Product Description
Metaphysics begins with sketching the history of philosophy. For Aristotle, philosophy arose historically after basic necessities were secured. Metaphysics is Aristotle's version of philosophy examining the nature of reality, including the relationship between mind and matter, substance and attribute, fact and value.Aristotle argues that there are a handful of universal truths.Aristotle's works have influenced science, religion, and philosophy for nearly two thousand years.He could be thought of as the father of logical thought.Aristotle wrote: "There is nothing in the intellect that was not first in the senses." He wrote that everything that is learned in life is learned through sensory perception.Aristotle was the first to establish the founding principle of logic.The great writer Dante called Aristotle "The Master of those who know." ... Read more

Customer Reviews (13)

A useful edition
I preface my remarks with two disclaimers.(1) I would not presume to "review" Aristotle, but I can superficially review this edition. (2) I do not know Greek.

I recommend buying this book, but not as your main text of the "Metaphysics".For your main text of the "Metaphysics", I recommend the 1924 translation by W.D. Ross, which is not in print, but you can find it used.The "Metaphysics" is famously difficult. I found the Ross translation clearer and more comprehensible than that of Tancred-Lawson (T-L).I was about one-third of the way through the T-L translation when I had to give up.But it was through the T-L bibliography that I found the Ross translation, so if that was all the T-L did for me, it would have been enough.

I also did not quite like the tone and style of this translation.I found it too informal and colloquial for my tastes.It is quite interesting in that respect, but in the end it feels stylistically wrong.

But the T-L is still well worth buying.The various introductory and textual essays are excellent and very well worth reading.T-L's alternative translation is good to have as a backup.Sometimes when it is Ross that is obscure, T-L can clarify the matter.

One warning is that you had better read the "Physics" before you read this, or it will not make any sense to you at all.

Summary: At this price, the book is highly recommended as your backup translation of, and general companion to, the "Metaphysics."

Metaphysics, Aristotle
Aristotle in any form is a tough read.However, this edition proves to be quite user friendly with the language and does not have commentaries that would interfere or try to influence context with individual interpretations of such.Great for school...highly recommend.

Aristotle my friend
Aristotle my friend. I wish; I had known you. I would have
been your friend. Your treatises are works of pure genius,
and most relevant and age-less. This great genius was way before his time, he was a biologist with out a lab; he new
god lived; and the soul or spirt of man was eternal, his
whole life was of the good. In Aristotles own words he -
talked about the good; and practiced as he taught, he was
the boy king Alexander the greats mentor, after the death of his friend Alexander; he fled Athens for his life, and
died a year later.

a word to the wise
This translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics is published by NuVision Publications, which says that they are "specializing in rare, out-of-print books still in demand."The translator is W. D. Ross, and the translation was first published by Oxford University Press in the early nineteen thirties.It was later republished by Random House under the editorship of Richard McKeon.It seems that the translation is now in the public domain since the title page has no data on copyright.NuVision is to be commended for making available classics that are out of print.But they have hardly done justice to W. D. Ross.I have only made my way through Book III (out of XIV)of the Metaphysics, but I am distressed by too frequent errors of punctuation, omission of words, change of word order, and a total mangling of the last paragraph of Book III that makes it altogther unintelligible.Aristotle deserves better, and so does the reputation of W. D. Ross.

Key Philosopher of the Western tradition
Aristotle complements Plato as the second great philosophical master of the ancient world.Called simply 'The Philosopher' by many medievals because he exemplified philosophy, Aristotle was the great logician and systemizer of Western philosophy.

His works, including Metaphysics, are probably lecture notes (with additions) made by students of Aristotle's school, the Lyceum.The Metaphysics explores some key philosophical themes including the universal and the particular, the question of Being qua Being, time and change, God and the Divine mind, causation, and other complex issues.

Because of Aristotle's relentless logic and his aversion to any form of literary elegance and myth (as opposed to Plato), his works require great patience and care to be understood.Still, given time, the genius of this great thinker becomes evident and it is understood why people still study him today.

Unfortunately Aristotle has a bad reputation for being a dogmatist when in fact Aristotle was a keen observer of nature and a deeply critical student of any philosophical system.Aristotle never accepted any philosophy without criticising it and examining it for its logical and other shortcomings in the most rigorous manner, even when it came to his revered teacher Plato; unfortunately many aspects of Aristotle became entrapped in decadent metaphysics, which required the Renaissance to expel.

Tancred's translation and introduction is somewhat dated, but still a useful version for the student of Aristotle. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle is one of the greatest thinkers in the Western tradition, but also one of the most difficult. The contributors to this volume do not attempt to disguise the nature of that difficulty, but at the same time they offer a clear exposition of the central philosophical concerns in his work. Approaches and methods vary and the volume editor has not imposed any single interpretation, but has rather allowed differences of interpretation to stand. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (6)

I appreciate Robin Smith's work here
I really appreciate Robin Smith's summary. I find that Barnes, who wrote several sections, comments negatively (pointing out what he thinks are flaws) in the midst of what I think should be summary. I really think he should share commentary after he shares a summary. Also, I don't find Barnes to offer a balanced view, but an overly-negative one. His work on Aristotle's Rhetoric, for example, finds all kinds of things he doesn't like, but does not acknowledge the fantastically useful stuff.

Again, I find Robin Smith's work useful and dispassionate, and I thank the cambridge companion for making me aware of him; I have since picked up his translation of Topics (Books 1 & 8) and his translation of Prior Analytics.

See what Aristotle would be like today
A great book, but Johnathan Barnes, the editor, must be the living embodiment of Aristotle's philosophy: Lean, uncompromising yet humorously and unknowingly pompous in the extreme.Please Please read his introduction. It reminds me of my college days when we were all so insufferable know-it-alls.

Again, if you want to see Aristotle live and breathe, get this book

Philosophy of Aristotle?This is the best introduction
This is the best introduction to one of the most - if not the most - important philosophers in human history.

Aristotle's body of work is extremely wide-ranging as well as dense in detail, and often extremely complex and subtle.This Cambridge Companion simplifies and explains - without the loss of fidelity to the complex and subtle and innovative nature of his teachings - the most important of his teachings.

This Cambridge Companion to Aristotle has essays by preeminent scholars in the field.The book focuses on the most important and influential of Aristotle's philosophical thinking.

It includes essays on Aristotle's logic, metaphysics, ethics, philosophy of science and science generally, and psychology, poetics, rhetoric, and politics.These are the core subjects in Aristotle's canon.It is generally believed among scholars that most all of the work of Aristotle that has survived and come down to us today, consists of copies of lecture notes that his students took at his school (known as the Lyceum).Thus, much of his "writings" - though copied for generations and then edited by translators - often seems disjointed or unnecessarily complex in terms of its clarity and organization.

If you are new to studying philosophy, I suggest you start with this Cambridge Companion or the one on Plato.If you start with the one on Aristotle, I suggest you read this Companion and then either at the same time or right after, begin reading the primary texts.You can read all the secondary and ancillary texts you want on philosophers and philosophy, but they are never a substitute for the primary texts.The primary texts are infinitely more rewarding, provided you are able to understand them - and that is where guides like this one come in hand.

To start off on some of his most readable and understandable works (yet still highly important), I suggest you start with poetics (which is about the construction of and study of drama and story (think "plays" or stories like the Illiad by Homer), and narrative structure.What we have of poetics is short, excellent, and is generally believed to be only one part of a larger teaching that has been lost to humanity.I then suggest you read Aristotle's Rhetoric and then Politics.These are easy to understand, but you will gain tremendously by re-reading them over time in greater detail.You can then move on to his Logic (which Aristotle is known as the founder of logic, he invented, or depending on your view, discovered, the tri-partite syllogism and syllogistic structure and logical argument.You can then move on to his Metaphysics, but I suggest that you read and study Plato before embarking on Aristotle's Metaphysics, as you will understand Aristotle better by first reading Plato, as Aristotle was a student of Plato, and Aristotle's Metaphysics takes into account, is a reaction to, and is an extension and modification (or overturning of most aspects- depending on your viewpoint), of Plato's metaphysics (Plato's Ideas vs. Aristotle's Universals).The Cambridge Companion to Plato is also excellent.If you are embarking on a serious study of philosophy for the first time, you may want to read Plato and the Cambridge Companion to Plato before embarking on Aristotle.You will understand Aristotle better if you understand Plato's works first.These are the two most important philosophers in Western civilization, and in my view - and depending on your viewpoint - world history and civilization.

In any event I highly recommend this Cambridge Companion to Aristotle.This is the first one I purchased and read, and I have subsequently enjoyed and found extremely useful other Cambridge Companions for other philosophers.

The Cream of the Companion Series
The 'Cambridge Companion' to philosophy series has put out some great products. In my opinion this may be the best. Absolutely splendid articles that help the reader understand Aristotle rather than some philosopher's interpretation of him. For such a polymath as Aristotle, the authors did a good job of focusing on key facets of his philosopy that adequately prepare and stimulate the reader to investigate other of Aristotle's writings, which the Companion could not cover for lack of space. The bibliography and subject guides to the secondary liturature are well done.

