Jump to content

Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


An entire History section is commented out

Hello. Working on simplifying the refs/notes. Very confusing style or mix of styles. Have a question, though: Is the entire History section deliberately commented out? Or vandalism? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:27, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2: Sorry you find it confusing: here's a brief description. I don't think there's much to say on the footnotes, they're neatly grouped and they all contain explanations of minor points. On the refs, the article uses Surname, Forename wherever possible, and initials if not. Books that are used repeatedly are defined in Sources and linked using the sfn (short form) template. It would be a lot of work to little purpose to put everything into Sources - in effect that would just double up each ref into an sfn call and a source, making the references sections longer but adding nothing for the reader and no benefit to editors as it's unlikely anyone will reuse one of these additional sources (and there are thousands more out there in the literature). I therefore broadly oppose any major reorganisation of the refs/notes, though of course if you find formatting errors within the above framework, go right ahead and fix them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: It was commented out in this and this edit by Chiswick Chap during an editing frenzy back in March of last year addressing GAN comments, but I can't glean any rationale from the edit summaries or from Tim riley's comments in the GAN. I've boldly restored the section (without waiting for further comments) on the reasoning that it should either be improved in place or removed entirely: except brief temporary needs, articles really shouldn't have significant commented out sections. In any case, hopefully Chiswick Chap will be able to shed light on this. --Xover (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
I've removed it for two reasons. It is not satisfactorily sourced; and it is unclear why such material should be in this article as it's a rather tangential detail; such a history might be relevant over at some of the formal logic articles, perhaps. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • @Chiswick Chap: No the refs are not even vaguely consistent sorry. Ummm you've got I think 46 {{sfn}} but 32 or so bare ref tags like <ref>Durant, p. 86</ref> and 21 cite web templates but several raw urls such as Aristotle (350 B.C.). On the soul. Translated by J.A. Smith and books done freehand inside ref templates such as <ref name="philosophy1972">Russell, Bertrand. ''A History of Western Philosophy'', Simon & Schuster, 1972. Book One. Ancient Philosophy, Part II. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, Chapter XXII. {{isbn|978-0-671-20158-6}}</ref> but 88 cite book templates, many inside ref tgas like <ref>{{cite book |last1=Carteron |first1=Henri |title=Notion de Force dans le Systeme d'Aristote |date=1923 |publisher=J. Vrin |location=Paris |pages=1–32 and passim |language=French}}</ref>. It's not that I find it confusing; it's that it's confused. I apologize if I put too fine a point on it, but what's on the page is what's on the page.... Plus I found five books cited more than once (one cited four times) but not in your Sources section. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Lingzhi2: OK, so you're going to fix those issues? Fine with me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
The reason the issues are there is because the system in place is too hard to scan for errors. It creates nooks and crannies, so to speak, where errors can reside unseen for months or years. Best example is the five books used repeatedly but not put in Sources, but that is not the only inherent difficulty. I'll happily fix if I can revise the system to make it less susceptible to errors. Otherwise, no, sorry, because treating the symptoms doesn't fix the features that are susceptible to errors.... Moreover, a the current system is actually more inconsistent than I have suggested. There are several little differences between different refs, looks like the work of different editors... Changing it to make it uniform would enable others to edit consistently as well. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

So, he was not born in Macedonia?

Just asking, after some ludicrous attempts to erase the word "Macedonia" from the LEAD. --Skylax30 (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. He was born in the ancient city of Stagira, which was located approximately 8 km north northeast of the present-day village of Stagira. It was located in the Chalcidice peninsula, which forms a part of the region of Central Macedonia in Northern Greece, one of the thirteen administrative regions of Greece, which formed the central part of the ancient geographical and historical region of Macedonia Greece. Paul August ☎ 20:13, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to be sure. In which case, any further discussion on the replacement of term "Macedonia" by "Northern Classical Greece" is irrelevant in WP, and more relevant in a psychoanalysis session.--Skylax30 (talk) 21:07, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Well in any case the term "Classical Greece" refers to a time period not a geographical location. Paul August ☎ 22:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

