Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2006

Biography
As an example of Aristotle's influence on Alexander, it could be mentioned that while Stageira was destroyed earlier by Macedonia, it was rebuilt at Aristotle's request. Though not important in history, it is a significant detail. --Oop 12:56, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * What time frame are we talking about here? Brutannica 07:32, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
 * According to Stageira, it was both destroyed and rebuilt by Philip. Plutarch says it was destroyed by Philip, but Plinius Elder and Diogenes Laertius confirm it was Alexander; I'm afraid it may be impossible to find exact dates. --Oop 22:04, Sep 18, 2004 (UTC)

It wouldn't be a bad idea if you got some more details. Brutannica 06:27, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Diogenes Laertius says: "Who knows?" I haven't got Strabo or Plutarch right now, but I'll try to look it up. Still, says Philip sent Aristotle back to Stageira in 343BC;  (passage 4) (though generally a controversial source - cf. the hypothesis of Aristotle's Aiolian origins -, various authors are summarized there) claims Stageira was destroyed in 340BC. Most of general treatises, though, do not find this detail worth mentioning at all. --Oop 23:44, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

"Lexikon der Antike" (Leipzig, 1979) accuses Philip in destruction of Stageira in 349BC. I suppose the fact could be mentioned in the article, but there seems to be no consensus on the date.

Also, in the passage about education of Alexander, it could be mentioned that while most of the authors estimate Aristotle's influence on Alexander as quite noticeable, Bertrand Russell wrote most likely Alexander considered Aristotle an old pedantic fool. It is not a general opinion nor well-founded, but still a notorious one. --Oop 23:49, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Alexander is also said to have sent specimens of rare animals to aristotle (I think this comes from Arrian)Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 10:39, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

someone should FIX this
The depiction of Aristotelian science is a parody, and quite false; Darwin considered Aristotle the greatest biologist before Linnaeus and an actual reading of his biological works proves that he was a consummate observationalist. The idea that you can learn how the world works by reason without experiment is from PLATO, not Aristotle, and Aristotle argued AGAINST such a view.


 * Yes. As his Oxford Classical Dictionary entry points out, for example, his description of the embryology of some fishes was rediscovered as empirically accurate only in the 20th c. Wareh 20:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Ummm...there seems to be a big misunderstanding underlying the entire discussion of Aristotle's science here. Aristotle was not an empiricist but a rationalist (and a very strong one at that). While he certainly thought that empirical study and observation was necessary for arriving at knowledge, it is reason (nous) and reason alone that grasps universal truths. And, as knowledge in the strict sense is, for Aristotle, confined to these universal truths and the truths that can be derived from them, all knowledge, in the strict sense, is grasped by reason alone. Aristotle will use the term "knowledge" (episteme) in a debased sense to refer to the cognitive state of a man of experience, but he distinguishes this from true knowledge. The first chapter of the Metaphysics is perhaps the clearest presentation of this fact, but the last chapter of posterior analytics does as well. Also, Michael Frede's paper "Aristotle's Rationalism" makes a very strong case for this point.

Homosexuality
This is not a particularly important issue, especially considering the influence this great man had on our world, but wasn't Aristotle homosexual? I had heard this from a teacher once, and assumed it to be common knowledge - apparently not. Does anyone know if this is true (or, indeed does anyone care!).
 * User:A.K.A.47 (not signed in). 18:12, 7th September


 * Well, this can of worms isn't really a secret, so here goes... I couldn't find any particular information about Aristotle, but he lived in a society in which pederasty was legal and common.  Alexander the Great and Plato, a student and teacher of his respectively, both had known pederastic relationships (though not with Aristotle).  See also historical pederastic couples, which has a section on Ancient Greece.  Aristotle had a son, Nicomachus, so he definitely wasn't exclusively homosexual.  WhiteC 02:00, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

In the past I left a note on Talk:Alexander_the_Great about Talk:Alexander_the_Great. While Alexander might (or might not) had homosexual relationships, it is sure that Aristotle didn't. Nicomachean Ethics, were dedicated to his son, and there he expressed his opinion of how Nicomachus should live. +MATIA ☎ 18:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I know that Aristotle had a wife and son, ie: a heterosexual relationship. There is no evidence that he had a homosexual relationship, but given the ancient Greek attitudes, it remains a possibility--that is all I was saying.
 * The Nicomachean Ethics does not discuss sexuality at all and may have been addressed to his son. Perhaps more likely is the possibility that it was addressed to all students at the Lyceum.  It was compiled from a series of lectures Aristotle gave: the compilers may have dedicated the series to Nicomachus because Nicomachus had inherited the Lyceum from Aristotle.