The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle
The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle edited by Jonathan Barnes is a is an excellent book.If you are studing Aristotle or just reading him, you've probably gritted your teeth and started to put the reading down for later.Being that most of us do NOT read Greek, we rely on someone who can and the translations do vary.We also need a way to study and a plan to organize our reading in a logical manner.

This book is an excellent choice for that purpose.This book helps to alleviate some of the fears one has in reading a great thinker who is not only difficult and challenging but also complex.The content of this book are as follows:Logic, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science, Science, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, Rhetoric and poetics.There is an introduction and a suggestions for reading section which are invaluable and help the reader to understand and comprehend what is trying to be said.

If you need help with Aristotle... look no further than this book to help you get organized and to better understand Aristotle.Approach and methods vary from person to person, but if someone has proceeded you in understanding it is prudent to follow those footsteps... then make your interpretation.

The editor has written an excellent chapter on Metaphysics.Metaphysics is one of Aristotle's most difficult books to understand.Here the editor helps the reader to understand it and also how to read Aristotle with a logical approach.

Remember the best aid to reading Aristotle is Aristotle himself.Aristotle is difficult so read him slowly, very slowly, then he is inspiring and gripping. But, it helps to have someone to rely on and this book will help. ... Read more

Product Description
This text, translated by Rhys Roberts and Ingram Bywater, contains an introduction by Edward P.J. Corbett. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

The Capacity of Persuasion
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Definition of Rhetoric- capacity of persuasion.Plato is critical of the Rhetoric and the tragic poetry.Rhetoric is approach to political public speeches in the forum.Plato thought that they clouded the mind and thus created a part of his critique of democracy in general.Plato thinks Socrates was killed by rhetoric used by the Athenian democracy.Plato feared the danger of democracy.Poetry appeals to the base human emotions rhetoric, and poetry block rational truth according to Plato.Rhetoric is psychological force of language vs. logical force of language.Psychology leads people to believe things based on emotions.Speech must appeal to the masses in a democracy.Psychology is persuasion, logic is truth.Deduction and induction is arguing logically.Plato says rhetoric is not a technç, (craft) nor is poetry, because they are undisciplined and not uniform in design.Thus, appeal to psychology and emotion can never be done away with in a democracy, thus Plato abhors them and democracy.Plato calls it sophistry this psychological appeal and democracy requires this to exist, so the problem persists.Plato is clear and consistent in his abhorrence of sophistry and democracy.

Aristotle's Rhetoric and Poetics are an alternative to Plato.Aristotle's rhetoric tries to strike a middle position.Aristotle says rhetoric and poetry are a technç, the Rhetoric is a handbook.Aristotle says speaker needs to appeal to appropriate information for the particular setting.Much like a lawyer's argument, not just relying on facts, need to appeal to people's emotions.Aristotle does understand that rhetoric can be used in a harmful way.

Aristotle lays out three features in rhetoric:

1. Ethos= character of the speaker, also charisma, speaker earns the audience's trust, use of body language.
2. Pathos= condition of the hearer.
3. Logos= essential bearing on political persuasion, truth.

Thus, Plato's concern by definition excludes speech because it deals with emotion.These three conditions must be in play for a speech to be successful.The rhetoric contains a detailed analysis of the different human emotions and how to elicit them in a speech.Aristotle knows the speaker must be a good student of human nature to tap into human emotions.

Epistçmç is scientific knowledge.Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul for using education, experience and habit all this is in the ethics.This is the same in political world so politics is not an episteme no scientific reasoning.The things that come up in politics are not deduced scientifically.In politics, humans use deliberation between several possible outcomes unlike math where there is only one correct answer.Political speech is contentious because the nature of politics is contentious.

There are two circumstances in rhetoric.

1. Judicial rhetoric has to do with the past like in a court case.
2. Deliberative rhetoric has to do with the future, what decision should we make in political policies.

The Poetics

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

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

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

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

Product Description
Drawn from the translations and editorial aids of Irwin and Fine's Aristotle, Selections, this anthology will be most useful to instructors who must try to do justice to Aristotle in a semester-long ancient philosophy survey, but it is also appropriate for a variety of introductory-level courses. This book provides accurate, readable, and integrated translations that allow the reader to follow Aristotle's use of crucial technical terms and to grasp the details of his argument. Included are adaptations of the glossary and notes that helped make its parent volume a singularly useful aid to the study of Aristotle. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

not useful - get fuller volume
Irwin's and Fine's translations merit a five-star rating. They are expert scholars who have for decades been at the forefront of Aristotle research. Besides 100% technical accuracy they helpfully subscript (i) Aristotle's keyterms which can't be uniformly translated and (ii) those keyterms which have only one English equivalent ('form', 'being', 'knowledge', etc).

However, I warn customers NOT to get this book (I made the mistake) but instead get Fine and Irwin's "Aristotle: Selections" (Hackett 1995) from which the "Introductory Readings" are excerpted. You'll need their full glossary and the more extensive notes if you want to understand Aritotle AT ALL. In that regard Introductory Readings is useless and that's why it merits a one-star.

Two coments in closing.
1) Every translation of Aristotle is an interpretation, and Irwin's and Fine's even more so than others due to its high frequency of interpolations. It's therefore indispensable to have another reader - say, Ackrill's (Princeton 1987) - beside you to compare what's going on.
2) "Selections" contains Irwin's phenomenal translation of the Nichomachean Ethics. However, if you are predominantly interested in that work be sure to get Irwin's full translation (Hackett 1999) first. His extensive commentary, targeted at beginners, scores a ten-star! ... Read more

Product Description
On the Soul is also known by its Latin title De Anima or its Greek title Peri Psuchês What does it mean to be a natural living thing? Are plants and animals alive simply because of an arrangement of material parts, or does life spring from something else? In this timeless and profound inquiry, Aristotle presents a view of the psyche that avoids the simplifications both of the materialists and those who believe in the soul as something quite distinct from body. On the Soul also includes Aristotle's idiosyncratic and influential account of light and colors. On Memory and Recollection continues the investigation of some of the topics introduced in On the Soul. Sachs's fresh and jargon-free approach to the translation of Aristotle, his lively and insightful introduction, and his notes and glossaries, all bring out the continuing relevance of Aristotle's thought to biological and philosophical questions. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Unbeatable Edition, Masterful Translation of a Classic
Aristotle's De Anima is a wonderful addition to his corpus. If you're considering buying it, you already know enough and need no further knowledgefrom me concerning it.

Translation: Joe Sachs is a high-quality translator of Aristotle. His versions are highly accurate and literal, free from most bias. They generally are very reliable. Sachs does not use Latin cognates in his translation, so Greek words like "energeia" are rendered "being-at-work", versus the Latin "activity". If you don't mind this, than Sachs is the man for you.

Aesthetics: Unbeatable. This edition was made for serious study and it shows. There is plenty of room in the margins for taking notes, key terms are given in each chapter for the reader to notice (some might consider this a negative point), and the text itself is beautiful, well-spaced, and easy on the eyes.

Durability: If you know Green Lion Press, you will not be surprised. This book was made for study and is a steel-wrought tome among lesser volumes. The clothbound version has glued AND sewn pages and the spread can be fully opened without breaking the spine. The paper is thick and well-suited for note-taking. I expect my soft-bound edition to last fifty years.

Size: A great size for casual reading. It fits almost anywhere you want it too - suitcase, backpack, etc.

Price: Kind of pricey for such a short book (you can get half of Aeschylus and Herodotus for $20), but not surprising given the awesome durability of the book.

If you're looking for a good De Anima translation, look no further, for Green Lion and Joe Sachs are almost perfect (if only Green Lion would publish Apostle's Aristotle!).

All Humans Desire To Know
I read these works for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

Soul- De Anima Latin for Greek word Psuche=Life.It is a Phenomenology of Life.Living things are Aristotle¡¦s primary interest.Renee Descartes says thinking is only aspect of soul, not life.For Descartes the soul is the mind.Aristotle classifies features of living things.A soul can¡¦t be a body, (like a corpse).Psuche=life is a living form of the body, the phenomenon of life.Capacity to live is what he means.Ergon=function or work, thus when he talks about soul it is a body¡¦s function.Thus, a corpse is a deactivated body.Dunamis=capacity, Energia= actuality, thus both words are active words and can be seen as ¡§activating capacity.¡¨Like a builder while building a house, past potential but not actual until the house is complete.
Entelecheia=¡¨living things have their ends inside them.¡¨A living being has an end in itself.

What is the soul?Psuche= soul is being working toward ends of a self-moving body having the capacity to live.This is another way of talking about desire (like an animal that is hungry).Desire-animals have this as we do.Orexis=desire.The phenomenology of desire is to be motivated towards something that is lacking at the time, hunger, etc.Pleasure and pain.
Desire and action there are 3 kinds of desire.

1. Appetite like hunger and sex.
2. Emotion-like love not on crude level as appetite.
3. Wish-desire of the mind, (I want a good job).

All three strive towards something that is lacking.¡§Desire is movement of the soul.¡¨Human life is a set of desires.Human desires are more complicated.Desires clash like dieting and appetite.