No, he was not born in Macedonia. Stagira was not a part of Macedonia during that era. Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira, a Greek colony in Chalcidice, a peninsula in the northern Aegean, bordering on Macedonia. * "Aristotle and His Philosophy". Google Books. p. 16. Retrieved 2019-01-28.. Claiming that Stagira was at that time a part of Macedonia is anachronism. Cinadon36 (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Chalkidiki. Go there (or to the real place) to argue that Chalkidiki is not Macedonia.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, we need to say Stagira in the text, and we can put Thrace, with explanation as above and citation(s), in a footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Chiswick Chap: In any case (as I pointed out above) it seems wrong to say "Stagira, Chalkidiki, in the north of Classical Greece", since term "Classical Greece" refers to a time period not a geographical location. Paul August ☎ 17:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Just say Stagira by itself, then; or (I agree) go the whole hog and say Stagira, Thrace[a] and explain in the footnote. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
"Stagira, Chalkidiki" will do just fine without "Macedonia", "Thrace" or "Classical Greece". It was not part of Macedonia at the time, nor was it part of Thrace. --T*U (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@TU-nor: What was it part of? Brittanica says Aristotle was born in "Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece". Paul August ☎ 18:01, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@TU-nor:(update) Brittanica also says: "Aristotle was born on the Chalcidic peninsula of Macedonia, in northern Greece" Paul August ☎ 18:05, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
@Paul August: Brittanica is also a tertiary source, not a secondary. Chalcidic peninsula now rests in the region on Macedonia (Greece) but it was not the case when Aristotle was born.Cinadon36 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
Paul August: "Stagira, Chalcidice, Greece" could be taken to mean "in what is now Greece" – since there was no political entity called Greece at that time. Likewise "the Chalcidic peninsula of Macedonia, in northern Greece" may be taken to mean "of today's Macedonia etc." – since the area was conquered by Philip a long time after Aristotle was born. Much better to avoid the ambiguity. --T*U (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Can we please stop opining and bring some real resources to this? Here's a start:
    • "Aristotle was born in 384 B.C. in Stagira, a Greek colony in Chalcidice, a peninsula in the northern Aegean, bordering on Macedonia." — {{cite book|last=Edel|first=Abraham|title=Aristotle and His Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7jzHK-bfxyIC&pg=PA16|date=1 January 1995|publisher=Transaction Publishers|isbn=978-1-4128-1746-2|pages=16–|ref=harv}}
    • "The city of Stagira stood on the coast of Thrace, in a district called the Chalcidic region, and near the innermost recess of the Strymonic Gulf. It was orginally built by the Andrians, afterwards enlarged by a colony from Eubian Chalcis, and long numbered among the Greek cities of Thrace, until the conquests of Philip of Macedon extended the name of his country far beyond the River Strymon, to the confines of Mount Rhodope. — {{cite book|last=Gillies|first=John|editor=Edward Walford|title=The Politics and Economics of Aristotle, Translated, with Notes and Analyses. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=sNxUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR4|year=1853|publisher=H. G. Bohn|pages=i–xxxii|chapter=Life of Aristotle}} ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 06:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
  • I agree with Lingzhi: discuss here and reach consensus before changing the article; and argue based on what the reliable sources say, not what you yourself "know" to be true. And a final recommendation: stop focussing on the article's lead. The lead should only summarize the information that's already covered in more depth in the article body. And right now the article body, in the "Life" section, only says: Aristotle … was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice, about 55 km (34 miles) east of modern-day Thessaloniki. To say something more or something different in the lead is wrong, so the discussion should be about how and to what extent to cover this issue in the article body. Once that is done, we can discuss how to reflect that coverage in briefer form in the lead.
    Personally, I think there are two workable approaches to this: either leave the phrasing as is (as I quote above) without going into details about who owned what bit of land when, or have a full (sub)section of the article that discusses what the reliable sources say about his place of birth (iff they discuss it, which I'm not convinced they do).
    And as an example of why it may be seriously misleading to go into any kind of detail on this: according to this page (reliability unassessed, ymmv), ancient Stagira left the Athenian Alliance around 422 BC and at roughly the time of Aristotle's birth was part of 'Common of Chalkidians', the confederation of the villages of Halkidiki that had Olynthos as capital (i.e. not affiliated with any particular nation brought up here), and during his lifetime it was levelled by Philip II during the Olynthian war only to be rebuilt in Aristotle's name. --Xover (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I d say we follow the first suggestion (Aristotle … was born in 384 BC in Stagira, Chalcidice, about 55 km (34 miles) east of modern-day Thessaloniki.) Whether he was macedonian, thracean etc or something else is not a significant matter when discussing Aristotle and his philosophy (he is notable because of it). It gains significance in the context of contemporary politics as the name of dispute over Macedonia's name is coming to an end and emotions run high. So I am afraid dealing with "who owned that part of land" would be higly wp:UNDUE and serve as a wp:COATRACK for some to emphasize on the greekness of Macedonia. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The politics of that time is irrelevant. The reference to Macedonia is a georgraphical info. If some anarchists [1] think that today "Macedonia" changed place, they are totally mistaken.--Skylax30 (talk) 10:28, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Macedonia changed borders several times. Here 's an interesting map. [2]. Nevertheless, the point is that the vast majority of RS claim that he was born in Halkidiki fullstop. Adding that Halkidiki was/is a part of Macedonia, is plain anachronism and wp:synthesis. I urge you not to go on with an edit war and don't comment other users-focus on your arguments. Cinadon36 (talk) 11:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
So did Greece. Can you please stop trolling? What is relevant is where Stagira is today.--Skylax30 (talk) 11:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
@Skylax30: Continuing to push your preferred change in the article when the edit is contested and there is discussion ongoing on the talk page is edit warring, and accusing someone of trolling is a personal attack. Your edit summary here is also not constructive and quite combative. Please refrain from these behaviours. I see your edit included several sources. I suggest you instead post these here on talk and construct an argument for your position based on these sources and Wikipedia policy and attempt to gain consensus for your position. Until a consensus is reached on the issue in question the article should maintain the status quo, so I have reverted your edit. Please do not reinstate it until a consensus is reached. --Xover (talk) 11:52, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Well I've at least changed the term "Classical Greece" to just "Greece". Paul August ☎ 11:59, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30:, You seem to want to inform the reader where Stagira is located, in terms of modern day geography. Is that correct? Why isn't "Stagira, Chalkidiki, Greece" sufficient? Paul August ☎ 12:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Because Chalkidiki is a small place, not known to most non-Greek users, while Macedonia is known, especially in classical and hellenistic historical context. It seems that most academics chose to inform their readers on where Stagira is today, adding "Macedonia" after the former. Here are some sources from various academic fields.

