From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.


I believe we could improve the section about logic. It did not icluded what he did The "History" part is ok, and I don't really know anything about the topic to make comments on it. I believe, though, that the section called "Analytics and Organon" should be renamed "The Logical Treatises". Also, I think we should supress the word "aristotelian" in the sentence What we call today Aristotelian logic, Aristotle himself would have labelled analytics, for it just confuses: wouldn't Aristotle label as analytics any other philosophy of this kind? After listing the books of the Organon, we could mention that this corpus is called Organon.

Then, we could include a paragraph about syllogisms and another about dialetics, but not go to much into details, since this is the subject of the article about the Organon. Bhvilar 11:01, 7 May 2006

Missing chunk of information[edit]

i am new to wiki... and this is my first suggestion/post so please be merciful regardless of my editing or suggesting skills... i was getting help from this page, and found out that this page is missing a chunk of info about Aristotle's relation or his principals related to tragedy for instance Sophocles's Oedipus was said to be praised by Aristotle and said to be categorized with these 3 categories(?) hamartia,anagnorisis,peripeteia i had hard time looking for this deep stuff which i consider to be important. there is very little said about this in "Rhetoric and poetics" section but this needs to be specified and be said in this section due to it's importance. and also for wiki's sake :) [1] (i don't know if i did this right....)

Digression in "Life" section[edit]

I removed the following paragraph, as generally breaking the flow of the "Life" section. Any thoughts on a better place for it in the article are most welcome. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:01, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Aristotle and Plato's compatibility has been a strongly debated topic. Recently, Harold Cherniss summarized Aristotle's Platonism from the standpoint of classicist Werner Jaeger, stating that: "Jaeger, in whose eyes Plato's philosophy was the "matter" out of which the newer and higher form of Aristotle's thought proceeded by a gradual but steady and undeviating development (Aristotles, p. 11), pronounced the "old controversy", whether or not Aristotle understood Plato, to be "absolut verstandnislos". Yet this did not prevent Leisegang[who?] from reasserting that Aristotle's own pattern of thinking was incompatible with a proper understanding of Plato."[2][3] Contrary to Leisegang's sympathies, Jaeger was sympathetic to a compatible reading of Aristotle and Plato.

Well removed, as not belonging here. It has an essay-like feeling and could easily have come from somewhere else; whatever the case, it seems off the subject of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

How cheshire cat effect (dicovered 2014) impacts Aristotle argument[edit]

Regarding the "Universals and particulars" section, which reads: "Aristotle disagreed with Plato on this point, arguing that all universals are instantiated. Aristotle argued that there are no universals that are unattached to existing things. According to Aristotle, if a universal exists, either as a particular or a relation, then there must have been, must be currently, or must be in the future, something on which the universal can be predicated. Consequently, according to Aristotle, if it is not the case that some universal can be predicated to an object that exists at some period of time, then it does not exist.

In addition, Aristotle disagreed with Plato about the location of universals. As Plato spoke of the world of the forms, a location where all universal forms subsist, Aristotle maintained that universals exist within each thing on which each universal is predicated. So, according to Aristotle, the form of apple exists within each apple, rather than in the world of the forms."

I noticed that "Quantum Cheshire Cat Effect" experimented on 2014 and documented here, will eliminate the basis for Aristotle argument. Although it does not actually confirm Plato, but it is a proof that Aristotle's argument no longer is right. I welcome your comments. Bitziness (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, Bitziness, first of all it is (if you'll pardon the expression) a quantum leap from a single physics experiment to (if you'll pardon the expression) a metaphysical conclusion, but in any case you are just wrong that the referenced experiment demonstrates the separability of particular entities and their properties. To put it in the simplest form, the experiment suggests that a neutron may take one path while one of its properties, its magnetic moment, takes a different path. But of course an automobile may take one path while one of its properties, its tire noise, takes many others. An ordinary automobile moving at ordinary speeds on ordinary pavement has tire noise as one of it's intrinsic properties as surely as a neutron has its magnetic moment as one of its.
Some science "hustlers" are prone to make sweeping statements about how quantum phenomena rule out this or that common sense understanding of the macro world, but they never do, actually. Riddle me this: if the measured magnetic moment and the measured "other" properties of the neutron (e.g. it's, mass, spin, polarization, etc.) are able to be unambiguously associated (quantum entanglement) such that it is possible to be confident that the "separated" property is (or was), in fact, a property of the original neutron, then in what sense are the two "separate"? And the answer turns out to be that they violate the strictures of what is known as the principle of locality, which is hardly a principle that Aristotle would have insisted upon as necessary to tie particular entities to their properties. (Democritus might endorse locality.) Remember, Aristotle endorses teleological causation, and I'm sure you recognize the problems that species of causation makes for locality! Also, Aristotle must have believed in absolute space and time (who didn't before Einstein?) which view permits absolute simultaneity and thus certainly violates locality.
Of course, this forum is for discussing improvements to the Aristotle article, so unless you have a reliable source for the pairing of quantum mechanical experiments and conclusions in metaphysics, this discussion, fun as it is for me, cannot continue. A reliable source for the intersection of physics and metaphysics cannot be either a physicist simpliciter nor a philosopher simpliciter but one of those philosophers of science (such as Joseph Berkovitz) or scientists of a philosophical bent such as John Stewart Bell who are qualified to comment on the intersections of the two disciplines. You may even find one who agrees with Denkmayr et al on the Cheshire Cat effect. —Blanchette (talk) 22:13, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Notes and references[edit]

  1. ^
  2. ^ Cherniss, Harold (1962). Aristotle's Criticism of Plato and the Academy, Russell and Russell, Inc., p. xi.
  3. ^ Aristoteles: Grundlegung einer Geschichte seiner Entwicklung (1923; English trans. Richard Robinson (1902–1996) as Aristotle: Fundamentals of the History of His Development, 1934).