Customer Reviews (1)

A Masterpiece. Exhaustive and Complete!
If you enjoy Aristotle and Aquinas and would like to gain a better understanding on Aristotle's work titled "Physics," then this is definitely a book you need to own. While there are literally hundreds of titles in print and out of print (but able to be found) on Aristotle'sphysics, there is no book that matches this one. This is yet anotherexample of the "dumb ox" rising to the occasion again. Aquinastakes Aristotle's "Physics"lecture by lecture (i.e. passage bypassage) and comments on what Aristotle is espousing. This is 638 pages ofgreat detail, philosophy, and comments by one of the greatest philosophersin philosophical history (Aquinas), about one of the greatest philosopher'swork. The work is translated by Blackwell, Spath, and Thirlkel, and has aforward written by one of the most renown Thomistic scholars of our day,namely, Ralph McInerny. The translators have done a wonderful job of takinga difficult topic and language and making it easy to read and simple tofollow. Aquinas breaks down all of Aristotle's arguments, writings,comments, etc. into helpful and easy to understand comments. Furthermore,Aquinas takes words/phrases that are used by Aristotle and explains theircontext, intent, and meaning. Anybody who is familiar with Aquinas knowsthatAquinas can say more in less than most if not all of the greatestphilosophers. Therefore, if you want a commentary that will exhaustivelyexplain Aristotle's "Physics" then look no further. ... Read more

Product Description
This annotated collection of the influential philosopher's most famous works includes: Metaphysics, Logic, Physics, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Poetics. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Drawbacks and disadvantages of this edition
This edition of Aristotle cuts quite severely from the complete books. There are very few complete books. In Nichomachean Ethics, for example, the chapters on friendship are omitted. This is so frustrating that I don't use it.

I'd suggest getting complete works as led by your interest primarily. Get the Ethics, Politics, Poetics, Physics.

The other problem is that the large amount of explaining before and between the actual texts in this edition doesn't actually explain anything. In fact, it makes it more confusing in many cases. You just can't out-clarify Aristotle, and the high-school-ese of the introductions is a bit patronizing to him and us. Better to have a personal response to the work or nothing than this faux objectivity.

Finally, as with other reviews I agree it's broad and fairly well translated, especially compared to the past translations, but I find older translations have a spirit and nobility which this frankly lacks.

I much anticipated this book's arrival. It was good to carry round - portability is fine. But it takes more than a convenient format to present Aristotle in a popular format.

I suggest trying the Penguin editions.

Perfect one-volume selection of "The Philsopher."
Two things make this book great: its selection and its translation.

For a pocket size selection of Aristotle, this book is tops.It has sections from all of his major works, so it is useful for survey classes, or personal study.Of fundamental import is Metaphysics, which is the meta-basis for his thought.Also included are selections from his more popular Ethics and Politics, and lesser known Poetics.

What drew me to this book was the translation.Most translations are really crude transliterations. Yes, it is important to be as faithful to the text as humanly possible.But the "ivory tower academeese" sucks the life out of vibrant philosophies.

Creed and Wardmen avoid this problem entirely. This text was readable, and therefore enjoyable.It reminds me of the smooth prose of J. B Phillips or Edgar J. Goodspeed.It was like talking to a good friends, rather than a Latinized statue.

For a more comprehensive selection, I would recommend "Basic Works of Aristotle" (ISBN: 0375757996), or getting the books individually.

I love the cover! ... Read more

Product Description
Thank You for Arguing is your master class in the art of persuasion, taught by professors ranging from Bart Simpson to Winston Churchill. The time-tested secrets the book discloses include Cicero’s three-step strategy for moving an audience to actionÑas well as Honest Abe’s Shameless Trick of lowering an audience’s expectations by pretending to be unpolished. But it’s also replete with contemporary techniques such as politicians’ use of “code” language to appeal to specific groups and an eye-opening assortment of popular-culture dodges, including:

The Eddie Haskell Ploy
Eminem’s Rules of Decorum
The Belushi Paradigm
Stalin’s Timing Secret
The Yoda Technique

Whether you’re an inveterate lover of language books or just want to win a lot more anger-free arguments on the page, at the podium, or over a beer, Thank You for Arguing is for you. Written by one of today’s most popular online language mavens, it’s warm, witty, erudite, and truly enlightening. It not only teaches you how to recognize a paralipsis and a chiasmus when you hear them, but also how to wield such handy and persuasive weapons the next time you really, really want to get your own way. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (37)

If I had read this book sooner, I would have more friends than I do now.
The art of persuasion. I have been to more classes and have read more books on this subject than I care to remember. Most of them were repetitive and what they were repeating was typically not all that helpful. So, when my daughters gave me this book for my birthday my enthusiasm was feigned. They thought, because of the title, giving me the book was pretty funny.

I was, however, more than surprised by how much I genuinely enjoyed this book. There were two things that I believe distinguishes this book from others of this ilk. First, the examples used as exercises in rhetoric are entertaining, taken from the everyday life of the author. When reading these situations I found myself thinking back to times when I was in nearly same predicaments. This made the advice he gave all the more real.

The second feature of the book that I found appealing is the approach the author took to the subject matter. In other books the practice of rhetoric was looked on as art. They would discuss examples of situations with little formalized methodology in persuading people. In this book the author discusses rhetoric, providing a structure and methodology to persuading others. He draws not only on his own life experience, but places it in the context of the great thinkers and debaters of the past.

I would strongly recommend that you not only read this book, but that you take the time to study what he has to say.I only wish that I had read this book years ago.

What Aristotle, Lincoln (but maybe Homer Simpson?) didn't teach the author
This book was the first book that when I finished reading it, instead of donating it to the public library system, I threw it in the garbage to avoid harming anyone else, lest they think Homer Simpson has something to do with rhetoric.A summary of the book would be: "Rhetoric is very complicated and involves studying lots of dusty old books that requires lots of time and effort (and intelligence) so I will make it easy by simplifying it for you because I am so smart I can do that, and in fact I will dumb it down with Homer Simpson quotes of how to use bad logic! Oh Funny! And you will understand rhetoric as I teach you, oh-so-irreverent-pop-culture-magazine-massmarket-short-attentionspan-style, just buy my book!"It's like reading a history of Ancient Rome in People magazine, dumbed down to the point of parody.

