Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2018

General and rather lazy introduction

If compared to the introductory chapter of Plato, the few lines introducing Aristotle are depressing. I was compelled to write something about the philosophical importance of this absolute master of thought, because the presentation expands on irrelavant details that could be better exposed in the section life. The golden mean is always, "who", "why", "what". Here instead we have a torrential as much as irrelevant narrative about "who" and "how". Whoever wrote the introduction is DEFINITELY NOT A PHILOSOPHER. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aristotele1982 (talk • contribs) 16:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Work this up to GA?

The article receives over 2 million pageviews per year. It is among other things [Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology/Popular pages #4 in WP Biology's list of Popular pages], making it the highest-ranking biology article not to be GA or better.

Most of the article is well-written and reliably cited. It covers the main points of his life and work, and is well illustrated. There is a certain amount of 'chatter' but I'll risk saying there don't seem to be any serious issues. There remain 33 paragraphs which appear to need citations (I apologise for tagging these in a mature article, but it's much the easiest way to indicate the scale of the task) - very likely many of these can simply be handled with a repeat citation from nearby.

I think, therefore, that with goodwill it should be possible to prepare the article for GAN without too much effort. Would other editors care to join me in this? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:54, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that bringing this article up to GA would be a truly commendable effort. Aristotle is a tremendously important Greek philosopher and our article about him needs to be of the utmost quality. I will try to help you some, but I am currently working on several other articles and I may be rather busy the next few weeks, so I may not have too much time. I am the one who brought the articles Hypatia, Pythagoras, Lucian, and Origen up to GA, so I have some experience writing biographies about major Greek philosophers and writers. --Katolophyromai (talk) 10:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, you'll easily see what needs doing. We also have the question of balance, and the matter of relevance: I think 'Loss and preservation of his works' is way overweight, for example, whereas the 'Influence' with its short sections is about right. The treatment of his "errors" is scattered, and basically naive and judgemental; it would be better handled in a section and discussed even-handedly, without anachronism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

A challenge is that there are so many flavours of critics, and indeed so many types of people who disagree with each other but think they agree with him. I think every time a good section on such secondary sources can be constructed should make us happy, but aiming to get the perfect article (in this specific respect) in one drive is aiming high.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Our task is to note in general terms the main components of Aristotle's thinking, and briefly to mention the main places where scholars disagree about what those components were, without taking sides. We do not have to describe in detail the Organon, or the debates on the four causes, or his Metaphysics, or his views on substance and essence, or universals, for the good reason that other articles cover those, and this article is about the man, not the contents of all his works. All we need to do is to provide a brief summary of each topic, briefly giving "the main points": perfection is fortunately not required. We do not need to cover all the secondary sources, nor would such a thing be possible. I've covered the whole vexed question of whether he was scientific in under 250 words - a brief summary indeed. There's no reason not to do the same for the other topics. What I would like to do is to illustrate those topics as well as summarizing and citing them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I did not mean to disagree with your proposal. It is indeed true that there is probably less debate over his life (about which very little is known) than over his books.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster: Many thanks. If you can help clear one or two of the citations needed that would be much appreciated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:00, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Random review comments

Maybe some of these comments are helpful. These are quick first impressions. I have held off because I realize work has been on-going. I put this outside the review page more as help to Chiswick Chap, because they are not necessarily about "quality" in the GA sense.

• I think Aristotle's status in the medieval Islamic world was mainly in the west, basically Spain.

• Seeing Aristotle's physics turned into mathematical equations is interesting, but I suppose it can be seen as a distortion of what he really said.

