Talk:Physics (Aristotle)

How is the Heidegger quote helpful, exactly?

The quote from Heidegger is ponderous and goes beyond what needs to be said in an intro paragraph. I suggest shortening it to the quote about how there would be no Galileo without Aristotle.131.96.30.60 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

actuality

hum, an entry on potentiality and actuality (Aristotle) would be quite important for the Philosophy project and to expand information on A's metaphysics. "Actuality" is a word with a current meaning and a distant technical meaning in Aristotle... --zuben

Copy-editing needed

This article reads very poorly. The English is nigh nonsensical. It is in definite need of clean-up. 205.157.110.11 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I just removed this sentence from the general "Books" level-2 section: "Force may be defined as the cause for separation of an object from one point of reference and union with another point of reference." It may be true (I can't say), but it seems out of place. JKeck (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing this sentence: "Books III and IV are lacking in interest and probably formed a textual whole, defining the preconditions of motion." I'm not sure what "lacking in interest" means (uninteresting?) and "defining the preconditions of motion" is patently false, as the definition of motion cannot be a precondition for motion. It might be true that some have claimed that the two books formed a textual whole (in some hypothetical source text? Or seem to complete each other as they now stand?), but it needs to be footnoted. I'm also redoing the sentence on the definition of motion, which as stated ("Change is the passage from being something potentially and becoming it actually...")is circular (see Kosman 1969). JKeck (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Online versions of the Hardie-Gaye translation

None of the online versions have the italics present in the Britannica edition. I'm just wondering if the italics were in the original edition published by Oxford in 1930 or an addition by the editor of the Britannica version. Anyone have a copy of the original? JKeck (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a "searchable-image PDF" scan of the 1930 Oxford edition of the Physics available at the Internet Archive [1]. (Unfortunately it's a soiled, marked-up copy of the volume.) It contains the italics which were retained in the Britannica (Great Books) edition. I don't know if these italics were the work of the translators or editor (W.D. Ross) or both, but they are helpful in marking the use of the familiar Latin phrases used by the translators as well as in getting the sense of Aristotle's sentences which are notoriously compressed in style (what we might call note-taking or telegraphic style). For example, writing of Parmenides at 186a33:

It is necessary for him, then, to assume not only that 'being' has the same meaning, of whatever it is predicated, but further that it means (1) what just is¹ and (2) what is just one.²

—————————————

¹ i.e. substance.

² i.e. indivisible unity.

Notice that I retained the explanatory notes. The Great Books version drops all these very helpful explanatory notes, as does the two volume 1984 Oxford Revised edition of the Complete Works of Aristotle, to save space.

—Blanchette (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Book IV

Section claims:

Contrary to popular belief and many so-called disciples of Aristotle, what he calls void is not the same as an absence of air or other sensible body.

Says who? As far as I can understand, he uses it both as "a nothing" – which nobody believe exists – and then as an empty space – which most people believe exist today – as a means to prove that matter is not atomic, because if it were, then vacuums, i.e. nothingnesses, can exist, and that is inherently a contradiction. So Aristotle "disproves" vacuum and atoms by using what we today call an obscurantism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Or more specifically an Equivocation, one of the classical fallacies in Aristotles Organon, not his only one. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Recensions Section?

Might need a new section on recensions of the (original) text. Would include Bekker, Ross. Maybe this one as well: Carl Prantl, Publisher: Lipsiae : in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1879. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.66.88 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Comment

I'm just getting here after reading the article of Aristotelian Physics, so it is clearer to me why it is as it is. A distinction is being made between Physics and Aristotelian Physics, which is why the Heidegger. He's the one making the distinction. I'm impressed by this article, not by the Aristotelian Physics one. Heidegger is notable so if he makes the distinction it is fair game. I think this is a good article. It has been worked on obviously. I don't know what I can do here beyond polishing it a bit. It is certainly way beyond a start class.Botteville (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

How can we go about removing the Start-Class deisgnation? JKeck (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should yet, there's more to an article's rating than just how long it is. As it is, there aren't many inline citations and very few cited references so this article would need a lot of work to be more than start class, it's basically just a mostly uncited summary of the text with a few blockquotes. I think if the existing content was actually cited and worked more into prose, we'd probably have a C-class article, but it's pretty far from B-class without a lot more comprehensive content. - car chasm (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Though to be clear, there's no reason it *has* to be more than a start class article. Assuming the content is all verifiable and there's no original research there's nothing wrong with it as it stands now. Adding inline citations and a bit more on the influence/background of the work would probably be the next logical step in that direction though. - car chasm (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Nah, I changed my mind/I was wrong, B-class is fine. The inline citations aren't as necessary for summaries of a work. - car chasm (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Organization