WhiteC 00:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not quite true that the Nicomachean Ethics never discusses sexuality. He includes sexual pleasure in his discussion of moderation; he conclusion is that we have to strike a balance between too much and too little sexual pleasure. With regards to homosexuality, in his discussion of friendship, Aristotle does give quite a bit of attention to the relationship between 'lover' and 'beloved' (that is, the pederastic relationship you have all been talking about). He argues that because the older man wants pleasure, and the youth wants other benefits, their friendship can't last as long, or be based as deeply on the participants' personalities, as perfect, "virtue" friendship.


 * Yes, you're right. (my excuse for getting this wrong is...) It can be difficult to tell what sorts of relationships Aristotle is talking about.  He isn't very explicit about differences between sexual and nonsexual friendship, or distinguishing between heterosexual and pederastic love.  WhiteC 17:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

This illustrates Greek attitudes generally. love between men was more idealised than that between men and women, and there was no ditinction between 'homosexuals' and 'hetrosexuals'. look at the 'friendships' between Patroclus and Achilles or Alexander and Hephaistion. Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 10:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Hang on, folks. I know this thread is dead and it's probably irrelevant, but... Aristotle explicitly condemns male homosexuality in the Nicomachean Ethics. I always thought it was weird, especially because Plato's down with gay sex, but Aristotle says that it's a bestial condition, along with plucking hairs and the tendency of some mothers to eat their children. Go figure: see NE vii 1148b20-30. Deviant Waterfowl 1:11, 25 July 2007.

Potentiality and actuality
I just finished a requested article on Aristotle's theory of potentialiy and actuality. I'd like to know what you think, and if you think it could be linked to this article. --Dave Meta 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

It has to be linked.--FocalPoint 11:10, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics or Physics?
Nearly all of the content of the section titled "Aristotle's metaphysics" discusses topics that he treats in detail in the work traditionally called the Physics, not the work traditionally called the Metaphysics. (Aristotle does mention the four causes in the Metaphysics, but he refers the reader to the Physics for a detailed discussion.) This is, it seems to me, a potential source of confusion, so perhaps the section should be titled "Aristotle's Physics" (and references by Bekker number for the quotations would be nice). Also, it's a shame not to have any discussion of at least the subect matter of the Metaphysics on the main page (namely, the problem of first principles, which he solves quite differently in the Metaphysics than in the Topics [the comment about endoxa in the opening of the article should probably also be revised: Aristotle would have empatically denied that in general he was interested in "non-contradiction" and that he wasn't interested in "Truth"], the problem of substance [which he solves by rethinking form and matter as actuality and potentiality, respectively], and the problem of theology, as well as some miscellaneous comments about other philosophers and some less influential material on mathematical questions [number as form, &c.]). If this sounds good, or at least doesn't sound objectionable, to everyone, I'll make some changes along these lines when next I drop by this page. Good work thus far! RobinJ 00:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Plato and Aristotle's Metaphysical Dualism
Aritotles was the first truly cosmopolitan thinker. He was interested in almost everything. He studied at Ploto's Academy. Aristotle's philosophy is to see it as a development of what plato began. Aristotle rejected Plato's metaphysical dualism, namely Plato's separation of the Form from the material world. Plato's primary reality was the unchanging world of Form that exists apart from the world of particular things. Aristotle beleieved he could avoid introducing this unnecessary duplication of the one and only world that exists and still explain everything Plato tried to explain with his separate Forms. The central issue in Aristotle's disagreement with Plato's theory of the Form was Plato's insistence on thier separate exsistance. Aristotle continued to believe that Forms or universal exist, and he believed that the Form are the only proper objects of human knowledge. Aristotle brought Plato's Forms down to earth. He brought Plato's two worlds tpgerther. Plato's primary reality was the separate world of the Forms and Aristotle's primary reality was the world of paticular. Plato's thinking was always directed upward the ideal world, Aristotle's attention was directed toward this world, one benefit of his approach is the extent to which it encourages the development of scientific thinking. Like Plato's Form, Aristotle's Form is an unchanging essence. But unlike Plato's, Aristotle's Form is an essential part of the substance it composes. Source from "Life's Ultimate Questions" Ronald H. Nash

I want to ask about a particular sentence, "Aristotle was the first to recognize about causality" But, Buddha (Siddharta Gautama) who lived in India in 600-500 BC has taught about this. Aristotle lived in about 300 BC. I think it need to be fixed. Andrew 12:28, May 30, 2006.

