I really enjoy listening to your private stuff as well. My interest in Aristotle's metaphysics came through Saul Kripke and Peter Strawson, but I always found his ethics appealing
if you read the video description, I think you'll be less lost. And, if you actually search for more Aristotle videos, or look in the Aristotle playlist, you'll find some more
Since you mention McKeon, I will add that McKeon taught his students (of which I was one of the last) that the works of Aristotle more or less constituted a consistent whole. Those who say otherwise (and say this or that work of Aristotle must have been earlier--- e.g. Werner Jaeger) simply haven't fully figured him out. McKeon also taught his students that the Topics (which today hardly anyone reads) was one of Aristotle's most important works. And if you read the first few pages of the work, Aristotle himself tells you why: it's at the foundation of everything. The sciences, of logical necessity, all come later, because a science cannot be the basis of its own foundation. What is, in Aristotelian dialectic? In a word in Greek: endoxa. Generally accepted opinions, or the opinions of the wise. Similarly, if you want to expand a given science, i.e., do research, the established science is if anything a stumbling block. You need to employ dialectic-- not Plato's dialectic, but the kind of dialectic based on 4 organa, 4 predicables, and "topoi" (places) as discussed in the Topics.
If I'd mentioned McKeon, I'd be very surprised, since he's not a secondary source I've drawn upon. I certainly agree with you on the importance of the Topics, but I do know quite a few Aristotle scholars who read it these days
Thanks for recommending Loeb classics. I knew those types of books existed, but didn't know where to find them. To have the translations with the original, side-by-side, is interesting; and maybe I will look into them now that I know where they come from. Also, I have always found Aristotle to be hard to read. It never really flows for me as other authors might. But it seems patience and focus could help.
Ryan Berry Well, as I said in the video, it took me quite a long time to appreciate Aristotle myself. The more fully you do understand his works, the more you'll likely appreciate them
I understand that his theory in physical science is surpassed, but the method of deduction (logic) is the best we have now. I know that logic cannot respond to all the questions in the world, but it is enough for the answers it is giving. 1+1=2 is enough to know although you may never know the greatest number in the universe.
Ah, yes, that would present a problem for getting those. You'd have to order them directly if you want them. So, how are the Spanish translations of Aristotle, in general? I don't read Spanish, so I'd have no idea whether they're particularly good or not
Great video. I do not know why, but when people say they are influenced by Aristotle I feel that they are doing real science. On the other hand the platonists and the idealist in general to note rise a great deal of trust.
1. I think it was lost. If you look at Diogenes Laertes, you'll see that we've lost whole collections of works. 2. Scotus is tough to read, I'll say! Univocity of being and haecceity are important for him, but not particularly important in medieval philosophy as a whole, I'd say. Scotus, of course, engages Aristotle's views -- by that time, he pretty much has to. About the reception of Scotus, I know less -- there certainly were Scotists around for quite a while, so some liked him. . . .
I remember feeling similarly about Freud at first: that what seemed correct seemed obvious, and what seemed incorrect seemed absurd. This is, perhaps, the risk of being successfully subsumed into the DNA of a culture. The insights end up seeming self-evident (I'd, ego, superego, subconscious, etc.) And blunders (penis envy, the reduction to Oedipal impulses, etc.) are remembered as those of the author/thinker in a way his/her insights are not . The same can be said of Matisse : I didn't see what the big deal about his paintings was because mainstream culture had been so shaped by his embrace/use of shape and color that the radical and original nature of it was in some sense under erasure.
Well, Aristotelian physical science has definitely been surpassed. And when it comes to moral matters, Aristotle cautions against trying to impose the kind of structure that we would find, say, in mathematics.
There is a classical statue of Aristotle, likely a Roman copy of a Greek original, as is often the case, that I've always liked. While the heroes of Hellenic culture are usually presented in more god-like poses, Aristotle is shown with a furrowed brow, scratching his head, staring into the short distance. The marble seems ready to speak, as if to say, "O.K., I understand what you're saying, but I see some problems with that..." Still a good expression of the philosophical attitude! . For the devil's advocate, I have a great anti-Aristotle quote from Roger Bacon (Doctor Mirabilis), though in context it's less anti-Aristotle than it sounds, more directed against the authority that had accrued to Aristotle in the Scholastic period... ;)
another personal video -- this one about Aristotle, and why I find him so particularly interesting
I really enjoy listening to your private stuff as well. My interest in Aristotle's metaphysics came through Saul Kripke and Peter Strawson, but I always found his ethics appealing
Glad you enjoy it
these types of videos are very interesting. thanks!
You're welcome!
if you read the video description, I think you'll be less lost.