I see no historical or aesthetical understanding in this book of rhetoric, just a dumbed-down "you can use it to manipulate your way out of a speeding ticket, and also get your wife to forgive you when you come home late from work!" vibe.The author also keeps dropping absurd insults against Cicero, for reasons I cannot comprehend. He calls him an extremely physically cowardly man (an absurd and unfounded allegation, and irrelevant as well--oh wait isn't irrelevancy a logical fallacy? Ooops). He also quotes Cicero, while 60 years old, marrying a teenage girl; and claims the Romans said "Ick!".Well Jay, Cicero, besides being incredibly wealthy and famous, was one of the greatest rhetoricians of all time; will we be reading your books 2,000 years from now?In the original language they were written?(Rhetorical questions! I'm learning, thanks to you!) Since fully repudiating the author's style and claims would take a book in itself, I'll address just the Cicero issue he raised:

1) Nobody says "ick" other than immature children; 2) Older men being married to younger women, even with quite an age difference, is how civilization has functioned for the last 6,000 years, it's not surprising or something to go out of your way (in a rhetoric book!) to badmouth someone with; even today it happens constantly, almost nobody cares 3) Cicero was LOADED with money, from a good family, and was today's equivalent of a famous, wealthy billionaire! Girls like loads of money, hence, marriage offer accepted; 4) Ancient Rome, had you had any kind of historical understanding, like from reading Gibbon (or even watched "Gladiator", based on a true story), was a total free-for-all (by today's standards) as far as mores went.Romans thought nothing of going to the slave market and buying a young girl or boy, and full service was expected of slaves. Harsh, but true. You think anyone would have batted an eyelid that he married a younger girl? It makes absolutely no sense at all. 5) Which leads to my final thought, the only kind of person who would have thought "Ick" at this non-issue, which happened 2,000 years ago in a foreign country, in another continent, under another culture (more rhetoric!) would be a contemporary middle-class American suburban dad with teenage children himself, who is catching a dose of puritanism as he ages.

It's the worse book on rhetoric I've ever read (hyperbole).

Fantastic!
I had to buy this book as a textbook my first semester in grad school. It is absolutely wonderful. I want to read it again, have recommended it to friends and family for both work and pleasure. I can't say enough great things about it. Really a great book!

Truly excellent, well thought out-start here for argument.
I have a large collection of persuasion books-some truly excellent-this one is right at the top. I bought it two weeks ago and it's looking much older now-with good reason.

This book offers you a choice: allowing you to control the argument or allowing the argument to control you. Jay has made esoteric seeming rhetoric into everyday practicality. Illustrating clearly how we all use elements of rhetoric in our daily lives, he goes on to demonstrate how to improve and structure it. Arguments, in the true rhetorical sense, become more productive, pleasurable and useful as a result.

I wish I'd had this book when I was a teenager; I would love to get my brothers kids to read it-what an advantage they would have, especially in building a career-never mind dodging the fallacious nonsense argued in the media and in politics.

Flowing easily from offense, defence, advanced defence-finally culminating in advanced agreement; Jay structures his discussion using ethos, pathos and logos succinctly, weaving tips, anecdotes and everyday examples into every page.

The Appendices are well thought out, the first being a total gem.
Entitled The Tools, here they are:

Goals-Set the tense:
* Personal Goal: What do you want from your audience
* Audience Goals: Mood, Mind and Willingness to Act.

Issue Control:
* The past is forensic-guilt and innocence, such as a court case.
* The present values-demonstrative-Praise and Blame.
* The future-the rhetoric of politics and good argument, what is best for the audience.
**
Ethos-Argument by character
* Decorum-Ability to fit in with the audience's expectations of a trustworthy leader.
* Virtue
* Practical Wisdom
* Disinterest
* Liar Detector
* Extremes
* Virtue Yardstick
**
Pathos
* Sympathy
* Belief
* Volume control
* Unannounced emotion
* Passive voice
* Backfire
* Persuasive Emotions
* Figures of Speech
**
Logos
* Deduction
* Proof Spotter
* Commonplace
* Rejection
* Commonplace Label
* Induction
* Concession
* Framing
* Logical Fallacies
* Bad Proof
* Bad Conclusion
* Disconnect between proof and conclusion
* Rhetorical Fouls
**
Kairos-Timing or seizing the occasion
* Persuadable Moment
* Senses
**
Speechmaking
* Invention
* Arrangement
* Styles
* Memory
* Delivery

The Further reading gives you a decent selection of books-I agree with his recommendation on Lanham's Handbook of Rhetorical Terms. Use it in conjunction with this text though as Lanham is not giving you daily life usage, rather he's offering his discussion on the terms themselves in an A-Z order.

The initiated may be a little put off by the terminology; however Jay points out the names are not important, simply grasp the concepts-I believe everyone reading this will do that with ease both from recognition and Jay's instruction.

In contrast to one or two reviewers, I believe any small technical errors detract but nothing from this work. Such things are easily looked up in Lanham's book, recommended by Hienrich. The living structure and purpose of the figures is far more important than any dead dissection of the correct labelling of figures in this book. I found one myself that I've yet to look up. The living essence of his discussion is the true treasure-and is very well put together, coherent and whole. I'm uncertain how the 3 star reviewer has arrived at his conclusion as I would contend that I'm not an experienced reader of rhetoric, in fact only recently discovering the terms logos, ethos and pathos-yet, this material flows incredibly easily.

This book has served as a solid course in every debating skills; something I believe we all could use to great advantage, allowing us to avoid being persuaded by poor argument, poor reasoning and bad proof, giving us the ability to make choices that are fully informed-something that is frequently unavailable on a daily basis.

If you have never read any book on persuasion, argument or similar, let this be your first-you won't be disappointed-in fact I think you may even be back to thank me.

Too Informal for my Taste
The book was simply too informal and too long winded for my taste.In addition, I didn't think the stories he used really helped illustrate the concepts.Most of them seemed to involve him getting defeated in arguments by his kids or wife.I also thought the pop culture references (Homer Simpson, Eminem etc.) didn't add anything to the book, and seemed to be present simply as a marketing ploy.

