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
Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein In this book, Michael Crowe does for the physics of moving bodies what he had previously done for theories of the universe (in his highly regarded Theories of the World from Antiquity to the Copernican Revolution and Modern Theories of the Universe from Herschel to Hubble). In a remarkably concise compass, Crowe presents, through actual examples, the fascinating story of how philosophers and scientists through the ages have tried to understand how things move. Included are substantial selections from the writings of Aristotle, Oresme, Descartes, Galileo, Huygens, Newton, and Einstein. The selections are furnished with extensive notes aimed at guiding nonspecialist readers through the texts. Introductory sections provide historical information that helps us understand and appreciate each chapter in the story, which Crowe aptly characterizes as "the most remarkable story in all secular history." At the same time, Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein is itself an intoduction to the foundations of mechanics. Ideas that were originally expressed in unfamiliar language are restated using modern terminology and simple algebra to make them comprehensible to present-day readers. Examples and problems are provided to give a true "hands on" experience of these ideas and discoveries, which are fundamental to an understanding of both our physical universe and our civilization itself. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

Mechanics: A Great (Books) Course
This is an excellent introduction to the development of the science of mechanics through the ages--reading Michael Crowe's `Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein' is like sitting in on a great books course or watching a recorded lecture from The Teaching Company. The subject is the development of mechanics, "the science of moving bodies and their interactions" [back cover], and the concepts of this subject are here presented in a manner accessible to anyone with solid skills in algebra and geometry. The book instructs--as you would expect from a `great books' approach--by relying on lengthy quotations from primary sources (Aristotle, Galileo, Huygens, Newton, Einstein), and then providing helpful commentary to explain just what it is these primary materials are accomplishing. The commentary is also supplemented with helpful figures, images, equations, and historical timelines.

The book is organized chronologically as follows:

1. Mechanics before Galileo
2. Galileo and Terrestrial Mechanics
3. From Galileo to Newton [covering Gilbert, Kepler, Descartes, and Huygens]
4. Newton and Mechanics
5. Between Newton and Einstein
6. Einstein and Relativity Theory

One of the real strengths of this book is to trace the development of the concept of `relativity,' by presenting evidence that the notion that the mechanics of motion are relative to an observer was not Einstein's exclusive discovery, but in fact was pondered by others going back to Descartes and even Aristotle.

Another valuable addition to the reader's understanding of the materials presented in `Mechanics' is the inclusion of the `Galileo Laboratory' at the end of the book--a chance for the reader to repeat some of Galileo's experiments.

Now a quick comment on another Amazon reviewer's review of this book, which claimed that Crowe's `Mechanics' cannot be taken seriously as a history of mechanics. Such a claim misses the point. This book is not, at least in the narrative sense, an exhaustive history of mechanics. Instead, it is a historically-based primer on the development of mechanics using primary sources from the ancient Greeks to Einstein, focusing only on key developments. Certainly more could have been added if the author had been so inclined. But that was not the goal. Crowe's `Mechanics' is intentionally pedagogical, the result of years of teaching the subject and distilling down the most useful aspects for students of all ages--in the tradition of a great books program at one of Americas finest universities. From that perspective, 'Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein' can and should be taken seriously as one of the best introductions to the development of mechanics available.

Finally, this book was written for the amateur, not the expert with mastery of mechanics and relativity (although certainly an expert with an open mind could find this book enjoyable if for no other reason than the author's evident historical sensibilities and scholarship). The liberal use of quotations from primary sources and the useful commentary are there to facilitate the reader who has little or no background in this subject, not necessarily the reader who is already in strong command of the material. But having both the primary source material, as well as the author's very useful commentary, makes `Mechanics from Aristotle to Einstein' a superb and accessible introduction to the historical development of "the science of moving bodies and their interactions."

A shallow history of mechanics
This book cannot be taken very seriously as a history of mechanics "from Aristotle to Einstein." For example, it devotes only some 25 pages to the role of God (pp. 204-208, 220-240) while the entire 18th and 19th centuries are given a whopping 8 pages (pp. 247-254). And how are we to understand relativistic mechanics in a condensed 29-page chapter (pp. 269-297) if only five of those pages are devoted to a chronology of Einstein's life, giving merely rudimentary information on key facts such as when Einstein's mother died (p. 273)?

Instead, this is an arbitrarily composed cut-and-paste patchwork of source texts and shallow commentary. The source texts are certainly very interesting but the great majority of them are already readily available in numerous translations and source books, so this book would have to be justified through its synthesis or commentary. Unfortunately, synthesis is virtually nonexistent and the commentary is sloppy and poor.

Predictably, Crowe loves the Middle Ages. He opens this section by mocking the rhetoric of Henry Smith Williams, who put blank pages in his history of astronomy to illustrate that "astronomically speaking, nothing happened during the middle ages" (p. 13). Perhaps this ought to have suggested to Crowe that one should let the results speak for themselves rather than rely on rhetoric. But of course the results do not, in fact, support Crowe's high esteem for the Middle Ages, so he has to fall back on rhetoric all the same; for example, after being impressed by Buridan, Crowe finds Oresme "even more impressive" (p. 25) and then "even more impressive" still further down on the same page, when all Oresme did was to point out the utterly trivial "mean speed theorem" and make the observation that a rock thrown straight up on the deck of a ship does not land further towards the stern.