And, if you actually search for more Aristotle videos, or look in the Aristotle playlist, you'll find some more
Great video! I am getting very interested in Aristotle. I recently just ordered The Basic Works of Aristotle.
Yep, well answered
Jaeger is certainly interesting. The Loeb books are not too bad, price-wise -- sometimes you can find them in used book stores
Excellent purchase -- you'll get your use of it!
Since you mention McKeon, I will add that McKeon taught his students (of which I was one of the last) that the works of Aristotle more or less constituted a consistent whole. Those who say otherwise (and say this or that work of Aristotle must have been earlier--- e.g. Werner Jaeger) simply haven't fully figured him out. McKeon also taught his students that the Topics (which today hardly anyone reads) was one of Aristotle's most important works. And if you read the first few pages of the work, Aristotle himself tells you why: it's at the foundation of everything. The sciences, of logical necessity, all come later, because a science cannot be the basis of its own foundation. What is, in Aristotelian dialectic? In a word in Greek: endoxa. Generally accepted opinions, or the opinions of the wise. Similarly, if you want to expand a given science, i.e., do research, the established science is if anything a stumbling block. You need to employ dialectic-- not Plato's dialectic, but the kind of dialectic based on 4 organa, 4 predicables, and "topoi" (places) as discussed in the Topics.
If I'd mentioned McKeon, I'd be very surprised, since he's not a secondary source I've drawn upon.
I certainly agree with you on the importance of the Topics, but I do know quite a few Aristotle scholars who read it these days
Thanks for recommending Loeb classics. I knew those types of books existed, but didn't know where to find them. To have the translations with the original, side-by-side, is interesting; and maybe I will look into them now that I know where they come from. Also, I have always found Aristotle to be hard to read. It never really flows for me as other authors might. But it seems patience and focus could help.
Ryan Berry Well, as I said in the video, it took me quite a long time to appreciate Aristotle myself. The more fully you do understand his works, the more you'll likely appreciate them
I understand that his theory in physical science is surpassed, but the method of deduction (logic) is the best we have now. I know that logic cannot respond to all the questions in the world, but it is enough for the answers it is giving. 1+1=2 is enough to know although you may never know the greatest number in the universe.
Ah, yes, that would present a problem for getting those. You'd have to order them directly if you want them.
So, how are the Spanish translations of Aristotle, in general? I don't read Spanish, so I'd have no idea whether they're particularly good or not
Great video. I do not know why, but when people say they are influenced by Aristotle I feel that they are doing real science. On the other hand the platonists and the idealist in general to note rise a great deal of trust.
1. I think it was lost. If you look at Diogenes Laertes, you'll see that we've lost whole collections of works.
2. Scotus is tough to read, I'll say! Univocity of being and haecceity are important for him, but not particularly important in medieval philosophy as a whole, I'd say. Scotus, of course, engages Aristotle's views -- by that time, he pretty much has to. About the reception of Scotus, I know less -- there certainly were Scotists around for quite a while, so some liked him. . . .
I remember feeling similarly about Freud at first: that what seemed correct seemed obvious, and what seemed incorrect seemed absurd. This is, perhaps, the risk of being successfully subsumed into the DNA of a culture. The insights end up seeming self-evident (I'd, ego, superego, subconscious, etc.) And blunders (penis envy, the reduction to Oedipal impulses, etc.) are remembered as those of the author/thinker in a way his/her insights are not . The same can be said of Matisse : I didn't see what the big deal about his paintings was because mainstream culture had been so shaped by his embrace/use of shape and color that the radical and original nature of it was in some sense under erasure.
Well, that can be a legitimate initial feeling. Remaining in it though is a sign that one is not getting something
Well, Aristotelian physical science has definitely been surpassed. And when it comes to moral matters, Aristotle cautions against trying to impose the kind of structure that we would find, say, in mathematics.
How large do you think Aristotle's influence was on thinkers such as Hegel or Heidegger?
There is a classical statue of Aristotle, likely a Roman copy of a Greek original, as is often the case, that I've always liked. While the heroes of Hellenic culture are usually presented in more god-like poses, Aristotle is shown with a furrowed brow, scratching his head, staring into the short distance. The marble seems ready to speak, as if to say, "O.K., I understand what you're saying, but I see some problems with that..." Still a good expression of the philosophical attitude!
.
For the devil's advocate, I have a great anti-Aristotle quote from Roger Bacon (Doctor Mirabilis), though in context it's less anti-Aristotle than it sounds, more directed against the authority that had accrued to Aristotle in the Scholastic period... ;)
Yep, Scholastic Aristotle is rather un-Aristotelian
I have the Basic Works of Aristotle edited by Mckeon!
Good!