I also thought it was strange that he relabeled logical fallacies (for ex. definitional retreat) as "jujitsu" if one uses them for their own cause, without mentioning that they were fallacies.

I also thought the layout came across as unprofessional.

I far preferred the more terse formal approach (even though there was some humor) of "How to Win Every Argument".

I understand the concept, which seemed to be to make rhetoric more approachable and relevant by using an informal style and to relate it to popular culture.Apparently quite a few people, based on the reviews, like this book, that's fine, it just wasn't for me.
... Read more

Product Description
Uncovering Aristotle's motivations and basic views while paying careful attention to his arguments, this introduction to the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's great masterpiece of moral philosophy, offers a thorough examination of the entire work. The chapter on friendship captures Aristotle's doctrine with clarity and insight, and Michael Pakaluk develops original and compelling interpretations of the Function Argument, the Doctrine of the Mean, courage and other character virtues, Akrasia, and the two treatments of pleasure. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy.In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore.It is a retrieval of Aristotle.It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state.Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology.What does "good" mean?He suggests good means "a desired end."Something desirable.Means towards these ends.Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good."In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good."Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money.Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself.Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money."Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness."This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle.Eudemonia=happiness.Today we think of happiness as a feeling.It is not a feeling for Aristotle.Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well."It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence."Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of."Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle.Can also mean fulfillment.Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation.What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth."EN isn't formula but a rough outline.Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it.When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle.Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife.He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates.The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good."In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits.Good qualities of a person who would act well.Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person.If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules.Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak.Like a musical virtuoso.Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like."In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason.For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual.Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait.Socrates said same the thing.Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause.Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing.Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good.Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working.Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends!Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation.In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia.Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs.A long interesting list.It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness.Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods.Pleasure is a condition of the soul.In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual.Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature.It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle.These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom."The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good.As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do.Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom.The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods."For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion.Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics.Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept.My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues?Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves.Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are.The virtues are capacities of a person to act well.All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis.There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated.Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually."We reach our complete perfection through habit."Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them.Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey.Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp.Learning by doing is important for Aristotle.Hexis= "state," "having possession."Theoria= "study."The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good."Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean.Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance.Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity.Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities.Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies.Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well.For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day.Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in.It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience.Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will.Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis.Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated.Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue.Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength.Continence.We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness.This is akrasia incontinence.Happens in real life.
4. Vice.The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"?Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term.Ethical weakness is not a full vice either.This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue."No one can knowingly do the wrong thing.Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires.Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this.Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees.The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4.A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Finally --- something clear
This book is the first intro to Aristotle I have read which really seems like an intro --- and is really clear.Pakaluk takes it seriously --- and the introduction in the book is worth the price of the book alone.This is a great way to get a course on the Ethics that you never got in college.Pakaluk is one of the world's experts on the topic and reading the book you understand why.Get a good translation of the Ethics, sit down with this introduction, and it will get you through the Ethics as if you were in college again.Except it will make sense this time. ... Read more

Product Description

"Highly recommended." -- Choice

Martin Heidegger's reading of Aristotle was one of the pivotal influences in the development of his philosophy. This 1931 lecture course shows the close correlation between Heidegger's phenomenological interpretation of the Greeks (especially of Aristotle) and his critique of metaphysics.

Product Description
A work of transcendent importance, both for the history of literary criticism and in its own right
... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Tragedy Teaches Us Something About Life
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Poetry appeals to human passions and emotions.Powerful beautiful language and metaphor really appeal to emotion.This idea really disturbed Plato, who takes on Homer in the Republic.Plato thought that early Greek poetry portrays a dark world; humans are checked by negative limits like death.Tragedy has in it a character of high status brought down through no fault of his own.Plato says this is unjust.Republic is about ethical life and justice.It starts with the premises that might makes right and then moves onto the idea much like modern religions that justice comes in the afterlife.Plato hates the idea that in tragedy bad things can happen to good people.He wanted to ban tragedy because he found it demoralizing.

Aristotle's Poetics is a defense against Plato's appeal to ban tragedy.Tragedy was very popular in Greek world so Aristotle asks can it be wrong to ban it?Yes, it is wrong thus he decides to study it.Plato says Poetry is not a technç because the poets are divinely inspired.Aristotle disagrees Poetics is a handbook for playwrights.Mimçsis= "representation or imitation."Plato uses it in speaking of painting, thus art is imitation.Another meaning is to mimic, like actors mimicking another person.Plato and Aristotle use it to mean psychological identification like how we get absorbed in a movie as if the action were real, eliciting emotions from us.We suspend reality for a while.Aristotle says this is natural in humans; we do this as children, we mimic.If imitation is important for humans then tragic poetry is worthwhile for Aristotle to study.

Definition of tragedy- "Through pity and fear it achieves purification from such feelings.This is a famous controversial line.Katharsis= "pity and fear" thus the purpose of tragedy is to purge katharsis.Katharsis can also mean purification or clean.There is a debate if it means clarification, through which we can come to understand katharsis.Aristotle thinks tragedy teaches us something about life.Tragedy is an elaboration on Aristotle's idea that good or virtuous people sometimes get unlucky and in the end, they get screwed.Tragedy shows this so we can learn to get by when life screws us.The whole point of tragedy is action over character.Action is the full story of the poem like the Iliad.Character is only part of the action.
Aristotle distinguishes between poetry and history.Poetry is concerned with universals, history is concerned with particulars.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Do not get this translation!
I feel that this is a horrible translation of an otherwise great work of literature.This translator felt the need to re-arrange pieces of Aristotle's work, and completely relocate some to an "Appendix."If you find this appalling, then you need to find another translation.However, if you are fine with the butchering of another person's work, by all means, order this book.