It is very respectably cited to a famous physicist, and it may be said that he perhaps understands Aristotle's physics where perhaps great minds with different training have not. As for 'turned into equations', it is at least clear that in this one case (motion) Aristotle was attempting to state a quantitative relationship. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:21, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I get what you mean about equations Chiswick Chap. I almost wrote nothing, but I thought a few times about it and my reasoning was that there really is a point which could be argued here, and I would not be able to say it is completely wrong. BTW I do not think being a famous physicist makes you a famous classicist, but again I get your point. In its simplest form, your point connects to the fact that modern physics is simply more effective. But being effective (banaustic, like a shoe maker) might not impress Aristotle, and in any case it makes him look dumber than he was. He was trying to work out what the Universe wanted, not at all how to predict things or make things, and he wrote that way. I just felt this was a point worth thinking about. I will try to find more time for this, but I think in general anything which can help show how "different" Aristotle is to pretty much every other person who ever wrote anything might be interesting to consider.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:37, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

It totally doesn't make you a classicist, but it does enable you to understand what A was going on about when he wrote about physics; same for Leroi's interpretation of A's biology, which has been, ahem, Greek to classicists. Neither Rovelli nor Leroi are trying to show that modern science is more effective (they take that for granted and could prove it in many ways) but that A was doing serious and pioneering science, i.e. making testable hypotheses from observational evidence. In this he was quite different from anyone who came before him.Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:33, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but it is not even how Aristotle would have described himself. One misunderstanding that popular literature creates is that authors who don't know Aristotle well don't realize how often he scolds the "natural scientists", because they are too materialist in their approach. He and like-minded Socratics successfully slandered natural science as a bad thing and held back science for millenia. (This is how Francis Bacon saw it, and I think it is still a widely held opinion.) Very often Aristotle is wrong and the natural scientists he scorns were right (BEFORE him), for example with evolution and gravity and the solar system, but also on many smaller matters such as specific biological observations. In all those cases his teleological assumption, a kind of "religion light", is definitely the reason and is definitely also what he described as what made his science better and different. The reason he seems to be the first at everything is MAINLY because most of those older works were destroyed and are now only known when Aristotle criticized them. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And we have nowhere described him anachronistically as a "scientist" or any such thing. A full third of his writings are however about what we'd call zoology, and he seems to have spent at least a year on it, perhaps two, at Lesbos, so such material study was certainly a serious concern on his part, whatever its purpose (perhaps to illustrate his philosophical method in action). Being scientific is nothing to do with being 'right' or 'wrong' (judged by whom) but by method. But we are straying towards WP:FORUM. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

And Aristotle's method was teleological (look for the purpose). An important fact to get right is that he disagreed with natural scientists before him.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:08, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Teleology works well in biology, his main subject, where an organ's purpose is its physiological function (as he well understood), while any adaptation's purpose concerns natural selection (which he didn't). It also works well for designed objects; less well in other sciences. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:19, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

It is a common unsourced opinion, which you express. But it does not come from scientific method, and FWIW I think it is not true, meaning only that a sourcing debate would be long and messy at best. Teleological thinking has led to misunderstandings in early evolutionary theory (Darwin still struggled to avoid it) and is now being cleaned out. I am aware that it is still possible to find asides by wise old 20th century men saying teleological thinking (imaging nature has aims) is no problem in biological sciences including medicine, but I very much hope this GA push does not go the way of "just so stories". That is an irk I have about GA pushes, BTW. For example we used to see research doctors say "this organ was designed to do that" and now we even see them saying "the body is a group of organs that almost seem at war with each other sometimes". Aristotle, IMHO, understood the black-white distinction here better than many people today, and insisted it was a "big thing". I am still writing quickly so I hope my casual style is taken in good faith.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

He certainly never spoke of natural selection. Off the subject here, biologists always speak about the function of systems, but this talk page is certainly not the place for discussing that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

