Jump to content

Talk:Aristotelianism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 146.200.172.118 (talk) at 18:52, 13 June 2015 (→The decline of Aristotelianism). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Introduction needs work.

Much of the introduction is concerned with mentioning some of those influenced by Aristotle rather than giving any kind of Introduction. Since most subsequent thinkers are influenced this may not be a very useful exercise - it would be better moved into it's own section near the end of the article, and a replaced with an .. Introduction !

The decline of Aristotelianism

There is a roaring gap in the text, namely the story of the decline and ultimate rejection of A. in post-mediaeval Europe. This is an important subject in itself, which needs to be covered in detail. The text jumps from Aquinas (A'ism as the dominant element in mediaeval philosophy) to Kant/Hegel as if not much happened in between. In fact what happened in between is hugely important: the story of how A's philosophy was contested and eventually came to be rejected almost in its entirety is the history of the rise of modern science: the one is the mirror image of the other. It was a tough fight, fought by the likes of Copernicus, Galileo, Gassendi, Bacon, Descartes and Boyle. For example, it took a major effort to disprove A's theory of the 4 elements, and to demonstrate the truth of atomism (which A. had "proved" to be false). Almost everything A. taught has now been demonstrated to be untrue, but it took a long time, bit by bit. A'ism lingered on into the first half of the 19th century, specifically in the field of medicine, as the doctrine of the 4 humours. Wish I could write the story myself, but this is clearly something for an expert, which I ain't. But I will gladly upload my notes on the subject (how do I do that?), as a starting point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.140 (talk) 12:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly written by a philosopher

Okay, thanks for the splurge of historical information, you are very smart. Could you please now explain WHAT ARISTOTELIANISM ACTUALLY IS?

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.45.134 (talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I came to the talk page to ask this exact same question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.59 (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


What is Aristotelianism?

Me again ("Decline of Aristotelianism" guy). Good question. Simple answer: "The totality of A's teachings, as passed on to posterity." However, that doesn't take us very far. But when A was rediscovered in the early mediaeval period, the result was like a bomb. Clearly, he was a towering intellectual figure, whose work moreover covered almost the entire spectrum of knowledge and speculative thought: religion, drama, politics, astronomy, biology, physics ... you name it. Too big to ignore. Only trouble, he wasn't Christian, he was pagan. So somehow his work had to be brought into line with Christian thought. Or rather A'ism (that word) and Christianity had to be reconciled. Tough job. The effort took a couple of hundred years, culminating in the work of Thomas Aquinas. It's called "Scholasticism." To quote the relevant Wikipedia article: "As a program, scholasticism began as an attempt at harmonization on the part of medieval Christian thinkers: to harmonize the various authorities of their own tradition, and to reconcile Christian theology with classical and late antiquity philosophy, especially that of Aristotle ..." That's when "A" became "ism." In the mediaeval period, A dominated the field of philosophy so completely that he was known simply as "The Philosopher." And remember, "philosophy" in these days covered all fields of knowledge, including what today is called "science." Then began the reverse procedure: the gradual tearing down of A'ism over the subsequent 4 centuries (see above: "Decline of A'ism). That's why "A'ism" is so important: it forms the background to the whole of the rise of modern Europe, from the early mediaeval period to the Enlightenment (and beyond). And by the way, give old A his due: almost every aspect of his work has now been discredited, but some of his biology fieldwork (observations on octopuses) wasn't improved upon until the 1940s. Now, would somebody please write all that up, in an authoritative way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.140 (talk) 14:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aristotelian physics

The question "What is Aristotelianism?" is already answered pretty well in the Wikipedia article "Aristotelian physics". In fact the latter article could easily replace the present one: just rename it "Aristotelianism" and throw this one away as not fit for purpose. It only needs to be expanded somewhat as regards the mediaeval and early modern periods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.7 (talk) 07:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still needs summary

Article needs a summary:

  • What is Aristotelianism?
  • How would you describe its central notions to a person who has no background in philosophy?

I am making this new section because I feel like the request got lost in comments the first time. Please do not comment in this section, comment below. brain (talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

==I totally agree. This article provides a somewhat detailed history of the transmission of ideas from one thinker to another, and across generations (and centuries) without any usable information about what the ideas contained in Aristotelianism are, and what impact they have had on how Western civilization has thought about itself or about major issues in science, ethics, politics, etc.