A must for screenwriters and playwrites alike
Aristotles Poetics is a classic in every way and still deserves to be studied and used, not just as a piece of literature. Although Aristotle expresses the highest standards a play should have it can be used as aguide or premise in which to follow in thier own writings. Declaring thatSophacles' Oedipus the King as the perfect play, which would be a goodcompanion to this piece, Aristotle demonstrates how every play should havethese attributes, namely a 24 hour time limit to disclose the plot andmysteries of a story. Among other things, which would be too lengthy to gointo any review, Poetics stands as a classic guide and should be continuedto be practiced and be in any writers library. ... Read more

Product Description
A most important text, over 2,000 years old, holds true even today. Aristotle's ethical system insists that there are no known absolute moral standards and that any ethical theory must be based in part on an understanding of psychology and grounded in the realities of daily life. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Aristotle
The cliff notes are ok but could be better organized and written a little clearer.

Save's time and understanding
Really help me so I didn't have to read to whole books since my time is limited. ... Read more

Product Description
Dick King-Smith’s mischievous narrative and Bob Graham’s sweet, humorous watercolors capture the first eight lives of a kitten who’s ready to scamper his way into hearts everywhere.

Aristotle the kitten is so adventurous that it’s a good thing cats have nine lives. What’s even better is that Aristotle has found the kind witch Bella Donna to be his owner. Somehow she is always there when he gets into trouble, whether tumbling down the chimney, tipping over a giant milk jug, or tearing away from a snarling watchdog - just as a truck comes areening by. Is it luck? Or maybe a little bit of magic? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Could Be a Children's Classic
We selected this book at the library because my five year old son LOVES cats.Although I'd consider the story lenghty, it completely held the attention of all the children in his Kindergarten class as his teacher read our new copy as the book of the day.Of note, the cat's owner is a witch, however, it is not dominant in the story and it would not make a good Halloween tale.The thrust of the story is more of the process of growing up.A great vocabulary word from this book is woebegone.I would consider this book to be one to sit on the shelf with the classics. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (2)

mind's eye
Onians' new book quickly treats the insights of 25 men who wrote on art over the past 2000 years, with an emphasis on the details of perception that these figures noticed in the process of persistent observation of art and viewing. Onians corroborates and explains their insights in the light of the brain science that has emerged in the last two decades. This book is far more likely to instruct the reader in the history of art history than in the history of art. In the end Onians' goal is to foster curiosity and further discovery about the relationship between art and the brain and about human responses to art over the past 30,000 years. In this sweeping story there are cursory discussions of race, biology, genetics, culture, nature, optics, environment, and, obviously, neuroscience. I am not an expert in science or art but I think I will be little interested in the story of art if its history will be largely reduced to rods, cones, and some spastic pizazz at the crossroads between dendrite and axon. Onians does not forsake the humanistic tradition for the scientific but champions a new way forward in the history of art.

Norobiology of visual perception.
Visual arts (especially paintings, for they are basicly 2 dimensional the third dimention expressed by perspectival representation) contains two form of evaluation. One being cultural and seasonal that they chance , felt and evaluated differently by different cultures at different times. The other dimension is basical being the reception of the visual image by the brain unclauded by personal and cultural biases. This book gives the history of neurological basis of visual perception. I think it is of enormous value both to the historian
and neuroscientist. It is precise, condensed and focused to visual system. ... Read more

Product Description

In this excellent introduction, Christopher Shields introduces and assesses the whole of Aristotle’s philosophy, showing how his powerful conception of human nature shaped much of his thinking on the nature of the soul and the mind, ethics, politics and the arts.

Beginning with a brief biography, Christopher Shields carefully explains the fundamental elements of Aristotle’s thought: his explanatory framework, his philosophical methodology and his four-causal explanatory scheme. Subsequently he discusses Aristotle’s metaphysics and the theory of categories and logical theory and his conception of the human being and soul and body.

In the last part, he concentrates on Aristotle’s value theory as applied to ethics and politics, and assesses his approach to happiness, virtues and the best life for human beings. He concludes with an appraisal of Aristotelianism today.

Customer Reviews (2)

Best Introduction to Aristotle
This is without a doubt the best introduction to Aristotle that I've come across. Shields has succeeded in presenting the thought of Aristotle in the most digestible, clear and highly readable manner, which is a significant achievement considering the breadth of Aristotle's thought that Shields covers. I agree with D. Frank's comment about Shield's skill in situating Aristotle's views within the wider context of his philosophy in general.

What is unusual in philosophy is good, clear writing, and Shields is an exceptional writer. This I cannot stress enough. Here is one example: 'To work through the details of his [Aristotle's] account of modal syllogistic is to witness the flowering of a mind of logical dexterity manifesting staggering originality and acumen' (p.125). What is more, Shields manages to bring great humour to his writing; some of his comments and examples are really hilarious. I suspect that he thoroughly enjoyed writing this introduction.

Wonderful introduction!
Having read the Darwin and Liebniz editions of the Routledge Philosophers series I thought it was the appropriate time to tackle one of the early giants.I'll leave it to the Aristotle scholars to discuss how well Shields has interpreted Aristotle's body of work, relative to other introductory books.But as a philosophical novice, I have thoroughly enjoyed this introduction to Aristotle's life and thought.Shields has done a masterful job of situating Aristotle's various writings with respect to his overall body of work.I was surprised to learn how much of Aristotle's thinking was informed by the natural sciences, especially Biology.Modern taxonomists, especially those, like myself, who use genetic methods to explore biological diversity are still grappling with issues that Aristotle contemplated (what is species?).We would all do well to approach these problems with the sophistication of Aristotle and the clarity of Shields.

