Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2011

Aristotle, the name

The name Aristoteles actually means "the best end", aristo meaning best (as aristocracy) and teles most probably derivating from telos, the "end" Aristotle talks about in many of his works. I was wondering about including this in the first line, right after his name. Bhvilar

Aristitle observed the curious effect of hot water freezing faster than cold, this was considered an error (post Newton) as it is very counter intuitive, but is correct and should be included as an interesting scientific observation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.151.123.77 (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

cosmology, plenum, elements and motion

I am by no means an expert on Aristotle but I noticed that there is no mention here concerning some of his theories about cosmology, plenum (and void), the five elements, and the various motions that the elements adhere to. I would think that these things would be worth mentioning but I am ill-suited to fill it in myself. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.98.247 (talk • contribs)

If you know where the information is cited and provide proper citation, you have every right to make an adjustment or you could always present the adjustment here. If you fail to make a proper adjustment, someone will most likely fix it. Dallas Eddington (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The article does mention the five elements and their "natural motion." More is available at Physics (Aristotle) and Aristotelian physics. Wareh (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Everything?

It has been suggested that Aristotle was probably the last person to know everything there was to be known in his own time.

Certainly it may well have been suggested, and there seems to be a perfectly good citation for the statement: Neill, Alex; Aaron Ridley (1995). The Philosophy of Art: Readings Ancient and Modern. McGraw Hill. p. 488.

However, is it worth having this suggestion mentioned at all? Evidently Aristotle was a distinguished polymath, but even the suggestion that he 'knew everything there was to be known in his own time' is ethnocentric at best, and more likely nonsensical. Just because Alex Neill is willing to make a ridiculous statement, doesn't mean that Wikipedia should repeat it.

I think it should be struck out.

Centrepull (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The last person to know something is typically said of an ignoramus; the last person to know everything can only have been said by an ignoramus.

On another issue, I find this odd (and I quote in italics): "For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal Forms (or ideas) to a contemplation of particular imitations of these." That's too neat to be true or useful. As far as I know, only Hegel ever pretended to argue from the general to the particular and I think most people now regard that attempt only as a clever stunt.

On a more general note, the article is well written. McZeus (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The article still retains the overly neat distinction between Plato's and Aristotle's 'method' - I think this is confusing method with epistomology, which are very different things. No philosophic method starts with universals and proceeds to particulars, though 'contemplation' might move in that direction as a process of review. Euclid in geometry goes from universal to particular in demonstrating propositions, and Spinoza demonstrates his philosophy along Euclidean lines, but a method of demonstration isn't what I understand by 'method' in philosophy. Philosophy is first a process of discovery and ony then a process of demonstration. Or is there some arcane issue here that I have failed to grasp? 124.187.80.206 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The passage I object to seems to have some peripheral support from the citation: Jori, Alberto (2003). Aristotele. Milano: Bruno Mondadori Editore. I am assuming this is Italian and somebody has reconstructed it in a manner that is peculiar. Is there any support in English for this neat distinction between Aristotle's 'method' and Plato's? Of course there is nothing cheaper at WP than talk, which is why this article is padlocked. I am just registering another futile protest. 124.187.80.206 (talk) 01:10, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I think we should mention that people say it of him. Of course it is tritely not true. But it's a famous remark that means something if you are not a literalist. In any case, we should not say it (or dispute it), just say that (quite a few) others have said it. TCO (talk) 13:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

If we use it we should attribute and not allow it to be presented as if it might be a scholarly consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the existence of the quotation, but as a matter of fact he wasn't. Thomas Young was. Ericoides (talk) 05:45, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

In his Metaphysics, Aristotle famously suggested that, while ontologically the world derived from metaphysical principles ("first philosophy") to physical realities ("Second philosophy"), philosophers could only work backwards, starting from physical/sensory experiences and building up from these to eventually comprehend the ultimate metaphysical principles. In this sense, Aristotle emphasizes the epistemological process, Plato the ontological process, but they are in fundamental agreement with one another. (Actually, we don't know what Plato thought about the epistemological process except by examples in the dialogues, for instance in Meno where he shows how a slave boy can start from simple, concrete figures to arrive at universal laws.) hgilbert (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