¡§All humans desire to know.¡¨This is the first line of the Metaphysics.Knowledge examined in terms of distinction between matter and form, perception has to do with intelligible form.Perception takes in visible form of something without the matter.Like imagination, an animal and human can do this.All knowledge starts with perception thus memory.Ultimate knowledge is intelligible form from visible form but mind is also using abstractions, this is a human capacity only.Humans use language to do this.Animals have image of a cat, word ¡§cat¡¨ is an abstraction for us.True knowledge organizes language.

Seing<³being seen.Two beings, seer and seen, this is act of vision it is only one actuality and two potentialities.In effect, Aristotle is saying that the capacity to see can only be actualized by seeing something.However, he goes the other way as well; something seeable only actualizes its seeability by being seen.One actuality, two potentials, the potential to see, the potential to be seen.In the modern world since Descartes, it is spoken as two actualities, the mind, and the outside world and there is a split between the two, two actualities, the mind as a separate thing and the object as a separate thing being seen.This is the source of the classic problem of skepticism.When there is seeing obviously you have two beings, the seer and the seen, but the act of vision is one actuality. Aristotle does not have this skeptical problem because he seems to stipulate this idea of single actuality and the whole point of the capacity to know is meant to hook up with things known.The whole point of knowable things is to be known by knower¡¦s, that is what he means by one actuality, thus there is no split between the mind and the world.There is no purely inside and outside.It isn¡¦t that minds are in here and the world is out there, and we might wonder about how they hook up.The nature of things and the nature of the mind are meant to hook up.Thus, Aristotle is not a radical skeptic like Descartes or Hume.Act of seeing the desk is joint actuality of seer and seen.

Actual hearing and actual sounding occur at the same time.Berkeley¡¦s famous question¡K¡¨If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a sound?For Berkeley, to be is to be perceived.Aristotle answers Berkeley¡¦s question that it does make a sound, but you have to have the capacity to hear, it is a joint venture.The mind and the world are not separated like for Descartes.Aristotle doesn¡¦t buy the idea that ¡§everything in my mind can be false¡¨ like the skeptics argue, Aristotle would say this is impossible.Getting things true and false are part of what the mind has to do, but the possibility that the whole mental realm could be put into question is impossible.Thus, he doesn¡¦t have to answer the question put to skeptics.¡§If you are right that there is a radical doubt about the possibility of our knowledge hooking up with reality,why would the human situation ever come to pass in this way that it is possible that we could be totally wrong.¡¨The skeptics answer we are not sure that we are wrong, they are saying we can¡¦t be sure that we are right.If that were the case then Aristotle can say, well is this a recipe for the human condition?One can be skeptical about this or that, but not about everything.

Aristotle moves from perception to thought.The thinking of the world and world to be thought is actualization.Nous=highest capacity of intellect for Aristotle.Mind is potential and until it thinks isn¡¦t actualization.The implication of this the world wants to be known according to Aristotle.The world also activates our desire.One actualization of two potentialities.Taking in form without matter that is what knowledge is.A knowing soul cannot be separation from the body.The mind has built in capacity to understand for Aristotle, no actual knowledge until intellect engages with objects.¡§Actually thinking mind is the thing that it thinks.In this respect the soul is all existing things.¡¨Soul is capacity to think the world in the passage.

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 Being-At-Work-Staying-Itself of Aristotle
Although the Sachs' translation and phrasing is difficult to ingest upon first glance, it is the only way to go in order to truly understand the meaning in Aristotle's work without reading the original Greek text.He captures Aristotle's subtilties in wording amazingly, while also preserving the literality and spirit of the Greek in a way that no other translator before has.The Greek vocabulary lessons preceding the chapters are extremely helpful, acquainting the unfamiliar with the fundamental words and concepts of Aristotle.He helps to make a deep and difficult treatise more manageable, although I would highly recommend using another translation to boot in any close reading of this work. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (41)

A lackluster sequel.
This is a sequel of sorts toPlato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar . . .: Understanding Philosophy Through Jokes. While that book attempted to teach philosophy with jokes, this book examines the philosophical underpinnings of political rhetoric, or rather, the logical errors inherent in most of it.

My biggest issue with this book, besides it simply not being as funny as its predecessor, is that while the authors try to pretend that they're being objective, there's a very heavy emphasis throughout the book on singling out Republicans. Oh, there are some token Democratic examples taken -- one of the first quotes in the book is from California Senator Barbara Boxer -- but most of the quotes selected for dissection come from George W. Bush, his administration, or his most avid supporters in the media and in Congress. Mind you, I'm not a fan of any of these people, but it doesn't sit well with me that the authors focus disproportionately on one party. One could, I suppose, make the argument that Republicans make more logically questionable statements than Democrats, but although I might like to believe that, I doubt it's actually true.

Furthermore, most of the quotes referenced in the book, when not from the Bush Administration, are from the 2008 Presidential campaign. Even in September of 2010, this really dates the book. To me, it would've made more sense for them to focus on historical statements from major political figures of past decades, like Reagan, Kennedy, Goldwater, Roosevelt, McCarthy, etc. Not only would this have given it a broader feel, but it would mean getting away from recent politics (which people are going to feel very strongly about, one way or another) and instead allow readers to examine statements of past politicians with a more objective eye.

But instead we got jokes about Dubya's IQ. Hardee har har.

Obama and a grizzly bear go to Washington
While the first book in this series was a real eye opener on philosophy, with great jokes to go along - a very popular toilet literature for the guests of my household, the book on philosophy and politics should have had a big warning for anyone who wished to purchase it "Carefull, only adecuate for the American market", because if you come from any other country, you won't understand the jokes or half the other things mentioned there about politics. In short, it put me right to sleep.

Aristotle And An Aardvark Go To Washington
I received a copy of another Cathart and Klein novel "Plato and a Platypus Walk In To a Bar" for my 80th birthday. It was so good, I bought "Aristotle and an Aardvark Go to Washington"It was so good, I bought "Heidegger and a Hippo Walk Through the Pearly Gates." It was so good, I cried because there aint no more!

A worthy effort
As with Plato & Platypus, this team does a fine job of puncturing some of the bloated windbags of US politics, using a combination of thoughtful analysis and wry humor. They pick admittedly well-known inanities to analyze - a choice that seems sound, since famous speakers make the points most clearly, and famous phrases reduce the "Huh? Where'd that come from?" response that obscure quotes or issues would tend to elicit.

The specific quotations aren't the point of this book, so don't try to treat it as a catalog of political quasi-deception. Well-known politicisms work as well as fodder for analysis as any other, but let the authors just directly into their descriptions of the flaws in the pols' so-called reasoning. And, in signature style, they illustrate each bit of manipulative and self-serving nonsense with jokes that usually amuse at least as much as they instruct - but, I have to admit, for real guffaws, the original quotes from politicos often beat out even a good gag. The only real problem with this book, noted by other reviewers, is that politics offers many targets, but they change with every election. More reliance on older sources would have given this book value that endures longer than the sources' terms in office.

-- wiredweird

On Aristotle and an Aardvark
This book arrived in great condition as the seller indicated. I haven't had a change to read it yet, but if it is anything like Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar, I am sure I won't be dissapointed. ... Read more

Product Description
Since its hardcover publication in 1997, If Aristotle Ran General Motors has been one of the year's most talked about books, not only in the United States but around the world, where it has been translated into many languages. Author Tom Morris has emerged as one of America's most popular motivational speakers, bringing his inspirational message of ancient wisdom in modern business to thousands of employees at major companies like AT&T and Merrill Lynch. In 1998 Morris will give more than 100 keynote speeches at corporate seminars to further establish If Aristotle Ran General Motors as a must-read for anyone doing business today.
Amazon.com Review
Philosophy purists take note: yes, this is a business self-help book. But Tom Morris has plenty of philosophical street credibility: after getting his Ph.D. from Yale, he taught for 15 years at the University of Notre Dame (where stunts like bringing the ND marching band to class for an impromptu "pep rally" before a big test made him one of the most popular professors on campus). And Morris isn't dumbing down his message for the corporate culture. Rather, he's genuinely interested in fostering a workplace environment where one can seriously think about truth, beauty, goodness, and unity. "If we let the great philosophers guide our thinking," he says, "and if we then begin to become philosophers ourselves, we put ourselves in the very best position to move towards genuine excellence, true prosperity, and deeply satisfying success in our businesses, our families, and our lives. Why should we settle for anything less?" Why indeed? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (18)

Philosophy for everyone
This book is not intended for the professional philosopher but for those in the business world who have an interest in business ethics. It would be quite useful as a text for kicking off an undergraduate business ethics course. Morris takes a different approach than one might expect when addressing the foundations of business ethics and excellence. Rather than focusing on rules, compliance, and the like, he places the soul of business in the context of a good life in general. He offers the idea that the foundations for sustainable excellence in business are the same as the foundations for excellence in life:truth, beauty, goodness, and unity, which correspond to four dimensions of human experience- intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spiritual.

Truth is the foundation of trust in all of life, including the life of business. Pragmatically speaking, an atmosphere of trust will actually increase efficiency in the workplace, given the amount of time and energy wasted by gossip, rumor, and speculation. An environment with respect for the truth should contain respect for people as well. Given this, the truth must be handled in a manner consistent with beauty, goodness, and unity.