Also predictably, Crowe thinks that modern philosophy of science contributes greatly to our understanding of the history of mechanics. Various trivial remarks of Duhem and Popper and the theoretical framework of the hypothetico-deductive (HD) method supposedly clarifies the structure of the Principia. A subsequent paragraph opens: "Another mystery about the Newtonian system that an analysis in terms of the HD method can illuminate relates to the Copernican theory." (p. 218). The "mystery" referred to here seems to be the fact that the Copernican system became widely accepted with Newton et al. even though it was not supported by direct empirical evidence. Of course, "the new mechanics and Copernican astronomy evolved in tandem ... it was not that one proved the other" (p. 219). I don't see how any person in his right mind can consider this a "mystery" requiring a pretentious philosophy of science to "illuminate" it. On the next page we find yet another piece of philosophical b.s.: "This overall analysis simultaneously suggests a way around a claim made around 1900 by Henri Poincaré, who asserted that the law of inertia is incapable of empirical proof. Pierre Duhem countered that claim by asserting in his Aim and Structure of Physical Theory (1906) that physical theories, such as the law of inertia, are never subjected to test in isolation; rather theories always go to test in group." (p. 219). It should not be necessary to point out that this is not "a way around" Poincaré's correct claim, and that Poincaré's argument is in no way "countered" by Duhem. Also, the fact that no reference is provided for this statement Poincaré made "around 1900", even though it is in his most accessible work on the philosophy of science, Science and Hypothesis (p. 91ff. of the Dover ed.), is further proof that this book is very sloppily composed indeed.

According to Crowe, "It is significant to note that Newton does not anywhere in his Principia express his law of gravitation in the form of an equation." (p. 117). No, this is not "significant to note." Newton's verbal statement of course contains the exact same information as the modern formula. If anything, it is significant to note that its is completely insignificant that Newton does not express his law of gravitation in the form of an equation. Similarly, it is apparently also "important to stress that Kepler had not himself presented [his] laws as a set of three laws; rather they are scattered in his writings" (p. 118). What's so "important" about this? Aren't, say, Galileo's insights likewise "scattered in his writings"? Again, "Newton read Descartes's Principles of Philosophy in late 1664 and was drawn to various features of it. This is a surprising fact to those who know how vigourously Newton attacked Cartesian physics in his Principia." (p. 119). I don't see what is so "surprising" about this. Personally, I would have found it more surprising if Newton attacked a work with no appealing features that he had never read. Finally, a certain quotation from Huygens is reproduced twice (pp. 107-108, 211; the first time in a section headed "Huygens: Conclusion" that does not have any conclusions in it and might as well have been left out). Needless to say, freshmen would not get away with using the same page-long quotation twice in the same paper, but apparently professors emeriti are entitled to this privilege. ... Read more

Product Description
The first complete translation into modern English of Aquinas' unfinished commentary on Aristotle's Politics, this translation follows the definitive Leonine text of Aquinas and moreover reproduces in English those passages of William of Moerbeke's famously accurate yet elliptical translation of the Politics from which Aquinas worked.Bekker numbers have been added to passages from Moerbeke's translation for easy reference. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

If You Don't Want To Live In A State, You Are Either A God Or A Beast
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge.Politics regulates when virtue does not.Laws are created for people who are not virtuous.Polis= "city or state."Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good.Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude.He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household.Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch.Villages are a collection of households with a king.Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages.Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis.An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well.Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc.All these are actualized in a Polis.Politics is natural to human life.We are meant to be social.According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals.Rational language expands capacity in human life.Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household.This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree.Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle.Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy.Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle.Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth."Born to be ruled."Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves.Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him.He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best.In a Polis citizens have things in common.Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling.Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis.The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering.Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common.This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors.Aristotle criticizes this idea.Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better.Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people.This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta.Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it.Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of.Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property.Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element.Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity.A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen.Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen.There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law.Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together."Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule.The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule.The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy.The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority.He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted.Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept.What does justice mean?Not necessarily equality for all.Not all people are equal.He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally.Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally.Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good.Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle."But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy."First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous.This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods.Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person?Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit.His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit.Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content).This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods.This is context dependent.Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis.The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure.Expertise in relation to politics.Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc.Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government.Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government.In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good.Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise.Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges.The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder.In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king.Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority."Law is reason unaffected by desire."A government of laws not men.A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics.Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education.Aristotle says it should be public education.

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

Historian Edward Grant illuminates how today's scientific culture originated with the religious thinkers of the Middle Ages. In the early centuries of Christianity, Christians studied science and natural philosophy only to the extent that these subjects proved useful for a better understanding of the Christian faith, not to acquire knowledge for its own sake. However, with the influx of Greco-Arabic science and natural philosophy into Western Europe during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, the Christian attitude toward science changed dramatically. Despite some tensions in the thirteenth century, the Church and its theologians became favorably disposed toward science and natural philosophy and used them extensively in their theological deliberations.

Customer Reviews (2)

