Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2020

mistake in reference to geogrpahy

footnote [138] should present alexander's comment on Aristotle on geography, the quote presented deals with Alexander dissatisfaction with publicizing esoteric knowledge, not related to geography. do the best of my knwledge (i have a master in philosophy of science) alexander didnt claim Aristotle geogrpahy is wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.114.23.212 (talk) 14:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Father of philosophy?

Having been tagged for a while, I suppose we need to decide whether to remove the sentence in the lead about Aristotle being "the father of Philosophy". Just googling around I notice that Socrates seems to be more often given this title than Aristotle or Plato, and quite often also Thales. It does not look like we should keep it, partly because it does not really seem to add much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Good idea.Teishin (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The expression "father of" should generally be banned, as it is meaningless verbiage and almost aways contentious if not as in this case outright false Thony C. (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Groan. On the other hand, "father of marine biology" is easily cited to reliable sources, which is the criterion, so let's leave the rhetoric and histrionics out of it, please. I've cut the phrase. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need for a general rule on the term. There will be cases where it is due, meaningful, and not contentious. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Era Notation

BC should be replaced with BCE to adhere to modern standards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.141.64.226 (talk) 22:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Influences

It seems rather odd that Plato is the only figure listed as an influence to Aristotle. Surely others: Pythagoras, Socrates, Democritus, Parmenides and maybe other Pre-Socratic philosophers influenced him as well? Perhaps not as much as Plato, but I would be surprised if the influence from other philosophers was so little that they wouldn't even warrant inclusion in the "influences" section. Aza24 (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

He mentions a lot of philosophers, but often in a critical way. Untangling which ones are really influences can be a bit difficult. Basically it comes down to finding good secondary sources we can cite.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020

In the intro section, after "Aristotle shaped [medieval scholarship], add "medieval and early modern scholarship up to Newton, where finally some fundamental propositions of his physics and cosmology were falsified" 81.98.74.242 (talk) 13:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

This appears to already be included with the sentence "were not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed" – Thjarkur (talk) 13:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

The Lead section is very well-constructed and concise, though Aristotle has numerous accomplishments. It overviews all sections and is done very well. The content appears to be well-sourced, current, and relevant for the material covering Aristotle's scientific and philosophical thought. The references and sources appear to be unbiased and relatively maintain a neutral tone throughout the duration. The article is very well-organized, contextualized, and broken down into easily digestible areas of interest. The media and accompanying images are tastefully used and well-placed in the article with proper captions. The Talk section appears helpful and active in the maintenance of this article. Overall, this page is properly sourced and kept. The article is in good standing and is used in many WikiProjects, which is a sign of its strength.

BoomerSooner1101 (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Missing chunk of information

i am new to wiki... and this is my first suggestion/post so please be merciful regardless of my editing or suggesting skills... i was getting help from this page, and found out that this page is missing a chunk of info about Aristotle's relation or his principals related to tragedy for instance Sophocles's Oedipus was said to be praised by Aristotle and said to be categorized with these 3 categories(?) hamartia,anagnorisis,peripeteia i had hard time looking for this deep stuff which i consider to be important. there is very little said about this in "Rhetoric and poetics" section but this needs to be specified and be said in this section due to it's importance. and also for wiki's sake :) (i don't know if i did this right....) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimadick (talk • contribs) 09:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 1st November 2020

I want to edit to correct some mistakes in the sentences NesquickT (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2020 (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. Favonian (talk) 14:46, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Complicated sidebar

Is there any justification for using predicate-calculus expressions that have one quantifier, three logical operators and four levels of nesting, e.g.

not ( exists x . M x and not ( P x ) )

instead of the equivalent and more direct form

forall x . M x implies P x

which has one quantifier, one logical operator and two levels of nesting? Mdmi (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Misleading statements re Aristotle on falling objects

In the section Motion, the article text omits the crucial qualification noted in Rovelli's paper where he argues that Aristotle asserts that - for a fixed shape and size, and for a given fluid - a heavier object will fall quicker than a lighter object. Without that qualification the assertions that

"This is a correct approximation for objects in Earth's gravitational field moving in air or water"

and

"In this system, heavy bodies in steady fall indeed travel faster than light ones..."

are very misleading, and should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesrmeyer (talk • contribs) 10:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)