Not at all useful for someone who is not steeped in the history of philosophy, and is simply trying to find a coherent and intelligent summary of what the PRINCIPLES, rather than the GENEAOLOGIES, of the Aristotelian tradition are.

Uoguma (talk) 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't really describe what Aristotelianism is

It doesn't and being a layman, I've no idea what it is apart from the fact that it originates from Plato and a few other people that further developed it. ... You're not the only one! __earth (Talk) 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a big enough topic that it can be broken down into sections: definition, history, etc. Aquinas needs his own section since he was the single biggest example of Aristotelian philosophy (he also referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher). Uberveritas 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this sounds rude, but I agree with the first post. I read the entire article and still have no idea waht aristotelianism is. Perhaps someone with anyknowledge on this can help with at least a few sentences of summary. 71.219.59.103 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A third comment: You're not the only one! Surely someone reading this article has done philosophy and can edit? [sorry, I don't know my IP address, but wikipedia should cater to even the more technologically slow of users surely ...?]

Clarify History of Aristotelianism

There are several problems, or complexities, in the history of pre-modern Aristotelianism that need to be mentioned in this article:

  • 1. The works of Aristotle disappeared from public view in Athens and only reappeared in the later Roman Republic. Between Classical Athens and the later Republic there are centuries of silence.
  • 2. Most commentatators in the Empire, besides Alexander of Aphrodisias and Themistius, were Platonists or Neoplatonists. Thus the attempt by the latter to 'Harmonize' the views of Aristotle and Plato. This harmonization needs to be discussed.
  • 3. The Medieval Monotheists also need to be mentioned - but not only Aquinas; Averroes and Maimonides need to be mentioned too.

Thus there is an initial stage in which Aristotle is (almost entirely) forgotten. Then, upon his 'rediscovery', there were established 'systems' (not the right word) of thought -neo/Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and later, Christianity, Islam and Judaism- that all commented on the recently uncovered Arostotelian texts. 'Aristotelianism' was never a school unto itself; for the most part it lived within or besides other systems that looked to the logical works or the metaphysics of Aristotle for artillary to use in their own various causes. By the time the Monotheists arrive on the scene there are Neoplatonic tracts like the so-called Theology of Aristotle and the Book of Causes that are mistaken for works of Aristotle. Pomonomo2003 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand

This important article needs to be expanded urgently. Madhava 1947 (talk) 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deverbositize and get to the point.

As said. This article really doesn't address the points of Aristotelianism as derived from... Aristotle. And can we make it less verbose? Lequis 06:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, totally agree. As it currently stands this article is not fit for purpose. Shame, because it is a hugely important subject that needs to be covered. Needs to be re-written in its entirety, from scratch, by a fresh hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.207.137.131 (talk) 09:20, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict-of-interest / ownership issues with this article

I have just reverted an edit from a London, UK, IP which seems to be part of a campaign of linkspam (see User talk:Kelvin Knight). The trouble is, if you connect the various London IP's in this article's history to Knight, it appears that Knight has substantially written this article by himself, including citations to his own work, and has often intervened to remove competing material added by others. I have just removed much of the trail of spam in other articles, but removing it from this one is a more complex task I can't attempt right now. Add in the general and well-founded skepticism about the article's quality as stated several times above, and I wonder if the encyclopedia would be better off without the article. Perhaps it can be regarded as a fork of Virtue ethics. In any case, the article needs careful attention to the history of additions and removals motivated by a conflict of interest. Wareh (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: I wonder if the encyclopedia would be better off without the article. I disagree, because I googled Artistotelianism due to a question I had elsewhere, and my question is still not answered - surely Wikipedia's aim goes against letting laypeople remain ignorant? (especially if the main problem seems to be due to one or two individuals ...?) I think the overall goal of this website should be more important than one person's pet theory of Aristotelianism (or whatever). Also, I still don't know what it means! [Again sorry with the lack of IP address] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.6.184.109 (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note now User:Mustafa logos, another account whose apparent sole purpose is to promote CASEP. Let me clarify. I do want an article on Aristotelianism, but that very goal might be best served by the removal of this article, in which a very partial view (with signs of the editor's self-interest) is masquerading as a neutral or complete presentation of the topic. "My question is still not answered": I believe we share a concern for the defects of this article & would both like to see it change into something useful and thorough on the subject of Aristotelianism. Wareh (talk) 19:00, 13 April