Michael R. Matthews (ed.), The Scientific Background to Modern Philosophy: Selected Readings”, Hackett Publishing Co., 1989, p. 5.]

Anna Makolkin, BIOCOSMOLOGY AS A NEW SIGN AND ITS POSSIBLE MEANINGS, E – LOGOS, ELECTRONIC JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY/2008 ISSN 1211-0442, p. 2] *Stephenson, F. R., “A Lunar Occultation of Mars Observed by Aristole”, Journal for the History of Astronomy, 2000, p.342

On the other hand, Macedonia is mentioned many times in the article, and its relevance should be obvious in the LEAD. For me, the interesting topic of discussion would be the reason why some users want to eclude the word "Macedonia" from that phrase. But this discussion cannot be done here.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC) --Skylax30 (talk) 12:07, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30: As I'm sure you are aware the term Macedonia is ambiguous (see Macedonia), so simply saying "Stagira, Chalkidiki, Macedonia" is ambiguous and confusing. Paul August ☎ 12:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC) P.S. Please stop commenting on the supposed motives of other editors. Paul August ☎ 12:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any ambiguity in the article you refer to. Stagira still is in "Macedonia" in any of its meanings. That's why many academics use the term. In contraty, if you say "North Greece", you point to a wider geographic area includong Thrace, Epirus, some islands, and even part of Thessaly.--Skylax30 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Well it certainly is not (and of course wasn't) in the Republic of Macedonia. What about saying "Northern Greece"? Why is it so important to locate it more precisely? And what about the confusion between where Stagira is located today, and where it was located at the time of Aristotle's birth? Paul August ☎ 12:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
I find the "Northern Greece" the best available solution to end this discussion over a triviality. Cinadon36 (talk) 13:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Ha! A "triviality" about which Cinadon is battling in Greek and English WP. Let's see if he will try the same in similar articles.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:09, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