An important book but with limitations
Edward Grant is one of the leading historians of science and so this overview of western science to 1550 is welcome. Grant surveys the three main contributors, the Greeks, Islam and the Middle Ages. Each had an important contribution to make. This book is particularly important in stressing the vital contribution the Greeks made to medieval thought.
On his first page Grant makes the point that the dialogue between religion and science goes back to Plato and Aristotle with their very different ways of finding certainty. Do you concentrate on finding empirical evidence from which to understand the material world or is there an immaterial world which can be grasped by reason? It is important to start here as often such debates get fixated on Christianity, Galileo and Darwin. If one starts with the two opposing stands of Aristotle and Plato one has a much more far ranging and satisfying debate whih goes beyond the relatively narrow perspectives of the Christians versus Dawkins.
There is a good chapter on Aristotle, in Grant's view ` probably the most significant figure in the history of Western thought up to the end of the sixteenth century' (P. 37). Despite errors in his observations ( and this has been the case with most scientists throughout history) Grant shows us that the ways in which we understand what nature is and how to appreciate and study it is due to Aristotle. It is a massive legacy. In his Chapter Three Grant shows how the Greek tradition of empirical thought spread through a variety of disciplines and was still powerful in the second century AD. Galen and Ptolemy are two giants to whom he gives appropriate accolades. He looks at the ambivalent attitudes to `science' in the early Christian world and later in Islam, which, of course, made impressive contributions of its own which Grant details ( pp.230-43)
With the fall of the Roman empire, Grant notes the nadir of western European thought until its revival in the twelfth century. He also notes the contrast between the vitality of Greek intellectual life in the second century AD and then its gradual decline in the Byzantine theocracy so that despite some intellectual renaissances ` no significant works were composed that had any detectable influence' in the empire (p. 229). I suspect that Byzantine scholars might disagree with Grant here.
As Grant makes clear (p.24) ` Science in the late ancient and medieval periods was radically different from modern science'. It would be interesting to know how far western rationalism would have progressed from its tentative reappearance in the twelfth century without the coming of Aristotle to the rescue. Inevitably the rediscovery of Aristotle got everyone shaken up, even if his thought was often subordinated to Christian dogmatism. Grant is good at how his impact infused western thought and was successfully integrated into Christian theology by Thomas Aquinas.
In Paris theology continued to rule as supreme but this did not prevent natural philosophers. in the arts faculties, doing interesting work in areas that did not concern the church. Yet, as one of the more talented natural philosophers, John Buridan, put it when he came up against a contradiction between God's power and reason ` I yield the determination of these questions to the lord theologians ,and I wish to acquiesce in their determination `. ( p. 211). Grant is excellent on the way that angels became to natural philosophy what fruitflies are to modern genetic research. Although no medieval discussion apparently discussed angels on pinheads, natural philosophers did discuss whether God could create an infinite multitude of angels within an hour. Yes, he could, argued Gregory of Rimini ( p. 210) There were wonderfully convoluted debates on how angels, as immaterial objects, could move. Do they move instantaneously or is there a period of transition between them being in one place and another, a mid-point of their progress (pp. 213-5)? What kind of space does an angel, which is, apparently indivisible, occupy? Despite this bizarre way of doing 'science', Grant argues that it did lead to some form of progress. It is hard to say how much and whether it would ever have freed itself from the entanglements of theology. Fashions come and go and it is now fashionable to decry those who are critical of scholasticism but there were some pretty odd pathways ( divine embryology - the science of the conception of Jesus is one of them) which needed to be closed off and be replaced with mainstream thinking on the real world ( e.g. following the tradition of Aristotle) before genuine progress could be made. Too much natural philosophy was concerned with meeting the challenges of Christian dogma.
There are three areas I would have liked to see more on.
1) Robert Bartlett (The Natural and the Supernatural in the Middle Ages) has shown how the popes' determination to control the authentication of miracles led to a debate on where the boundaries between the natural and supernatural lay. This led to much more thought about the natural world. How far benign (angels) and malign ( Satan and the devils)forces affected the course of nature was another religious issue which led to more discussion on the natural world- perhaps as a bizarre way of doing science as using angels as models but least it got people thinking about the natural world. (The revival of interest in the natural wrld gathered pace in the sixteenth century, not the medieval world)
2). Grant says virtually nothing about the specific contributions of the Italian universities. Philip Jones in his monumental study of the Italian City-State (see my review on Amazon co.uk)has destroyed the myth of the church founding the first universities. They were under the control of the local communes and were very much more vocational than universities in the north. That is why medical studies developed faster in Italy as medicine was highlighted as a prestige vocation. So was law with equally important results. James Franklin in his absorbing The Science of Conjecture notes that 'the essential idea that one applies reasoning to texts to understand them had been developed by the school of commentators on Lombard law in Pavia by about 1050' e.g. in Italy outside a university- he sees this as leading directly into the university of Bologna with its famous law faculty (p.15-16). Civic humanism not only gave greater confidence to the individual (look at the arrogance of Brunelleschi in thinking he could put a dome on Florence cathedral- he showed he could!) but encouraged cities to smarten themselves up and exploit economic opportunities. Jones identifies the practical results in statistics, mathematics, cadastral surveying and map making. The first mass production of spectacles was in Florence. Here is the application of scientific thought to everyday lives which , contra Grant, could be seen as the foundation of modern science. ( Of course, nowadays we can see how the Aristoteleian approach has won out over the Platonic by adding immense value to human life - it was not so clear in this earlier period just how massive a contribution science would make to human well-being - one more reason for sharing Grant's view on Aristotle and perhaps extending it later than the sixteenth century.) Sixty per cent of books on science imported into 15th century England came from Venice, a city given only a bare mention by Grant.
3) Grant mentions Copernicus as the end point of his study but does not discuss his contribution. Was he the heir of medieval thought or, as Michael Hoskin and Owen Gingerich argue in the Cambridge History of Astronomy, maker ` of one the greatest intellectual leaps known to the history of science'.I would have appreciated Grant's thoughts as it remains unclear to me exactly important the Paris and Oxford natural philosophers were even in the relatively narrow fields of 'science' that were their concern. Were they simply supplanted by a great intellectual leap ( by someone who had studied first in Italy, if not in astronomy- as had Albert the Great and Aquinas, of course, before they went to Paris).
So there is a great deal of interest in this book and some absorbing discussions but I can never understand why historians of medieval science spend so much time on Paris and Oxford and virtually none on the practical advances made by science in the Italian peninsula during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. There is never any discussion of how and why the commune governments of the Italian city states were much more conducive to scientific advance 'on the ground' than the monarchical states of northern Europe ( not least,perhaps, because they were able to avoid being dominated so much by the church).I would argue that a comparison of the two, with at least as much space given to Italy, should be the central theme of any book on science in the later Middle Ages. The tragedy is that Philip Jones' The Italian City-State is so impossibly expensive despite being recognised as the 'bible' on the period before 1300 where he shows just how much advanced thinking was under way.