Many of Aristotle's "own" philosophical thaughts are actually taken from India. If you compare ie. the Veda and Dhama Pada by Buddha with Aristotle, you will find many thing that have been stolen, as he, as far as I know, never referred to these sources. The proof I have for this allegations is that Aristotle stayed in India for som while he was teacher to Alexandr and the sources I refer to are older than aristotle. Dhirad 18:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Metaphysics ǂ philosophy
Under the heading of "Methodology" the article says: "In modern times the term philosophy has come to be more narrowly understood as metaphysics". This is just not correct. Modern philosophy also includes epistemologi, axiology and several other subjects (and still logic). The section needs some rewriting. --Anjoe 22:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert of article defacement
Someone replaced the content of the article with the sentence "This guy is the Shizznat!!!" I reverted the article to its prior state. Frankieist 17:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

True, however you can't deny that the supposed "defacement" is also true and well worth reflecting upon.66.118.233.213 20:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek Philosophy and Sciences are stolen from kemet
http://www.amazon.com/gp/sitbv3/reader/104-1671968-8653515?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00M&asin=0913543780 --84.130.58.131 08:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This and the Catholic Encyclopedia articles
Although this article is in general rather silly and not to be taken seriously, it would be worth comparing it to the Catholic Encyclopedia's article (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm), which is also silly, but for other reasons. I note that especially because the slant of the Catholic Encyclopedia article (which begins, "The greatest of heathen philosophers...") seems to have made it into the Wikipedia article. (Note especially that the 'Methodology' section--which is an absurdity unto itself--is lifted directly from the Catholic Encyclopedia.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrbrown2 (talk • contribs).
 * The public domain Catholic Encyclopedia was used to begin some Wikipedia articles. One can still find remnants.  Please be bold and help improve the article by editing. Jkelly 04:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Greek versus Latin terms
I think that this article would benefit from clearly distinguishing between Aristotle's own rich Greek vocabulary and that of Latin translations, particularly in the Metaphysics section. So many of Aristotle's most important terms are his own neologisms, and adding the extra layer of Latin translation without including discussion of the Greek terms could impede readers' understanding of his thought significantly. I myself am not well versed enough to know all the appropriate terms. Energeia and entelechia are two words that would bear addition to this current article. 68.48.76.199 07:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)hb August 29, 2006

Delisted GA
As per the GA disputes entry, this article has been delisted, the "further reading" section doesn't count as references for the actual article because a further reading section by definition isn't supposed to be used that way, (Plus, they all just seem thrown in there, not really being used by the article itself) and a single note is not "well referenced". GA disputes entry on this page: Good articles/Disputes/Archive 4 Homestarmy 23:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Aristotle
I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards,  Durova  17:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Dual path?
I could use some help with a question I posed myself on the Talk:History_of_scientific_method page. I'll repeat it in full here:


 * "Grosseteste [is among the first] to fully understand Aristotle's vision of the dual path of scientific reasoning. Concluding from particular observations into a universal law, and then back again: from universal laws to prediction of particulars."


 * To my knowledge Aristotle is still understood to only accept as scientific, reasoning that leads to universals. Can we be sure that it is not Grosseteste's "dual path" (which I'm unfamiliar with) that is not the misunderstanding? --Chris 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Foreign cultures
There was a paragraph under the section on Aristotle's Early Life and the Academy that speak's on a reported encounter with a learned Greek-speaking Jew. It was interesting, but why would this paragraph of marginal importance to anyone wanting to know about Aristotle make up one third of that section on his early life, especially when the text clearly said that it was not certain at what point in Aristotle's life it happened? I have removed it as it was very obviously misplaced. However, its content is interesting and could find a place in Wikipedia, under either a section describing Aristotle's encounters with and thoughts about foreign cultures, or if that is not possible in one of the pages concerned with the historical presence of Jews in Judea and their interaction with other people.


 * I re-added the paragraph. Maybe there should be a new section, don't know... But certainly, and as u also said, the paragraph is interesting. so, removing it does not do any good. Hectorian 08:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Father
There seems to be a contradiction in this text:

Aristotle was born in Stagira, on the peninsula of Chalcidice in 384 BC. His father, Poomus, was court physician to King Amyntas III of Macedon. It is believed that Aristotle's ancestors held this position under various kings of the Macedons. He did not go to school, instead he was taught by his father. His father's medical knowledge was perhaps the inspiration for Aristotle's later interest in natural phenomena.

Little is known about his mother, Phaestis, who died early in Aristotle's life. His father Nicomachus died when Aristotle was ten, making him an orphan.

So, was his father Poomus, or Nicomachus?

--Matthew 14 November 2006

I came here to post this. We need someone to clean this little contradiction up! 65.97.2.33 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
Some people have vandalised the biography of Aristotle, calling it "Sex, Drugs, Rock N' Roll" and have put false info stating his mother was a prostitute and that he was left as a homosexual orphan. I have deleted this info and "reverted" it back to it's original info from a page in history. But I do not know how to actually revert, so I did it by just deleting.. just putting that out there. EDIT : Wow, I cannot delete the false info, can't find it on the edit page. Someone help please? SkePtiKaL 20:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC)