question.And Bradshaw pinpoints the dubious aspects of western theology that best support the view that post-schism western Christianity has planted the seeds of its own destruction and perhaps of the world. ... Read more

Product Description
This major collection of essays offers the first serious challenge to the traditional view that ancient and modern ethics are fundamentally opposed. In doing so it has important implications for contemporary ethical thought, as well as providing a significant reassessment of the work of Aristotle, Kant and the Stoics. The contributors include internationally recognized interpreters of ancient and modern ethics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Provacative, Clear, and Important
This book will probably only be of interest to students of philosophy who already have a background in Aristotle and Kant.For any philosopher interested in comparing and contrasting Aristotle and Kant, this book is of immense value. All of the essays are clear and well argued.There is, I must warn, a decent amount of Kantian readings of Aristotle in this book, and this may get under your skin if you're like me and believe that Aristotle is as much like Kant as Ayn Rand is like Karl Marx.Nonetheless, every claim is well argued for, which makes it an even better tool for trying to defend the traditional view.

Umm, where are the other voices?
This book typically excludes the incredible variety and richness of African philosophy, which was in part stolen by the 'Greeks'. In any event, I guess we are supposed to believe that white male definitions of'happiness' are exactly the same as that of everyone else? Shame on theeditors of this unworthy book. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle was the first and one of the greatest logicians. He not only devised the first system of formal logic, but also raised many fundamental problems in the philosophy of logic. In this book, Dr Lear shows how Aristotle's discussion of logical consequence, validity and proof can contribute to contemporary dabates in the philosophy of logic.No background knowledge of Aristotle is assumed. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A CLASSIC NEVER BECOMES OLD OR USELESS
Whe could say that with this book, the politic acquires a "science" status.

After analyse the constitutions of more than 120 countries, aristotle discuss about the origin and contents of thedifferent models of government,( democracy, aristocracy, reign) andsomething really interesting in our times: the relation between ethic andpolitic, in other words, how the customes of a society mark the way inwich the goverment and his purposesworks?. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A CLASSIC NEVER BECOMES OLD OR USELESS
Whe could say that with this book, the politic acquires a "science" status.

After analyse the constitutions of more than 120 countries, aristotle discuss about the origin and contents of thedifferent models of government,( democracy, aristocracy, reign) andsomething really interesting in our times: the relation between ethic andpolitic, in other words, how the customes of a society mark the way inwich the goverment and his purposesworks?. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle is widely regarded as the greatest of all philosophers; indeed, he is traditionally referred to simply as `the philosopher'. Today, after more than two millennia, his arguments and ideas continue to stimulate philosophers and provoke them to controversy.In this book J.L. Ackrill conveys the force and excitement of Aristotle's philosophical investigations, thereby showing why contemporary philosophers still draw from him and return to him.He quotes extensively from Aristotle's works in his own notably clear English translation, and a picture emerges of a lucid, lively, subtle and tough-minded thinker of astonishing range and penetration. Professor Ackrill identifies many striking connections between Aristotle's ideas and ideas in recent philosophy; he also raises philosophical questions of his own, and exemplifies the way in which Aristotle can still be argued with and learned from. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Aristotle by Ackrill
This book is an excellent secondary read.I am reading original text from Aristotle and having this book in conjunction with the original text is very helpful.Ackrill is accurate with the the analysis of Aristotle's text.I would recommend this book for either undergraduate studies or someone who is interested in the classics.

Good, basic primer
Introduction



J. L. Ackrill undertakes to examine the highlights of Aristotle's thought and use them to springboard into philosophical inquiry.Ackrill begins the book with a brief biography of Aristotle and an introduction to his thought. Ackrill aims to clear up misconceptions concerning Aristotle's methodology and to see that criticisms that are raised against Aristotle should actually be leveled against his followers who had different interests, and less ability, than Aristotle (81).The major themes of Aristotle that are presented in this book are the analysis of change, formal logic, the mind-body problem, metaphysics, ethics, and philosophical logic.

