Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2007

Aristotle's Cave
While I was visiting Veria, Greece I was taken to the location where Aristotle was supposed to have taught Alexander the Great. I'm not adding anything to the main article because I can't find any more information about this location, but I have pictures here and here if anyone manages to find some information.


 * Aristotle taught the prince of Macedonia in a cave? Brutannica 21:38, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * That's what my uncle who took me there and the signs around the cave said. This is why I didn't add anything to the main article since I don't have firm information. Rufus210 01:33, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would think signs at the site would be pretty firm information. Brutannica 21:03, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In any case stating in the article that there are such signs should be safe even if&mdash;unlikely&mdash;what they say turns out to be false. Rafał Pocztarski 00:05, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Many figures from antiquity are claimed to have done this or that in a certain place in Greece, Macedonia, etc. It's kind of like signs saying "George Washington Slept Here" in the United States.  One would hardly reconstruct the travels of Washington on such a basis. Charlie 04:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

pupil/teacher of
Socrates was the teacher of Plato, who was the teacher o Aristotle, who was the teacher of Alexander the Great. Interesting isn't it? Any suggestions for a more prety way to write it? +MATIA ☎ 18:46, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure it is difficult to say whather Socrates was a direct teacher of Plato. Plato, in my study of him, mostly seems simply to observe Socrates. Odin 13 16:28, 19 April 2007 (GMT)


 * The evidence for this is not, as I take you to suggest, a reading of Plato's dialogues, but rather the overwhelming external evidence that Plato was a close associate and disciple of Socrates. For a recent introduction to these sources and the issues attending their interpretation, see Debra Nails, "The Life of Plato of Athens," in A Companion to Plato, ed. H. Benson, Blackwell, 2006.  Wareh 16:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle specifically states that pederasty is unnatural and that only those who were on the receiving end when boys desired to take on a young boy when they were older. He says this in the Ethics. Braus, SJCSF. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.19.55.49 (talk • contribs).

Birthplace
Stagiera is the city-state that Aristotle was born in. Not Stagira. Stagira is the present day village located there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerialstoner (talk • contribs) 03:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Birthplace
Stageira is the city-state that Aristotle was born in. Not Stagira. Stagira is the present day village located there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aerialstoner (talk • contribs) 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

Original?
Large chunks of the text of this article are a word for word copy of the entry of the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia article. Check for your self: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm I guess wikipedia saves me for paying the $33 fee for their article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.101.254.50 (talk) 13:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC).

Quotations
These quotes from Aristotle have been marked as needing reference. Some of them can be tracked down to particular writings of his, but a good number are categorized as "unsourced" at WikiQuote. I've also noted that the biographies for other philosphers (such as Plato, Socrates or any of the featured/good article philosophers) do not contain sections like this one. Given the difficulty of sourcing these quotations, the lack of Wikipedia precedent for including quotations on philosopher pages, and that there is already a link to a more comprehensive list of Aristotle's quotes on WikiQuote, I propose we remove the section altogether. I'm quite willing, however, to listen to objections. Soldarnal 04:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Aristole
"We are what we repeatedly do, Excellence then, is not an act, but a HABIT" -Aristole  68.79.60.227 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)2-21-07   68.79.60.227 22:43, 21 February 2007 (UTC)hamilton

Diagram of Aristotle's classification of the constitutions
I have posted a diagram illustrating the classification of constitutions made by Aristotle for discussion in hope of improving it before including it in Politics (Aristotle). I invite all people interested by the subject to comment on the diagram in the talk page of the Politics (Aristotle) article. -- Mathieugp 20:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Class A
The question of whether this article is A-class has nothing to do with whether it has been accepted by WP:GA, which is a widely deplored and broken system. I express no opinion on whether it is A-class; the concern whether possibly controversial points have been clearly and precisely sourced is real, even if Homestarmy's quibble about section titles is silly. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:05, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * If it fails the current GA-criteria, it cannot be A-class. Er rab ee 02:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The judgment of GA, in practice, is all too often whether the article has enough footnotes, no matter if the footnotes serve any purpose. The criteria do not say that, finally; but they used to, and they are still enforced by the same unhelpful dogmatists. The question is whether this article is in fact A-class, and whether it does in fact meet WP:WIAGA, as sensibly written and interpreted. WP:GAR offers a very murky light on either question. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, even if we don't consider the lack of footnotes (come on; only 10 in-line refs), this article just isn't A-class material. For instance, another issue is that it doesn't meet the criteria of WP:EMBED. Er rab ee 00:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Grammar
I need to review, but I'm surprised grammar isn't mentioned. Didn't Aristotle think up the theory of subject, verb, noun, not to mention different types of verbs, nouns, and other concepts for grammar? Though newer theories exist, most schools today educate in his theories of grammar. Isn't Wikipedia an international list? How could it be that Aristotelian, not to mention Chomsky's newer theories don't get mentioned? I don't see what I want here. John Wallace Rich 21:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

A Warning Section Proposal
I get tired of people using first order theory to analyse Aristotle. A basic discussion of the level of abject perfect form of relations is warrented. It is like reading another language. And to analyse is a long study in logic.

A warning to read interpretations of his work is a good thing, because it is a bad thing to have people read without warning. It only confuses.

And then the reader thinks he was kind of stupid, Aristotle I mean, and always says so, because his sentences were ill formed.

It is just the opposite and the level of form was to be a goal of learning his work. So small decomposition is recommended. Here is an example of his style, but it is my writing:

"All the space became."

Four little words were used and it is a certain relation as defined in Greek theory. A subject was to be the relation, not the topic of space. A relation of space was the topic. So reading his style is difficult and the exact relation appears foundational in physics. And he will do this for the entire work, of his life time. A sentence is formulated. And when you find out his work is all non repeated as knowledge topics. And a little sentence is a discoverable relation of physics.

So searching as theorists is a pastime. Attempting to read is a pastime because it is a litteral puzzle of form.

If you do not understand that, you will always have the wrong standard of true genius. You will understand the distinction between work of genius of exceptional caliber and work of somebody trying to get an IQ of 200. There is no comparision.

And the warning needs to be in every topic. His school master was the same.