OK, I'm "up" in it. I still like it, great article. I don't find the language difficult or non-sensical from a philosophic or scholarly point of view. The difficulty reported above is undoubtedly caused by the that fact that this is Aristotle's "esoterica", the material he revealed only to the inner circle because of its difficulty. The answer to us I believe is blue-linking and care to make sure everything is explained. There is what I see as an organizational problem. There are something like a half-dozen bibliographies, many repeating the same work. They are mainly above the numbered references. I believe the custom is to put them below the references. I don't say there should not be an extensive bibliography for such an important philosopher. I do say we should bring them all below the references and make better sense of them, which I will start to do next session. If you use harvnb, you can automatically reference a work below the references. Only see also should be above them. Also, the biblio is for the most part not in proper format, hindering auto references to the items. So, I'll be making organizational and formatting changes there. But the language, no, nothing wrong with that. We just need the blue links and the explanatory phrases and sentences.Botteville (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Removed biblio item

"* Oresme, Nicole, Oresme's Commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Edition of the Quaestiones on Book 3 and 4 of Aristotle's Physics and of the Quaestiones 6 - 9 on book 5. Edited by Stefan Kirschner. (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997)."

This is not what it seems to be. The book is in German, and only in German. I did find it on the Internet. The publication place of Stuttgart gives it away. The editor or the work from which he copied it has done the translation. That makes it an imaginary book. That is why it is so important to use the cite book and other formats. If there were a real translation, the translator would be listed and the date and edition would be different. Of course I considered whether to cite the German book. In this topic there is no lack of top-notch books in German by excellent German-speaking scholars. We pick the English books here because this is the English Wikipedia. Of course German books are sometimes cited on WP. That is in the case of indispensible German works. I do not think this is one of those. So, my disposition is to drop it from the list. Now, about that list. This is a terribly difficult list just because it is not formatted correctly. Each item is its own big problem. The English-speaking audience could never use this list without a big research project on each item. It might as well never have been done. I do find some gold beneath the scrapings however. You might have to put up with some Greek and Latin but there is a lot of good English also. So, I have done the research, or am going to do it, and have properly formatted the items with very useful urls in many cases. Most of the others are previewable if you care to look it up. Most of the article so far is bibliography but you know such a famous work of such a famous man is owing some sort of book list.Botteville (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Rowett-Osborne

The professor, scholar, and translator Catherine Osborne is the same as the professor, scholar and translator Catherine Rowett. She doen't seem to want to say that anywhere, but it is none of our business. Apparently her married name is Osborne. At some point she reverts to the maiden name of Rowett. Apparently this has to do with running for office on the Green Peace ticket. We should not jump to any conclusions, as she mentions a husband and two children at home. Nevertheless the change is an Internet confusion. Therefore I want to use Catherine Rowett Osborne following the American custom of making the middle name of a married woman the same as the maiden name, if that is all right with all concerned. I think it will save the usual Internet periphrasis.Botteville (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Joe Sachs and Aristotle's Motion

Joe Sachs is currently touted as the poor man's guide to Aristotle. I don't think he is. For example, he thinks the etymologies of Aristotle's vocabulary are guides to their meanings. But, those words evolved in the theory of matter and form. The connections are not always obvious. Incidentally he does not mention that noted theory. I think he is trying to work out his own concepts of Aristotle. I don't think he is up to people like Ross. For example, energeia is always "form." The "energy" twist is entirely modern. Well. I appreciate that he is a published author and is at St. John's, even though I don't think he is of much help to us. Sorry, Joe. He is only mentioned a few times. I'm leaving those references in if thy fit as intended, but if you don't mind I think we can dispense with the glowing reports of his utility to us. Specifically, the etymologies don't tell us much. The peripatetics were just twisting the words to their own purposes. It's a specialized theory, and you can't present Aristotle without presenting the theory. That is the Theory of Matter and form. I happen to be a Protestant, but the Jesuits do the best job of presenting Aristotle I know of. St. Thomas of course uses Aristotle extensively. Now, I don't want to get into this, but Joe has to do better if he wants to be a better source for us.Botteville (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Schindler ref

• Schindler, David L., "The Problem of Mechanism," Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in Recent Physics and Catholic Thought, ed. David L. Schindler (University Press of America, 1986).