@Skylax30: Again please stop with the comments about other editors. Please confine your comments to article content. Such WP:battleground comments can result in your being blocked from editing. Paul August ☎ 14:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

ΟΚ, thanks.--Skylax30 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Uniform reference system

Hey the article seems to use 2 or 3 different referencing systems. I will happily make it uniform in the same manner as Taj Mahal and Bengal famine of 1943 if people wish. It's fun for me. I will be traveling for 8 days after this post but could manage brief replies. Cheers. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  • Sorry to interrupt the great Macedonia debate, but I am working in sandbox my on standardizing the refs. They are a huge mess. May take a week! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • DONE. I added two {{cn}}– one for an instance of copyvio, and another because the original ref was incomplete and followed by a hidden comment saying that a better reference was needed. I'm sure this revision is not absolutely perfect, but now editors can see where any errors may be. Moreover, the inconsistencies, vagaries etc. fixed number in the scores. Many hours of work. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
    • @Chiswick Chap: Just noticed that you had to make several edits to the references. I didn't look closely to figure out what was going on. I know that one reference was added in later by another editor using that verdammtesten RefTools gadget. I never did get around to changing that one over... so, were you mainly just sorting them in a different order? Or did you see any systematic errors or problems that I caused or should have caught? Letting me know will help me avoid such things in the future. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Just formatted three new 'uns as sfns. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Revision

I've been revising Plato's article, and at least the lead here needs a major revision. Ayn Rand? No philosopher takes her seriously, and she didn't do anything Aristotelian, she just used Aristotle's name to appeal to the naive. How about Philippa Foot is an Aristotelian, not Ayn Rand. I can spout my opinions and say "I follow Isaac Newton and Smart(tm) people, pay me" too. "Scientist" when science wasnt a concept? "Empiricist" when empiricism wasn't a concept, when Aristotle deduced the (false) features of the planets and flies from pure reason. Raphael and Rembrandt in the lead? Cake (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I see you are going ahead with this without consensus or even waiting to hear what anyone thinks. I reserve judgement on any changes. Since the lead is a summary of the cited material in the article, it may well become necessary to restore some parts of the text or repeat the exercise to ensure that the summary accurately reflects the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I saw more problems and couldn't stand leaving it be. With almost any edit I do, I at least try to keep the spirit of the prior editors. I revised the first sentence a bit, but other than switching Rand for Foot and rearranging and deleting a few things like empiricism (and adding immanent realism) or bits which seemed superfluous like multiple references to Plato or a value judgment like "harmonious", the only bit I added was the reference to Thomas Aquinas, who is more known for Aristotelianism than anybody else mentioned in the lead. The rest was all there already. And yeah, I know, it might need to be edited by others. Cake (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I certainly think we should comply with the guideline on number of paragraphs. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