brilliant and clear
One does not find too often within a single book such combination of precise scholarship, objectivity, sense of perspective and clarity of exposition. Its price is modest, but beware, it might well compel you to refresh some of your ideas and knowledge on the subject. ... Read more

Product Description
In 1839 the Tractatus Coislinianus, a summarized treatiseon comedy, was published from a tenth-century manuscript. Itsdiscoverer suggested that it derived from the lost second book ofAristotle’s Poetics, which inaugurated the systematic study of comedy,but it was soon condemned as an ignorant compilation verging onforgery, and thus matters stood until the first publication of"Aristotle on Comedy" in 1984. Richard Janko’s edition of the text isaccompanied by a facing translation, interpretive essays,reconstruction and commentary. The book is now made available inpaperback for the first time, with a new Preface and additionalbibliography. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

"Only Man between Animals Can Laugh" (Aristotle)
This is the story of an ancient manuscript of the X century, known as "Coislinianus 120" (now at the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris) after the name of his last owner, a French collector of XVII century.
This manuscript, that once belonged to the monastery of Great Lavra on Mounth Athos, was sent to Seguier de Coislin from Cyprus by father Athanasios Rethor in 1643.
It was ignored for almost two centuries, until in 1839 J.A.Cramer, a classical scholar, analyzing its content, a rather haphazard collection of patristic and Aristotelian extracts, found what he believed to be "the words... of a commentator on Aristotle's (lost) treatise on the art of poetry".
*
This is also the tale of a fascination with a book: Aristotle's almost mythical Second Book of Poetics, whose quest has been as enthusiastic as that of the mythical Holy Grail.
*
Readers acquainted with Umberto Eco's "Name of the Rose" will remember the plot of the novel, based on this fabled book.
And yet there is not even certainty that Aristotle did effectively write this second treatise, but for some allusions and scattered, highly debated citations (the philosopher wrote also a book "On Poets" also lost and often confused with the two Poetics).
In any case, unlike Poetics I, this book did not survive the Middle Age.
*
Poetics I was respected but not widely appreciated in the classical times.
It was during the Renaissance that Aristotle's Poetics ended to be one of the emblems of the new culture, being printed, translated, commented, revered and debated for more than two centuries, until the famous "Querelle des Anciens et des Modernes" in late XVII century France.
*
Being so important to the new sensibility, it was almost natural for some scholars to begin wondering what Poetics II could have said: in the XVI century some of them began attempts to reconstruct the lost second book.
It was from one of these attempts Umberto Eco got the inspiration for "The name of the Rose" (see N.A. Basbanes - Patience and Fortitude, pag.222-223).
*
Richard Janko's "Aristotle on Comedy. Towards a Reconstruction of Poetics II" is a very specific book.
*
It is first of all the critical text of the manuscript, presented with in original Greek text with English translation and the usual linguistic comments.
*
It is a scientific and highly interesting attempt of restoration of the original unabridged content, through a collection of passages from other extant works of the Greek philosophers.
*
It is lastly a curious specimen of the amazing tools of classical philology in deepening our knowledge of an ancient text, of its transmission and of the original shape it did have.
Not casually Janko introduce his work with three different citations: the first rather predictably from Aristotle, of the other two one from Eco and one from Conan Doyle - as to remark the investigative dimension of his work.
*
Janko's case is well presented and well defended.
He demonstrates the terms used in the treatise are in quantity (about 90%) and quality consistent with those used in other Aristotle's work.
This excludes the suspect of a later Byzantine forgery.
He demonstrates all the references to ancient comedy are consistent with the period in which Aristotle lived (noteworthy is the absence of Menander, the second most important Greek play-writer after Aristophanes, who began to stage his comedies a few years after the death of the philosopher).
This absence is restricting the time-span of composition of the original source of the Coisliniaus.
He ends up showing that the work is consistent with Aristotelian ideas (specially with regard to ethics and catharsis), as opposed to the theories of Theophrastus, an other likely author of this work.
Language, references, inner consistency: all points to Aristotle.
*
Yet this attribution leaves many other questions open to debate.
Why wasn't this work so widely known as Poetics I ?
When and why was it definitively lost ?
How was made the original source of the Coislinianus?
This is the qualitative part of the analysis, made mostly of guesses and hypotheses.
*
While the First book on Poetics dealt with Tragedy, a genre already established and codified, Poetics II was dealing with a genre that was still changing and far different from the "modern" comedy, the one we today use to associate with the genre and created especially by the plays of Menander.
So while Poetics I was still valid in its interpretation, Poetics II was apparently obsolete soon after its composition.
This situation was crucial in the change from scrolls to parchment since Poetics II was not copied in the new form and soon it was lost for ever.
Janko is also able to deduce from textual errors that the original source of the Coislinianus had to be written in Greek minuscule, this one possibly already a copy from a former scroll in capital letters.
*
I still did not mention the content of Poetics II - and will not mention, since this is the classic case in which shape is more important than content. Besides this review is already growing a bit too long, and I didn't perceive any conspicuous contribution to the study of Aristotelian ideas.
*
As I mentioned earlier, this is a very specific work.
It is best suited to scholars and unfortunately the author doesn't do much to please a lay reader (some Greek citations are even presented with no translation).
No effort is done to introduce the relevant points to a non scholarly reader: the period in which was written, the systems of transmissions, the terms of the Aristotelian debate both in the ancienttimes and Renaissance, and lastly a panorama of thedifferent opinions on the authenticity of the work.
None the less it remains a hugely interesting work and the author is no doubt worthy of the warmest praise.

