Are you familiar with David Bolotin's book on the Physics? I know you have an interest in Strauss, and Bolitin provides a fascinating "esoteric" interpretation.
I’ve not heard of him before your comment. A quick look up and the search result is my initial exposure: “David Bolotin argues in this book that Aristotle never seriously intended many of his doctrines that have been demolished by modern science.” I’m somewhat of this view as well but uncertain if what he focuses on is the same thing(s) that I see. I listed several absurdities from the moderns in the video on Academic Refutations which I find regarding many of the works on what is called Aristotle and I did a presentation on The Physics specifically. I drilled down further on another search result and see that his work regarding The Physics was from 1998 and that his next books were not until 20 years later regarding The Small Naturals and On The Soul. Of note, these are translations by himself. I like this, both that, he knows Greek (my presumption) well enough to tackle the task of improving the knowledge of the subjects (there is no better reason to re-translate than for the aim of improvement) and that he has not published many books. As much as I would like to nibble I have to refuse, for now, getting hooked. The reason is that I plan on doing The Physics, The Small Naturals, and, maybe, On The Soul, in my own style of Aristotle In One Take. The mind is tricky and I cannot risk introducing someone else’s analysis into my thoughts before I’ve considered the source material first on my own. Although I am familiar with The Physics already, much more so than the other two works just mentioned, the risk is too great. The best way how not to find myself meandering through a rabbit hole is not to go down it in the first place. I’ll have to look forward to his works as reward for finishing the projects I have left to do. The same goes with Jonathan Barnes. I know he has works that are his analysis and review of Aristotle and I have not yet read them for the same reason. If you know me yet you know my opinion of Barnes is higher than that of W D Ross and this was no simple conclusion to draw. I’m still walking on air from just discovering a few weeks ago that Barnes’ Posterior Analytics is a 1990s second edition, not the 1975 edition I thought it was, and that it includes a lengthy analysis of his take on PA. I won’t read it! Posterior Analytics is on my list of projects. A couple of years ago while I searched for videos of Jonathan Barnes, I came up almost empty (the exception being his Death and the Ancient Philosophers presented at Berkely (?)) which was the only reason, to my good fortune, that I discovered Strauss. My familiarity with his works is only the sessions recorded and preserved by the Leo Strauss Center, which is mostly his classes given at the University of Chicago. I’ve never yet read any of the published works by Strauss, for the same old reason. If by esoteric we mean contrary to reputable opinion then I do find Strauss with regards to Aristotle to be a fellow wolf. If Bolotin is of the same nature then I’m sure I’ll embrace his affinity for Aristotle as well. A friend of the truth can be a friend of mine. Thank you for your suggestion.
@WolvesOfApollo Bolotin is an emeritus tutor at St. John's College, my alma mater. The Straussians don't get a lot of attention so I only know about them from my teachers at St. John's. An example of a reading attentive to the esoteric, hidden nature of Aristotle might be on his doctrine of the eternity of the universe. I am convinced that his argument in the Physics for this doctrine is so weak that he could not have believed it was true. Combine this with the Topics when he says that it is a merely dialectical question which we cannot know the answer to, and his contention in the Posterior Analytics that only demonstrations about eternal things can be true, and it becomes clear that the eternity of the universe is only an implausible but necessary hypothesis for the possibility of science to progress. Bolotin provides much closer readings than this in his book. For example, his method is sometimes to pay close attention to the conditions for a definitoon which Aristotle gives, and then seeing if Aristotle's definition (e.g. of place, or motion) lives up to these. Another book which does this for the Metaphysics is Christopher Bruell's Aristotle as Teacher. Almost no one reads this, not least of all because it gives no impression from the title or from most descriptions of it, to be what it actually is! It is a chapter by chapter commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It doesn't even have a table of contents, despite being published by Notre Dame. Anyway, I've recently decided to get a complete foundation for Aristotle by going through the Barnes volumes myself. I wondered if anyone else had done this and said anything about it, and so I found your channel.
@@jackparker8759 I see. Going through The Complete Works of Aristotle is quite a task but it keeps me out of trouble. At least I like to think so! I hope you download it from the link on the About page. Scroll down to page 3381 and there is one of my favorite passages regarding the principles of eternal things. I do purport that nature is eternal based on the fact that it actually exists and that there is nothing contrary to existence. This is also reviewed in First Philosophy that contraries are predicable of a subject, that there is a substratum that stands under, sub-stance, all things, and that in this respect the first principle of all principles is no contrary, that there is no thing contrary to substance. This much from the opening of Book 14. ...But to point to any one passage or quote is not evidentiary but directional and indicative of the context
Are you familiar with David Bolotin's book on the Physics? I know you have an interest in Strauss, and Bolitin provides a fascinating "esoteric" interpretation.
I’ve not heard of him before your comment. A quick look up and the search result is my initial exposure: “David Bolotin argues in this book that Aristotle never seriously intended many of his doctrines that have been demolished by modern science.” I’m somewhat of this view as well but uncertain if what he focuses on is the same thing(s) that I see. I listed several absurdities from the moderns in the video on Academic Refutations which I find regarding many of the works on what is called Aristotle and I did a presentation on The Physics specifically.
I drilled down further on another search result and see that his work regarding The Physics was from 1998 and that his next books were not until 20 years later regarding The Small Naturals and On The Soul. Of note, these are translations by himself. I like this, both that, he knows Greek (my presumption) well enough to tackle the task of improving the knowledge of the subjects (there is no better reason to re-translate than for the aim of improvement) and that he has not published many books.
As much as I would like to nibble I have to refuse, for now, getting hooked. The reason is that I plan on doing The Physics, The Small Naturals, and, maybe, On The Soul, in my own style of Aristotle In One Take. The mind is tricky and I cannot risk introducing someone else’s analysis into my thoughts before I’ve considered the source material first on my own. Although I am familiar with The Physics already, much more so than the other two works just mentioned, the risk is too great. The best way how not to find myself meandering through a rabbit hole is not to go down it in the first place. I’ll have to look forward to his works as reward for finishing the projects I have left to do.
The same goes with Jonathan Barnes. I know he has works that are his analysis and review of Aristotle and I have not yet read them for the same reason. If you know me yet you know my opinion of Barnes is higher than that of W D Ross and this was no simple conclusion to draw. I’m still walking on air from just discovering a few weeks ago that Barnes’ Posterior Analytics is a 1990s second edition, not the 1975 edition I thought it was, and that it includes a lengthy analysis of his take on PA. I won’t read it! Posterior Analytics is on my list of projects.
A couple of years ago while I searched for videos of Jonathan Barnes, I came up almost empty (the exception being his Death and the Ancient Philosophers presented at Berkely (?)) which was the only reason, to my good fortune, that I discovered Strauss. My familiarity with his works is only the sessions recorded and preserved by the Leo Strauss Center, which is mostly his classes given at the University of Chicago. I’ve never yet read any of the published works by Strauss, for the same old reason. If by esoteric we mean contrary to reputable opinion then I do find Strauss with regards to Aristotle to be a fellow wolf. If Bolotin is of the same nature then I’m sure I’ll embrace his affinity for Aristotle as well. A friend of the truth can be a friend of mine.
Thank you for your suggestion.
@WolvesOfApollo Bolotin is an emeritus tutor at St. John's College, my alma mater. The Straussians don't get a lot of attention so I only know about them from my teachers at St. John's.
An example of a reading attentive to the esoteric, hidden nature of Aristotle might be on his doctrine of the eternity of the universe. I am convinced that his argument in the Physics for this doctrine is so weak that he could not have believed it was true. Combine this with the Topics when he says that it is a merely dialectical question which we cannot know the answer to, and his contention in the Posterior Analytics that only demonstrations about eternal things can be true, and it becomes clear that the eternity of the universe is only an implausible but necessary hypothesis for the possibility of science to progress.
Bolotin provides much closer readings than this in his book. For example, his method is sometimes to pay close attention to the conditions for a definitoon which Aristotle gives, and then seeing if Aristotle's definition (e.g. of place, or motion) lives up to these.
Another book which does this for the Metaphysics is Christopher Bruell's Aristotle as Teacher. Almost no one reads this, not least of all because it gives no impression from the title or from most descriptions of it, to be what it actually is! It is a chapter by chapter commentary on Aristotle's Metaphysics. It doesn't even have a table of contents, despite being published by Notre Dame.
Anyway, I've recently decided to get a complete foundation for Aristotle by going through the Barnes volumes myself. I wondered if anyone else had done this and said anything about it, and so I found your channel.
@@jackparker8759 I see. Going through The Complete Works of Aristotle is quite a task but it keeps me out of trouble. At least I like to think so! I hope you download it from the link on the About page. Scroll down to page 3381 and there is one of my favorite passages regarding the principles of eternal things. I do purport that nature is eternal based on the fact that it actually exists and that there is nothing contrary to existence. This is also reviewed in First Philosophy that contraries are predicable of a subject, that there is a substratum that stands under, sub-stance, all things, and that in this respect the first principle of all principles is no contrary, that there is no thing contrary to substance. This much from the opening of Book 14. ...But to point to any one passage or quote is not evidentiary but directional and indicative of the context
@@WolvesOfApollo Thanks, I'll take a look, though fortunately I have a hard copy. Merry Christmas, good to make your acquaintance!