On the School of Athens, I was making it the same as someone else made it on Plato's page, without any reference to an interpretation of why Plato points up and Aristotle points out. Regardless, it is pretty absurd to call Aristotle an empiricist, even with "there is nothing in the intellect not first found in the senses", for the same reason it's absurd to call Plato an idealist. He wasn't around in the 17th century. Greeks including Aristotle viewed geometry and deduction as the paradigm of knowledge. If we must interpret it, it is clearly more accurate to say it's a difference in how they viewed universals, whether they are in some third realm or in things. A metaphysical doctrine, not an epistemological one. In fact for that reason it's weird to address epistemology first. Few if any philosophers do that before Descartes. Cake (talk) 19:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Let's leave the pejorative adjectives out of the discussion. The thing is now reliably cited and properly formatted, and I've removed the word, even though, as it happens, the source uses it. The caption was specially requested by the GA reviewer, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what was pejorative. Absurd and weird are the only thing I could see, and I mean those as neutral descriptive terms, such as e. g. reduction into absurdity, or the argument from queerness. Pardon if I seem heated. I certainly am not. And yes I've seen it used, as idealism is used with Plato. I don't think "knowledge from experience" is any better. It's surely about metaphysics, not epistemology. For both Plato and Aristotle, the paradigm case of a piece of knowledge was that the internal angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles. Is that knowledge from experience? Certainly not. However, they would differ on how they cash out the metaphysics of triangles in the way illustrated by the painting. Cake (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Not to worry then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
If I may continue, the logic section seems a bit short, though I can understand reserving detail for its own article. For instance, could say Aristotle invents the first proof theory by prioritizing Barbara or Celarent. Also, while the use of images for illustration is a strength of the article, not sure about the one for the logic. The square of opposition might be the traditional thing to use. The modern notation with the "equations" headline is a little odd. For one, that bar notation isn't too common for negation, and the quantifier notation is usually introduced as the Aristotelian forms, i. e., as the modern square of opposition. "Most of Aristotle's work is probably not in its original form, because it was most likely edited by students and later lecturers." also seems out of place to me. It's not a comment on his logic but his work in general, should possibly even be in the lead. Also not sure about "analytics" in the headline rather than just "Organon", despite him calling it that, it seems a piece of trivia. Could also explain what it means by dialectics in distinction to it. Cheers. Cake (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
There's also the relevance of the term "Organon". As it is often explained, Aristotle viewed logic as an "instrument" of philosophy, but not part of philosophy, much as a psychologist must use statistics, but statistics are not part of psychology. The Stoics disagreed, and saw logic as a branch of philosophy, as most do nowadays. Cake (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@MisterCake: Aristotle, Epicurus, and at least a few other ancient Greek philosophers are widely described in reliable sources as "empiricists." If you think this is "absurd" and "weird," you are welcome to publish an academic paper arguing that this term should not be applied to anyone who lived before the seventeenth century. If your view takes hold among academics and they adopt it in their writings, maybe it will eventually be adopted in this article. Until then, however, we must follow the same conventions and terminology as the currently-available reliable sources.
Also, I will note here that your contention that "few if any philosophers... before Descartes" address epistemology at all is clearly erroneous. Epistemology was, in fact, a commonly addressed subject in antiquity. Off the top of my head, I can name Gorgias, Aristotle, Epicurus, the Stoics, the Pyrrhonists, the Academic Skeptics, and Lucretius as philosophers or groups of philosophers who definitely addressed epistemology in some way or another. In fact, just Tuesday this week I had a long conversation with Adam Leite, a philosophy professor at Indiana University Bloomington who has written rather extensively about the epistemology of the ancient Skeptics. If the ancients never addressed epistemology, there would not be scholars studying ancient epistemology. —Katolophyromai (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Never, anywhere, once, did I say epistemology didn't exist. I just said I've been the one editing Plato's article, including the epistemology section. I never said they don't "address epistemology at all", I said few if any "addressed epistemology FIRST;" I said metaphysics was more foundational until Descartes, and that empiricism simply was not a thing until the scientific revolution. There was no rationalism/empiricism dispute in ancient Greece. That's modern, post-Descartes philosophy. Mathematics was the paradigm of knowledge, a view akin to rationalism if anything.This is simply true. Plato is addressed as an idealist in several sources, and that is no less of an anachronism. Aristotle was closer to empiricism than Plato, sure, but if he was an empiricist simpliciter, he would never have said women have fewer teeth than men, or that the moon was a perfect sphere. These were deduced from pure reason. Several times Aristotle uses that a triangle's internal angles equal 2 right angles as a paradigm case of knowledge. That's not empiricism, and does not require an academic paper to say such. Cake (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Katolophyromai here; Aristotle has frequently and reliably been described as empiricist (which does not at all equate to saying he's an 18th century Empiricist), and we are free to use such sources here. What we are not free to do is to use editors' opinions about what is "simply true" or anything of the sort. May I remind everyone that talk pages are not forums for discussing Aristotle as such; there is a vast literature already that does that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