An Examination of Aristotelian Themes

The Analysis of Change.Ackrill begins illustrating Aristotle's thought on matter and change by referring to Aristotle's response to the problem raised by Parmeninedes and his school, the Eleatics; namely, "What is, is one and unchangeable"-making predication and distinctions in thought and communication impossible.Aristotle deals with this as an absurdity based on deliberate misunderstanding.He makes two simple points:he attacks the Eleatics' central thesis by showing their equivocation of the verb "to be."Aristotle deals with this problem by stating that all logical communication assumes the qualifications of its terms.Secondly, he attacks their unwarranted dismal of ascribing characteristics or saying that things cannot change (25).Ackrill then outlines the three important aspects of Aristotle's analysis of change-"x comes to be by y," "y comes to be from x," and "y comes into being" (27, 28).

Explanation of the Natural Sciences.In the previous chapter Ackrill used the analysis of change to show that in any changeable object matter and form can be distinguished.In the same way he shows that changes of life in nature depend upon its material make-up; namely, a thing in nature's behavior will be determined by what it is made of and how it is put together.This would seem to present a problem for Aristotle were it not for his asking the nature of the thing being changed (35).Ackrill then begins to examine Aristotle's inquiry into the nature of causation.Aristotle notes four types of causality for gaining knowledge, all of which may contribute to the "cause" of a thing.In doing so, Aristotle is seeking to ask the "why" of a thing, not just the "what."Ackrill first notes the material cause, that from which a constituent thing come to be.He then notes the formal cause; the form or mode is the cause.Ackrill locates the source of the change in the efficient cause.The end result of an action is its final cause (37).

Logic.Ackrill's chapter on logic is the most difficult to comprehend in the book.One does not suggest that Ackrill's material his factually wrong, nor that he does not understand Aristotelian logic, but he does not go to great lengths to communicate the material clearly.In speaking of Aristotelian logic Ackrill means formal logic manifested primarily in the syllogism (an argument containing two premises and a conclusion).This is where Ackrill begins to lose his audience.Traditional logic textbooks state, for example, "All men are mortal;" Ackrill, going upon the natural reading of the Greek, turns it around saying, "Mortal belongs to every man" (82).[1] He proceeds to justify his unique formation of syllogistic reasoning by saying that it has certain advantages, although he never says what they are.He then spends five pages describing moods, forms, and figures-much to the confusion of the reader.He notes, correctly I believe, that syllogistic logic has its limits and would fall under heavy criticism by the philosophers John Locke and Immanuel Kant (80, 87).

Ironically, one of the most interesting chapters is the one on scientific analysis.ALthough Aristotle has been discredited in the realms of science, many scientists operate on the same basic epistemological framework that Aristotle does (ie, sensory perception is the root of knowledge).It makes one wonder if thirty years from now they too will be embarrassed, their dogmatic claimsnotwithstanding.Ackrill did a good job on this claim.

An excellent introduction
This book is an excellent introduction to Aristotle. It is so easy to make Aristotle confusing, but Ackrill writes very clearly, even on copmlicated and difficult matters. In only 155 pages he admirably achieves his aim in bringing to light the remarkable range and depth of Aristotle's thought.

The book will be of use to beginners as a first introduction to Aristotle's philosophy as well as to those already acquainted with Aristotle. For those thirsty for more discussion about Aristotle, there are suggestions for further readings in the book.

This might be the best short introduction to Aristotle around and I recommend it to anyone wanting to get to know Aristotle better. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

TOO BAD SHAPE TO SELL TO SOMEONE
I DO NOT THINK I WILL BUY ANY USED BOOK AGAIN, IT WASJUST TOO OOOOOOOOOOOOLD.