This is a bad specification. The link is dead, so it is no good for a link. There is one sentence using it as a ref. As that, it should be explaining the theory of matter and form. We don't need it for that, as just about all the content is linkable to WP articles. But, let's say that we tried to use it. It isn't what it seems. It is actually a collection of essays by different authors. Which one is not specified, or any page numbers. I did notice a certain problem with phony refs that had been copied out of books you can preview on the Internet. It is no good as a ref and it is not needed anyway, so I'm taking it out. At some point this content material will have to be gone over by someone cognizant of the theory of matter and form.Botteville (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

The essay being referenced was "The Problem of Mechanism." It's amazing that that has to be pointed out. And it was a useful reference, since that essay has a particularly good explanation. JKeck (talk) 21:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible splits

I think all this material relates to the topic but it may be getting extensive, especially when you consider the history of the corpus. I have noticed however that there are quite a few articles, some in the beginning state, where this material could go. Some of them need some heavy edits. I would say, if you notice some of the material getting so extensive as to suggest a split might do better, don't hesitate to suggest it or do it. Right now I am trying to plug through to the end otherwise I would want to take on these other articles. But, if someone notices specific material would do better elsewhere, and does not want to fix it, I can make some temporary jumps to the other articles.Botteville (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree, the prolix stuff on the Academy should at the very least be moved to the bottom, and as you say preferably to an on-topic page, leaving a concise summary here. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Surely most of the fascinating material on the history of the Corpus Aristotelicum is not peculiar to the Physics, and should be moved to Corpus Aristotelicum or made into a separate article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. It is fascinating material (though I'm not sure all of it avoids being "original research"). By all means, it should definitely be moved elsewhere. JKeck (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Corpus Aristotelicum is most likely the best target article for this material, since that is what the material is about. Is there a special procedure for moving material from one article to another? JKeck (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If there are no objections, I'm going to move that material (The authorship paradox, Research at the Lyceum, The question of the library) to Corpus Aristotelicum. JKeck (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I went ahead and moved those sections. JKeck (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

"...they do match any line counts." -> should be ? -> "...they do NOT match any line counts."

"...they do match any line counts." -> should be ? -> "...they do NOT match any line counts." 172.58.197.70 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC) The meaning of physics in Aristotle It is a collection of treatises or lessons that deals with the most general (philosophical) principles of natural or moving things, both living and non-living, rather than physical theories (in the modern sense) or investigations of the particular contents of the universe. The chief purpose of the work is to discover the principles and causes of (and not merely to describe) change, or movement, or motion (κίνησις kinesis), especially that of natural wholes (mostly living things, but also inanimate wholes like the cosmos). In the conventional Andronicean ordering of Aristotle's works, it stands at the head of, as well as being foundational to, the long series of physical, cosmological and biological treatises, whose ancient Greek title, τὰ φυσικά, means "the [writings] on nature" or "natural philosophy".

Description of the content The Physics is composed of eight books, which are further divided into chapters. This system is of ancient origin, now obscure. In modern languages, books are referenced with Roman numerals, standing for ancient Greek capital letters (the Greeks represented numbers with letters, e.g. A for 1). Chapters are identified by Arabic numerals, but the use of the English word "chapter" is strictly conventional. Ancient "chapters" (capita) are generally very short, often less than a page. Additionally, the Bekker numbers give the page and column (a or b) used in the Prussian Academy of Sciences' edition of Aristotle's works, instigated and managed by Bekker himself. These are evident in the 1831 2-volume edition. Bekker's line numbers may be given. These are often given, but unless the edition is the Academy's, they do match any line counts.

Book I (Α; 184a–192b) Book I introduces Aristotle's approach to nature, which is to be based on principles, causes, and elements. Before offering his particular views, he engages previous theories, such as those offered by Melissus and Parmenides. Aristotle's own view comes out in Ch. 7 where he identifies three principles: substances, opposites, and privation.

Chapters 3 and 4 are among the most difficult in all of Aristotle's works and involve subtle refutations of the thought of Parmenides, Melissus and Anaxagoras.

In chapter 5, he continues his review of his predecessors, particularly how many first principles there are. Chapter 6 narrows down the number of principles to two or three. He presents his own account of the subject in chapter 7, where he first introduces the word matter (Greek: hyle) to designate fundamental essence (ousia). He defines matter in chapter 9: "For my definition of matter is just this—the primary substratum of each thing, from which it comes to be without qualification, and which persists in the result." — Preceding unsigned comment added by NagaveniDandappanavar (talk • contribs) 09:37, 21 January 2022 (UTC)