Beauty is important in part because it liberates, refreshes, restores, and inspires us. If we surround ourselves with beauty, and are attentive to its presence in our work, this can foster excellence. For Morris, the best businesses are those that are beautiful structures in which human beings can work, grow, and flourish.

Goodness is about living well, to the fullness of our capabilities. Ethical living is not restrictive or constraining, but fosters fulfillment. In any corporate human endeavor, good people in harmonious relationships yields individual and corporate strength.

Unity for Morris has to do with the spiritual dimension of life. Here he draws from existentialist thought as well as that of several religious traditions. This foundation for excellence includes living in and from the depths of ultimate reality, as well as being connected to others, the rest of nature, and to the Ground of all Being, as he puts it.

The result of all of this is human fulfillment and true excellence in whatever context we find ourselves in, including the context of a company. The best business will include collaboration, in which people put their individual excellence to work in partnership with one another, carrying out a shared vision that is mutually developed.

The upshot is not a set of procedures or management strategies, but what the reader should take away is a desire toask and answer the right kinds of questions about life and business:

"How can I enhance the level of truth, the experience of beauty, the assurance of goodness, and the sense of unity felt by people who work around and with me?" (p. 213)

Great reading
I received it on the first day of the promised delivery.Item as described.Great, riveting reading.

If an irrational populist ran a non-profit agency

This book is neither about Aristotle nor General Motors.Do not be fooled into believing it is in any way an application of Aristotelian ethics in modern business; it is not.Morris consistently contradicts Aristotle throughout the book.

An example is Morris' proselytizing conclusion that leadership requires humility.To make his point Morris quotes ancient Hasidic verse and the Tao Te Ching to establish that we are all worms.Nobility, Morris suggests, is lowness.

Did Aristotle ever say this? No.Could Aristotelian writing lead us to these conclusions?No again.Is Taoism consistent with Aristotelian reason and logic?No, no, no.Is Hasidic verse? Definitely not.So what is going on?Did Morris forget to read Aristotle?

Aristotle understood Man as a rational being with happiness as the moral purpose of his life.Morris does not.This book does not.

Morris peppers his book with quotes at the furious rate of no less than one or two per page.He quotes every thing from fortune cookies to Einstein.Ironically with all this mad quoting he never once, ever, (I checked) quotes Aristotle - never.

This book could better be titled, "If an irrational populist ran a non-profit organization."

The prefaces of basic economic texts usually contain better discussions of the practical intersection of business and philosophy.

Brilliant
When you ask business people what they think about ethics and morality, they usually answer that these are important things in today's business environment. When you ask them what they REALLY think about ethics and morality, most of them don't want to answer you in any detail. A few will reply that morality is "idealistic" and that one must be "pragmatic" in everyday business practice. The belief that "morality is a topic to be debated after the bills are paid" seems to be the dominant belief in business (and other) circles.

This book, brilliant in every way, attempts, and succeeds, in arguing that wisdom and its concrete manifestation in ethics, should be the cornerstone of business life. The author is a philosopher, and not a business owner, but with his insight into the dynamics of the marketplace and its optimization, his ideas are clearly thinking "out of the box". One can only hope that business leaders (and others) will discover the ideas in this book or some other like it. With today's headlines in corporate fraud and other scandals (some justified and some not), business people need to start believing in the efficacy of ethics in optimizing their business ventures.

The preface to the book concerns "reinventing corporate spirit", the author drawing on the thoughts of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle to set up the foundation for his arguments in the book. He recognizes correctly that it is ideas that fundamentally move the world.

Throughout the book are many interesting insights into the psychology of business practices. When speaking of happiness for example, in relation to Aristotle's notion of eudaemonia, one of these is the recognition that money is frequently not the end goal for business people, the real goal being to achieve admiration in the eyes of others. The resulting ostentatious lifestyle is primarily done to impress, this being a transient and ultimately unsatisfying motivation in the eyes of the author.

The book is divided up into four parts: Truth, Beauty, Goodness, and Unity. Each of these stand for respectively, the intellectual, aesthetic, moral, and spirtual necessities for achieving true happiness.
In "Truth" the discussion is interesting in that it emphasizes the importance of telling the truth not just from the standpoint of what it will do in relation to others, but what it will do for the individual involved. Telling a lie damages one's self confidence. Individuals who practice the telling of falsehoods are intimidated by truth and do not have any confidence in the efficacy of their own minds. In addition, the author discusses the importance of "open-book management": that the sharing of knowledge results in greater productivity among the employees. This is to be contrasted with the nervous attitude among some managers who feel threatened by information, again lacking self-confidence and are in a perpetual state of worry that the dissemination of knowledge among employees or co-workers will result in their comptetitive demise. Theseviews on truth are most refreshing. "Lying is the most dangerously corrosive and subtly destabilizing activities to be found in human life" he says. He's right.

Quoting the Hindu proverb "The true nobility is in being superior to your precious self", the author encourages the view of competition as being one in which individuals surpass their former abilities, instead of worrying about their status in relation to others. He's right.

Even more important is that the author addresses the influence of philosophy in the development of ethical attitudes in business. Ethical relativism and nihilism have wreaked havoc in society as a whole, not just in business, and the author emphasizes the need for coming to grips with these beliefs, and replacing them with sound philosophical systems that are both rational and meshed with common sense. "Ideas rock the world" he states. He's right.

Most refreshingly, the author does not shy away from addressing the issue of self-interest. Confronting the "What's in it for me?" question that is asked by some, he clearly believes that self-interest is not something to be swept under the rug in discussions on ethics and morality in business. "The view that ethics requires total personal disinterestedness is a dangerous distortion of the truly moral point of view", he states. He's right.

Peer pressure and "going with the flow" are always issues that everyone has to deal with in the business environment. Not being labeled as a "team player" can be detrimental to one's growth in a particular organization. The author asks the reader to count the costs of conformity and not to "associate with evil men, lest you increase their number", quoting George Herbert. He's right.

But ethics is not merely a collection of arbitrary rules to follow, the author argues. The right course of action is built into the nature of reality and meshes with human nature and human needs. Since this is the case, the practice of true ethical norms is not only productive, but pleasureful to the individual, and instead of causing boredom as some might believe, alleviates it, argues the author. He's right.

Some might label, and the author does unashamedly, the framework outlined in the book as "spiritual". Goal-oriented, truth-valuing, truth-loving conduct results in a productive, life-loving spiritual individual, in complete antithesis to that of a sterile, non-creative, cynical one who views life as a burden with crosses to bear.

Some of course might view this book, and one on ethics in general, as being "idealistic" or "naive". Such individuals may not wish to even pick it up, let alone read it. But individuals who practice these ideas, or ones very similar, haved moved the world, and will continue to do so.

Genuinely non-Aristotelian look at Business Leadership...
Despite a provocative and promising title, Tom Morris delivers neither a new nor a true approach to the art of business leadership.While the book is occasionally clever and sometimes humorous, the vast majority of this book is mostly just a hodgepodge of relativism only somewhat related to the art of management and leadership.In short, the content of the book leads the reader miles away from what might result from the title scenario.

Morris falls short perhaps because he is simply a mediocre scholar of Aristotle, perhaps because he was a professor of philosophy at a Catholic university, or perhaps because he is simply just a below-average writer.Regardless, the author comes up lacking in both the style and substance of a book premise that could be truly great in more capable hands.

As to style, the book is replete with anecdotes that sometimes illustrate points quite well and sometimes are clearly inserted only because the author had them at his disposal.Likewise, the book is peppered with quotations that interrupt the flow of the narrative and only rarely have anything more than a tangential relevance to the text surrounding it.One such quote, from the author himself, neatly summarizes my view of this production: "Obscurity is not a mark of profundity, however many confused writers have hoped to bully us into believing otherwise." How true, how true indeed: I wonder how many of his students felt the same way after one of his philosophy lectures.

As to substance, the book is almost a complete loss.I say almost because, to be fair, Morris does come close to painting an Aristotelian view of life when he delves into the meaning of life.The author frames up his answer beautifully but then promptly undermines it in his attempts at clarification.To be more specific, Morris claims that the meaning of life is to be found in "creative love" (or, more accurately, in the love of creativity).While this sounds at first blush to be both logical and promising, not unlike the true motive power behind human innovation, Morris explains his surmise so ineptly that it becomes readily apparent to the reader that any proximity to the truth was merely an accident.Far from leading the reader closer to any meaningful answers, Morris abandons the audience as if in mid-thought, convincing them that his conclusions were as much the product of coincidence as of rational thought.

This is just one example of the sort of philosophical inconsistency that exists throughout this book.In nearly every chapter, Morris makes sweeping, unsubstantiated statements and then proceeds as if these statements were self-evident truths.This might be passable if the author were able to consistently proceed from these sweeping statements in a logical progression.However, the reader frequently gets no more than one or two steps away from an assertion masquerading as immutable law when the author creates transparent straw man arguments to bolster his tenuous premises.Even if the reader can forgive (and accept as true) the first premise of the author's progression, the subsequent steps are so disorienting and fallacious that it is hard to move past them.

Perhaps the most obvious example of this is how Morris routinely equates rational self-interest with intellectual myopia.For instance, in painting the entire philosophical landscape, he cites only three schools of thought: Nihilism, Relativism, and Absolutism.While he aptly defines the concepts of Nihilism and he readily betrays himself as a Relativist, he casts Absolutism as the province solely of religious zealots.