--Eaglesondouglas 20:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle's Logic Easy
A short original explaination is this sentence. And to read the topic as the special analyst is different than the normal reader. So step one, is to allow a multiple logic writing. Some texts have several logical forms as the basis for statement. And to simply use an example from his work is different from his statement of form as a scientist of all logic.

A five order transform is common in his analysis. And the level of question always become the failure. Has there been a cause to form's failing in example? A five transform appeared and the reader was to question. And some writing in this discussion above is quite announcable Aristotle style. And I mean also the previous talk. A.

As a sentence in English, "A." is a transform of the applied reference to make the abstract. So the sentence, "A." is my short example of his theory. A sentence becomes A.

So read the discussion seriously because a sentence as reference to cause abstract is a powerfful method as the school would recommend. A letter as a symbol then denotes a see. "A see.", means something in the theory.

All sentence transforms the previous. And style as the one discussed appears the level of expertise available to help make this a fine paper. A bas.

And bas as the appearance then becomes the style applied in transform of a certain special kind. A symmetric appearance. So the cause to a certain logic as the e.

And the e appears as new symbol where as distinction between e as a subject rather than a symbol is a certain form to be read. Read this.

Infer e. And in predicate the transform was defined in two logical sentences. A certain relation as the a. A small letter. And large to small appeared.

note:Learn. Symmetry was the a. Without the symmetric form as certain style is denounced by the other schools. Do.

--Eaglesondouglas 20:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Your ideas are no doubt very advanced, but they are certainly not comprehensible enough to be part of the exposition one might want to read in an encyclopedia. I'm not sure how these ideas may relate to the ongoing improvement of this article, but I hope you will use this talk page to hammer out anything in a form your fellow editors can understand and agree with before trying to find it a home in the article itself.  Wareh 21:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know it is a bad writing style. But the example was at least in the talk section to be approved or not. One thing to remember is the degree as a reader of difficulty. To explain the style and form appears truely the idea. And original ideas on Aristotle's writing are real hard to write.  People here can do it.  --Eaglesondouglas 02:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you don't feel I was beating up on your style, as that wasn't my intention. I hadn't realized that these were necessarily your own "original ideas"; there are some issues with that as Wikipedia has the policy that there must be no original research in articles, which must consist entirely of what can be verified in reliable sources.  This certainly includes explanations and interpretations of Aristotle's ideas.  I would assume most valid explanations and interpretations can be supported with reliable sources, since people have been explaining Aristotle for millennia, but it is important to realize that, even if correct, a truly original analysis has to be excluded from the article itself.  Wareh 15:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is a quote from the Beginning of Aristotle's treatise on Category."Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to the name 'animal'; yet these are equivocally so named, for, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. For should any one define in what sense each is an animal, his definition in the one case will be appropriate to that case only." NOw I can write the sentence to translate third "equation". Aritotle uses several orders of abstraction always. He has the term "equivocally" as the English translation, of third equation. ANd to write the applied predicate version is a simple translation.  And all you have to do is find somebody who can read five order theory.  And correct the meaning of category as a science because the applied, Man, in the above discourse will not be read as third abstracted man while the picture is a second abstracted person.


 * So original reading is differeent from work, hows that? If it is not ok then the definition of read as a topic needs to be altered.--Eaglesondouglas 18:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically as "the definition of read as a topic"; can you point me to it? Read the Wikipedia policies I've linked; they try to make clear what kinds of work are rudimentary enough that they don't have to worry about being original research.  The relevant category of original research is, "introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, explanation, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article."  So an interpretation that provides an original analysis of a philosopher's arguments and what they mean would be inadmissible.  I'm relying on your statement that your views are original; if they are, then surely you appreciate that one individual's unpublished interpretation of Aristotle is not normal encyclopedic content.  The encyclopedia, as unglamorous as this is, aims only to present standard views already worked out in other, citable reliable sources.  There are certainly other venues for publishing any original interpretations, but the Wikipedia article space is not one of them.  Wareh 19:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. You answer in a difinitive fashion. Thanks. Policy is written to entail the transform as the meaning of synthesis, I believe. And so all reading to a certain person, i.e. a predicate reader, requires a synthesis.  So all Aristotle must be interpreted given the size of the audience. And when I write like Aristotle I get called a gibberish writter.  So policy to write needs clarification.  A standard implemented with the same rigour as the interpretation definition.  And if I write like that then it sounds stuffy. Stuffy stuffy no style wrting. I truely understand the goal of consistent presentation, but Aristotle is a special case.  He litterally is unreadable for the audience. I will leave the topic alone.

--207.69.138.142 22:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)--Eaglesondouglas 22:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
Hasn't the criticism section become too short? I read it long ago and found it interesting, some of my observations where reflected there. --Taraborn 23:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristotles Ethics Missing?
There is no mention (beyond a link to his works) of Aristotles Ethics, in particular his virtue ethics

192.138.214.106 21:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC) swiftcoder


 * There's the article Nicomachean Ethics, but I agree that there should be at least a short summary paragraph here with a pointer there. Wareh 23:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle is a Macedonian
I am perplexed to see that this article makes no mention that Aristotle was born in Macedonia. He was born in the city of Stagiera, which even modern Greek historians claim to be part of ancient Macedonia, albeit saying that Macedonia was actually a Greek city-state (which many ancient Greek texts contradict by saying that Macedonians were barabarians-not Greek speaking- and that King Philip II spoke Greek with an accent, providing evidence that Greek was not his first language). Aristotle's father was a physician to the Macedonian king and upon his fathers death, Aristotle was sent to study in Greece with Plato. I understand there is much cultural conflict between modern Greeks and Macedonians about ancient culture in the balkan region today, but we must look at the facts, especially in articles which are being viewed by millions of people. The fact that Aristotle taught another Macedonian, Alexander the Great, makes their relationship a very logical one, especially since Aristotle's father had previously served the Macedonian rulers in the past. This makes it only fitting that the king of Macedonia, King Philip II, would trust Aristotle to teach his son, being that his father and previous ancestors had served the Macedonian kings in the past. To the authors of this article, please include this in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.150.236.249 (talk • contribs)