The whole post was an incredible strawman saying I thought epistemology didn't exist in the ancient world. Again, Plato has frequently and reliably been described as an idealist, but that's also been frequently and reliably corrected. The same can be said for Aristotle as an empiricist. The Stanford has a whole section on Aristotle's empiricism, acknowledging that its usually deemed anachronistic to call ancients empiricists, and concluding that it's not clear whether Aristotle is one or not, and that in scientific explanation he prefers demonstration from first principles, like a rationalist. It also has the best argument for Aristotle's empiricism hinging on considering Plato an idealist. Surely it is not clear because rationalism and empiricism weren't even distinguished yet. Are the internal angles of a triangle known empirically or not?
It seems to me quite apparent that in say Raphael's painting people are confusing their metaphysical doctrines with their epistemological ones. Metaphysics was "first philosophy" until Descartes. I can hear the response: Are you denying they had an epistemology? Don't you think they are related? Yes, but not so fast. As Paul Benacerraf will tell you, platonism's strength is its metaphysics, and its weakness its epistemology. There's never been a decent account of how we know about abstract objects. Aristotelians meanwhile have to say things like forms are located in things as "a metaphysical part, not a physical part", making simple perception not the route to knowing them. Cake (talk) 16:16, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@MisterCake: If you can provide citations to reliable sources disputing that Aristotle was really an empiricist, you are welcome to add them to the relevant section of this article so we can make clear that there is debate over whether or not he was an empiricist. He is, however, commonly described as one. I am sorry if I misunderstood your comments about epistemology; when I read them it sounded like you were saying "few if any philosophers... before Descartes" address epistemology, which is quite obviously not correct. Again, I apologize if I misunderstood you. —Katolophyromai (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
The Stanford article does a pretty good job of showing it's at the least disputed, but I'll see if I can go through its sources. Plato is commonly described as an idealist, yet he ascribed to the opposite of the "way of ideas" Reid describes as defining the idealists and modern period in philosophy. It seems to me both of these common descriptions exist for the same reason - familiarity with modern philosophy being imposed on ancient philosophy. Also comes from contrasting Plato with Aristotle. Aristotle is closer to an empiricist than Plato is, that's true, but that's far from being an empiricist. The reverse can be said for Plato and idealism. Just a beginner learning "Descartes/Spinoza/Leibniz and Locke/Berkeley/Hume were in opposition to each other" and learning "Plato and Aristotle were in opposition to each other" and imposing those two on to each other, as if they weren't completely different people and times.
What I said verbatim was "it's weird to address epistemology first. Few if any philosophers do that before Descartes," referring to the article having epistemology come before metaphysics in the article. As I'm sure you know, Aristotle called metaphysics "first philosophy". You seemed to omit "first", which was the important part. Also, that epistemology existed in the ancient world, which I don't dispute, does not mean the rationalism/empiricism dispute existed in the ancient world. That seems to me to depend on the way of ideas. The Stanford quotes Aristotle: "all our beliefs come either through demonstration [dia sullogismou] or from induction [ex epagōgēs]”. Surely an empiricist would say the latter, and a rationalist would say the former, and somebody transcending those categories would say the above. Also Aristotle holds that the law of non contradiction is the most fundamental of concepts, which is akin to rationalism. Even Leibniz would say there's also the PSR, but not Aristotle. Cake (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This article seems to me to get it correct: "Aristotle agreed with Plato that knowledge is of the universal but held that such universal forms should not be conceived as “separated” from the matter embodying them. This belief does not make Aristotle an empiricist, though he was certainly a less extreme rationalist than Plato. Aristotle took the rationalist view that every science or body of knowledge must resemble Euclidean geometry in consisting of deductions from first principles that are self-evidently and necessarily true and that, although the senses acquaint humans with the sensible forms of things, there cannot be knowledge of them unless reason is brought into play to apprehend their intelligible forms." Cake (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Katolophyromai: So doesn't it make more sense that Raphael is referencing metaphysics rather than epistemology? You already seem to grant Plato in the painting is doing so. Just look at the article's own illustration with the apple. If it was about rationalism v empiricism, presumably Plato would point to his temple and Aristotle to his eyes. Further on the empiricism angle, Parmenides is granted as an influence of Aristotle. How could that possibly be true if Aristotle was an empiricist? Furthermore, if you grant Aristotle was influenced by both Parmenides and Heraclitus like Plato, W. K. C. Guthrie disputes that Heraclitus was an empiricist. Cake (talk) 19:13, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"That he was not an empiricist in the usual modern sense of the word has long been acknowledged"
Michael Frede argues that Aristotle is not an empiricist in "Rationalism"
"Aristotle is not an "empiricist" in the modern post-Humean sense."
"in that perspective [Aristotle’s] emphasis on the indispensable starting-point in sense perception seems to ally himwith the empiricists, whereas the ultimate appeal to nous then takes on the air of a last-minute betrayal, a sellout to the rationalists — particularly if nous is understood as an infallible intuition of self-evident truths.” - Kahn
"To identify Aristotle's method with empiricism is incorrect" Cake (talk) 04:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Father

Aristotle is not the father of philosophy SOCRATES was known as the father of philosophy

Separated this guys comment from the above discussion. Can find it among all of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. Plato arguably most deserving, as Aristotle was his student, and Socrates as we know him his invention. Cake (talk) 08:10, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
As A N Whitehead famously said, "all of Western philosophy is just footnotes to Plato" to which somebody added "and Plato is just footnotes to Socrates." Thony C. (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
And somebody else said that Socrates is just the first one we know about, because of his students. But WP:RS does not want us to be citing "somebody". The point is that we have to write what we can cite here, and use common sense. For sure Aristotle was called the father of philosophy in a traditional way and that should be reported. Of course we can also avoid making Wikipedia say that he really is known as the origin of all philosophy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

proposal to delete a passage in introduction

the sentence at the beginning of the third paragraph in the introduction: "The fact that Aristotle was a pupil of Plato contributed to his former views of Platonism, but, following Plato's death, Aristotle developed an increased interest in natural sciences and adopted the position of immanent realism." is without reference and seems to be the abridged version of the thesis of Warner Jaeger, which is now completely discredited. I suggest removing it. Insofar as we do not know anything about Aristotle's philosophical development in time, for the well-known impossibility of establishing a real chronology of his works, we should not mislead the reader by ascribing platonic or naturalistic views at specific moments of his life.--Xandreios (talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've deleted it, for the simple pair of reasons that it's uncited and misplaced - the sole function of the lead section is to summarize the main text, and this is just a stray. I expect it snuck in there during a holiday while nobody was watching. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

I notice that in the dreams and memory sections we are using the terminology "Seat of Perception" which links to an article that does not mention Aristotle, and Laws of Association (with capital), which currently appears to be a stub based on one modern source that seems to be about trying to compare Aristotle to Locke. These terms do not ring a bell to me as really Aristotelian. I see we have one reference to the very Aristotelian term Common Sense, but for example not under dreams, only under memory. That article does contain a detailed discussion of some aspects of Aristotle's ideas about perception etc, and it has links to some other articles with discussions of Aristotelian concepts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes it's rather too Enlightenment really. Leroi uses 'sensorium' and simply 'heart', which are certainly more neutral. The laws don't need to be capitalised, either. Fixed both. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I wonder if there are more leads on Common Sense, to more Aristotelian terms. Long time since I worked on it much. But for example, relevant to this article: "Heller-Roazen (2008) writes that "In different ways the philosophers of medieval Latin and Arabic tradition, from Al-Farabi to Avicenna, Averroës, Albert, and Thomas, found in the De Anima and the Parva Naturalia the scattered elements of a coherent doctrine of the "central" faculty of the sensuous soul."[29] It was "one of the most successful and resilient of Aristotelian notions."[30]" We do not seem to be mentioning the imaginative faculty yet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
That is talking about the 'sensitive soul' in the language of the article's 'Soul' section and diagram, and the 'central faculty' is Aristotle's "heart", receiving inputs as shown on the diagram of Aristotelian psychology from the senses, and controlling the body by its effects on the arms and legs and so on as also shown on that diagram. I think we have enough detail on this already for this top-level article; there is more detail in Aristotle's biology#Information processing with a diagram of Aristotle's view of information processing as understood by Leroi in his "centralized incoming and outgoing motions model" and cited there. My feeling is that describing that model here would be undue; it's available to readers already, but if you like we could add this as a 'further' link at the top of the 'Memory' section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't see a clear proposal to make, but I was thinking of whether we can slip in any more key words that link to build the links up so that people can read about it elsewhere. For example if we are not mentioning the imagination/fantasy we are missing a key concept.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
I've cited SEP on the faculty of imagination from De Anima under Dreams, where it seems to fit well. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Talk: Aristotle