Morris's emphatic use of the relativist's scale on which to measure thought is perhaps the fundamental flaw of his book.It is a small wonder that he finds no thematic consistency when he shows us a different yardstick for the measurement of each new topic.This changing standard sometimes becomes outright silly.For instance, on nearly a half dozen occasions, Morris attempts to weave coherent messages by juxtaposing concepts from the writings of Aristotle next to those of prominent theologians.The result of this sort of conceptual looseness is that better than half of the supposed insights delivered by the book turn out to be little more than fortune cookie proclamations-statements devoid of both context and independently verifiable meaning.

All of this should be hardly surprising from someone who openly claims that any "unifying principle of philosophy is a dream." The question that remains for the reader, however, is: Why choose Aristotle if you believe philosophical unification is unachievable?Why co-opt the one Philosopher who may have come closest to philosophical unity than any other?Why not be honest with your readers?Why not entitle the book: If Dale Carnegie Ran General Motors?Even Plato or Immanuel Kant or William James would have been better choices, but that discussion is for another time.

Like so many academic philosophers and modern business writers, Morris selects philosophical concepts based on their emotional appeal rather than with regard to any underlying consistency.This book, like virtually every business book on the market (with a few highly worthwhile exceptions) simply promotes the art we witness in greeting cards and long-distance phone commercials on television.From it, we get nothing more than the regurgitation of unthinking, it-takes-a-village drivel that characterizes so much of todays supposed non-fiction writing.Morris' entire effort seems to be very much like a Hollywood production-aiming to tug at heartstrings with nothing more substantive as a goal.In the end, that is all this book is equipped to do: provide us with a feeling...sadly, that feeling is simple, straightforward disappointment. ... Read more

Product Description
This revised translation of Aristotle's classic treatise contains ten books based on the famous doctrine of the golden mean which advocates taking the middle course between excess and deficiency.Topics that Aristotle treats include the good for humanity, moral virtue, intellectual virtue, pleasure, friendship, and happiness. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (23)

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.Irwin's translation of Aristotle is the very best available!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.

What to say about classic
What can one say abaout Aristotle, something new and compelling, in such a short manner and on a narrow place of thousand words. Tousands of years people commented on Aristotle, sciences emerged from his teachings, new ways of thinking were invented and people yet couldn't help but to read Aristotle again and again, making notes and commentary. Can there be greater recommendation of this book than this? Of course, rarely does one stumble on Aristotle by chance, especially nowaday, so I have to presume that you are here for some reason.

If you are studying philosophy, politics or some kind of philological studies than I cannot help you. To help you would require of me some kind of knowledge about this translation and history of translations of Aristotle on english language. I do not posses such knowledge, and you should probably walk away form this text to some that is more concise and has strong evidence that supports it.

If you stumbled here by chance, which I sincerely doubt, than it would be quite sufficient what I said in first paragraph. Western civilisation arose on legacy of number of powerfull books, and Nicomachean ethics is one of those books. It is amazing and never quite stops to fascinate me that hearing of voice inside your head, older than one can imagine, voice that speaks words that you can easily pinpoint to this particular time and place. One feels somewhat scared when holding such books. And therein lies the beuty of it.

Timeless classic
This philosophical work by Aristotle truly transcends time. The Nicomachean Ethics covers different grounds on human character and human relationships.

The main question of this book being: What is the meaning of life? And how can I fulfill it?

Aristotle underlines the difference between knowing the meaning and actually setting out to give life to this meaning through virtuous actions.

A truly eye and soul opening work. Read it, and apply your knowledge!

Wonderful
Although this is not exactly the most engaging of reads, it is still wonderful, most especially due to the depth of the intellectual ideas presented. A must for any fan of Philosophy, Politics or thinking in general.

A breif note on the contemplative life
Several reviewers have submitted that the highest life Aristotle proposes consists in "hard work" or is "the most difficult life."I am afraid this language does not accurately present Aristotle's description.Aristotle writes in these lecture notes that the contemplative life is "superior to the human level" (1177b27).Yet, he distinguishes it from the secondary lives by saying that these secondary lives "require trouble" (1177b18).

Aristotle calls the contemplative life the most pleasant life (1177a25ff).Certainly, study can be hard work; but this is not hard work in the sense of toil.To work towards the truth and contemplate it once attained requires little strain.It is done as the virtuous agent does the right action in any given circumstance: with ease.Through the influence of Kant (and possibly the Stoics), we often associate virtue with denying the passions and overcoming the greatest obstacles; likewise, we associate vice with the passions overcoming reason.In this sense, the most virtuous person would have no passions at all.However, Aristotle suggests that passions only conflict with reason in a lower moral character.When reason prevails and one does the right action against passion's urges, he calls this 'enkrasia'; when the passions overcome, he calls this 'akrasia'.

However, the internal discord present in these characters are not present in the virtuous (and the vicious).The virtuous character is the most reliable and participates in the definition of virtue itself because the agent has habituated the passions to follow reason.His or her passions actually encourage the agent to do what is right.(Note: the vicious agent, through doing base actions, no longer recognizes them as such, and so reason and passion coincide in doing what is wrong).

Applying these distinctions to the contemplative life, we see that this activity is not work at all in the sense of toil.The activity requires effort for sure; but, this effort is the most enjoyable for the agent.It engages what is highest in the human person and when it is carried out through a (morally and intellectually) virtuous character, this activity turns out to be the most pleasurable.So while pleasure is not the human good and not the measure of happiness, it is wrong to think that the good life is not pleasant for the eudaimon.It is only a stuggle for those still on the way to achieving it. ... Read more

Product Description
Not too long ago, in earth time, no one thought the universe had a history. The scientific and religious experts believed that the world had been created as it is today and that nothing had changed. Those experts did their best but they were wrong--really wrong. The Story of Science: Aristotle Leads the Way tells the amazing but true story of the quest to answer an important question: What is this universe of ours all about? From the lost city of Alexandria with its gigantic lighthouse and steam-powered vehicles, to faraway lands where Hindu and Arab mathematicians invented the number zero, Hakim invites readers of all ages to meet the forefathers of modern science and experience their greatest discoveries in astronomy, math, and physics. Along the way, readers learn the answers to questions like:

What can a baboon bone tell us about calendars?

Why can't we feel the earth moving?

How did math contribute to Archimedes' death?

A science book unlike any other, Aristotle Leads the Way pairs a gripping narrative style with quirky sidebars; hundreds of charts, maps, and diagrams; experiments to do at home; suggestions for further reading; and excerpts from the writings of great scientists. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (20)

So enjoyable we're getting the whole series
I have been reading the "Aristotle" book to an 8yo, 10yo, 13yo and 15yo and ALL enjoy the book.It really crosses so many ages and they are all able to get something out of each chapter.My 15yo is VERY anti-textbook and traditional schooling and this book really resonates so much with him that he asked me to get the other 2 books in the series.I think this is an excellent example of the appeal of this book - that is would resonate so much with an anti-textbook kid who really doesn't enjoy "doing school".

We normally read Hakim's book at the same time we're reading Bauer's History of the Ancient World and the two complement each other very nicely.We are also doing the Real Science 4 Kids Chemistry, Biology and Physics but the kids really enjoy Hakim's book much more than the RS4K.Well, other than the marshmallow experiment.:)

Well written, illustrations great
This is written text-book style, but much more interesting to read.The chronology of science, and in the following books in the series, makes a nice, unique history of science.

Story of Science - Not for Everyone, but Worth Checking Out
This curriculum takes students from 400 B.C. through the year 2000 by studying the lives, culture and work of famous scientists including Pythagoras, Archimedes, Aristotle, Newton, and Einstein. As the students progress through the series, they create a timeline of historical events and famous people related to their studies. The students create the timeline pieces from their own drawings and graphs.

Each lesson starts out with a lesson summary, a famous quote, goals (what the students will learn), a list of people that will be studied, terms and topics that will be studied, and timeline information. The lesson summary is an excellent explanation of what the students will learn and, unless you are well versed in the subject matter, essential to understanding the material.

This is NOT a self-teaching course. You will need the teachers' and students' guides to use this curriculum. The teachers' guides explain how to use the books and student guides. They provide a supply list, transparency masters, handouts, and quizzes. Suggestions for science fair projects are included in the teachers' guides, as well as enrichment activities that cover other topics (math, history, geography, language arts, drama, art and music).

The student guide includes fill-in charts, short answer, essay questions, and some diagrams. This is not an easy multiple choice/true false curriculum! Most students will be challenged because of the reasoning, lab activities and assessment methods used in the curriculum. For instance, in Aristotle Leads the Way, students have to compare the cosmology of Pythagoras and Aristotle. In Newton at the Center, students must identify which Law of Motion a particular scenario represents.

The lessons are directed to classroom learning and include a lot of group activities; however, they are easily adapted to a homeschool situation. Most of the supplies needed for the labs are obtainable locally; however, you will need to purchase some basic lab supplies such as bar magnets, spring scales, thermometers, and graduated cylinders that can be purchased online.