 * The first sentence of "Life" states, correctly, "Aristotle was born in Stagira in Thrace." Chalcidice was part of Thrace in ancient times.  The information about Aristotle's connection to the Macedonian court is abundantly mentioned: in the first sentence of the article, and in the second sentence of "Life": "His parents were Phaestis and Nicomachus, who became physician to King Amyntas of Macedon."  It looks to me like the article is doing a good job being factual; theories like "makes their relationship a very logical one" are in some danger of being original research, though I don't know enough about Aristotle's family to say whether there is meaningful ancient evidence that goes beyond the way the article represents things. Wareh 15:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle was Macedonian
Just wanted to let you know that there is an error about Aristotle. Though it is commonly assumed that he was Greek, he was in fact, Macedonian. He was born in Stagira (or Stageros) on the Chalcidice Peninsula. His father was Nichomachus, the Royal Physician to Amyntas II King of Macedonia. I think someone should change the info on the page, however, I did not do so because I thought that people would think my edit was a purposeful lie. My sources were my old world history text book, http://library.thinkquest.org/6407/needto.htm and the Chalcidice Wikipedia page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.23.46.25 (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2007 (UTC).


 * Though it is commonly assumed that he was Greek, he was in fact, Macedonian. He was born in Stagira (or Stageros) on the Chalcidice Peninsula. His father was Nichomachus, the Royal Physician to Amyntas II King of Macedonia. I think someone should change the info on the page. My reference for this can be found on the wikipedia page Thrace which shows a map of the Macedonian land and other various Italian and Macedonian maps of the region at the time of Aristotle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.150.236.86 (talk • contribs)


 * Neither does that map seem to indicate a claim to describe the period in which Aristotle was born, nor do Aristotle's family connections (e.g. his father's employment) make him Macedonian.   See the other comments here, and find a reliable source.  Wareh 01:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle's origins
Chalcidice was a colony of Chalcis and Eretria since 8th century BC, Aristotle's mother Phaestis came also from Chalcis. Stagira was one of the greatest cities of Chalcidice since the 5th century BC, but after Philip of Macedon occupied Chalcidice in 348 BC all the big cities of Chalcidice became part of the Macedonian Kingdom. Nikolaos Bakalis


 * Just to draw out the obvious inference from Nikolaos' correct information, since it seems necessary: Chalcidice was not part of the Macedonian Kingdom when Aristotle was born. Moreover, it is wrong to say that anything in the Chalcidice article supports considering it Macedonian in  the time of Aristotle and his father.  I'll avoid repeating any more of what I've said just above.  Wareh 23:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle and Dante
I believe that Aristotle, as with the rest of the Greeks, is in Hell proper (in Dante). The Greek thinkers and prechristian men of virtue occupy a realm about the gates of hell. They neither bear sufferings, nor enjoy hope. They can never reach heaven, and now know the error of their thought. Dante praises their wisdom, but ultimately regards Greek thought and art as pagan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.69.190.75 (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Hell has no mercy for anyone, O nameless one. However, I believe Aristotle grew up in a Greek enviroment and never heard of the true God of the Jews (the only way of salvation before the Christ). However, Plato was on the right track, perhaps Aristotle followed his teachings of "The One Truth" and the way he shunned the Greek gods. And if they are in hell, they'll be burned to a crisp anyway. King of Ty 16:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Influences and Influenced
I have started a discussion regarding the Infobox Philosopher template page concerning the "influences" and "influenced" fields. I am in favor of doing away with them. Please join the discussion there. RJC Talk 14:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Latin titles of Aristotle's works
What is the rationale of listing the latin titles of Aristotles works? He did not write in Latin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.203.29.222 (talk • contribs)
 * These are standard and traditional. Scholars of Ancient Greek throughout the world use them, not the Greek titles, to make reference to the Aristotelian corpus.  This article provides them so that readers who consult works of scholarship on Aristotle will know this standard system of reference.  Wareh 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved text from "ancient Greek Medicine" to here
The interpolated text was a digression where I got it from--indeed, I wondered if this might not have been the source. In fact, I think this article gains something by having the more detailed account of his teleology/biology. So here it is. Clown in black and yellow 05:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle's Non-informational Writing
The information provided about Aristotle's life and the titles of his works are good. However, any sort of 'informative' writing about Aristotle's project as a philosopher will, because of the nature of its subject matter, fall flat on its face. Aristotle's writing is non-informational, that is to say, he wrote poetically to instigate thinking in his readers, not to inform them of his opinions or dryly indoctrinate them into his 'school.' Classicists fossilize Aristotle's writing into some sort of ridiculous manual, or set of bunk theories. You know who you are.

The reality of the subject is that Aristotle's works are incredibly complex and intentionally contradictory to draw out his students into a perspective or a mode of free thinking that is equally complex and capable of experiencing and knowingly manipulating the inherent contradictions of life.

Aristotle was not a "primitive scientists." Just as a cave painter is not a primitive artist, but has a radically different conception of form that we do, Aristotle had a totally different conception of science than we do. Aristotle is concerned with what things are. What is light? What is weight? What is motion? Our scientists are not concerned with what things are, but what we can say about things. Light travels at such and such a speed. The egg grows through these four stages. Gravity keeps the moon in orbit, ect. We do not ask 'What is gravity?' 'What is life?' 'What is speed?' These questions are unsurmountable for scientists.

Granted our science is a certain part of Aristotle's, abstracted and magnified beyond belief by thinkers from Galileo onward. So, historically it looks as though he was a primitive scientist, but in fact he understood himself much differently, and it is a worth while endeavor to try to see things from his perspective once in a while, rather than just boxing him up and shipping him off as some sort of psycho wizard with the phrase "Aristotle believed in the theory of universal essences." The sentence doesn't mean anything in English, although it means a far different and more interesting and believable thing in Ancient Greek. A better translation, although clunky, might sound like this "Aristotle was concerned with trying to know as broadly as possible about things insofar as they are things onto themselves and different from other things while effecting them." Since the word 'science' is actually the word 'episteme' which means simply 'knowledge' and the word 'essence' is the word 'ousias' which means roughly 'the way a thing insofar as it is not anything else.' and universal means 'broadly as possible' because Aristotle had no conception of the "universe" as 'the site of the big bang,' but only "universe" as the 'site of things being an not being.'

Anyone who disagrees, I cannot but direct them to the cogent and wonderful introductions and translations of Aristotle's works by Joe Sachs, and to their own in depth reading and second reading of Aristotle's cannon.

Braus SJCSF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.19.55.49 (talk • contribs)


 * There is no reason the page cannot give an account of Joe Sachs' views. But Wikipedia does not contain original or unpublished ideas and interpretations and does not cast whole articles according to assumptions that do not follow common or consensus knowledge.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that does not aspire to anything more original or daring than what you would find in all the standard sources on the library shelf (sometimes this can be disappointing, but it is certainly a safe policy).  I do applaud your efforts to naturalize Aristotle and free him from the encumbrance of the philosophical tradition that connects him to us.  But (1) you should know Joe Sachs, Johnnies, etc., are not alone or best in trying to do this, and (2) any reading of Aristotle's surviving treatises in Greek, with a knowledge of the linguistic inheritance, compels one to recognize that (however intriguing the suggestion that Aristotle was a sort of Heideggerian genius cave-painter) Aristotle had a real and not imagined affinity for technical discourse.  Both of these points came up in a way recently at the reference desk, when someone inquired about the phrase to ti e:n einai.  This (not just ousia) is often "essence" in English, and there have been various attempts to honor the puzzling literalness of this phrase.  There is a good remedy for the belief that "episteme means simply knowledge": study the use of the word in Aristotle's predecessors and contemporaries.  You will find it is not so simple.  Wareh 03:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Aristotle was macedonian
and this website proves it: http://www.ahistoryofgreece.com/alexanderthegreat.htm

... King Phillip hired the philosopher Aristotle to tutor his young son Alexander. Aristotle was actually a 'barbarian import', having been born in Macedonia and raised in the royal court, his father being the royal doctor.

Beat that. Pece Kocovski 10:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * In the world of reliable sources, scholarly publications always beat "matt@greecetravel.com," the author of the webpage (an online travel guide) you linked.  For some of the complications of designating Stagira as "in Macedonia" at the time of Aristotle's birth, please see above.  Wareh 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Logic section - apparent superfluity
"Aristotle believed that being moderate in one’s desires lead to happiness because it allowed a person to avoid the extreme ends of the emotional spectrum. He describes a middle region between an excess of character and a deficiency of character. Neither one of those attitudes is to be desired, but courage (the mean of the two) is a very honorable characteristic to have." This bit appears to be a description of the golden mean - does it really belong in Logic? Mattmm 17:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. I've removed this and the other superfluous text added recently by the same editor.  Wareh 17:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Causes
I've brought this up on the causality article as well, but to repeat here for anyone interested, I think we need to do something about the multiple articles on his four causes. At the least we could bring them together in an article Aristotle's four causes, or perhaps, as I have suggested, have an article on the types of cause, including Aristotle's causes among them. Richard001 09:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The first priority is to improve the quality of the content. Replacing the mess at formal cause with something adequate has been on my to-do list since I flagged it for cleanup four months ago.  The "types of cause" article seems a bit too general, and Aristotle's theory of causes is certainly notable enough for its own article (I have no real objection to consolidating the articles on Aristotle's individual causes, but, again, the first job is to improve them, not to move them around).  An overview of various classifications of causes that have been proposed, together with links to the relevant articles, would be appropriate at causality (in lieu of the "types of cause" article, which is potentially infinite).  Wareh 17:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The FIVE elements? Is Aether a true element?
I, of course, am only 10 and am getting B's in most of my classes, but is there truely the fifth element, Aether? I always though the planets made by larger planets with chunks off of them and stars by chemical masses or whatever. I agree with him on the other four, and the "Hot, dry, cold and wet" part, but is this true? I feel like my head is going to implode. Please help if you can. King of Ty 16:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither ancient theories of four elements nor ancient theories of five elements are currently accepted. See Chemical element for something more up-to-date than Aristotle!  Wareh 16:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Russellian bias
The science section has been altered since the comment in the next paragraph. It has taken out the Russell bias, and now seems quite balanced. Any thoughts on improving it further?

As someone already pointed, the whole business of the evil influence of Aristotle in saintly Science should be revised; or at least, discussed. It was quite fashionable back in the day, when men of rather limited learning, such as Einstein (who thought Aristotle's influence in natural sciences lasted for almost 2000 years...), or limited and ill-intended, such as the disgustingly egocentric Bertrand Russell, proclaimed it; although Émile Boutroux had eloquently written against that well before their age. The physical, and general, views of Aristotle don't really influence Western thought until Pietro Pomponazzi. Scholastic Aristotle is very, very limited and transformed. This anti-scientific Aristotle is a travesty created in the Renaissance (ironically, the age of the aforementioned thinker), and the influence of the true one doesn't really start until much earlier than Galileo. Of course I'm overlooking some issues, but for now this is just intended to be food for thought.


 * My, how eloquently the above paragraph was written. Next time you have such a POV discussion, sign it, cracker.  --Teetotaler
 * What's a cracker?Lestrade 13:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Aristotle and bees
I will let someone else find an appropriate, if any, place for the following text in the article:
 * Aristotle was the first to describe the "dancing" of bees, "on reaching the hive they throw off their load [aposeiontai 'they shake themselves'], and each bee on his [sic] return is accompanied by three or four companions," and the first to classify dolphins with mammals, "The dolphin, when taken out of water, gives a squeak and moans in the air...For this creature has a voice, for it is furnished with a lung nad a windpipe; but its tongue is not loose, nor has it lips, so as to give utterance to an articulate sound." Quoted in Essays in Zoosemiotics by T.A. Sebeok, ISSN 08385858

Hmm... that is an interesting little bit. I don't know where it would go, either, but I hope it finds a home someday.--JECompton 05:40, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Not everything that Aristotle wrote is still credible material. The stuff he wrote about zoology and biology is extremely obsolete. However, his Rhetoric, Poetics, and Nicomachean Ethics, as examples, are still cited in thousands of current refereed journals. Kanodin 10:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ari did not write from experience. No one could have personally experienced all of the matters that were in his writings. He used rumor, gossip, unsubstantiated tales and fables; much like Wikipedia.Lestrade 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

