Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2014

Mistranslation
In LIFE section, ″absolut verstandnislos″ is German for GROSS MISUNDERSTANDING, or so, not at all "absolutely ?understandable."Anthrodoc (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Removed the garbled text... Google Trans gives "absolutely uncomprehending" for "absolut verständnislos" so "gross misunderstanding" sounds good to me.—Machine Elf 1735  17:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 March 2014
"Please add the name of Aristotle's guardian. He was Proxenus of Atarneus, husband of Aristotle's older sister. Source: http://www.biography.com/people/aristotle-9188415?page=1#early-life".

Chlazaris (talk) 13:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done for now. I am unsure of the validity of this source. While a glance through its history at RS/N is positive, the only source available to me from Proxenus of Atarneus, this, only mentions Proxenus once and does not specify who he is to Aristotle. This, however, seems to cast some uncertainty regarding the identity of Proxenus and his relationship to Aristotle. Am happy to self-revert should there be any question of the reliability of sourcing here. Cannolis (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Zoological theories
it says citation needed in the intro. I don't know how wiki stuff works, but I do know that aristotle's theory of how eels mate (coming out of the ground essentially) was only proven wrong in the 19th century — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.250.234 (talk) 22:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

incomplete citation - Cicero quotation
I put a tag on the citation of Cicero saying "river of gold" about Aristotle's prose style. A correspondent asked me to explain. When I clicked on the citation, I was directed to an online text of Cicero's Academica. I expected that there would be a location within that work. Anyway, I tried to search the Academica for the quote, and I was not able to find it. That is, no doubt, a failure on my part, so I didn't make a stronger claim that the citation did not support the quote. But anyway, the citation as given does not precisely locate the quotation. What I would expect, at the least, more than a link, but also author, title and location - enough to look it up in a library or other printed edition - even if (as is not the case here) the link directs one to the exact passage. TomS TDotO (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The link (http://www.gutenberg.org/files/14970/14970-h/14970-h.htm#BkII_119) does link to the passage for me, it goes to Book II, section 119, which reads "veniet flumen orationis aureum fundens Aristoteles"; "flumen aureum" is plainly translated as "golden river" or "river of gold". -- Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 09:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Bias
The following line is unsubstantiated and untrue:

"Near the end of his life, Alexander became paranoid and wrote threatening letters to Aristotle."

The following line makes an unsubstantiated implication, that Callisthenes was executed because of Aristotle's contempt for Alexander's "pretense at divinity:"

"Aristotle had made no secret of his contempt for Alexander's pretense of divinity and the king had executed Aristotle's grandnephew Callisthenes as a traitor."

That phrase, "pretense at divinity," by the way, is also misleading.

My suggestion is to delete those two sentences. Thoughts?

--Mattfwbooks (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree that the letters between Aristotle and Alexander (we're talking the Secret of Secrets, right?) do not imply any threats toward Aristotle, but I'm not sure the sources, particularly Plutarch, would support that Alexander didn't start to become paranoid in general.
 * Again, I didn't find a statement regarding Callistenes, but I do know of a section of one of Aristotle's letters to Alexander that criticizes him for treating Persians as if not better than Greeks. "For Alexander did not follow Aristotle’s advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader, and other peoples as if he were their master... That seems to support a mention of the falling out, though the nature of it should be amended. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as substantiation, I just looked up the source, Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon. It mentions that Alexander killed Callisthenes as a traitor, but merely hints that Aristotle was uncomfortable with this or Alexander's letter informing he and Antipater of the execution.  Aristotle is referenced at having issues with Alexander, but mostly over his "Orientalism" and not his deification, which most bothered Antipater.  I agree with you, this whole section is misleading, but I think it'd be better to adjust it to fit the facts rather than delete it, as Green is an authority of Alexander and the falling out is a significant occurrence. The Cap&#39;n (talk) 07:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it does seem clear that the falling out with Aristotle was over Alexander's "Persianizing," and Aristotle's stated view that Persians were fit only to be slaves, a view that Alexander doesn't seem to have shared. Callisthenes's execution seems to have less to do with Aristotle than with the conspiracy of Hermolaos. --Mattfwbooks (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The page is semi-protected, and I don't have the rights to edit it. Would someone else change the paragraph? Here's my suggestion, but feel free to change it. "Near the end of his life, Alexander and Aristotle became estranged over Alexander's relationship with Persia and Persians. A widespread tradition in antiquity suspected Aristotle of playing a role in Alexander's death, but there is little evidence. --Mattfwbooks (talk) 18:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Please change "Near the end of his life, Alexander became paranoid and wrote threatening letters to Aristotle. Aristotle had made no secret of his contempt for Alexander's pretense of divinity and the king had executed Aristotle's grandnephew Callisthenes as a traitor." to "Near the end of his life, Alexander and Aristotle became estranged over Alexander's relationship with Persia and Persians." --Mattfwbooks (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done This section appears to show a consensus concerning these details. -- ferret (talk) 20:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2014
Please change "Aristotle (/ˈærɪˌstɒtəl/;[1] Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης [aristotélɛːs], Aristotélēs; 384–322 BCE)[2] was a Greek philosopher and scientist born in Stagirus, northern Greece, in 384 BCE. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, whereafter Proxenus of Atarneus became his guardian.[3]" to "Aristotle (/ˈærɪˌstɒtəl/;[1] Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης [aristotélɛːs], Aristotélēs; 384–322 BCE)[2] was a Greek philosopher and scientist born in the the central Macedonian city Stagirus, in 384 BCE. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, whereafter Proxenus of Atarneus became his guardian.[3]"