This is a secular curriculum. It treats all religions the same and in a literary and historical context. Christian homeschoolers may be offended by statements made in the text that creation stories, including those in the Bible, are considered a myth, as well as by the use of Common Era (B.C.E. and C.E.), rather than B.C. and A.D. The explanation for the usage of Common Era is covered in the beginning of each of the first two books. Christians may want to add supplemental material that explains an alternative viewpoint.

Homeschool parents who want to give their children a challenging, classical, science education; who enjoy a historical approach to teaching science; and who are preparing their children for mathematical and scientific careers will benefit most from this series. I would not recommend it for students with learning difficulties, students who need only a general education in science, or students who have trouble staying on topic. The layout of the books is similar to the Usborne books with lots of sidebars, photos with captions, and graphs interwoven throughout the text. For some students, this type of layout makes it difficult for them to focus. However, students who enjoy lots of pictures, charts, graphs, and sidebars will love it.

If I were still homeschooling, I would enjoy using this curriculum to give my children a historical background on the evolution of scientific thought, introduce them to the scientists and their contributions to science today, and challenge my children's reasoning skills.

Great start to a great science series!
Watch Video Here: http://www.amazon.com/review/R607KEGY4UP4P Hi, this is Joanne, a bioengineering instructor at the University of Illinois.I read science books and review them.See more at my youtube site http://www.youtube.com/user/joannelovesscience

If my brain is tired from reading all those high level science journals, I take a break and read about science in a fun, lighthearted but still informative way with Joy Hakim's The Story of Science Series.Great for educators and homeschoolers, too! Covers the basics of physical sciences thoroughly but at a middle to high school level.

Science made interesting
I have advanced technical degrees and found this book delightful in its presentation and content. It can be viewed as a text book, a coffee table book or as a brief overview of the scientific ideas of ancient times.It succeeds on all levels and although aimed at 8th grade level it should appeal to more advanced students and casual readers. I plan to get the other books in the series very soon. ... Read more

Product Description
Joe Sachs has followed up his success with his translation of Aristotle's Physics, published by Rutgers University Press, with a new translation of Metaphysics. Sachs's translations bring distinguished new light onto Aristotle's works, which are foundational to history of science. Sachs translates Aristotle with an authenticity that was lost when Aristotle was translated into Latin and abstract Latin words came to stand for concepts Aristotle expressed with phrases in everyday Greek language. When the works began being translated into English, those abstract Latin words or their cognates were used, thus suggesting a level of jargon and abstraction, and in some cases misleading interpretation, which was not Aristotle's language or style. These important new translations open up Aristotle's original thought to readers. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

By far the best translation and notes available
Without knowing Greek and the subtle shades of meaning and relationships among words that such knowledge reveals, understanding the depth of Aristotle's Metaphysics is nearly impossible - unless you have Joe Sachs' translation.Through other translators, Aristotle seems to be playing an archaic game of semantics, and so would seem difficult to take seriously as providing us a viable philosophical system. The reviewer below criticizes Sachs for departing from the usual practice of using Latin cognates to translate key words, as if those cognates are more intelligible than Sachs's non-standard English.To a certain extent, this is true - the usual "actuality" for Aristotle's "entelecheia" is a more intelligible word in English than Sachs's "being-at-work-staying-itself"."Actuality" sounds straightforward, while Sachs's phrase makes us scratch our heads and ponder the meaning.Such pondering, however, is the point.After Sachs has made you ponder, do you suspect that you might understand a bit more about what Aristotle was up to than if you just ran across "actuality" without giving it a second thought?If someone told you that Aristotle simply meant "actuality" and then you found out that the Greek word contained everything expressed in "being-at-work-staying-itself", wouldn't you feel like like the previous translator pulled the wool over your eyes?I'll gladly accept more awkward English as the price for grasping the richness of Aristotle's vocabulary.The one other highly useful translation is Montgomery Furth's for its faithfulness to Aristotle's sentence structure, though it contains only part of the Metaphysics and uses the latin-derived vocabulary.

Apart from the translation, Sachs's notes provide unique insights quite unlike any I've seen from the usual big names who specialize in ancient philosophy, and will provide immense help to the student and open a new horizon of understanding for the seasoned reader.In fact, the notes and introduction alone would make this translation worth buying.Perhaps this is partly explained by the fact that Sachs seems to take Aristotle more seriously, and to read him more sympathetically, than most any other contemporary English commentator.

I cannot recommend Sachs's effort highly enough - and the same goes for his translations of other works by Plato and Aristotle.

Fabulous Edition, Competitive Translation
First I will discuss the positives of Mr. Sachs's translation. The question of whether someone should or should not read the Metaphysics is self-evident.

The edition is aesthetically fabulous. Green Lion Press always crafts superlative texts (cf. their editions of Euclid and Apollonius) and the Metaphysics is no exception. Margins are generous, the cover is sturdy, and the pages are both sewn and glued. If one takes even the smallest care with it, the book will last many years.

The translation is likewise competitive with every other essentially literal translation available, though not their superior. Sachs replaces Latinate cognates such as "substance", "actuality", and "potentiality" with terms like "thinghood", "being-at-work-staying-itself", and "potency". Make use of his glossary and your lexicon to figure out "ousia", "energeia", and "dunamis". After this work to make sense of Aristotle's technical terms, this translation will serve you well.

The downside to Mr. Sachs' translation is this: it is not really superior to any other essentially literal translation available: Hippocrates Apostle's and W.D. Ross' translations serve admirably. I do not share Mr. Sachs' contention that the Latin translations of Aristotle have obscured his meaning; rather, I contend Aristotle's work contains difficult technical vocabulary, and how one translates this vocabulary can never be "immediately comprehended" as Mr. Sachs asserts. One must struggle, then, directly with "substance" or "thinghood"; indirectly, with "ousia".

A Word or Two on This Translation
I preface this with one caveat: I am not a Greek scholar. I have, however, read this book, in toto, in this translation. I have also read, though not in its entirety, another translation.Joe Sachs, positively a very intelligent scholar of these texts, has tried to put it into what he considers to be true to the Greek. Again, I am not a scholar of the Greek language, but I think that Sachs goes 'overboard,' if you will, in presenting to us, the laypeople, a translation beyond what is really necessary to get the job done. By that, I mean that a traditional translation is more than adequate, so long as you don't try to get at the Thomistic textual analysis at first go-round, or so I'm told. There are several chapters (keeping in mind, this is Aristotle's Metaphysics we're talking about) where I had trouble discerning pages at a time, reading and re-reading just for an objective account of what Aristotle was saying, or trying to say through Dr. Sachs.The Metaphysics should be read; that is not the question. The question is whether this is the translation for you. I, for one, will say that it is not. Not because of uncanny foresight, but due to the difficult readability of such a complex exposition on reality, being, and, in the concluding chapters of course, God.So, I give this version 3 stars: as a text in itself, it is good; it is not a wonderfully understandable translation, however.I hope that this verbose review has been beneficial for you.

Meticulous translator of Aristotle
I've not read Sachs's translation of the Metaphysics, though I did work through his version of the Physics during a summer at St. John's College (where he teaches).His Metaphysics was circulating as a xerox copy at the college bookstore; I'm glad to see it in print.

Anyone unfortunate enough (as I am) to read Aristotle in English rather than ancient Greek, can benefit from Sachs's translations, though it remains worthwhile to have something like the classic Oxford translation alongside, to compare their senses of the Greek text.Sachs's object is to recover what Aristotle may've been up to, by avoiding the Latinate terminology that haunts Aristotle studies and trying to find more "authentic" meanings for the Greek words.Whatever his ultimate success or failure, it's wonderful to have such a fresh approach to the translation of Aristotle available.

Maybe Aristotle wasn't interested in philosophy
This translation of Aristotle from the Greek directly into modern English makes use of the scholarship surrounding the efforts which have been most successful with Heidegger.

`Thus, the way I understand *to ti en einai* departs from, but is rooted in, Owen's understanding of it.The same is true of my rendering *ousia* as "thinghood," when it is used in a general sense, and as "an independent thing" when it is used of singulars.I have heard two sorts or criticism of my use of the word thinghood in Aristotle's PHYSICS.The one sort, that it occasions laughter or embarrassment, is a general instance of Heidegger's observation in WHAT IS A THING? that philosophy is that at which thoughtless people laugh.Let the laughter or embarrassment subside, and then judge the meaning carried by the word, both on its own and in its context, on its merits.The other sort of criticism regrets the fact that thinghood is not as closely related to being as *ousia* is to *to on.* . . .' (p. xxxvii).

"Lassie is an *ousia,* and the *ousia* of Lassie is dog."(p. xxxviii).

Intellectuals need to pay attention to the concepts that are used in their own fields, if nowhere else, and Aristotle was close to the peak of ancient Greek intellectual attainment.

"Aristotle invents a second word, being-at-work-staying-itself (entelecheia), converging with it in meaning, to sharpen and clarify his use of being-at-work, and he gives an array of examples in which we are meant to `see at a glance by means of analogy,' what it means (1048a 39)."(p. xxxix).