2010 (UTC)

I think there is a misunderstanding here. For, there is a section called Contemporary Aristotelianism on the page, and CASEP is the only serious academic center that is devoted to this field of study. If you just check who are involved in CASEP, you will realize that almost all contemporary academics specialized on Aristotelianism are there. Moreover, you will realize that there a huge information about contemporary Aristotelianism, which could not be found or situated in Wikipedia. So, my purpose was not to promote CASEP, but to direct people (who wants to learn more about contemporary Aristotelianism) to an academic website, where they can find very detailed information about contemporary Aristotelian studies. Isn't the purpose of external links is to direct people to other websites, where they can find more information about what they are searching for? I don't think I was doing anything more than that when I linked the page to CASEP home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa logos (talk • contribs)

The problem that arises here is that this article has in the past been drafted in significant part by Kelvin Knight, the director of CASEP, and other CASEP-promoting London UK IP's. This has distorted the content of the article (not only is "contemporary Aristotelianism" emphasized, but it is held to be synonymous with the work done and tradition acknowledged by CASEP--an assumption also present in your comment when you write "almost all"). Moreover, K. Knight not only used the encyclopedia article to promote his own work but seems to have removed reference to the work of others, etc., which (if I have diagnosed it correctly, and no one has addressed the edit history so as to question this) is held by Wikipedians to be serious form of damage to an article. So, while CASEP is rightly linked at Alasdair MacIntyre, I find it difficult to accept here at this time. If an editor who has a more trusted record of activity besides promoting CASEP wants to re-add the link, I will not oppose it. Meanwhile, the first job is to restore the perspectives, sources, etc., omitted and deleted by Kelvin Knight and other London UK IP addresses.
It seems fair to assume that you are Mustafa Ongun, one of the three dozen "Members" listed at the CASEP website. If so, the Wikipedia policy about conflict of interest, summarized on your user talk page, should make it clear to you that you should never link your own organization at Wikipedia without first gaining the consensus of established and neutral editors. It also seems fair to say that if it is this list of 36 persons you regard as constituting "almost all contemporary academics specialized on Aristotelianism," your affiliation has created a conflict of interest and a perspective that is not conducive to WP:NPOV editing of this article.
As a pragmatic note to editors reading this who are not affiliated with CASEP, it would be convenient if there were an accepted name for the London-based "Aristotelian ethics and politics in the wake of MacIntyre" movement, so that we could clearly treat that subject to the extent that it's notable, but not under the false and misleading general name of "Aristotelianism" (with or without the adjective "contemporary"). Wareh (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But what is it?

__earth claimed in 28 November 2006: Article doesn't really describe what Aristotelianism is
and 71.219.59.103 03:04 supported him in 14 May 2007
Lequis 06:29 in 6 November 2007 exclaimed: Deverbositize and get to the point!
brain asked in 16 August 2009: What is Aristotelianism?
86.131.45.134 asked in 27 December 2010: Could you please now explain WHAT ARISTOTELIANISM ACTUALLY IS?

Now my question, as of 7 March, 2011 is (after 4 years 3 months and 9 days):

What, then, is Aristotelianism?
Is it
  1. the claim that space is formed by crystal spheres with Earth in the center?
  2. the claim that there are five chemical elements, namely 'earth', 'water', 'air', 'fire' and the 'philosophers stone' in number exactly matching the platonic bodies?
  3. the claim that things are defined by constant essences that just rebalance from 'potentiality' to 'actuality', explaining the illusion of change?
  4. the method that observations should forego erection of scientific statements, and that an illumination of the nature of things require mapping the first principles?
  5. the list of sciences?
  6. the theory that things either fall (gravitate) to their 'natural place' of the center of earth, or rise away from it (levitate) depending of its essence of weight?
  7. the rejection of vacuum (and thereby atoms) on the basis of it being a nothingness, and per definition nothingnesses don't exist?
  8. something else?