Reason for change is that Greece in the ancient period was not colonized as a single nation, therefore it is incorrect to say Aristotle was born in 'Northern Greece' politically. Instead, it should be written that he was born in the Macedonian state which is now politically 'Northern Greece'.

121.211.42.26 (talk) 07:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Hmm
I am using this page for some information in a essay I have to write, (oh goody *obvious sarcasm*) the focus is on biology, and while detailed. That part of the page seems...lacking. (Just saying! I'm 14 and stressed, please don't rage :c) 76.205.190.251 (talk) 23:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014
Personal Life Aristotle was a Greek philosopher born in 384 BCE in the Macedonian city of Stagirus. His legal guardian was Proxenus of Atarneus. His biological father dies when Aristotle was a child. Aristotle became a student of Plato’s after he moved to Athens at the age of eighteen. He remained a student of Plato’s until 347 BCE. From 356 – 323 BCE Aristotle tutored Alexander the Great at the request of Philip of Macedon. Aristotle died in 322 BCE. Work in Rhetoric Aristotle was a student of Plato but did not follow his methods of teachings after he retired as a student of his. Plato focused his teachings on finding absolute truth. His theory was that there is a perfect world, also known as the World of Forms, which we should work to gain access of. Aristotle, on the other hand, believed that there is no such thing as absolute truth and that it is impossible to find a perfect world. He focused on studying the world we lived in rather than focusing on absolute truth. He broke the world up into to two divisions: the natural world and the human world. He was able to study the natural world through things such as the scientific method and dialectic. He was able to study the human world through rhetoric. Aristotle’s definition of rhetoric may be defined as a faculty of observing, in any given case, the available means of persuasion. Aristotle believed that there were two different means of persuasion when it came to rhetoric. The first mean of persuasion is Inartistic. This is based off of things that are already pre-existing or discovered. Some examples of inartistic persuasion is testimony and other forms of evidence that is used in law enforcement. The second mean of persuasion is Artistic. This is the original content generated by the rhetor. According to Aristotle, there are three types of artistic proofs: Ethos – the rhetor’s character in speech Phronesis – Evidence of good sense Eunoia – Evidence of good will Arête – Evidence of good moral character Pathos – arousing feeling Logos – being able to demonstrate the reasonableness of your argument Textbooks, scientific date, graphs

Published Work The Athenien Constitution (350 BCE) Categories (350 BCE) On Dreams (350 BCE) On the Gait of Animals (350 BCE) On Generation and Corruption (350 BCE) On the Heavens (350 BCE) The History of Animals (350 BCE) On Interpretation (350 BCE) On Longevity and Shortness of Life (350 BCE) On Memory and Reminiscence (350 BCE) Metaphysics (350 BCE) Meteorology (350 BCE) On the Motion of Animals (350 BCE) Nicomachean Ethics (350 BCE) On the Parts of Animals (350 BCE) Physics (350 BCE) Poetics (350 BCE) Politics (350 BCE) Posterior Analytics (350 BCE) Prior Analytics (350 BCE) On Prophesying by Dreams (350 BCE) Rhetoric (350 BCE) On Sense and the Sensible (350 BCE) On Sleep and Sleeplessness (350 BCE) On Sophistical Refutations (350 BCE) On the Soul (350 BCE) Topics (350 BCE) Virtues and Vices (350 BCE) On Youth and Old Age (350 BCE) On Life and Death (350 BCE) On Breathing (350 BCE)

Crb91 (talk) 17:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 23:04, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Scientist?
As far as I know Aristotle didn't employ the scientific method then why is he listed as a Scientist.Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Charles Darwin thought so: Jason from nyc (talk) 16:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

The abstract you posted refers to nothing that would point Darwin asserting whether Aristotle worked by any scientific methods. Don't put your own senseless words into mouths of others, especially not in the mouths of historically meaningful figures. --Vmp4523 (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think the term scientist is restricted to just those who use the scientific method. Paul August &#9742; 19:57, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Science in it's totality is categorized by the systemised practice of testing hypotheses and evaluation through theorem, where knowledge is gathered. You can approach things by pure rationality or by plain observing, but rationalizing or observing by themself are not science. There is no basis whatsoever for the scientist moniker, that's why academics and intellectually honest call Aristotle philosopher instead. Vmp4523 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The meaning of science has changed over time, and is especially used in different ways when discussing pre-modern people such as Aristotle. I think anyone familiar with his work will realize he tried to be systematic and methodical in testing hypotheses. Although he is very much criticized for the precise way he did this, many great scientists have seen him as an inspiration.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)