Thomas Aquinas in Lead
In my opinion, Thomas Aquinas absolutely deserves mention in the lead of this article - especially more so than Alexander the Great. Thomas is perhaps second in importance only to Plato in understanding Aristotle. Without his work, Aristotle's legacy would be greatly diminished and Plato's, not Arisotle's, ideas would have continued to dominate the Western philosophical landscape. Also, it shouldn't matter that Aquinas is mentioned below. The lead is to be a concise overview of the full article. Am I alone in this thinking? Soldarnal 23:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unlike Alexander the Great, he had no direct relationship with Thomas Aquinas. I think the lede is fine, as is. Ben Hocking (talk 23:08, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rather than singling out the name of Aquinas, what might go better in the lead is a general characterization of the long period in the Medieval West during which Aristotle was a dominant influence on all the most important philosophical developments (by Christian, Jewish, and Muslim philosophers). Wareh 14:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Poor reference
In the section "The loss of his works" there are two problems: Easy one first: There is a referece to :"Lord, Introduction, 11" without any information on editor, year of publication, full name of author and most importantly, name of book!!!! Now the more difficult part: In the beginning of the section, it is stated "Carnes Lord attributes the popular belief in this story...". There is no "popular" belief. There are historic references. If researchers and historians believe the story of Strabo and Plutarch this is not "popular" belief. I suggest that we change the phrasing. Any ideas? --FocalPoint 19:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Picture
There two better pictures of A.

(a) at http://www.klima-luft.de/steinicke/ngcic/persons/aristoteles.htm

(b) at the french A.-article


 * I'm not so sure the klima-luft.de picture is much of an improvement; what's more, there's no copyright statement (this is a bad thing). The picture illustrating the French article is both sourceless and licenseless; but then, so is the one used here. I think we should leave the picture we already have until we find one that's known to be compatible with the GNUFDL. -- Hadal 07:29, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not much of an improvement, but it is an improvement. I think the French picture is very similar, just as a bust. Brutannica 02:06, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another newly discovered bust from Athens not depicting Aristotle with this refined Roman nose has recently thrown into question the fidelity of the image - or that of the Roman reproduction - which is discussed above. The newer depiction ought to be considered, since most scholars seem to agree that the new found sculpture is more accurate. http://www.bitsofnews.com/content/view/4265/2/

Perhaps someone can find a picture of this which is legal use at the article intro in place of the image currently referenced. Euanthes 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Science: Discussion and conclusions are contradictory
The section under the name "Science" draws conclusion entirely in contradiction with the content of the section istelf. The section correctly accounts for the (prevailing) failures in Aristotle's attempts at Science, but both in the introduction and in the conclusions he is depicted as a major contributor to "botany, zoology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, meteorology, geometry and several other sciences". For example, on physics, astronomy, meteorology and chemistry, it would be useful to substantiate the claims that he has made major contributions with citations both of original discoveries in those fields and of respected scientists in the last centuries that would agree with the claim. I think such citations should be included, or the view put forward lacks both a description of the achievements and a way for the reader to appreciate them, and as it stands now it is supported only by authority, eluding the possibility of critical appreciation on part of the reader.

There might be a very valid point indeed, that he made contributions in botany, zoology and perhaps biology. However the claim that he was not surpassed as a biologist for two millennia should be expanded, with inclusion and discussion of his discoveries (if that is in fact true, not discussing this point extensively would be like having a Wikipedia page on Newton without any discussion on his theory of gravity).

Still in the section "Science", at one point we may find the justification as to why, despite the article describes his failures, it concludes that he was a great scientist. The observation is that the scientific revolution had yet to come (if I may make a personal comment, I find it ironic because it was indeed Aristotle's very explicit choice to hinder observation through reason, and his influence and legacy until the Middle Ages contributed to delay such revolution). We learn that he had no tools to make correct physical deductions. I find this condescending to a good extent, and possibly a false statement, given that Eratostenes and Aristarcus, approximately in the same era, were able to measure the circumference of the Earth, devise a gneral methodology to measure correctly the size of the moon, the distance moon-earth, the distance sun-earth, the size of the sun. Not to mention proposing that the earth revolves around the sun (Aristarcus). It is also untrue that Aristotle had no way to measure time. We all have a pulse. It is accurate enough that had he used it, he would have discovered many things he claimed right to be wrong.

In conclusion, the claims in "Science" are not objective and not substantiated by facts in the overall discussion. Citations of the most striking claims are missing. Objectiveness is questionable. I suggest that either accounts of his scientific successes are included and discussed (as opposed to some of his successful contemporary scientists and astronomers), or the conclusion are changed. That he was a mostly prominent philosopher and thinker, logician and biologist, does not automatically imply (one thing that he taught us) that he was equally a most distinguished "physicist, chemist, astronomer, meteorologist and many others", despite the failures accounted for in the article --209.150.240.231 06:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

Weakness in coverage of his contributions to biology
To follow up on the previous comment, I think the coverage of his contributions to biology is terrible. Consider the following info that was contributed to History of evolutionary thought by another editor, much of which probably does not belong in that article but rather in this one:

Aristotle, (384—322 BC) was one of the most influential Greek philosophers, and the earliest natural historian whose work has survived in some detail. Aristotle did his research on natural history on the isle of Lesbos. His writings on biology have survived in the form of four books, usually known by their Latin names:


 * de anima (on the essence of life)
 * historia animalium (inquiries about animals)
 * de generatione animalium (reproduction)
 * de partibus animalium (anatomy)

These works contain some remarkable observations and interpretations by Aristotle, along with sundry myths and mistakes reflecting the uneven state of knowledge of his time. The most striking passages are about the sea-life visible from observation on Lesbos and available from the catches of fishermen. His observations on catfish, electric fish (Torpedo) and angler-fish are exceptional, as is his writing on cephalopod molluscs Octopus, Sepia (cuttlefish) and the paper nautilus (Argonauta argo). His description of the hectocotyl arm (see cephalopod) was about two thousand years ahead of its time, and widely disbelieved until the nineteenth century. He separated the aquatic mammals from fish, and knew that sharks and rays were part of the group he called Selachē (selachians).

However, for Charles Singer, "Nothing is more remarkable than [Aristotle's] efforts to [exhibit] the relationships of living things as a scala naturae" Aristotle's History of Animals classified organisms in relation to a hierarchical "Ladder of Life" (scala naturae), placing them according to complexity of structure and function so that higher organisms showed greater vitality and ability to move. Aristotle, of course, is not responsible for the use made of this idea by clerics after the rediscovery of ancient learning (see rennaisance).

I am not saying this text should be used verbatim in this article, but I think something at least at this level of detail would be appropriate. Incidentally there was originally more but I had to pare it back because it was inappropriate for that article. I would like to pare back more (some of it is still somewhat off topic for history of evolutionary thought) but I am reluctant to do so since the material is not covered here where it probably should be. Rusty Cashman 03:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Someone put some good work into that, and I don't see a problem with using it verbatim here. It is true that Aristotle's researches into such topics as the embryology of fishes includes outstanding empirical anatomy work, which is dutifully accounted for in all the standard sources (like the one cited here), but overlooked because (1) it is more fun to remember the occasional howler alongside the fruits of those researches (the classic example is that he says men and women have different numbers of teeth), (2) even if in some interesting cases Aristotle's results have only been reproduced in the last century or two, science doesn't remember its past, and (3) frankly, as jaw-dropping as these accomplishments are, Aristotle achieved something of a higher order of importance in his work on being, ethics, etc. (partly because these ideas were enthusiastically taken up and developed in the history of ideas, whereas his biological research had to be rebuilt almost independently from scratch).  I hope that, if there is no disagreement, something like this will be incorporated into this article.  Aristotle's biological theory & practice are important enough eventually to have their own article spun off.  Wareh 13:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No one has objected, and the account (1) is basically sound, (2) is footnoted, and (3) fills a hole in this article. Therefore I have incorporated it (with a little cleaning up and a small addition from an Oxford Classical Dictionary article) into the article.  Wareh 18:44, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Changes I've made to article organization (and some outstanding issues)
I have moved sections around in a way that I believe makes the article more coherently organized, and more in line with standard outlines of Aristotle's philosophy (and the organization of the corpus aristotelicum). Most of this should be uncontroversial. Two related areas could definitely use some attention: Obviously, there is much else that can be improved here, but these points are the ones that cried out for attention as I worked on the section organization. Wareh 18:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There are two sections (Scientific method, and Universals and particulars [under Metaphysics]) that both say, for more see Aristotle's theory of universals. Someone should go through these two, and remove what is redundant or irrelevant to the section at hand.  (Probably, the scientific method part should avoid going too far into this, with any important content on the subject incorporated in Metaphysics.)
 * The section "Aristotle's Scientific Method" now represents two old sections, simply concatenated. It should be given a once-over and reshaped as a coherent section on Aristotelian (scientific) methodology.

Politics
As important as Aristotle's contribution to philosophy is, his ideas about politics are arguably even more significant. There really needs to be a full section on his political thought and theory. Eric 17:27, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * There is the section Aristotle, which admittedly could stand expansion. The detailed article Politics (Aristotle) is the place where eventually the fullest treatment should reside; but your point that what we have here is inadequate even as an introduction is well taken.  Consider contributing yourself to either of these places.  The pointer from place A to place B could be clearer; I'll work on that.  Wareh 17:43, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Politics (Aristotle) article right now looks to be about the work titled Politics. Do you think an article about Aristotle's political theory should be seperated as Politcal Philosophy (Aristotle), for example?  Or perhaps the article on his work may be an appropriate enough place to discuss his complete political theory, given that almost all we know about his theories come from said work. Soldarnal 05:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with your second suggestion. It would be confusing to have two articles overlapping so much.  Right now, outside of Politics (Aristotle), I'm only aware of Nicomachean_Ethics.  I think good cross-references (which are already there) can insure that readers gain access to all of Aristotle's political thinking that's discussed in the encyclopedia.  I say this as someone who's presenting a paper in a couple of weeks on the partly political implications of Aristotle's early career and exoteric writings.  But these are nowhere discussed in Wikipedia, and I don't see the available content here to put into Political Philosophy (Aristotle).  The first step would be to write a new section, in this article or at Politics (Aristotle), on Aristotle's political ideas outside of Politics.  Once it grew to the size that needed a separate article, we could tell whether an article on a specific new topic, or an omnibus Aristotle's political thought article, would be the right place for it.  Wareh 13:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Best wording on Aristotle's theological legacy in the lead
Moved here from User talk:Wareh.

Hello - thanks for the further constructive work on the intro. Only one thing I reinstated 'His metaphysics has formed the basis of Catholic theology since medieval times, and many aspects of his philosophy continue to be the object of active academic study today.

Reasons: 1. Catholic theology is hardly parochial, as you state. 2. It is not true, that Aristotle's metaphysics underpins Judaism, and Islam. It is well known that Islam decisively rejected the insights of Aristotle. Certainly there is no equivalent of Aquinas in the Islamic tradition or the Judaic. Quite the reverse. It may be that there are 'theological traditions' in Islam and Judaism which are inspired by Aristotle. But you should provide references for these. And in any case these traditions would not be in the mainstream, unlike in Catholicism and, to a lesser extent, non-Roman but Catholic Christian traditions. edward (buckner) (talk) 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * PS E.g. an article here by Kennedy-day, discusses the legacy of Aristotle in Islamic philosophy - i.e. almost nil. "It is accurate to say, however, that Aristotelianism as a school of philosophy in the Islamic world found no Muslim successors after the death of Ibn Rushd."  There is some evidence that Aristotle's had some influence among Jewish philosophers. Whether among theologians is a different matter which I will have to research.  edward (buckner) (talk) 12:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I hope it will go without saying, since I kept and amplified most of your work, that I thank you for your work on the lead (especially because it got rid of that unsightly tag at the top!). But I'm not persuaded that the lead is in its best possible form as it stands.  From someone like Isadore Twersky I have received the clear impression that Jewish Aristotelianism in the tradition of Maimonides is still alive.  And I had thought that the virtue of my wording was that it asserted the existence of important Aristotelian traditions in the three religions, not their continuance to the present day.  (The lead is not the place to work up an implicit evaluation of whether Neo-Thomism, considering its continued use as doctrine, is or isn't more encyclopedically important than Averroism.)  You mention the name of Averroes, so you are certainly aware that Islamic Aristotelianism was a phenomenon that had profound consequences in the history of ideas and (non-Islamic) theology.  Yes, Arab Aristotelianism had "run its course" at a time when Western European theological Aristotelianism was still building up a head of steam, but this does not alter the fact that Arab Aristotelianism is a vitally important part of Aristotle's legacy (and of the historical subject of Catholic theology for that matter).  There is also the matter of form.  Catholic theology is a glaring redlink suggesting a hole in coverage that would not belong in a lead, whose purpose is to anticipate and summarize everything the reader will be able to discover in depth by perusing "below the fold."  This will take the reader (via the Legacy section of the article) to Aristotelianism, which, in principle at least, is the summary article that points to Thomas Aquinas, Thomism, etc.  (I am happy to grant that Aristotelianism is defective.  But is there a better alternative?  The redlink gives the false impression that Catholic theology is not treated in the encyclopedia, whereas a better solution in my view would be to beef up Aristotelianism with further material and links that demonstrate your reasonable assertion that Aristotelianism is particularly important in Catholic theology.)  I hope I have not caused any offense with "parochial"; I simply meant that it is an unnecessarily restrictive reference for the lead of an article as broad as Aristotle, where readers should be given a synopsis of the important role Aristotle played in giving rise to a Maimonides and a Averroes, names as important in the history of philosophical thinking as any Aristotelians of the past centuries!  In general, I'm uncomfortable with the idea of excluding matter from this overview because it is historical and non-institutionalized, since after all this is an article in the history of philosophy.  Wareh (talk) 15:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Some thoughts.

>>I had thought that the virtue of my wording was that it asserted the existence of important Aristotelian traditions in the three religions, not their continuance to the present day.

That is true, and I had seen that. But a tradition that continues in some sense to the present day is more important (in the history of ideas) than one that does not. Let's assume that Aristotle's thought had been rejected in the Latin West as it had been rejected in the Islamic and Judaic traditions. Then Aristotle would not be important.

On the importance of Averroes, e.g., of course, but this was on the tradition of the Latin West. Averroes' radical ideas were to an extent absorbed in the Latin tradition (1277 aside, we can talk about that if you are familiar with that date). They were utterly rejected in Islam (and by Judaic theologians I believe).

>> (The lead is not the place to work up an implicit evaluation of whether Neo-Thomism, considering its continued use as doctrine, is or isn't more encyclopedically important than Averroism.)

Averroism is only important because of its influence on the Latin West. Neo-Thomism is hardly important at all. When I say 'Catholic theology' I mean all the stuff that is embedded in Catholic thought at an almost subliminal level.

>>You mention the name of Averroes, so you are certainly aware that Islamic Aristotelianism was a phenomenon that had profound consequences in the history of ideas and (non-Islamic) theology.

Of course. But on the Latin West. Averroes' books were burned in his home country.

>>Catholic theology is a glaring redlink suggesting a hole in coverage that would not belong in a lead, whose

I'm not responsible for any of the aping holes in WP coverage of philosophy and theology. I try to fill them now and then.

>> The redlink gives the false impression that Catholic theology is not treated in the encyclopedia,

Apparently it is not. Aristotelianism is something different, as well as being a terrible article.

>>(I am happy to grant that Aristotelianism is defective.

There you go.

>> I simply meant that it is an unnecessarily restrictive reference for the lead of an article as broad as Aristotle,

Ahem, Aristotle would be nothing without the scholastic philosophers. He (or rather the subject of Aristotle, if you see what I mean) is as broad as he is because of them, not the other way round. Aristotle had an immense impact on Western thought. But that impact consists in his impact on thinkers from Abelard to Aquinas, Ockham (particularly Ockham) and scores of others through to Suarez and thereafter to Leibniz. This is all connected with the tradition of Catholic theological writing, which is almost inseparable from his metaphysics and his logic. it would be outrageous not to mention this important fact in the lead.

Now you might be able to solve this by having a separate article Aristotelianism, as you suggest. But that ignores the point I make above, that some thinkers are important mainly because they are historically important.

>> where readers should be given a synopsis of the important role Aristotle played in giving rise to a Maimonides and a Averroes, names as important in the history of philosophical thinking as any Aristotelians of the past centuries!

Of course, unless readers are given the false impression that Averroes is an 'Islamic thinker' or something like that. He is not, and certainly not in the sense that Aquinas is truly a Catholic thinker. edward (buckner) (talk) 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think we are in agreement on several points, but there seems to be a fundamental divide on one important point. It is certainly not a neutral statement that can go into the encyclopedia that, "a tradition that continues in some sense to the present day is more important (in the history of ideas) than one that does not.  Let's assume that Aristotle's thought had been rejected in the Latin West as it had been rejected in the Islamic and Judaic traditions.  Then Aristotle would not be important...Aristotle would be nothing without the [Western] scholastic philosophers."  Neutral would be, "The 20th-21st century subsection of the 'Legacy' section would be shorter in these cases."  I just came back from a weekend ancient political philosophy conference where the majority of the papers on Aristotle considered Aristotle quite significant in his own terms, and sometimes on points that have not been influential in The Tradition (there were exceptions, too, approaching Aristotle via the Medievals and MacIntyre).  My counter-claim (which I regard as equally reasonable, but which I wouldn't try to put in the encyclopedia) is that Aristotle would be just as important to the history of ideas if we'd rediscovered the Corpus Aristotelicum just last year.  As a student of ancient Greek culture and ideas myself, which is certainly the primary context for this article (since it's on Aristotle and not his legacy in the Middle Ages and the modern period), I simply can't fathom the idea that Aristotle's impact on the Jewish and Islamic writers, without whom there would be no Western scholasticism as we know it, is not of equal historic importance.  I suspect we're actually in agreement practically&mdash;it's just that I don't see the relevance of Averroes' books being burned to his place in intellectual history.  You'll note I'm not pressing to describe Averroes one way or the other; I picked up on his name because you mentioned it, but more theological Aristotelianism in Islam would generally be described on the basis of other authors (who generally worked with a strong admixture of Neoplatonic ideas, but, still, with a great deal of the Aristotelian legacy, in some cases important works and commentaries by the likes of Alexander of Aphrodisias that remained little known in the West).  Nothing in the article represents these consequential developments as important to contemporary Muslims.  Anyway, the article mentions Thomas Aquinas four times already, so we're hardly in danger of crowding out Aristotle's impact on the West.  Isn't some kind of compromise possible, where we state that Aristotle had a profound influence on all three milieus in the Middle Ages, and that the influence on Christian theology is particularly notable for being still today at the basis of some theological conceptions in some areas/quarters?  Wareh (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