I know what you mean by functions but I stick to my point. This metaphor of a "function" (which implies the Aristotelian contrast between natural causes, which have aims, and accidents in nature) does lead to errors of thinking and that is being realized more and more. Aristotle obviously did not know the term "natural selection" but from the glimpse he lets us see of Anaximander, and the way he criticizes it, it is clear that it was a non-teleological way in which natural "accidents" lead to animals evolving, just like we have today. The modern commentators who say Anaximander was not Darwinian because there is no natural process moving evolution along show just how Aristotelian (in a confused way) that they are. The lack of a distinction between accidents and natural causes in modern science is exactly what Aristotle saw in Anaximander [ADDED: Probably should have emphasized Empedocles] and other natural scientists before him and disagreed with. His criticism of Anaximander and others also obviously shows that Aristotle did not invent biology. This is also not a side issue. Aristotle is in an important way the predecessor of today's neocreationists who think living things are the aspect of nature which best shows that there are aims and accidents. Anyway, I suggest caution about the pre-Socratics. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Having found Leroi on google books, I see it is a fairly journalistic study. Nice book but for example I do not think we can take over the argument that Aristotle virtually invented biology. Some of the comments also strike me as out of date in biology, for example saying that zoologists tend to see hybridization as rare. I think the Sedley source I've added is a more serious source for the metaphysical differences between Aristotle and evolutionists.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• The biographical parts (also in the intro) seem much too surely written as facts to me. I don't believe having a disclaimer means we do not need to be careful about such things. I fear we are not representing a consensus level of doubts that the best sources would give, if that makes sense.

Added another disclaimer. The article is pretty clear that we don't know much, and it sticks to the bare outlines, using words like "the traditional story", "a widespread tradition", and "reportedly". That's about the most we could do, really; if you want another such cautionary phrase somewhere, feel free to indicate what and where. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

• I did not notice any comment about how Aristotle distinguishes Recollection and Memory.

The article treats memory as the making of durable impressions, and recollection as their retrieval, at some length. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Maybe the definition of "efficient cause" could be described in a way which more clearly says "this is what normal people today call a cause". As someone who understands a bit of the background, I see this between the lines, but I doubt most readers will get it.

It already says 'this covers the modern definitions of "cause"'. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• The WP article on common sense is relevant to the "Seat of Sense Perception" I think.

• The difference between Ethics and Politics is maybe a classic thing to explain.

Article states directly that one is for the individual, the other for the polis. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• The difference between Practical and Theoretical is definitely a classical thing to explain. The classic example used is medicine versus medical research.

• Another classic thing to explain about Aristotle is all the different ways he defined human nature, or what is natural to man, and specifically under ethics, all the ways he defined the highest virtue.

• One of the things which is natural to man is mimesis. I think not mentioned at all? It is important to WHY rhetoric is an important subject for Aristotle.

There was actually already a paragraph about mimesis at the end of the "Rhetoric and Poetics" section, but I have now rewritten it, expanded on it, adding more sources, and moved it to the beginning of the part about his Poetics. Tell me if you still think it is inadequate. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• Cosmology? It was a big thing for Greek philosophers.

• Maybe the Nous article is helpful.

Linked. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

• I guess some people will say that it is important to say where Aristotle stands on evolution? It is a big subject. Not easy to explain frankly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Added a brief account under Empirical research, with refs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Katolophyromai - note these comments are outwith the GAN page but we should probably take them as GAN comments all the same if that's feasible. I think you may be able to deal with many of them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

I cannot work on these concerns right at this moment, but I may have some time later tonight. --Katolophyromai (talk) 19:19, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

• I notice a comment on the review page about needing to source the influence on Jewish thought. For the Hellenistic period, which is of course not the whole story, but maybe the critical part for our intro, I believe Peter Green's "Alexander to Actium" has a chapter on this. I have a copy somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Conversion to Judaism

There are several sources which state that Aristotle converted to Judaism. They quote from a letter in which he wrote to the young Alexander the Great. When I have some more time I will reference them for the talk page. Unless other kind souls can do it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.159.64.181 (talk) 16:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

No. He did not convert to Judaism. In fact, at the time when Aristotle was alive, "conversion" to Judaism did not exist, because Judaism was still merely the religious tradition practiced by ethnic Jews. The idea of Aristotle having converted to Judaism originates from an unsubstantiated claim made by the late medieval Jewish scholar Joseph ibn Shem-Tov. The so-called "Letter of Aristotle" that you refer to is not mentioned prior to circa 1370 AD and is almost certainly a late medieval forgery. Here is the article in the Jewish Encyclopedia, which gives some further information on this subject: [1] --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

If it's notable enough fringe, it should be mentioned and debunked.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 19:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

From reading the above sources it would appear that although Aristotle did not convert. He was very much influenced by Jewish thought and in turn his writings influenced Judaism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.253.205 (talk) 20:28, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

definition of Metaphysics

We currently have a sentence "Aristotle defines metaphysics as "the knowledge of immaterial being", or of "being in the highest degree of abstraction". As the footnote (currently 35) shows, this comes from a 1929 History of Philosophy. First point to make about it is that in the source, it is a quotation from Aristotle. Second point, as was common in 1930, the quote sounds very "un Greek". In other words it uses modern concepts and jargon that Aristotle did not have and possibly would not have liked. The Greek (peri chOrista kai akinEta) which is cited in the 1929 source as the original for "being in the highest degree of abstraction" (and perhaps both English quotes are meant to show the same passage of Greek, in 2 different ways?) comes from near the end of Book E (VI) of the Metaphysics, at 1026a16. As examples of other translations the 1933 Loeb edition has "things which are both separable and immutable". (See Perseus: [2].) Joe Sach's relatively recent (1999) attempt which tries to be very literal says "things that are both separate and motionless" which is not that different. So would it not be better to cite Aristotle directly, and use a better translation? (The Loeb one is handy to link to.) I am not rushing to do it because I am not sure if anyone feels that the 1929 secondary/tertiary source was particularly important for some reason. I would suggest otherwise something like this, to make Aristotle clear by using Aristotle more...

"Aristotle also called metaphysics "first philosophy", and distinguished it from mathematics and natural science (physics) as the contemplative (theoretike) philosophy which is "theological" and studies the divine. He wrote:

if there is not some other substance besides those which are naturally composed, physics will be the primary science; but if there is a substance which is immutable, the science which studies this will be prior to physics, and will be primary philosophy, and universal in this sense, that it is primary. And it will be the province of this science to study Being qua Being; what it is, and what the attributes are which belong to it qua Being.

This is using the Loeb ed. Tredennick trans. Sachs has FWIW

if there were no other independent things besides the composite natural ones, the study of nature would be the primary kind of knowledge; but if there is some motionless independent thing, the knowledge of this precedes it and is first philosophy, and it is universal in just this way, because it is first. And it belongs to this sort of philosophy to study being as being, both what it is and what belongs to it just be virtue of being.

Personally I think Sachs is better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

aristotle

Aristotle, Greek Aristoteles, (born 384 BCE, Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece—died 322, Chalcis, Euboea), ancient Greek philosopher and scientist, one of the greatest intellectual figures of Western history. He was the author of a philosophical and scientific system that became the framework and vehicle for both Christian Scholasticism and medieval Islamic philosophy. Even after the intellectual revolutions of the Renaissance, the Reformation, and the Enlightenment, Aristotelian concepts remained embedded in Western thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiinuo (talk • contribs) 07:20, 7 May 2018 (UTC) aristotle was also a big figure in science and development, however his understanding of earth being the centre and the other planets revolve around the earth is one of the most stumbling block in the science and technology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theiinuo (talk • contribs) 07:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Theiinuo: Please clearly state what changes you wish to be made to the article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 08:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Rovelli on Motion

I think the amount of space given to Rovelli's article is quite out of proportion to its merit. It is a research article which doesn't represent any sort of scientific consensus. In addition the section ignores some of the huge caveats that Rovelli mentions – for instance that Aristotle's treatment of physics is largely non-mathematical and that had a major effect in history.

Rovelli's arguments are clever but do they represent a balanced view of the subject? I don't think the average scientist will come away thinking "Aristotle was right after all" but simply "he wasn't as wrong as he's often painted". That is useful but it's not the impression the section gives to the general reader. Aristotle didn't know anything about acceleration, or viscosity, and held the void to be impossible. How far he held up progress in this field is still debatable.