If you kept reading to these last lines, there is a chance you may be interested in other works I had the chance to read about the same topic. Unfortunately, the most interesting is in Italian and still not translated to date into English:
- Luciano Canfora - " Un mestiere Pericoloso. La Vita quotidiana dei filosofi Greci" (Sellerio). Canfora is both an important Greek scholars and an excellent writer. In the chapters dedicated to Aristotle he relays the fascinating story of the transmission of the Corpus Aristotelicum. Actually all the essoteric (from the Greek prefix EXO- "outside") works of the philosopher (those he willingly published during his life) have been totally lost. We have most of the esoteric (from the Greek prefix ESO- "inside") works, those intended for private use and lectures. Aristotle died 322 b.C. and left all these manuscripts to his family and they were completely disregarded and almost forgotten until Sulla included them in the booty after the war against Mitridathes (86 b.c).
Not scholarly but mentioned and/or relevant to this theme:
- Umberto Eco - "The name of the Rose". This is a must read, both for its huge learning and for its almost perfect Borgesian plot. Eco is an uneven writer, but this is undoubtedly his masterpiece.I was amused in comparing the opening lines of the lost book as imagined in this novel and as recreated in the essay.
- Nicholas A. Basbanes - "Patience and Fortitude" Rather average - and sometimes dull: relevant here for the interview with Umberto Eco about the sources of inspiration for his novel.
*
You are most welcome ifyou can suggest other books about the same theme or just share ideas and comments!
Thanks for reading. ... Read more

Product Description
W.K.C. Guthrie has written a survey of the great age of Greek philosophy - from Thales to Aristotle - which combines comprehensiveness with brevity. Without pre-supposing a knowledge of Greek or the Classics, he sets out to explain the ideas of Plato and Aristotle in the light of their predecessors rather than their successors, and to describe the characteristic features of the Greek way of thinking and outlook on the world. Thus The Greek Philosophers provides excellent background material for the general reader - as well as providing a firm basis for specialist studies. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (4)

Highly Recommended
One reviewer calls this book "lucid and concise," with which I completely agree.Another credits Guthrie with explaining the important Greek terms well, with which I also agree and consider very valuable in approaching this material.Guthrie also does an excellent job (in a very short work) of helping the reader get some grasp of the ancient Greek world, in which concepts we take for granted weren't yet developed; ideas about virtue, vice, deity and many other things were quite different from our modern nearest equivalents; and gross superstitions remained dominant and formed an important historical backdrop and contemporary background to the first emergence of sustained rational speculation.Some authors of longer works fail to provide this context, potentially leaving us with the impression that the Greeks' conceptual world wasn't much different from that of Descartes or Kant, but Guthrie portrays the chasm vividly in remarkably few pages.

The survey of Pre-Socratics is brief but particularly enlightening, and Guthrie does a very good job of showing their influences on Socrates and Plato, especially showing how Socrates reacted against his predecessors and shifted emphasis away from speculation about the material world to speculation about humans (ethics, political philosophy, and to a lesser extent metaphysics).Socrates and Plato weren't alone in this trend, and Plato in particular was heavily influenced by some of the Pre-Socratics, but placing them in their context and against their background sheds considerable light on the orientation of their thinking and their choices of subject matter.Guthrie also does a good job of sketching the progression from Socrates to Plato to Aristotle, with continuities and developments and well as rejections, departures and new lines of thought.

Other reviewers have given good summaries of the book's content, so I'll just say that Guthrie is clearly more interested in Plato than Aristotle.I can sympathize with this: Plato is one of the greats in world literature, while Aristotle is dry.Even Plato's wilder ideas are fascinating and rich in suggestion, while Aristotle is more comprehensive and systematic, but less fanciful (what would we do without Aristotle's logic? but it's nothing like the jolly romp of Plato's Euthyphro).In all, this book is an excellent brief introduction to Greek philosophy - highly recommended.

Excellent Introduction or Review
This brief work of 161 pages is an excellent intro or review of the ancient Greek philosophers from the time of Thales to Aristotole. Guthrie focuses most of the work on cosmology/physics and on theology. Ethics and the nature of the soul take comparable place. Other issues are touched on as well.

The first chapter gives an excellent general overview of how ancient Greek thought differs from modern ways of thinking about key issues. The second chapter covers the Ionians and Pythagoreans. The third chapter deals with Heraclitus, Parmenides and the Pluralists. Chapter four concerns the Sophists and the reaction of Socrates. Chapters five and six relate to Plato: his doctrine of Ideas and his response to the Sophists. And chapters seven and eight discuss Aristotle. There is a brief bibliography and index at the back.

I found Guthrie's use of comparisons and contrasts between different philosophers (or groups of philosophers) very engaging and helpful. Guthrie's biases occasionally come through but they do not overwhelm the work. And although Guthrie seems to be running out of creative energy by the time he gets to Aristotle (as he admits himself that here he is falling back on standard approaches to Aristotle), I found even it to be helpful. And because the first six chapters were so excellent and insightful, I heartily recommend this work and give it five stars. (And with so many copies out there, you can't beat the price! By the way, the edition I have is the 1960 Harper Torchbooks edition. The cover is like that pictured.)