The article provided lots of images that I believe were very helpful in emphasizing the written content. Philosophy especially is difficult to understand and visualize so I think the images could really aid in the understanding of such dense material for people who know nothing about philosophy but even for those who know a good amount. Their captions provided a clear and concise description and were laid out in a logical way that made it easy to understand which passage the image was referring to.Mosorio19 (talk) 23:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The subject title "Speculative philosophy" for the first section about Aristotle's works on logic and metaphysics

I find the current title "Speculative Philosophy" for the section covering the following the following topics areas not appropriate and incorrect: 2.1 Logic 2.1.1 Organon 2.2 Metaphysics 2.2.1 Substance 2.2.1.1 Immanent realism 2.2.1.2 Potentiality and actuality 2.3 Epistemology

Here are my reasons: 1) Philosophy by nature is speculative, to label what is speculative and what is not does not fit the spirit and practice of philosophy. 2) The current title is judgmental at the best and is misleading in actuality. If anything worth of posting to the public, one should truthfully provide the original materials and let the readers to judge for themselves, but not pre-determinedly frame the readers. 3) It is not fair nor just to judge a work of more than two thousand years ago based on today's knowledge and understanding. Philosophizing about the unknown and the future has always a speculative element; it is sound philosophy as long as it is rational and based on the best knowledge at the time. 4) These works of Aristotle are rather fittingly the most important contribution of his time, possibly all times, to philosophy and human wisdom. Some of them, such as logic and organon, are not only definitive but also relevant, and mostly correct, today. By these works, Aristotle laid the foundation effectively for future generations on how to correctly think and reason and how to seek truth successfully. To label these works speculative is just not correct.

My suggestions for possible title: 1) Philosophy of Reason 2) General Philosophy

Gregzhang (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be answered better by editors better versed in the study of Greek philosophy, but I can set you straight on one point: the section title is not implying philosophy-which-is-especially-speculative, but "Speculative philosophy", the branch created by Greek philosophers especially Aristotle, as discussed in many papers, such as this one by Stedman. The title is thus a term of art, not an assertion of speculativeness. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

To your point, there are a few questions that perhaps need to be debated: 1) is "speculative philosophy" really is a branch of philosophy that is well defined and well accepted in the community? If so, who should be the judge and how should any philosophical work be judged? Are there a clear set of rules and due processes in making the judgement? 2) Even there exist such a formal branch, there is the question of whether it should be used in such a categorical way in a popular media such as Wikipedia, to which most readers are not well versed in philosophy but common people who tend to take the materials in Wiki at its face value and may not take it as "term of art". Common people would not know if something they read under "Speculative Philosophy" on Wiki is not an assertion of speculativeness. 3) In the current case on Aristotle, some other works e.g. Physics (five elements, four causes) and Psychology (soul, memory, dreams), are actually more speculative than those listed under "Speculative Philosophy". Why are these other works not listed under "Speculative Philosophy"? This then would lead the question on the overall soundness of the categorization for the sections under Aristotle. Gregzhang (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2019&oldid=965909780"