Talk:Rational animal

Bekker Numbers

Reference is given to Nicomachean Ethics I.13 but the standard way of providing references to Aristotelian texts is by means of the Bekker numbers; it should be mentioned where exactly in the I.13 the phrase is to be found. I, for one, couldn't find it. Perhaps someone might provide us with a more precise reference?

I can't find this reference either. It appears to be original research -- the author is quite proud of contradicting the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. He also cites the 'Ethics,' a nonexistent work. Perhaps it was a translator's note in whatever copy the author was reading. I think it should be cut. 73.36.171.152 (talk) 01:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Have to agree. I've been through Ross' Works of Aristotle and others without finding anything. Until a specific reference to a specific translation--translator, publisher, edition, bekker, page, column, line--reveals the location where original Greek text can be located and read as a definition of the form "man is a rational animal" or "man is a reasoning animal" or "man is an animal that reasons", I am removing references to a source in Aristotle. The contributors to the SEP are not infallible. Belastro (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Porphyry

Don't forget Porphyry.Dave 11:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Second para of this article - delete?

I'm not getting the relevance or point of the second paragraph of this article - it's bordering on nonsense to me, and I suggest it be revised or just deleted.124.170.240.78 (talk) 03:43, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of 'nonsense', your expression borders on nonsense when you remember how easily edited the Wikipedia article is: what was the "second paragraph" when you wrote that is no longer necessarily the second paragraph when your words are read.

In fact, the whole article is so badly written, your words could apply equally well to any of the paragraphs still remaining as I write this. Like so many other Wikipedia articles, I don't know where to begin to correct it.

So for now, I will stick with one aspect: the origin of the definition, "Man is the rational animal" (ο άνθρωπός εστι ζώον λογικόν). I doubt this is original with Aristotle. It is rather a general cultural belief of his time. Aristotle's contribution was NOT to call Man "the rational animal", but to analyze the definition in terms of the "method of division", using differentia to locate the definendum's precise place in the genus.

So, for example, we have the words of Euripides, writing before Aristotle, also calling Man "the rational animal": Άνθρωπος εστί όν (ζώον) δίπουν, άπτερον – όρθιον, λογικόν".

Now mind you, this is not exactly the same. But it is enough to suggest and suggest strongly that the definition was not original with Aristotle.

Finally, it is really irritating that the article claims Aristotle used this definition in The Metaphysics, but doesn't even give the Book number, much less the chapter or even the Bekker number. Such a citation is useless, especially when, as in this case, the only occurrences I can find of a definition of 'Man' in the Metaphysics are 'toy' definitions, such as "Man is a two-footed animal". 67.95.202.34 (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a definition

This doesn't fit into Category:Definitions. There's no dispute over the meaning of "rational animal". This is just a handy way to distinguish human beings from (other?) animals.

We could merge this into another article, or re-classify it as a slogan or catchphrase.

Here are some similar phrases and terms:

• not a gay disease
• only a theory
• not our president
• Zionism is racism

Can we fix this? --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2012 (UTC)