My only quibble is that the editing is somewhat sloppy.There is nothing like being confused by an argument only to realize that a word or phrase has been poorly edited! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Good Start
This book is a good starting place for a beginner to Aristotelian philosophy. It is somewhat abbreviated, but it is still worth checking out. It gives a brief summary of each of Aristotle's main fields of philosophy, followed by Aristotle's own explanations. I have looked for the `Pocket' version of other philosophers' works, but I haven't seen any. So I guess just Aristotle's works have been condensed in this convenient form. For a novice, or even a student of philosophy, this book is a useful and accessible resource. ... Read more

Product Description
In undertaking to treat of Aristotle as the expounder of ancient educational ideas, I might, with Kapp's Aristoteles' Staatspaedagogik before me, have made my task an easy one. I might simply have presented in an orderly way and with a little commentary, what is to be found on the subject of education in his various works -- Politics, Ethics, Rhetoric, Poetics, etc. I had two reasons, however, for not adopting this course: (1) that this work had been done, better than I could do it, in the treatise referred to, and (2) that a mere restatement of what Aristotle says on education would hardly have shown his relation to ancient pedagogy as a whole. I therefore judged it better, by tracing briefly the whole history of Greek education up to Aristotle and down from Aristotle, to show the past which conditioned his theories and the future which was conditioned by them. Only thus, it seemed to me, could his teachings be seen in their proper light. And I have found that this method has many advantages, of which I may mention one. It has enabled me to show the close connection that existed at all times between Greek education and Greek social and political life, and to present the one as the reflection of the other. And this is no small advantage, since it is just from its relation to the whole of life that Greek education derives its chief interest for us. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

What is The Meaning Of Being?
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being.What is the meaning of being?With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form.Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality.One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality.Matter can't answer the question of being without form.Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature.Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being.Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics.We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white."Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being."Word being has flexibility.Other flexible words is essence.(the what it is to be).In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence.Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature.All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word.When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for.Aristotle says you can't find it.Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health.Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy.Aristotle is OK with using examples.Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence.Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy).It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics."This" is ontologically primary.Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics.The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is.Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological?Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge?Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge.Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge.However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy.This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato.In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia.Ousia =form in Metaphysics.In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter.Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form.This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics.In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle.If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable.You never come across things without their form.God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence.The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge.Definition= essence.Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human.When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form.It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form.Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is.Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done.So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1.Grammatically basic.2.Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right.The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule.Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles.It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect.An important governing thought in Western philosophy.A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite.Aristotle thought reality was organized this way.It has to do with both knowledge and being.Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality.In the same respect, what does it mean?It shifts depending on circumstances.From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable.The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction.In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play.Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time.1 of 3 factors has changed, time.A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion.Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things.Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation.This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle.This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state.All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement.Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood.Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature.Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things.He stretches the way Ousia in many ways.Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists.However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being.Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about.The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight).Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form."Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form.A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being.However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is."Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being.If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia?Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato!He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world.Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge.The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things.When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things.Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality.Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point.If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest.This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it.He wants to grasp the final.For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia.Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness.1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity.2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea.Potentiality has idea of negation in it.Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move.Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality.Ontology now moves to theology.This is his theological science.(Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle).In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends.Any actualization has potentiality it is prior.Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement.Two ways Aristotle proves this idea.1st is human reproduction brings us into being.Our parents actually reproduced us.2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas.Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it.Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place.Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential.Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine.God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality.This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought.What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out.Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality.Thus, non-rational movement is very regular.Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality.When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation.There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something.3rd level is big for Aristotle.1st two levels have limitations to them.We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers.He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics.Movement is actualization of potential.Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life.Things in nature that are alive.Soma=body.Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't.Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise.We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Another Excellent Work in the Dumb Ox Series
This is a great translation of Aquinas' comments on Aristotle's worktitled, "Metaphysics." Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame University)wrote the preface and the work was translated by John P. Rowan. Both menare strong in their field of expertise and both are Thomists. The book is aphrase by phrase/paragraph by paragraph commentary written by Aquinas onAristotle's actual work. In other words, Aquinas took what Aristotleespoused in his "Metaphysics" and discussed it in great detail.Aquinas was not shy about admitting what he disagreed and agreed with inAristotle's philosophy. So not only is the reader of this addition gettingthe actual translated text of Aristotle's work, but also Aquinas' remarks.This is an incredible reference/resource work for those who are eitherstudying Aristotle's "Metaphysics," the thoughts of ThomasAquinas, or perhaps both. The book is 839 pages of solid text and very wellorganized so the reader knows the parts that are Aristotle's (which are allitalicized) and Aquinas'(which are in plain type). This book, if for noother reason, at least helps the student of both philosophers gain a betterunderstanding of each; since Aquinas is at his best when commenting aboutAristotle's work and the actual text of Aristotle is present for the readerto digest. This paragraph from the back cover of the book well describeswhat the buyer and reader can expect from such a great work as this -"Thomas Aquinas finds the twelve books he comments on wonderful fortheir order, both overall and in the minutest detail. His reading isgoverned by what he takes to be the clear sense of the text, hisinterpretations keep close to what Aristotle actually said, his account isbreathtaking in its acuity." Thus, this is a work that you will notwant to miss, since, unfortunately, books of this nature have a short ashelf life. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics deals with character and its proper development in the acquisition of thoughtful habits directed toward appropriate ends. The articles in this unique collection, many new or not readily available, form a continuos commentary on the Ethics. Philosophers and classicists alike will welcome them. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

a classic scholarly collection, still perfectly relevant
This collection is by some of the major figures in ancient philosophy scholarship for the last few decades. It is not light reading, the interested non-philosopher intellectual can find something here but depending on what you do you might find parts of this collection tough.Enough of it is perfectly accessible to the well-educated curious layperson, however.

This book is more for professionals - who don't bother reading this review when looking to order this book.Advanced students and those interested in focusing on ancient and Aristotle must have this for their library.Advanced undergrads and graduate students taking courses on the Ethics need look no further for a great resource for writing papers.

If you are looking for something more introductory try one of those philosophy guidebooks and introductions all the various scholarly presses have EXCEPT the Cambridge book by Michael Pakaluk - it's garbage.

Keep an eye out for the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle's Nico-Ethics edited by R. Polansky.It should be quite good whenever it comes out.

Getting Back to Aristotle
In this collection of 21 essays, most written during the 1970s, Amelie Rorty has pulled together some penetrating and diverse analyses of the Nicomachean Ethics (and related works) of Aristotle.One of the valuable features of the book is its arrangement: the essays are grouped according to the books of the Ethics of which they treat.Thus, the essays on *akrasia* are grouped together. The two best essays in the book, in my humble opinion, are John M. Cooper's "Aristotle on Friendship," and Martha Craven Nussbaum's "Shame, Separateness, and Political Unity: Aristotle's Criticism of Plato."Both lead one to pursue further reading in these interesting topics.Nussbaum, for example, not only provides a critique of Plato's concept of self-respect, particularly in The Republic, and compares it to Aristotle's presentation in the Ethics and the Politics; she also brings in John Rawls' A Theory of Justice, and two novels by Henry James. For those looking for some guidance, and some analytic tools, in reading Aristotle's ethical works, this is a great resource. ... Read more

Product Description
What is the relation between time and change? Does time depend on the mind? Is the present always the same or is it always different? Aristotle tackles these questions in the Physics, and Time for Aristotle is the first book in English devoted to this discussion.

Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent on change; he defines it as a kind of "number of change." Ursula Coope argues that what this means is that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, a kind of measure). It is universal order within which all changes are related to each other. This interpretation enables Coope to explain two puzzling claims that Aristotle makes: that the now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence on the mind. Brilliantly lucid in its explanation of this challenging section of the Physics, Time for Aristotle shows his discussion to be of enduring philosophical interest. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

An exceptional exploration of key elements between change and time in Aristotle's thought.
Time for Aristotle by Ursula Coope (Oxford Aristotle Studies: Oxford University Press) What is the relation between time and change? Does time depend on the mind? Is the present always the same or is it always different? Aristotle tackles these questions in the Physics. In the first book in English exclusively devoted to this discussion, Ursula Coope argues that Aristotle sees time as a universal order within which all changes are related to each other. This interpretation enables her to explain two striking Aristotelian claims: that the now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence on the mind.
Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent upon change; he defines it as a kind of number of change.The author argues that what this means is that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, a kind of measure).It is a universal order within which all changes are related to each other.This interpretation and enables Coope to explain to puzzling claims that Aristotle makes: that for now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence upon the mind.Time for Aristotle is a lucid discussion of one of the more perennial fascinating sections of Aristotle's Physics.
For Aristotle all living things have their natures in Aristotle's discussion of the natural things, in his Physics III & IV, he discusses the nature of these natures for Aristotle there are four simple bodies: which correspond to our currently conceived for states of matter: earth, air, fire, and water, each of which has a natural tendency to occupy a particular place in the universe. For Aristotle the earth is at the center, then in concentric circles water, air, and fire. (Note for modern physics there are five states of matter that correspond to the solid, liquid, Gaseous, radiant, and the hyper hot magma.) In the section of the fixed physics that concerns Coope, Aristotle lays out his account of four things that are fundamental to the study of any nature: change, infinity, place, and time. Previously he also discusses the void he says that the void is generally thought to be a precondition of change if there is present also place, time.Later he does discuss that all this is generally accepted except for the claim that there can only be changed if there is void.In his discussion of void he argues not only that there can be change in the absence of void, but that it is, in fact, and possible for there to be void. (IV.6-9).
Sense nature is a source of change, in order to understand all what it is to have a nature we need to account for change.Changes, Aristotle thinks, are infinitely divisible, so in providing a foundation for physics, we must tackle the obscure notion of the infinite.He provides an account of place, because if there is to be any kind of change there must be change of place.The example given is that of the heavenly bodies must engage in eternal movement that is a change in place.Moreover whenever one thing axon another to produce a change, there must be spatial movement, sense before one think and act on another, the thing that acts in the thing that is acted upon must approach one another.Such was the reasoning to give rise to the ether.To understand the change of place than an account of time is also needed sense all changes and all changing things are within the time.
This sets the context on how the accounts of time plays out in Aristotle's overall system.If we are to understand his Physics as a whole we need to grapple with his difficult remarks about time.
Coope argues that Aristotle's account of time rep presents it as a kind of universal order and that this is why he defines it, oddly as a number.It is, he says, a number of change, a single order within which all changes are related to one another.Aristotle argues that the existence of this single order depends on the existence of beings, like us who can count.It depends on the fact that week count in the present, it presents series of nows, in a certain way. To count a now is to mark a dividing-point in all the changes that are going on at it.Our counting thus introduces a kind of uniformity into the world.It allows us to the limit, within a change, arbitrary parts that are exactly simultaneous to corresponding parts in every other change that is going on.One of Aristotle's central concerns as to explain how time can have this kind of uniformity.He asks what account of time will make sense of the fact that the changes are various and separate from one another, time is everywhere seemingly the same.
In order to approach the idea of time and one must have an deep appreciation of Aristotle's explanations for change.First Aristotle explains change in terms of the notions of potential and actuality.His account makes no explicit reference to time that there should be such an account of change is presupposed by his whole project of explaining time in terms of its relation to change.Second, a change is, in a certain sense, asymmetric.It is defined in terms of a potential to be in some and state.A change points forward to its completion in a way in which it does not point backward at its inception.This may suggest that the account of change does, after all, make a central reference to time.However in Aristotle's view this is the asymmetry within change itself is basic.It is temporal asymmetry that depends on the asymmetries within change, rather than vice versa.Finally this definition of change provides Aristotle with the sources to make sense of a certain kind of inference.
The acorn is changing into an oak tree.But this change may or may not result in their actually being an oak tree.If the young sapling is eaten by wild animals, the oak tree never materializes, but it is never less true that the acorn was becoming an oak and not becoming a sapling.This is because the potential that govern the acorns change was the potential to be an oak tree and not the potential to be a sapling.The change was actually of the potential oak tree, as potentially an oak tree.This final feature a change its teleology is the key to an analogy Aristotle draws between change and spatial magnitude.
In his account time, Aristotle takes for granted certain views about the senses in which boundaries, or divisions, can exist within a continuum these views are partly motivated by his need to reconcile two claims about the infinite.On the one hand he thinks that continuous things, like lines, changes, and time, are infinitely divisible.On the other he argues that there is no actual infinite: it is not possible for infinitely many things to exist all at once; to complete any number of subchanges is to have ever completed infinitely many changes.In order to make sense of this apparent incompatibility of these two lines of thinking, Aristotle makes good use of his idea of potential parts or points versus actual existents. For Aristotle indivisible things like points are instances that exist only in so far as they are boundaries, divisions, or potential divisions of a continuum.They are thus essentially dependent entities.A boundary must always be a boundary of the something or other, which is its actuality.Next for a boundary to be enhanced of four parts of it to be bound by it it must be marked out in some way from its surroundings.A continuous thing that contains no such boundaries will not contain any parts although it will of course be divisible.Third when one narks a now, I create a potential division, both in time and in whatever changes are then going on.It is thus by marking now that we create parts in time and in changes.
Coope discussion becomes from the most interesting when after accounting for time as something that is numeral and must be counted, as evidence of its asymmetrical relationship to change in general, Aristotle insists that there would be no time if there were not ensouledbeings to notice it. There is no accounting without a counter.Essentially then the notion of time is a dependent upon the apprehending mind. If there are no Sorrell's, there would be no time.If there were no souls, however there might be changes. Coope claims that Aristotle himself accepts the argument that time depends on the soul and that doing so, he is not making a simple logical mistake.We need to explore why he thinks that the fact that time is accountable shows that it depends upon for its existence on beings who are able to count.Aristotle also thinks that colors would not be perceptible in a world without perceivers. The analogy holds that that between perception and counting supports the view that time depends upon the soul.Also for time to be countable, it must first be counted.This raises questions about the nature of the soul effect upon the world.It may be that the soul perceives the world as within itself.This would account for the anima mundi.However that is another study.
Coope altogether manages a vibrant analysis of certain lingering puzzles in Aristotle's account of the nature of things.
... Read more