 * So Paul what criteria do you suggest we use to call someone a Scientist.Mohammed al-Bukhari (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Isn't that a question for another article than this one? For this article does it not seem enough to confirm that the word science has a range of meanings and that Aristotle's works are often referred to as scientific?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Aristotle has never discovered any facts as far as I know. Do you know any? Swaywoof (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say yes. But we are not supposed to be researching Aristotle ourselves here, nor debating the best definitions of the term science.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd agree, especially with respect to biology. The question on whether he developed science depends on the definition of science. In the broad sense of a systematic empirical study one might say yes. In the narrow sense of experimental science one would have to say no. Aristotle, like Darwin, were naturalists who tend towards observations rather than perturbations. Here's one who argues no: precisely because this author takes a narrow definition and withholds that label science from anyone before the 15th century. And one philosopher of science that argues yes . Jason from nyc (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt Aristotle discovered many facts about what we now call the science of Zoology, indeed he largely founded the science, though it didn't get that name for some 2000 years. Since readers of Wikipedia may come here looking for fathers of zoology, it will help them if as now he is so categorised. And as others have said, this isn't a forum for discussing Aristotle or the meaning of science. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Empiricist
This article claims that Aristotle was an empiricist and that he regarded sense perception as the base of all knowledge.

That claim directly contracts Aristotle’s statement of his views.

Aristotle states: "Sense perception is common to all, and therefore easy and no mark of wisdom." – Aristotle, Metaphysics, Britannica’s Great Books p500

Aristotle clearly regards the non-sensible world superior to the sensible when he states: "Again, if besides sensible things no others exist, there will be no first principle, no    order, no becoming, no heavenly bodies, but each principle a principle before it." – Aristotle, Metaphysics, Britannica’s Great Books p606

Aristotle maintains that everything in sensible world has a more important final cause in the non-sensible world. He states: "Now some existing things are eternal and divine whilst others admit of both existence and non-existence. But that which is noble and divine is always… the cause of the better in such things as admit of being better or worse." – Aristotle, Biological Treatises, Britannica’s Great Books p272

Aristotle criticizes Democritus for limiting his study of things to the sensible world. He states: "Democritus, however, neglecting the final cause, reduces to necessity all the operations of Nature. Now they are necessary, it is true, but yet they are for a final cause and for the sake of what is best in each case." – Aristotle, Biological Treatises Britannica’s Great Books p331

Aristotle’s anti-empiricist views leads him to regard theology as a more important study than physics. He states: "There must, then be three theoretical philosophies, mathematics, physics, and what we may call theology…Thus, while the theoretical sciences are more to be desired than the other sciences, this is more to be desired than the other theoretical sciences.: – Aristotle, Metaphysics, Britannica’s Great Books (p548) The claim that Aristotle was an empiricist directly contracts Aristotle’s statement of his views and should be removed from this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2z6Forfreedom (talk • contribs) 17:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I can sort of see what must have been intended by calling him an empiricist, but agree that just categorizing him with this modern term is problematic. There is a big discussion about the extent to which he might come close to that category. I will see if I can weaken this claim in an uncontroversial way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Agree. He does not subscribe to the -ism, the empiricist philosophy; he unquestionably did something empirical by examining animals and their behaviour, and dissecting specimens; further, his method used the empirically-gathered evidence as material for his further philosophical inquiries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * He certainly didn't follow the Empiricist Philosophy which is a product of the Early Modern Period but he did do empirical science. Might not the solution be something along the lines of "Aristotle followed an empirical research programme in various areas e.g. natural history…"?Thony C. (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems to be the consensus. I have already made some tweaks in that direction.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect dates
It now says, "tutored Alexander the Great between 356 and 323 BCE", which is obviously wrong. The exact dates are unknown but 343-340 is a good guess (see the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvidbave (talk • contribs) 23:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course, 356-323 BCE is the life of Alexander. Anyway, this should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arvidbave (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes check.svg Done Gts-tg (talk) 23:50, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Digression in "Life" section
I removed the following paragraph, as generally breaking the flow of the "Life" section. Any thoughts on a better place for it in the article are most welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

"Aristotle and Plato's compatibility has been a strongly debated topic. Recently, Harold Cherniss summarized Aristotle's Platonism from the standpoint of classicist Werner Jaeger, stating that: "Jaeger, in whose eyes Plato's philosophy was the "matter" out of which the newer and higher form of Aristotle's thought proceeded by a gradual but steady and undeviating development (Aristotles, p. 11), pronounced the "old controversy", whether or not Aristotle understood Plato, to be "absolut verstandnislos". Yet this did not prevent Leisegang from reasserting that Aristotle's own pattern of thinking was incompatible with a proper understanding of Plato." Contrary to Leisegang's sympathies, Jaeger was sympathetic to a compatible reading of Aristotle and Plato."


 * Well removed, as not belonging here. It has an essay-like feeling and could easily have come from somewhere else; whatever the case, it seems off the subject of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)