Lucid, Concise with Simplicity - Excellent Reading
This has been the most lucid and concise book on Greek philosophy that I have so far read. In a short 168 pages, the essence of the pre-Socratic and post eras of Greek thought is revealed in both as a refresher from other sources and in additional clarifying points. Definitely beneficial in gaining the grasp of ancient Greek thought.

Guthrie starts out explaining the division of philosophers into the materialists or matter philosophers and the teleologists or form philosophers. The Ionian or Milesian School attempted at a scientific explanation represented by Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes. It was Thales who taught that the world was made from water and moisture, while Anaximander saw it as a warring of many opposites, and unlike Pythagoreans - of no distinctions, no limitations, the earth as a sphere resting on nothing. And Anaximenes.taught the primary substance of the world was air. All had various ideas on explaining movement.

The Pythagoreans came from an Italian school, as opposed to the Ionian, and was a religious brotherhood defining reality as a combination of substances in a harmonious blend based on mathematics, and discovered the mathematics to musical arrangement. The believed in the immortality and transmigration of the soul, the kinship with nature, the earth as an organism, a kind of pantheism. So it was the limit put on the limitless that arranged and harmonized nature by numerical system, a ruling principle, the meaning of the good - a state of harmonia.

The next philosopher in succession was Heraclitus who criticized the others in their search for facts, teaching that the substance of the world was never a still fact, but was fire, that everything must be destroyed to be born, that all things are in constant motion, in flux, rejecting the peaceful and harmonious world of opposites taught by the Pythagoreans. Nothing was constant, universal and eternal, all was in constant temporal states.

Parmenides taught the opposite, in that movement was impossible, for there was no such thing as empty space, and the whole of reality consisted of a single, motionless and unchanging substance. Such reality was non-sensible, only to be reached by thought.

The pluralists consisted of Empedocles, Anaxogoras and Democritus. Empedocles taught similar to the Pythagoreans that the world was a variety of harmonious combinations of the four root substances of earth, water, air and fire. He also included the ingredients of love and strife in a materialistic way. Anaxogoras, using a atomic theory, believed in a moving cause apart from the matter into a collective mind which rules the world, a mind behind the universe which governs and orders its changes. The atomic theory was fully attributed to Democritus and possibly Leucippusa. The atomic view had the problem of movement which needed empty space. While later Epicurus took up gravity as a reason, it was a retrograde step and Democritius was thinking more clearly when he saw that in infinite space the conception of up or down had no meaning.

Next comes the sophists and it was Protagoras that taught pragmatism, that while there is no opinion that is truer, there are those that can be better, better in the sense of the individual in unifying harmony with the majority or collective. However, the sophists endorsed a severe relativity and values became choices of multiple word definitions chosen to each particular argument. Right and wrong, wisdom, and justice and goodness became nothing but names. And so it was Socrates that came up with a method to acquire arete, efficiency and excellence in the trade or occupation one does.This method consisted of inductive argument and general definition, that is exposing the false definitions and replacing them with the common meaning to the particular word or value. It was then that not an absolute was established, but rather an a higher level of reasoning in a continuous, advanced inquiry.

Plato, speaking of Socrates, took the ever moving flux of Heraclitus and the ever still unchanging world of Parmenides into a two world system, the world of the senses and the world of eternal ideas or forms. Thus individualism could be curbed and collective agreement could be established for the survival of the polis or city-state. He also incorporates the ideas of Pythagoreans' immortality and transmigration of the soul and the process of recollection. He taught dialectical thinking but beyond that used myth to provide for regions beyond such explanations. Virtue or efficiency and excellence is knowledge, knowledge needed to fully excel.

Guthrie next goes into an explanation of the Republic and government with the three parts of an individual and three classes of people and then into the Laws. The classes consisted of the ruling party and the soldier party, both with censorship and undemocratic authority but not able to own private property and of a poorer nature. Those that ruled did so out of a service, not out of a luxury or desires. It was the masses or working class that obeyed but the only ones who had the ability to gain riches.

Aristotle is then described in his rejection of the Platonic world of ideas and his idea of the universe, relying on the mental process or reason, common principles, the idea of immanent form and the conception of potentiality applying that to the problem of motion. He arrived at the concept of God as the Unmoved Mover, motionless, yet caused movement from actuality from engagement of eternal thought activity of the pure mind, which is life. This then brought motion and potentiality. More is mentioned on ethics, classes of the good by habits, man being a political animal is the answer over the world of ideas, and paradoxically states that divine reason can not be fully attained by man and yet it is foolish to emulate the gods and poets, but man should aim at his fullest potentiality. The ergon of every creature is to attain its own forma and perform its proper activity. The activity of mind is life.

