Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2023

Origin of term "speculative"?

The first top-level heading on Aristotle's thought is entitled "Speculative philosophy." Yet, neither the article nor the child-articles linked as "Main articles" address the meaning of the term "speculative."

Its usage here, although at odds with the common English definition, largely accords with that of post-Kantian German Idealists. Yet, the etymology of the term goes back to Latin (speculatio, to observe), not Greek.

How did it come to be applied to Aristotle's logic and metaphysics? I am curious myself, and probably other readers are as well—even if it merits only a footnote. Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading through the archives, the use of "Speculative Philosophy" seems to come from the suggestion of some editor in the past.

Reading through wikipedia, one is astounded at the low IQ individuals that contribute to these articles.

Needless to say, the term "speculative philosophy" is entirely inappropriate, and especially so with respect to the Organon. 184.147.248.114 (talk) 04:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

changed it to "Theoretical philosophy" - it's probably better to refactor the whole article into groupings that make more sense but at least "theoretical" is a division applied to Aristotle's philosophy and a Greek word. But the assumption that this was an "original" contribution by a wikipedia editor tracks with my own experience as well. - car chasm (talk) 05:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, no, it was not invented by a Wikipedia editor. The term "Speculative Philosophy" is a very old one, going back to Thomas Aquinas, see this for instance. I note also that there is actually a long-established Journal of Speculative Philosophy, which certainly includes Aristotle. The term therefore certainly "makes sense" and can be reliably cited. Whether we should reinstate the term or not, it is inexcusable to combine any request for a change of terminology with attacks on other editors. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

well that makes a whole lot of sense given the latin, but the idea that we should apply a thomist interpretation of aristotle *is* pretty original. The usage of the term "Speculative Philosophy" that you note tracks with the original post. and I would not call Aquinas very old at all - he lived closer to the present day then he did to Aristotle. Long enough ago not to be a reliable source, and not nearly long enough ago to be a primary one.

There's a whole bunch of people who dedicate their academic career to studying Aristotle in the modern day though - we should look there for reliable sources on how to best divide up Aristotle's philosophy rather than trying to make inferences based on modern usages. - car chasm (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Hm. The journal is modern, and the term is certainly in use among modern philosophers (whether or not it has Thomist origins), so I repeat, the term is not a Wikipedian invention, and is a proper candidate for use in the article. Whether we'd like to use it is a different question. Since by the way we don't cite headings, they are always to some extent invented, so talking about SYNTHesis is unhelpful, indeed inapplicable. Best obviously is to make headings fit their text contents with as little friction as possible, and since we don't say "speculative philosophy" anywhere else, it probably doesn't help to introduce it there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not "speculative philosophy" is an established term is immaterial to the matter at hand since the label "speculative" does not not stand in proper contradistinction to "natural". Many of Aristotle's claims that fall under the domain of natural philosophy could be termed "speculative", while others less so. I give my assent to the contributor who suggested "theoretical philosophy", as it sits much better as a counterpart to "natural philosophy". And I apologize for the throwaway insult on matters of IQ. 184.147.248.114 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Polymath vs scientist in lead sentence

I'm making this topic because there's been a little back and forth here and I want to let people raise objections here if they have them. I don't particularly have a strong opinion on the use of one of these words over the other in the short description, I think "philosopher" is necessary and should come first (as it's what google and others pull from) but either of the other options are fine if people want them - polymath works if we're considering an older use of the word (someone who has learned about a lot of different things) rather than someone like da Vinci, and scientist makes sense if we're looking at common usage today but might seem misleading or out of place applied to someone from Ancient Greece. I've kept polymath as the word that was there originally, and moved the list of topics covered even closer to the beginning of the article, which I think makes the interpretation clearer (addressing my own concerns with it) and also matches the guidelines in the manual of style. I've added a bit about science to the end of that paragraph because that does seem to make sense to include as well in the proper context.

I've also moved the Plato mention a bit later as it's already discussed in the following paragraph and I think that if we apply general style guidelines, each paragraph should have a discrete topic. The rest of the lead might need some maintenance as well along the same logic but I don't want to change to many things before letting people discuss it. - car chasm (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the current solution is not a problem, but maybe we could even use 3 words if necessary. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think polymath is the correct term to use 1) it is Greek in origin 2) it means literally many knowledge 3) scientist is totally anachronistic in this context Thony C. (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Aristotle myth theory

Chinese nationalist historians are now starting to deny Aristotle existed at all, and they claim all works by him and other “ancient” Greeks were actually forged much later during the Renaissance. While this is undoubtedly a fringe belief, it seems to be part of a broader trend within Chinese academia these days, and might be worth a sentence or two. It reminds me of similar ideas in nationalist Russian circles, e.g. Fomenkoism. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7B67 (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Not a good article

The article has deteriorated considerably in both style and content. Currently we have half a page about Aristotle's life, studies and a lot of not very primary information, not to mention gibberish ("global impact"!!!), all of which can be read by scrolling down the article. What was important and well written about method, ideas and influence has been unfairly replaced. Please restore the article to its previous form, as this was changed without consent. 2003:A:A0B:4100:E5C9:284F:979D:29A5 (talk) 18:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. The "global impact" wording was recently added, see a thread above; I've removed it: people should not be editing the lead without reference to the article body, as it's just a summary. I agree with you about quite a bit of the recent deletions; Aristotle's influence extends to many fields that are not today considered "philosophy", like law and biology, and the article is certainly right to discuss these. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Is there a version we should consider reverting to? (Or, use as a reference point for reworking.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)