Product Description
What is the relation between time and change? Does time depend on the mind? Is the present always the same or is it always different? Aristotle tackles these questions in the Physics, and Time for Aristotle is the first book in English devoted to this discussion.

Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent on change; he defines it as a kind of "number of change." Ursula Coope argues that what this means is that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, a kind of measure). It is universal order within which all changes are related to each other. This interpretation enables Coope to explain two puzzling claims that Aristotle makes: that the now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence on the mind. Brilliantly lucid in its explanation of this challenging section of the Physics, Time for Aristotle shows his discussion to be of enduring philosophical interest. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

An exceptional exploration of key elements between change and time in Aristotle's thought.
Time for Aristotle by Ursula Coope (Oxford Aristotle Studies: Oxford University Press) What is the relation between time and change? Does time depend on the mind? Is the present always the same or is it always different? Aristotle tackles these questions in the Physics. In the first book in English exclusively devoted to this discussion, Ursula Coope argues that Aristotle sees time as a universal order within which all changes are related to each other. This interpretation enables her to explain two striking Aristotelian claims: that the now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence on the mind.
Aristotle claims that time is not a kind of change, but that it is something dependent upon change; he defines it as a kind of number of change.The author argues that what this means is that time is a kind of order (not, as is commonly supposed, a kind of measure).It is a universal order within which all changes are related to each other.This interpretation and enables Coope to explain to puzzling claims that Aristotle makes: that for now is like a moving thing, and that time depends for its existence upon the mind.Time for Aristotle is a lucid discussion of one of the more perennial fascinating sections of Aristotle's Physics.
For Aristotle all living things have their natures in Aristotle's discussion of the natural things, in his Physics III & IV, he discusses the nature of these natures for Aristotle there are four simple bodies: which correspond to our currently conceived for states of matter: earth, air, fire, and water, each of which has a natural tendency to occupy a particular place in the universe. For Aristotle the earth is at the center, then in concentric circles water, air, and fire. (Note for modern physics there are five states of matter that correspond to the solid, liquid, Gaseous, radiant, and the hyper hot magma.) In the section of the fixed physics that concerns Coope, Aristotle lays out his account of four things that are fundamental to the study of any nature: change, infinity, place, and time. Previously he also discusses the void he says that the void is generally thought to be a precondition of change if there is present also place, time.Later he does discuss that all this is generally accepted except for the claim that there can only be changed if there is void.In his discussion of void he argues not only that there can be change in the absence of void, but that it is, in fact, and possible for there to be void. (IV.6-9).
Sense nature is a source of change, in order to understand all what it is to have a nature we need to account for change.Changes, Aristotle thinks, are infinitely divisible, so in providing a foundation for physics, we must tackle the obscure notion of the infinite.He provides an account of place, because if there is to be any kind of change there must be change of place.The example given is that of the heavenly bodies must engage in eternal movement that is a change in place.Moreover whenever one thing axon another to produce a change, there must be spatial movement, sense before one think and act on another, the thing that acts in the thing that is acted upon must approach one another.Such was the reasoning to give rise to the ether.To understand the change of place than an account of time is also needed sense all changes and all changing things are within the time.
This sets the context on how the accounts of time plays out in Aristotle's overall system.If we are to understand his Physics as a whole we need to grapple with his difficult remarks about time.
Coope argues that Aristotle's account of time rep presents it as a kind of universal order and that this is why he defines it, oddly as a number.It is, he says, a number of change, a single order within which all changes are related to one another.Aristotle argues that the existence of this single order depends on the existence of beings, like us who can count.It depends on the fact that week count in the present, it presents series of nows, in a certain way. To count a now is to mark a dividing-point in all the changes that are going on at it.Our counting thus introduces a kind of uniformity into the world.It allows us to the limit, within a change, arbitrary parts that are exactly simultaneous to corresponding parts in every other change that is going on.One of Aristotle's central concerns as to explain how time can have this kind of uniformity.He asks what account of time will make sense of the fact that the changes are various and separate from one another, time is everywhere seemingly the same.
In order to approach the idea of time and one must have an deep appreciation of Aristotle's explanations for change.First Aristotle explains change in terms of the notions of potential and actuality.His account makes no explicit reference to time that there should be such an account of change is presupposed by his whole project of explaining time in terms of its relation to change.Second, a change is, in a certain sense, asymmetric.It is defined in terms of a potential to be in some and state.A change points forward to its completion in a way in which it does not point backward at its inception.This may suggest that the account of change does, after all, make a central reference to time.However in Aristotle's view this is the asymmetry within change itself is basic.It is temporal asymmetry that depends on the asymmetries within change, rather than vice versa.Finally this definition of change provides Aristotle with the sources to make sense of a certain kind of inference.
The acorn is changing into an oak tree.But this change may or may not result in their actually being an oak tree.If the young sapling is eaten by wild animals, the oak tree never materializes, but it is never less true that the acorn was becoming an oak and not becoming a sapling.This is because the potential that govern the acorns change was the potential to be an oak tree and not the potential to be a sapling.The change was actually of the potential oak tree, as potentially an oak tree.This final feature a change its teleology is the key to an analogy Aristotle draws between change and spatial magnitude.
In his account time, Aristotle takes for granted certain views about the senses in which boundaries, or divisions, can exist within a continuum these views are partly motivated by his need to reconcile two claims about the infinite.On the one hand he thinks that continuous things, like lines, changes, and time, are infinitely divisible.On the other he argues that there is no actual infinite: it is not possible for infinitely many things to exist all at once; to complete any number of subchanges is to have ever completed infinitely many changes.In order to make sense of this apparent incompatibility of these two lines of thinking, Aristotle makes good use of his idea of potential parts or points versus actual existents. For Aristotle indivisible things like points are instances that exist only in so far as they are boundaries, divisions, or potential divisions of a continuum.They are thus essentially dependent entities.A boundary must always be a boundary of the something or other, which is its actuality.Next for a boundary to be enhanced of four parts of it to be bound by it it must be marked out in some way from its surroundings.A continuous thing that contains no such boundaries will not contain any parts although it will of course be divisible.Third when one narks a now, I create a potential division, both in time and in whatever changes are then going on.It is thus by marking now that we create parts in time and in changes.
Coope discussion becomes from the most interesting when after accounting for time as something that is numeral and must be counted, as evidence of its asymmetrical relationship to change in general, Aristotle insists that there would be no time if there were not ensouledbeings to notice it. There is no accounting without a counter.Essentially then the notion of time is a dependent upon the apprehending mind. If there are no Sorrell's, there would be no time.If there were no souls, however there might be changes. Coope claims that Aristotle himself accepts the argument that time depends on the soul and that doing so, he is not making a simple logical mistake.We need to explore why he thinks that the fact that time is accountable shows that it depends upon for its existence on beings who are able to count.Aristotle also thinks that colors would not be perceptible in a world without perceivers. The analogy holds that that between perception and counting supports the view that time depends upon the soul.Also for time to be countable, it must first be counted.This raises questions about the nature of the soul effect upon the world.It may be that the soul perceives the world as within itself.This would account for the anima mundi.However that is another study.
Coope altogether manages a vibrant analysis of certain lingering puzzles in Aristotle's account of the nature of things.
... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle compares poetry and history, maintaining that poetry has greater philosophical value because it deals with universals, while history states particular facts. 10 cassettes. ... Read more