>>I think we are in agreement on several points, but there seems to be a fundamental divide on one important point. It is certainly not a neutral statement that can go into the encyclopedia that, "a tradition that continues in some sense to the present day is more important (in the history of ideas) than one that does not.

Some confusion here. I was not suggesting to put that statement in. I was suggesting a criterion for how we measure a writer's 'legacy'. In every introduction to a thinker, you need a short section explaining why he or she is important. Thinkers are usually important because of their legacy, and the tradition they form. They are important almost in exact proportion to the length and depth of that tradition. Thus, Ockham gets less time than Aquinas although Ockham is probably a more profound thinker than Aquinas. The difference is that Aquinas had far more influence than Ockham.

In the case of Aristotle, his importance lies in his influence on the Western tradition only (since the Islam one died out early). Averroes and the others should be mentioned, but only in respect of their connexion with the Western one. (And if, in some alternative history, the work of Aristotle had reached the Latin West by a different route, and the work of Averroes had no impact on the Western Tradition at all, and if it had died out, then it should not be mentioned at all. As a third possibility, imagine there had been two parallel streams of thought running independently, so that today we had Catholic Aristotelianism, and Islamic Aristotelianism.  Then both should be mentioned in equal measure).

>>that Aristotle would be just as important to the history of ideas if we'd rediscovered the Corpus Aristotelicum just last year.

Surely you do not mean that? If the entire works of Aristotle had been lost after his death, and if no one had heard of him in all of history, then suddenly we found some scrolls buried somewhere, then the work would be v. interesting, but would have no relevance to the history of ideas.

>>As a student of ancient Greek culture and ideas myself, which is certainly the primary context for this article (since it's on Aristotle and not his legacy in the Middle Ages and the modern period), I simply can't fathom the idea that Aristotle's impact on the Jewish and Islamic writers, without whom there would be no Western scholasticism as we know it, is not of equal historic importance.

I've already said that their importance lies precisely in their legacy to the Latin Western tradition. But the statement "His metaphysics has formed the basis of Aristotelian theological traditions in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam." is highly misleading. It implies that the legacy was equally distributed, which it wasn't.

>>I suspect we're actually in agreement practically—it's just that I don't see the relevance of Averroes' books being burned to his place in intellectual history.

It's highly relevant, because it means Averroes had practically no impact on any Islamic tradition after his death, but had a huge impact on the Western Tradition.

>>Isn't some kind of compromise possible, where we state that Aristotle had a profound influence on all three milieus in the Middle Ages, and that the influence on Christian theology is particularly notable for being still today at the basis of some theological conceptions in some areas/quarters? Wareh (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aristotle"

Yes. Almost exactly as you have said it. edward (buckner) (talk) 09:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's not worry about the more general differences in our perspectives (which are probably not all that different anyway in the end, since we certainly both think the encyclopedia should be useful to the reader who wants to follow the history of ideas back to Aristotle). Let's instead just focus on that last bit, the compromise that is agreeable to us both.  I'll write something along those lines as soon as I can get to it, and I trust you'll clarify the wording on Aristotle's influence on still-current theological ideas (by the way, when you say "Catholic," how broadly do you mean the term?), and I don't anticipate any substantive objections there, while on the other hand I won't expect any substantive objections from you to mentioning the other important traditions (more or less dead-end in their own religions as they may be). Wareh (talk) 17:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've made my attempt to answer all the issues that have come up here. My one outstanding question is whether my links to Roman Catholic Church and Scholasticism have resulted in a narrower formulation than what you meant by "Catholic." I.e., did you also mean to include Eastern Orthodox Christian theology, where certainly some kind of Aristotelianizing Neoplatonism has left its mark on the Orthodox mystic tradition?  Actually, now that I've articulated that question, I want to ask, should a reference to Orthodox theology be added, even if that's not what you intended?  (I had to click twice to get from Eastern Orthodox Christian theology to a mention of Plato and Aristotle in Hypostasis (Christianity); it seems to me to be common knowledge, though.)  Wareh (talk) 17:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * HI sorry I have been away for a few days. Yes.  The rewrite is fine, except for the unwieldy long link but that is a format thing.  Hope we can work together on this page some more.  I have some knowledge of the Aristotelian scholastic tradition, as well as a little knowledge of the Metaphysics itself (currently working on a new translation of chapters 10-12 of Zeta).  Best, edward (buckner) (talk) 17:40, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Poetics...
deserves more than a single passing reference. His theory on tragedy is pretty influential, for example. Ifnkovhg 09:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're quite right. Have you seen the article Poetics (Aristotle)?  I've made a new section that links to it more prominently and may serve as a stimulus to provide a better short account here.  Wareh (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've renamed the section you created to Aesthetics to match the other subsections; and I've tried to build the section out a little. If someone can add information about Rhetoric that would be helpful - I don't really have references, and the book's own article was weak on information as well.  Also, I would appreciate if someone could clean up my references by adding Bekker numbers; I tried to copy what is out there, but I don't know how to find the line numbers.  Soldarnal (talk) 06:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a valuable addition, and I think the reference to Poetics by chapter numbers is adequate. I changed the section name back; matching in appearance isn't as important as avoiding the term for the modern branch of philosophy which doesn't really suggest what a reader will find in Aristotle's works (and seems to say too much about how they are related to each other), so I'm thinking the actual titles of the works are the only fair labels.  Wareh (talk) 06:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)