A brief and concise review of Ancient Philosophy
W.K.C. Guthrie, the famous historian, shows us in this book the essence of Greek philosophy, travelling through the minds of the pre-soctratic thinkers and the birth in Athens of what would become the most unique trio of Wisdom-lovers in history. Prof. Guthrie's account is outstanding and far more profound than most of our century's writers. ... Read more

Product Description
Hughes explains the key elements in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics terminology and highlights the controversy regarding the interpretations of his writings. In addition, he examines the role that Aristotle's ethics continue to play in contemporary moral philosophy by comparing and contrasting his views with those widely held today. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

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.
... Read more

Product Description
This is an EXACT reproduction of a book published before 1923. This IS NOT an OCR'd book with strange characters, introduced typographical errors, and jumbled words.This book may have occasional imperfections such as missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. that were either part of the original artifact, or were introduced by the scanning process. We believe this work is culturally important, and despite the imperfections, have elected to bring it back into print as part of our continuing commitment to the preservation of printed works worldwide. We appreciate your understanding of the imperfections in the preservation process, and hope you enjoy this valuable book. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

One of Many Versions of the Life and Times of Aristotle Onassis
After having read the biography of Maria Callas, I felt compelled to find out more about the love of her life, Ari Onassis.Although he was very intelligent, his drive was what lead him to succeed and to make choices that left him, in the end,very unhappy.The writer of this book was hand picked by Onassis even though Ari already had a biography that he had previously endorsed. The book was very interesting and also insightful.It has everything from his rise to power, his marriages, his affairs, and most importantly, his children and their lives. ... Read more

Product Description
The Eudemian Ethics was one of two ethical treatises that Aristotle wrote on the subject of ethika or "matters to do with character."This critical study provides the text of the last edition of Eudemian Ethics, completed in 1884 and revised through to 1974, a full apparatus criticus, and a new preface by J.M. Mingay. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (11)

Decent Translation, Abominable Aesthetics
Mr. Joe Sachs is somewhat of a controversial figure in scholarly circles. He has translated the principal theoretical works of the Aristotelian Corpus, and has declared that traditional translation (i.e. those employing Latin cognates) are insufficient at best and misleading at worst.

His translation is decent (that is, mostly literal) until one reaches the key technical terms: ousia, energeia, to ti enai,archai, entelekeia, etc. Sachs wishes to translate these into clear, immediately comprehensible everyday English. Unfortunately, this is precisely what I believe he often fails to do. His translations are but sometimes immediately clear, but (to take three examples) "energeia" is rendered "being-at-work", its mate, "entelecheia", "being-at-work-staying-itself", and "ousia" is "thinghood": phrases which, to the uninitiated, remain as much, if not more obscure than their Latin competitors: "activity" and "actuality". In fact, I could not decipher them without the aid of my professors and a lexicon to return to the Greek.

None of this is much different in other translations nor makes Sachs worse than the other competitors: Aristotle uses unexplained technical terms in his theoretical works and the reader will struggle regardless of translation. But to this end of comprehension, to assert Mr. Sachs's translation as the clearest is mistaken. His translation runs the risk of creating an entirely new technical jargon, the very thing he wished to avoid.

Further, this edition was not seemingly made for serious study: the Bekker numbers are embedded in the text and unbolded, making them almost impossible to find quickly and there is running commentary which is easily confused at first sight for the text itself. These two factors make this edition unsuitable for serious study. Far superior, in aesthetics and in translation, is Glen Coughlin's translation of the Physics, which (appropriately enough) strikes the mean between the Latin cognates and Sachsian terminology.

Best Translation Out There
This translation of Aristotle's Physics is really the best one available - and not simply because the others are terrible (some of them are not terrible), but because this one is extraordinary.As some of the other reviewers may have suggested, it can be hard to read at times because of the unfamiliar phrasings.However, I think this is irrelevant because (a) other translation are not easy reading either, (b) other translations are not as good at capturing Aristotle's meaning so that even if they were much easier to read they just make it that much easier for you to misunderstand Aristotle, (c) in fact the efforts required to follow the unfamiliar phrasings in this translation are themselves part of what makes this translation the most useful for anyone who wants to understand Aristotle, and (d) its really not all that hard to read.(And the same points go for the other translations by Sachs.)Sachs unpacks the richness of the Greek terms in his translation rather than covering it over with English terms that give you the illusion of understanding or force you to constantly adjust your thought about what the English words are supposed to mean in the context of Aristotle's philosophy.For example, Sachs' translation of energeia as "being-at-work" as opposed to "activity," and entelecheia as "being-at-work-staying-itself" as opposed to "actualization."Sachs' translations here really put the nuances of the Greek terms to the forefront, and they give you the opportunity to think through (and to think hard about) what Aristotle must mean in a beautiful way that makes reading this translation a real learning, eye-opening, awakening experience.Also Sachs provides very useful glossary, introduction, and commentary. If you're just starting Aristotle or have been studying him for years, this translation is sure to do you right.I've been studying Aristotle for about a decade and a half and I never cease to very greatly appreciate Sachs' translations.--Michael Russo

What is The Meaning Of Being?
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions.Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes.Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today.A better translation is "explanation."4 ways to explanations.Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning.Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed.Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think.Phusis= "nature," like physics.He understands nature differently than we do today.For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature.Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature.Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change.Phusis root= to grow or bloom.Thus, emerging like birth.This term has to do with movement and change.Also connected to "coming to light."Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change.Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change.Paramedes denies change.Aristotle takes umbrage with this.Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time.Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself.For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking.Change is potentiality to actuality.Potentiality is a "not yet."He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change.His physics is his thought to explain change.Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena.For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here.No God or creator.Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual.Small things become big Aristotle sees this.Our language is the guide here.The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature.IMPORTANT- 1."Always or for the most part."2.Telos-end, purposes.3.Movement is self-generated toward something.When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing.Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans."Both have to do with change and movement.1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us.Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us.What is a bed?For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence.Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature.It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills.Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change.Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science.He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down.This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes."This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas.Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms.Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real.Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him.He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be.He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd.He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul.The soul is calmed by knowledge.When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind.When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us.Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement.Both parts of our world can illuminate each other.He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god.He says nature is self-manifesting.Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house.More like impersonates nature.Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things.When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do.Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose.Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as."We understand something by questions we ask.He uses ordinary language.This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction.Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause.Efficient and Final cause fall under it.Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this.Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what"A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky.Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause.A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body.Same with material cause.Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter.Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis?The citizens.Material is just a way to explain it.The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"?Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way.Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge.He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God.There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists.If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there.To talk about matter without form is to miss something.Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are.Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real.The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull."Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist."Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design."Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle.There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle.(No God).He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature.However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like.Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature.We are rational animals.There is no mind before or behind nature.For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature.Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic.He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover.This is his idea of God.Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover.Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion.This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets.Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality.Two sides of the same coin, always present together.You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay.Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter.Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization.Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape.Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this.Thus, H2O is proportions of elements.A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine.Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are.Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle.One can't explain natural motion with math.We never come across geometric shapes in nature.Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form.Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary.For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