Product Description
Kessinger Publishing is the place to find hundreds of thousands of rare and hard-to-find books with something of interest for everyone! ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

What is The Meaning Of Being?
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being.What is the meaning of being?With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form.Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality.One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality.Matter can't answer the question of being without form.Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature.Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being.Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics.We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white."Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being."Word being has flexibility.Other flexible words is essence.(the what it is to be).In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence.Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature.All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word.When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for.Aristotle says you can't find it.Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health.Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy.Aristotle is OK with using examples.Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence.Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy).It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics."This" is ontologically primary.Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics.The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is.Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological?Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge?Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge.Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge.However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy.This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato.In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia.Ousia =form in Metaphysics.In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter.Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form.This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics.In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle.If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable.You never come across things without their form.God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence.The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge.Definition= essence.Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human.When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form.It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form.Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is.Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done.So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1.Grammatically basic.2.Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right.The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule.Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles.It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect.An important governing thought in Western philosophy.A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite.Aristotle thought reality was organized this way.It has to do with both knowledge and being.Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality.In the same respect, what does it mean?It shifts depending on circumstances.From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable.The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction.In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play.Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time.1 of 3 factors has changed, time.A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion.Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things.Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation.This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle.This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state.All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement.Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood.Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature.Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things.He stretches the way Ousia in many ways.Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists.However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being.Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about.The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight).Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form."Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form.A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being.However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is."Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being.If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia?Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato!He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world.Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge.The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things.When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things.Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality.Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point.If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest.This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it.He wants to grasp the final.For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia.Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness.1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity.2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea.Potentiality has idea of negation in it.Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move.Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality.Ontology now moves to theology.This is his theological science.(Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle).In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends.Any actualization has potentiality it is prior.Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement.Two ways Aristotle proves this idea.1st is human reproduction brings us into being.Our parents actually reproduced us.2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas.Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it.Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place.Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential.Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine.God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality.This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought.What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out.Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality.Thus, non-rational movement is very regular.Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality.When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation.There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something.3rd level is big for Aristotle.1st two levels have limitations to them.We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers.He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics.Movement is actualization of potential.Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life.Things in nature that are alive.Soma=body.Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't.Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise.We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.


... Read more

Product Description
Following the conviction that Aristotle's works are themselves the best introduction to what Aristotle thought and meant, Richard McKeon has skillfully compiled and edited this collection of texts from the treatises.An important tool for instructors and students alike. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

A useful and comprehensive introduction.
It's been said somewhere, don't remember by whom, that all of western philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato and Aristotle. This may be a bit of an exaggeration, but the fact remains that these two seminal figures of western thought have left at least an indirect mark on all of the subsequent thinkers. And yet, it's been my experience that Plato ismuch more widely read and studied, in college courses and otherwise, than his equally famous erstwhile disciple. This probably has to do a lot with the style: Plato's "Socratic dialogs" have been written in a form that makes them instantly accessible to readers of all ages, and tends to belie the complexities and subtleties of the underlying ideas. Aristotle's style is much more pedantic and scholarly. One could easily see his writings appearing in peer-reviewed journals.

In part due to the above considerations, it took me a while to finally pick up a book of Aristotle's writings and try to go through at least some of them. This volume brings a few of his works in their entirety, but for most part only more important excerpts are given. Reading it requires some effort on the part of the reader, especially if you are not used to the style and substance of ancient Greek thought. However, the effort was worthwhile, and I've come away from reading this work with renewed and deepened appreciation for Aristotle. In terms of the sheer breadth of his inquiry, there has not been anyone quite like him before or since. ... Read more