Rovelli himself makes questionable approximations in order to demonstrate that the terminal velocity of a falling object in a fluid is proportional to the weight of the object–he ignores the buoyancy term. If we take the most obvious example that Aristotle is considering, of a stone falling through water, then it is by no means negligible, most rocks having a specific gravity in the range 2.2 to 2.9. This in itself will slow the acceleration of the stone falling in water by up to 40% and rules out the infinite velocity conclusion. So it's not realistic to consider these two phenomena separately as he does, except as limiting cases. Chris55 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added other sources and material to adjust the balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the balance of the section that is wrong. Aristotle's account was flawed in many ways and the whole emphasis of the section is to justify his account. For example the Philoponus article's one statement about speed of fall is correct and does not deny that a heavier object might fall faster than a lighter one. But the article contains many other valid criticisms of Aristotle's theory. Chris55 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I've recast the section for strict neutrality and will say more on his physics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Chiswick Chap, much improved. There are a few statements I would still quibble with, e.g. "This is a correct approximation for objects in Earth's gravitational field moving in air or water" in the annotation to the diagram. It isn't true for objects in water which can't be part of Rovelli's limiting case. Clearly in a vacuum there is no terminal velocity but this doesn't mean that infinite speeds are achieved because gravity is not constant on those scales. Given that zero and infinite were not developed concepts in Aristotle's day it's hardly surprising he has difficulty. But his physics is closer to the "naive physics" discussed in artificial intelligence. Chris55 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes - "This is a correct approximation for objects in Earth's gravitational field moving in air or water." in the diagram description is dreadful. It is not even approximately correct in air - As others say Rovelli's comments are given too much prominence (and/or may be misquoted). I was considering just deleting the part quoted - Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Metaphysics

Under the subheading Metaphysics the claim is made that Aristotle coined the term 'metaphysics'. This is untrue, metaphysics is a name retroactively attributed to the text by scholars and the term does not appear in the text itself. Removing the sentence 'Aristotle coined the term "metaphysics"' would increase the accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.daniel1 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

"After the death of Hermias" should be removed from the sentence in the "Life" section, as it is incorrect. Hermias was still alive and, as stated on his own Wikipedia page, died 2/3 years later in 342 BCE, while Aristotle was in Macedon. Jumblebelle (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jumblebelle: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you would like these changes to be implemented, you must provide a reliable source to support them. There is often considerable variability when it comes to dating classical texts and authors and we very rarely know the exact dates when people were born or died. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is footnote 5 on Hermias' page, "Chroust, Anton–Hermann (April–June 1972). "Aristotle's Sojourn in Assos". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Franz Steiner Verlag. 21 (2): 170–176. JSTOR 4435258" which gives the date as 341/0. I have edited the introduction to match.

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Philoponus

This article isn't the place for a detailed analysis of Byzantine physics, but it is in fact discussed in an earlier section, so this part should confine itself to a brief summary of Aristotle's influence on the Byzantine scholars, rather than their work as such, or their influence on later scholars. Also, I've restored the full book citation, not sure why anybody would wish to undo that really. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2018

Change "but unlike Aristotle used the data to come to the theory of evolution." to but unlike Aristotle, Darwin used the data to come to the theory of evolution. Reeceburdon012 (talk) 00:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

It's correct as it is. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

When was Aristotle not taken seriously?

The article states Aristotle was at some point discredited until Ayn Rand came along? 2400 years later, that seems unlikely. It also doesn’t seem like a very interesting thing to say. Tysonmidboe (talk) 10:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Read the previous paragraph to that one. Aristotle was seen for some centuries as the antithesis of correct science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Addition to external links

"ARISTOTLE THE STAGIRITE", (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMnTQWsb47k), 16'.32, scenario-direction: ELENI STOUMPOU-KATSAMOURIS, in-house production of the EPHORATE OF ANTIQUITIES OF CHALKIDIKI AND MOUNT ATHOS (HELLENIC MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND SPORTS", for the celebration of UNESCO'S "Year of Aristotle, 2016". The film explores Aristotle's connection to his birthplace, Stageira, through the finds of the excavations conducted there. SOPHIAKI (talk) 09:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