In the beginning of this book, ARISTOTLE'S METAPHYSICS, Translated by Joe Sachs, there is a Greek Glossary with 49 words or phrases on three pages, followed by an English Glossary of 43 words or phrases on eleven pages."This is a slightly revised version of the glossary that appears with the translation of the PHYSICS, based upon those passages in which Aristotle explains and clarifies his own usage.Bekker page numbers from 184 to 267 refer to the PHYSICS; those from 980 to 1093 are in the METAPHYSICS."(p. xlix).

Chapters are short, especially in Book V (Book Delta), which Joe Sachs calls "Things Meant in More than One Way."This has usually been considered "a dictionary, but Aristotle himself, at the beginnings of Books VII and X, says that it is about the various ways things are meant.The point is not to define words but to collect and organize the distinct senses of important words meant in more than one way.These ambiguities are not verbal but inherent in things, and Aristotle steadfastly preserves them."(p. 77, n. 1).

I am not particularly fond of this book.If undergraduate college courses are meant to provide students with general outlook on likely events, and graduate schools at major universities are intended to select those students who want to qualify for cutting edge work in a highly specialized professional discipline, the works of Aristotle seem to be the high point of a Greek attempt to create an upper level above anything that had previously been considered possible.Alexander the Great, as a student of Aristotle, might be faulted for aspiring to far more than what could be useful, just as Heidegger seemed to be pushing for a German spirit that was sure to damn the rest of the world to misery when he assumed a place in the leadership of a German university backing Hitler and the Nazi party.

I did not find Aristotle's approach to religion in Book VI to be inspiring, though it does seem to be intellectual."But if there is anything that is everlasting and motionless and separate, . . .

"And while it is necessary that all causes be everlasting, these are so most of all, since they are responsible for what appears to us of the divine.Therefore there would be three sorts of contemplative philosophy, the mathematical, the natural, and the theological; for it is not hard to see that if the divine is present anywhere, it is present in a nature of this kind, and that the most honorable study must be about the most honorable class of things.The contemplative studies, then, are more worthy of choice than are the other kinds of knowledge, and this one is more worthy of choice than are the other contemplative studies."(pp. 110-111).

This is a nice priority for an established church to maintain its dignity, but it is far more ancient than modern.It is not clear how infinite his "triangle containing two right angles" (p. 112) is supposed to be.Even his attempts to tiptoe around the major stereotypes of ancient bookworms seem limp."For instance, it is neither always nor for the most part that someone pale has a refined education, but since it sometimes happens, it will be incidental (or if not, everything would be by necessity)."(p. 113).

The Index only mentions three pages in Aristotle's text for Socrates, though Aristotle often uses his name as an example:"And since Socrates exerted himself about ethical matters and not at all about the whole of nature," (p. 14) and "so that whether Socrates is or is not, one might become like Socrates, and it is obvious that it would be the same even if Socrates were everlasting."(p. 23).Two generations of seeking lessons from Socrates, ignoring whatever meaning the hemlock had, took place before we find Aristotle finally admitting "For there are two things one might justly credit Socrates with, arguments by example and universal definition,"(p. 260).A real philosopher ought to do better than that. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle (384 BC-322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theatre, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology. Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures in Western philosophy. He was the first to create a comprehensive system of Western philosophy, encompassing morality and aesthetics, logic and science, politics and metaphysics. Aristotle's views on the physical sciences profoundly shaped medieval scholarship, and their influence extended well into the Renaissance, although they were ultimately replaced by modern physics. In the biological sciences, some of his observations were only confirmed to be accurate in the nineteenth century. His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, which were incorporated in the late nineteenth century into modern formal logic. In metaphysics, Aristotelianism had a profound influence on philosophical and theological thinking in the Islamic and Jewish traditions in the Middle Ages, and it continues to influence Christian theology, especially Eastern Orthodox theology, and the scholastic tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. ... Read more

Product Description
"This new English version of the Physics is the last contribution to the understanding of Greek thought of Richard Hope, long a teacher of philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. . . . This writing he had always seen as embodying many of Aristotle's most enduring insights."In his translations, Hope attempted to have them make sense to the English reader, and above all to make philosophic sense to anyone trying to understand not only Aristotle but the world as well. . . . [The present translation], presented in the form in which he left it, can stand as a monument to the thinking of a learned and penetrating philosophical mind."--John Herman Randall, Jr. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Not for kindle!!!
After reading the two previous reviews I bought the kindle edition of this book. The first review for the paperback edition says that there are a lot of commentaries and clarifications; the second review for the kindle edition is more a lesson on Aristotle than a review of this book, but gives 5 stars. But notice that the kindle edition has ONLY the translation: no notes, no comments. In the description of the book there is no mention that the kindle version differs from the paper version, while this should be explicitely stated. Moreover, there are no active links in the table of contents. I give 2 stars (instead of one) only because I respect the work of the two translators, but Amazon should separate the evalutions of printed books and of kindle books, otherwise the average star rating has no meaning.

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.

Ancient Philosophy at its Best
Aristotle's Physics is a brilliant compilation of his notes that he lectured from.This translation is stunning, with lots of commentaries and clarifications.This book encompasses everything from space, biology, potentiality, being, and luck, and much more.Whether reading for knowledge or pleasure, I would recommend this book. ... Read more

Product Description
The book has no illustrations or index. Purchasers are entitled to a free trial membership in the General Books Club where they can select from more than a million books without charge. Subjects: Soliloquy; English drama; History and criticism; Shakespeare, William; English fiction; Language Arts ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

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

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

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

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

Product Description
In this smart and timely book, the distinguished moral philosopher Sissela Bok ponders the nature of happiness and its place in philosophical thinking and writing throughout the ages. With nuance and elegance, Bok explores notions of happiness - from Greek philosophers to Desmond Tutu, Charles Darwin, Iris Murdoch, and the Dalai Lama - as well as the latest theories advanced by psychologists, economists, geneticists, and neuroscientists. Eschewing abstract theorizing, Bok weaves in a wealth of firsthand observations about happiness from ordinary people as well as renowned figures. This may well be the most complete picture of happiness yet. This book is also a clarion call to think clearly and sensitively about happiness. Bringing together very different disciplines provides Bok with a unique opportunity to consider the role of happiness in wider questions of how we should lead our lives and treat one another - concerns that don't often figure in today's happiness equation. How should we pursue, weigh, value, or limit our own happiness, or that of others, now and in the future?Compelling and perceptive, "Exploring Happiness" shines a welcome new light on the heart of the human condition. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

deeply researched and profoundly enjoyable
This deeply researched and profoundly enjoyable book gets to the heart of the new intellectual fashions in studying human happiness.Sissela Bok's breathtaking tour of history and cultures from antiquity to today's brain science is quite the best grounding needed by any serious researcher into this tricky domain.Most efforts to define "happiness," let alone measure its many expressions whether subjective or objective, still fall short.

I relished Exploring Happiness for another personal reason: I knew and admired Sissela Bok's parents, the well-known and respected Swedish scholars Alva Myrdal and Gunnar Myrdal, who clearly nurtured their daughter's wide-ranging, free-thinking mind.I also read Sissela Bok's husband, Derek Bok's study of the field of happiness research and measurement.These two books are complementary.Sissela's approach is more philosophical while Derek's is more instrumental and conventionally focused within mainstream policy paradigms.

I learned far more from Sissela Bok's Exploring Happiness as a student, writer, researcher and practitioner for over 30 years of social measurements of "success," "progress," "satisfaction," and quality of life.I became skeptical of the currently fashionable focus on happiness for many of the same reasons discussed in this book.Defining happiness is almost impossible, while measuring it both subjectively and objectively is fraught with intellectual traps and dire policy implications.As a co-organizer of the Beyond GDP Conference in the European Parliament in 2007, it was evident how the "happiness" focus could lead to regressive policies: if "happiness" is subjective and culturally conditioned, as much research suggests, then why should governments worry too much about social welfare?Shockingly, this profoundly conservative view of several influential economists was embraced by many officials.

Experts from many countries pointed out other traps: a Brazilian pointed out that "happiness" to a resident of Rio de Janeiro might simply mean a reduction in violence, while an Indian remarked that to a commuter in Mumbai, happiness might mean an uncrowded railway station and on-time trains.Others pointed to Bhutan and its developing Gross National Happiness Index (GNH) which has caught popular imagination and media attention worldwide.Critics point out that too much focus on GNH could ignore dire living conditions for many Bhutanese and the extent to which their sense of "happiness" might be linked to their ethnic identities and dislike of other ethnic groups in Bhutan.

My own work has focused on correcting the obvious errors in GDP about which I have elaborated in my Paradigms in Progress (1991, 1995) and many later books and articles, as well as my own Country Futures Indicators © which became the basis for the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators I developed with the Calvert Group of socially responsible investment funds in 2000 and regularly update at [...]

I agree with Sissela Bok that all such studies and measures of "happiness," satisfaction and quality of life must be multi-disciplinary, multi-cultural, using a wide variety of metrics - far beyond the money-denominated indices such as GDP.This is why I have favored the "dashboard" approach, measuring a wide range of phenomena such as the 12 indicators: education, employment, energy, environment, health, human rights, income, infrastructure, national security, public safety, re-creation and shelter that we use in the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators.I also welcome the new effort of the State of the USA, pioneered by Christopher Hoenig, and the support by Derek Bok for their multi-disciplinary "dashboard" approach.The intellectual partnership of Sissela and Derek Bok will enrich the search for measuring wellbeing and quality of life for years to come.