I would say that any serious person today would have to reject 95% of Aristotle, but obviously something survived that is still valuable? What is it? Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around on the net, specifically on plato.stanford.edu, that usually makes sense, I found Aristotelianism in the Renaissance, which highlights:
  • Logic, the peripatetic version,
  • Philosophy of nature (old name for "science"),
  • sometimes Metaphysics, and
  • sometimes moral philosophy.
Details about all can probably be found on plato.stanford.edu also. Aristotle is 100% debunked in physics, but in biology and other topics he allegedly still makes sense. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:09, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That overcomplicates things. Aristotelianism is not defined as applying more to one domain or the other but is any philosophy that carries on under Aristotle's banner. No answer picked off of this list or another like it would be correct (though the SEP can certainly give us an account of which fields were most important in a given time or place). Which is why this article is woefully incomplete and guilty of a subtle POV problem. Philosophy cannot be debunked like science. Therefore, to the degree that Aristotle does philosophy when he does "physics," it generally remains a more or less living part of the philosophical project. Which is not to contest that the couple of claims Aristotle tries about mechanical forces are not very topical among philosophers who find it fruitful to continue in Aristotle's various directions (or to forget that "physics" in the Aristotelian sense of Physics etc. is a lot of philosophy of biology). Wareh (talk) 19:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wareh, I haven't forgotten I owe you a more natural rebunking of Aristotelian physics, thanks for your patience, I do aim to...
Rursus, natural philosophy/natural science was originally phusikes and encompassed chemistry, biology, psychology, taxonomy, even theology; of course physics became much more specific. Aristotle had much more sympathy than Plato for mechanistic-material philosophy, but he discounted material-efficient explanations in favor of formal-teleological ones. If arrows could fly without archers, they would have required an explanation...
Even with a twenty-five hundred year advantage, a typical Aristotle debunking won't admit vacuum doesn't exist, and they tend to miss the good stuff, like adapting the first mathematical model of planetary motion for use as a material-efficient hypothesis. What's more, he did so despite requiring a pantheon of 47 or 55 sub-prime movers. It's fair to say his theology was strange (but apparently genuine and intended as physics, he said there's no shame in the number of gods being subject to change on account of new astronomical observations and improved mathematics).
Renaissance/Medieval scholars and theologians were experts at disputations for or against Aristotle. Any blind adherence to Aristotelean "dogma" is a myth. In school, I remember wondering on more than one occasion, if he gets everything wrong. And then things would start to fall into place... The Physics at MIT is a fairly easy read, it's not 100% wrong. Biology? like Confabulation theory? His ethics, I understand, are still said to have "currency".—Machine Elf 1735 05:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, that's something like what Aristotelianism is. Currently philosophy constitutes the art of making thought systems, and can only be "criticised" as being "applicable" or not, but before the current state of arts in natural science and neighbor arts of knowing (maths, philosophy, religion, etc), there was no demarcation line between science (= natural philosophy) and philosophy. Now, the trouble is putting this your information into the article in an ordered way. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:12, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
About debunking: it seems like all philosophers of early antiquity had a lot of trouble with limit (mathematics) because of the eleatic school and particularly the "paradoxes" of Zeno of Elea. A concept such as (my simile, don't take too literally) infinity divided by infinity may give a finite quote wasn't accepted in their time, and for this lack, the atomists tried to make reality finitely discrete in atoms, while the peripatetics created other solutions. On the other hand: a concept such as vacuum is a nothingness won't make sense in the modern times. Whether a philosophy is acceptable in a society depends on a more generalized mode of thinking, and probably also how the philosophers relate to professional craftsmen and their mode of thinking. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 06:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Bertrand Russel

The section Criticism, which includes nothing but quotes from one book of Bertrand Russel contributes nothing to the understanding of Aristotelianism. The article makes it appear as a final judgement of Aristotelian logic, but Russel's criticism is flawed to begin with. The AAI-3 syllogism (Darapti) is no valid syllogism since it doesn't fulfill the validity rule that no syllogism with a particular conclusion (I or O) can have two universal premises (A or E). It is only a so called conditionally valid syllogism that requires that the middle term (golden mountains) exists. Therefore this example cannot be used to refute Aristotelian logic.

The entire section "Criticism" should be deleted. Its argumentation is flawed (existential fallacy) and it doesn't help in understanding Aristotelianism. 154.122.24.65 (talk) 20:09, 24 January 2015 (UTC) Mortran[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aristotelianism&oldid=666795124"