In the opening "methodological" sections of Nicomachean Ethics Aristotle famously more or less explicitly contrasts himself to Plato on this point, or is generally understood to do so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent - this is more coherent than the reconstructed Italian about differences in 'method'. Maybe you can edit the passage accordingly and supply some appropriate source. Philosophy aint my thing at the moment. 124.187.80.206 (talk) 02:54, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Here is a book (Scientific Essentialism) that credits A's "ontological priority" (individual first, universal second) with an "epistemic" advantage, and the advantage of a "robust sense of reality", over P's ontological priority (universal first, individual second). It's a conceptual advantage in the development of scientific method. That's a useful way to express the distinction between A and P. Rooting the distinction in 'philosophic method' is quite false since they both employed inductive and deductive reasoning. Anyhow I've said my bit. 124.187.80.206 (talk) 03:43, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Me again! Still object to this: "For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal Forms (or ideas) to a contemplation of particular imitations of these. Where is the citation for this difference in 'philosophic methods'? It reads like nonsense to me but I'm no expert and you should be happy to educate me if you've got the sources to back this up. Can anyone supply and quote a relevant source? This would bring me peace of mind. Thanks. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal maybe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes and thanks for asking! The bit I object to should be supported with a scholarly source (I don't think an Italian source should be accepted without corroboration: mi scusi ma non capisco) or it should be removed. I'm not sure there is any neat philosophical distinction between A and P since they are not chalk and cheese but more like chalk and limestone, but if there is one it does need scholarly support or it will look silly. I did offer an alternative source which shows how a scientist explains the difference between A and P and maybe that can be used instead. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you want me to draft an alternative. OK. Here is the current edit that I think schematizes the difference between A and P to the point of nonsense, supported only by an Italian source:

For Aristotle, therefore, philosophic method implies the ascent from the study of particular phenomena to the knowledge of essences, while for Plato philosophic method means the descent from a knowledge of universal Forms (or ideas) to a contemplation of particular imitations of these. For Aristotle, "form" still refers to the unconditional basis of phenomena but is "instantiated" in a particular substance (see Universals and particulars, below). In a certain sense, Aristotle's method is both inductive and deductive, while Plato's is essentially deductive from a priori principles.[17]

I suggest this as a better replacement:

Whereas for Plato the material world is not really knowable or even real (as distinct from an idealized world of Forms), for Aristotle "the individual things which we perceive by our senses are the primary realities."[ref A.H.Armstrong, An Introduction to Ancient Philosophy, Methuen and Co. Ltd (reprint 1972), page 74 ref] Of these two views or 'ontological priorities', Aristotle's is more consistent with common sense and it is more conducive to good science.[ref Brian David Ellis, Scientific Essentialism Cambridge University Press (2001), page 81 Here]

That's unproblematic. 121.223.100.220 (talk) 00:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Please Wikify

This page is locked so could someone Wikify the introduction:

Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, .... etc.

Macgroover (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done  Andreas  ^(T) 20:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Dreznik, 20 July 2011

On the section labeled "Post-Enlightenment thinkers" I would add that Russian-American Philosopher [Ayn Rand] attributes to Aristotle the creation of reason-based thinking, the founding principles of the USA, and Objectivism (a philosophical movement created by Ms.Rand). Dreznik (talk) 02:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing discussion of the book Human Accomplishment

Per the discussions at Talk:Leonhard Euler and WikiProject Mathematics, I am removing the discussion of Charles Murray's Human Accomplishment from the body of the article, for the same basic reasons mentioned in the above discussions. Murray's work is primary research about a topic that Murray is is not a recognized expert. aprock (talk) 17:25, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just one view regarding as it applies to Euler. See the discussion on the talk page for that article. Others have suggested that the book is an acceptable source but maybe not mention the book itself. How about that?Miradre (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know that listing everyone's judgment of Aristotle is appropriate for the article. Murray's thoughts on other people belong in the article on Murray, not those other people. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 19:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

about father of biology..

who is the father of biology? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.180.28.206 (talk) 14:38, 11 September 2011 (UTC) plese give your review...plz — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.180.28.206 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 8 October 2011

Underneath the section LIFE,Aristotles place of birth is incorrect spelling-it is supposed to be Stagira,Someone please change it.

71.191.81.7 (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As I read the article on both Stagira and Stageira it appears as if Stagira is the modern day city northeast of Stageira and Aristotle was born in Stageira. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 02:08, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Missing Geographical theories?

I just read about the Torrid Zone, which was proposed by Aristotle, but his wiki page has no mention of this.

70.77.59.211 (talk) 03:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)VD

natural motion and violent motion

is there any contrast to natural and violent motion theory of Aristotle?/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.3.85.25 (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Aristotle does have a concept of natural motion I would say, but I do not think that your words "violent ... motion" correspond to anything in Aristotle or for that matter anything that rings a bell for me. For motion perhaps see our energeia article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Very funny ironic statement

The statement "In places like Sparta where the lot of women is bad, there can only be half-happiness in society" is quite humorous. Aristotle believed the lot of women in Sparta was bad only because they had a greater amount of rights than anywhere else. A sentiment, I doubt many modern feminists would agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.160.188 (talk) 04:02, 23 December 2011 (UTC)