This won't happen as YouTube links are deprecated, indeed a bot goes around deleting them automatically. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't flagged that this was answered. I think I can see what Sophiaki wanted, and I think it isn't feasible in the form requested as an external link. If the film is notable (and has an article written for it that we can bluelink) then we can add a mention and cite it in the text. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Logic

I believe we could improve the section about logic. It did not icluded what he did The "History" part is ok, and I don't really know anything about the topic to make comments on it. I believe, though, that the section called "Analytics and Organon" should be renamed "The Logical Treatises". Also, I think we should supress the word "aristotelian" in the sentence What we call today Aristotelian logic, Aristotle himself would have labelled analytics, for it just confuses: wouldn't Aristotle label as analytics any other philosophy of this kind? After listing the books of the Organon, we could mention that this corpus is called Organon.

Then, we could include a paragraph about syllogisms and another about dialetics, but not go to much into details, since this is the subject of the article about the Organon. Bhvilar 11:01, 7 May 2006

The examples of Aristotle's logic should be rewritten. For example, "all men are mortal should be written as $\forall x.(M(x)\rightarrow P(x))$, and not, as it is now, as the much more confusing $\neg \exists x.\neg (M(x)\land \neg P(x))$ (with the negations expressed as the lines above a formula.)

It's not a matter of "should" or "more confusing"; the notation chosen is simple, correct, and well-established. Other notations exist, but are the matter for other articles: much more detail is given in the articles on logic and syllogism. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Etymology of word Metaphysics is wrong.

Aristotle never coined the word metaphysics. For the correct etymology see here, here and here. ~~

That's fine. I've formatted it for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Well, I have to ask why is it fine? We have one user who is posting this around Wikipedia, and that one user has only named one outside source, which is an online tertiary source. The sentence being cited there looks like a passing speculative remark (it says "very likely") and does not seem to be correct even about Greek (meta does not simply mean "after"). I'd like to see more evidence that this new theory is widely accepted, or indeed has ever been published beyond the Stanford website. Currently it seems to be mainly a Wikipedia theory?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

I am talking about the very clear assertion that it is known certainly, not just speculated, that the word is a result of an editorial decision referring to the sequence of a study curriculum. "The word "metaphysics" was coined by the first century AD editor who assembled various small selections of Aristotle's works to the treatise we know by the name Metaphysics." --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

It's directly from the reliable source Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy cited immediately after the statement. SEP states directly:

"Aristotle's Metaphysics
First published Sun Oct 8, 2000; substantive revision Wed Jun 15, 2016

The first major work in the history of philosophy to bear the title “Metaphysics” was the treatise by Aristotle that we have come to know by that name. But Aristotle himself did not use that title or even describe his field of study as ‘metaphysics’; the name was evidently coined by the first century C.E. editor who assembled the treatise we know as Aristotle’s Metaphysics out of various smaller selections of Aristotle’s works. The title ‘metaphysics’—literally, ‘after the Physics’—very likely indicated the place the topics discussed therein were intended to occupy in the philosophical curriculum. They were to be studied after the treatises dealing with nature (ta phusika)."

Since SEP says "was evidently coined" I've paraphrased "appears to have been coined". Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That is a big "evidently". We do not really know these things. Clearly the source being cited is saying this is a probable scenario, not certain, and so Wikipedia should not go stronger than that? The detailed version of this scenario where it is like a study course, is even more obviously just a speculation. Secondly I think some of the accusations of error are exaggerated. "Beyond" might not be a perfect word choice of course, but preaching to the world about how everyone until now did not realize that "meta" supposedly simply means "after" is kind of silly. It is always impossible to make simple one-for-one translations of these little functional words. The basic meaning of the word, whoever invented it (and it could well have been Aristotle, we have no idea) is clearly that it is related to physics (the study of nature), but apart from it. That does not really indicate that there is anything surprising about the word which requires a theory about a sort of proto-university curriculum. Because meta does not only mean "after".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

We've gone softer than the "evidently", as I've just said above, in a way that is certainly justified by an excellent tertiary source. If that's not ok for you then feel free to tweak the wording, I'm not preaching to anybody. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:05, 21 November 2018 (UTC)