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.

The only good translation
Aristotle's Physics is one of the least studied "great books"--physics has come to mean something entirely different than Aristotle's inquiry into nature, and stereotyped Medieval interpretations have buried the original text. Sach's translation is really the only one that I know of that attempts to take the reader back to the text itself.

I do have a few quibbles, mostly with the presentation. The line numbers are buried in the text, rather than set off in the margins, which is annoying. The typeface is difficult and too closely packed. The cover is one of the ugliest ever produced. The book is too expensive, given the quality.

If you are going to study or teach the Physics in English, however, this is absolutely the edition you should use.

Line Number Problem
I have used Sachs' translation of the Nichomachean ethics and found it helpful, so I will not criticize Sachs' translation technique here. Unfortunately though I could not use this edition of the physics for one simple reason. The line numbers are not in the margines but imbeded in the text, and not bolded. This made it very difficult to use in the semenar style discussions of St. John's College (ironically the college that Sach's is a professor at). So I stopped using it emediately and opted for the complete works version so I could participate in semenar discussions. I would like to give Sachs' translation of the physics a chance but the lack of clear line numbers in this edition is a serious problem for me.
... Read more

Product Description
Translated by Benjamin Jowett ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

If You Don't Want To Live In A State, You Are Either A God Or A Beast
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge.Politics regulates when virtue does not.Laws are created for people who are not virtuous.Polis= "city or state."Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good.Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude.He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household.Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch.Villages are a collection of households with a king.Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages.Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis.An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well.Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc.All these are actualized in a Polis.Politics is natural to human life.We are meant to be social.According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals.Rational language expands capacity in human life.Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household.This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree.Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle.Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy.Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle.Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth."Born to be ruled."Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves.Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him.He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best.In a Polis citizens have things in common.Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling.Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis.The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering.Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common.This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors.Aristotle criticizes this idea.Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better.Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people.This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta.Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it.Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of.Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property.Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element.Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity.A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen.Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen.There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law.Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together."Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule.The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule.The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy.The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority.He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted.Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept.What does justice mean?Not necessarily equality for all.Not all people are equal.He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally.Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally.Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good.Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle."But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy."First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous.This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods.Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person?Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit.His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit.Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content).This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods.This is context dependent.Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis.The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure.Expertise in relation to politics.Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc.Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government.Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government.In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good.Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise.Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges.The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder.In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king.Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority."Law is reason unaffected by desire."A government of laws not men.A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics.Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education.Aristotle says it should be public education.

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

Gretchen Rubin had an epiphany one rainy afternoon in the unlikeliest of places: a city bus. "The days are long, but the years are short," she realized. "Time is passing, and I'm not focusing enough on the things that really matter." In that moment, she decided to dedicate a year to her happiness project.

Customer Reviews (190)

Doesn't hit the mark
I was excited about the concept of this book, how to find true happiness within yourself.Some of the reviews that I had read compared it to Eat, Pray, Love, which I really enjoyed so I was excited to pick it up.

Unfortunately, the writing is so poor and the situations so contrived, it makes for an impossible bore of a read.I found myself rolling my eyes at the author's self-professed daunting prospect of starting her online blog.I guess I was expecting something more earth-shattering than one more person writing a useless, rambling internet blog that no one will read.

I think that I wasted $27 on this book, which is a shame because in a more talented writer's hands, it could have really bloomed into something interesting.

Happiness by Taking Control
I think one of the big points raised in this book is that we can be in charge of our own destiny and create our own happiness through effort and perseverance. In Little Patient Big Doctor: One Mother's Journey this same attitude of creating our own reality through our effort and perseverance is one of the basic ingredients that ensured a healthy outcome despite odds. You may be interested in checking it out.

I loved this book
I checked this book out of the library because the title caught my attention.I'm a pretty happy, optimistic person overall, but there's always room for improvement, right?And I have been amazed at the changes in my life already and I'm only halfway through the book.I've read self-improvement books my entire adult life and although I think subconciously I already knew most of this stuff, I needed to be reminded to put the ideas into practice again. It's amazing to see so many good ideas in one place, plus the book is a good read, also.

I will now be purchasing a copy for future reference.

good for the soul
At the end of a long, exhausting day, it's good to check in with this book and try to remember the important things in life.

some books are most useful than this one
It is not a bad book, but I found out that "happier" for instance was more interesting and organized.
There are a lot of useless parts if you are just like me into the happiness part and not the life of the author (some personal stories/example were just too long/boring)


... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Aristotle
Most of this book is very good and well worth the time to read. Some of it is the opinion of the auther and is not in line with Aristotle, but still worth the read. ... Read more