Hazel Henderson, author of Ethical Markets: Growing the Green Economy and co-creater of the Calvert-Henderson Quality of Life Indicators

Felicitous reading
In this splendid little book Sissela Bok productively explores three perspectives on happiness: accounts of individuals' experiences of it; relevant writings of philosophers, theologians, and historians; and pertinent emerging findings from psychology, economics, genetics, and the brain sciences.She attends both to the empirical evidence about actual happiness (often over-looked by humanists) and to the links between happiness and virtue or moral excellence (often missed by scientists).She argues for "the greatest possible freedom and leeway in the pursuit of happiness, subject to... moral limits."

Some definitions of "happiness" place more emphasis on objective conditions and others on subjective feelings.Bok concludes that there is no single definition that should exclude all others, that there is something to be gained from looking at several together.

Her open interdisciplinary approach leads her to illuminating insights regarding several stimulating happiness questions and issues.A sample follows, with selected responses she discusses indicated in parentheses:What would be wrong with total happiness induced by an "Experience Machine," one which stimulates your brain so that you would always believe you were happy (a lot, according to Nozick)?Is happiness even possible (Russell yes, Freud no)?Is striving to be virtuous the only way to be happy (Plato), or if you strive to be happy will you necessarily exercise virtues (Epicurus)?Is happiness primarily a matter of satisfying desires (Seneca), or more a matter of controlling and shaping desires (the Stoics)?Are there biological set-points that influence our happiness levels (yes, but not definitively and the range of possibilities is broad, according to contemporary research)?Is it all right if we hold certain illusory or false beliefs that contribute to our happiness, if we deceive ourselves (some psychologists yes, Kant no)?Can we be too happy, too resilient (yes says Bok, it can make us inattentive to the needs of others)?Are most humans happy, at least moderately so (yes, but social conditions matter, says the research)?

Bok relies quite a bit on recent social science research on "subjective well-being." Readers seeking clues for how to be happy might learn something from the findings that she summarizes.In particular, it would be desirable to cultivate healthy social contacts with family, friends, and others.Yet no particular single factor, even health, is truly necessary for people to feel satisfied with their lives.One should be cautious, too, in interpreting the research, if only because of correlation issues: are people healthier because they are happy, or happier because they are more healthy, for instance?

Inevitably, some readers will find Bok has not included or sufficiently emphasized facets of happiness that they believe merit more attention.If I had to pick one of my own it would be that she neglects to say much about how happiness depends in part on people's comparisons of themselves to others.More income, for example, contributes to happiness, but less so or not at all if everyone else has more income too -- it is one's relative position that seems to matter.Findings like this have implications that Bok does not explore here.But this is just a small quibble with what is as intelligent and informative a survey essay on the philosophy and psychology of happiness as I have come across. ... Read more

Product Description
Although there is no exact equivalent to our term science in Greek, Western science may still be said to have originated with the Greeks, for they were the first to attempt to explain natural phenomena consistently in naturalistic terms, and they initiated the practices of rational criticism of scientific theories.This study traces Greek science through the work of the Pythagoreans, the Presocratic natural philosophers, the Hippocratic writers, Plato, the fourth-century B.C. astronomers, and Aristotle. G. E. R. Lloyd also investigates the relationships between science and philosophy and science and medicine; he discusses the social and economic setting of early Greek science; and he analyzes the motives and incentives of the different groups of writers. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Great and important stuff!
I really enjoyed this book. The Greeks undoubtedly had a very interesting culture, and an analysis of their early scientists is an important an interesting read. Mr Lloyd has compiled a good introductory overview, outlining the major players, the development of various ideas, and some suggestions why their "science" got started in the first place. This is not an easy question to answer. I liked his idea that critical analysis of ideas about the natural world may have been a corrollary of a general environment of critical examination of political structure and ideas in difficult times. In other words, because ideas in general were subjected to critical analysis, critical examination of the natural world logically followed, more as an afterthought than a deliberate injunction. It is an interesting theory.

The book includes discussions of various differences and similarities between modern and ancient science. Ancient thinkers seemed less concerned with the practical potential of their ideas. The pursuit of knowledge for knowledge sake, with a few notable exceptions, was a worthy enough endeavour in itself. They saw the natural world as something more to be studied than "tamed". "Science" was a more vaguely defined discipline; few people practised it much less got paid for it. The book discusses the various streams and ideas which grew about, with, and around it, such as medicine, philosophy, astronomy, mathematics, and biology. The Pythagorians, Platonists, Milesians, Aristotle, Thales, and Anaximander are all names which come to the fore, but unfortunately, their contribution withers away far too quickly in the history of the world. Some interesting points I noted were early suggestions that man hadsprung from other organisms, (namely fish), the problem of change, theories concerning the nature of matter-you know-elements, atoms and so on.

A look into the thinking of the early Greeks is in part a mirror into the heart and nature of our society. My only complaint with the book is that we have so little remaining information about these thinkers and their times.

Please, archaeologists and the like, find much more about the Greeks in some colossal discovery of thousands of well-preserved, buried manuscripts in a buried ancient city somewhere about Greece, so we can know more about the ancient world. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description
For many centuries, Aristotle's Physics was theessential starting point for anyone who wished to studythe natural sciences.Now, in the first translationinto English since 1930, Aristotle's thought ispresented accurately, with a lucid introduction andextensive notes to explain the general structure of eacsection of the book, and shed light on particularproblems. It simplifies and expands the style of theoriginal, making for easier reading and bettercomprehension. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

See my review of the 1999 edition
Since this is the edition that is in print, but there is no reason to believe that it is substantively different from the 1999 edition, I note here that you can read my review of the 1999 edition if you are considering buying this one.

good seller
I recieved the book very quickly, and it was in great condition! Great person to buy from. ... Read more

Product Description

Product Description

Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there (367–347); subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343–2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school (of 'Peripatetics'), the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322.

Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda (some are spurious). They can be categorized as follows: I Practical: Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics (Magna Moralia); Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics (on the good of the family); On Virtues and Vices. II Logical: Categories; Analytics (Prior and Posterior); Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical: Twenty-six works (some suspect) including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics: on being as being. V Art: Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes.

Customer Reviews (1)

Not the best translation
If you're not familiar with the Loeb's, this wonderful series aims to make accessible all important Greek and Latin literature in bilingual editions - English translations with the original text on the opposite page. These books can be of great value to students of classics as well as to professionals in other fields, e.g. philosophers that are not fluent in Greek, but need an accurate and dependable translation of the works of Plato or Aristotle. And in my experience, the Loeb's rarely fail to meet expectations.

This volume contains Harold P. Cooke's translation of the Categories and De Interpretatione as well as Hugh Tredennick's translation of the Prior Analytics. I found Cooke's translations to be a little bit disapointing. The English translation often merely paraphrases Aristotle. This doesn't automatically make the translation a bad one, of course, for sometimes paraphrase is needed. But there are other translations available of these works, and, in my oppinion, Cooke's translation is inferior to J.L. Ackrill's translation of the Categories and De Interpretatione, which is both more accurate and relatively easy to read.

Now, I assume that no one would buy a Loeb primarily for the Greek or Latin text - for that you would turn to the Oxford Classical Texts or other critical text editions. So if you're buying a Loeb it's either for the translation or to be able to compare an English translation with the original. If you need to compare an English translation of these particular works with the Greek text, then this volume will be useful to you. However, if you just want to read these works in translation, you might very well be satisfied with this one, but I still recommend other translations such as J.L. Ackrill's excellent translation of the Categories and De Interpretatione. ... Read more

Product Description
Stephen Halliwell makes newly accessible one of the most influential and widely cited works in the history of literary theory and criticism. Aristotle's Poetics contains his treatment of Greek tragedy: its history, nature, and conventions, with details on poetic diction. This is the only edition of this central work in which readers can find, side by side, a reliable Greek text, a translation that is both accurate and readable, and notes that explain allusions and key ideas. Halliwell's Introduction traces the work's debt to earlier theorists (especially Plato), its distinctive argument, and the reasons behind its enduring relevance.

Also included in the volume are two central post-Aristotelian treatises on literary style: On the Sublime, a discussion of distinguished style (with illustrative passages) probably written in the 1st century A.D.; and On Style, a valuable guide to the Greek theory of styles that dates perhaps as early as the 2nd century B.C. For this new version of Volume XXIII of the Loeb Classical Library Aristotle edition, Fyfe's translation of On the Sublime has been retained but judiciously revised by Donald Russell. Doreen C. Innes' fresh reading of On Style is based on the earlier translation by Roberts. The new Introductions and notes by Russell and Innes reflect today's scholarship. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

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

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

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

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

EXCELLENT TRANSLATION - EXCELLENT STUDY GUIDE
I certainly refuse to be presumptuous enough to write a critique addressing the works of Aristotle, but do give this particular translation and particular publication five stars.It is an excellent study guide.It is quite superior to the Classics Club Edition. Recommend it highly.The cross references to the orginal greek are wonderful and quite useful.You need to add this one to your library if your interest points in this direction. ... Read more