Geared to the Young Reader
Aristotle for Everybody is a brief introduction to Aristotle aimed at the young reader.Its target audience is probably the inquisitive student in the 12-14 range who is seeking an overview of Aristotelian thought.

I accidentally picked up this book after glancing at a couple of the reviews on this site.I was about to re-read some Aristotle and was seeking to re-acquaint myself with his particular style and language.This is definitely not the book for this purpose.

Adler's text is clearly geared to the young reader who has not been introduced to philosophy.I do not mean this to be disrespectful but to help oher readers avoid by mistake.Adler, himself notes in the introduction that his initial thought was to title the work Aristotle for Children.Indeed for the young reader this may not be an inappropriate mechanism for introducing Aristotle.

Aristotle-Everybody's philosopher
Mortimer Adler is one of my favorite philosophers because; he can take complex philosophical ideas and make them understandable for the non-philosopher.This is a great skill that few philosophers posses and one of the reasons why ordinary people do not read philosophy.In this book, Adler distills Aristotle's thoughts on metaphysics, ethics, and political philosophy.My major interest is in political philosophy, how do humans create a better society to live in?Aristotle builds a case for the need all of us to strive to live the "good life."A few of Aristotle's quotes are in order to delineate his thinking. "That which is really `good' for us is something we always ought to desire because we need it.""A good life is one that has been lived by making morally virtuous choices or decisions."Aristotle was the first philosopher to label man as "a social animal.""Human beings can not live well or achieve the best lives for themselves, by living well or achieve the best lives for themselves, by living together in families and tribes."To achieve this "good life" we must live in states.So, what is the best state?The best state provides a guarantee of freedoms, less economic regulation, provide a safety net for people with bad luck, provide a good education so that we can be trained to make us morally virtuous citizens.

I cannot sing Adler's praises enough; he does a great job of simplifying Aristotle's concepts.A great beginning book on philosophy, which delves into the teachings of the most brilliant person in history.

As a retired Army officer and student of political philosophy, I found this to be a great book to continue one's journey into political philosophy.

Deciphering the undecipherable
Here is a book that is an excellent companion to any introductory philosophy course, to help the student untangle the elliptical arguments of the venerable Aristotle. The author explains in plain English, with concrete everyday examples, some of Aristotle's basic concepts. Read this book first and then tackle Aristotle. This book also makes for good reading on its own. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle - the "master of those who know". For fifteen hundred years he remained the paradigm of knowledge itself, a foundational thinker in every field of inquiry. Aristotle established a systematic logic, conceived the earliest science, a rational psychology, a political science and an outline of sociology, and gave us a crucial theory of ethics. His contributions to metaphysics continue to permeate modern philosophy. He supplied the first theory of aesthetics, and investigated dialectics and semiotics - essential to debates in postmodernism. Scientific empiricism in the 17th century, however, is said to have discredited his methods. How "scientific" is Aristotle? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Excellent Introduction
This is a very solid introduction to Aristotle and very thought-provoking as well.It is very lucid, well-organized, and one of the best in the Introducing series.

Really liked it
Quite good book in the Introducing... series, and if you like this one, make sure to pick up the Plato book also, it needs to be read after this one.

A simple yet helpful introduction to Aristotle.
Let me begin by saying that this book is far from an in-depth examination of Aristotle. It is, rather, a very elementary introduction to the philosopher and his philosophy. I rejected the idea of buying the book many times, because of it's approach; there are illustrations in pictographic form on every page. It is almost like the old "Classics Illustrated" comic books. I resented the facile approach to profound philosophy. However, the paucity of elementary introductions to Aristotle drove me to relent, and I bought it. The book is exactly what it claims to be...an introduction to Aristotle. In simple, non-philosophical language it gives an elementary introduction to the great philosopher. If you have become exasperated (as I had) at the unavailability of basic intro's to Aristotle, buy the book. Since reading the book, I have undertaken more challenging books about Aristotle, because this one gave me the elements I needed to move forward. ... Read more