From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject iconThis article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.


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....)

Notes and references[edit]

Broken HTML[edit]

line-height:1.25em Born 384 BC padding-top:0;line-height:1.4em

In the sidebar.

Rovelli on Motion[edit]

I think the amount of space given to Rovelli's article is quite out of proportion to its merit. It is a research article which doesn't represent any sort of scientific consensus. In addition the section ignores some of the huge caveats that Rovelli mentions – for instance that Aristotle's treatment of physics is largely non-mathematical and that had a major effect in history.

Rovelli's arguments are clever but do they represent a balanced view of the subject? I don't think the average scientist will come away thinking "Aristotle was right after all" but simply "he wasn't as wrong as he's often painted". That is useful but it's not the impression the section gives to the general reader. Aristotle didn't know anything about acceleration, or viscosity, and held the void to be impossible. How far he held up progress in this field is still debatable.

Rovelli himself makes questionable approximations in order to demonstrate that the terminal velocity of a falling object in a fluid is proportional to the weight of the object–he ignores the buoyancy term. If we take the most obvious example that Aristotle is considering, of a stone falling through water, then it is by no means negligible, most rocks having a specific gravity in the range 2.2 to 2.9. This in itself will slow the acceleration of the stone falling in water by up to 40% and rules out the infinite velocity conclusion. So it's not realistic to consider these two phenomena separately as he does, except as limiting cases. Chris55 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I've added other sources and material to adjust the balance. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It's the balance of the section that is wrong. Aristotle's account was flawed in many ways and the whole emphasis of the section is to justify his account. For example the Philoponus article's one statement about speed of fall is correct and does not deny that a heavier object might fall faster than a lighter one. But the article contains many other valid criticisms of Aristotle's theory. Chris55 (talk) 08:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've recast the section for strict neutrality and will say more on his physics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you Chiswick Chap, much improved. There are a few statements I would still quibble with, e.g. "This is a correct approximation for objects in Earth's gravitational field moving in air or water" in the annotation to the diagram. It isn't true for objects in water which can't be part of Rovelli's limiting case. Clearly in a vacuum there is no terminal velocity but this doesn't mean that infinite speeds are achieved because gravity is not constant on those scales. Given that zero and infinite were not developed concepts in Aristotle's day it's hardly surprising he has difficulty. But his physics is closer to the "naive physics" discussed in artificial intelligence. Chris55 (talk) 11:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes - "This is a correct approximation for objects in Earth's gravitational field moving in air or water." in the diagram description is dreadful. It is not even approximately correct in air - As others say Rovelli's comments are given too much prominence (and/or may be misquoted). I was considering just deleting the part quoted - Any objections ? - Rod57 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


Under the subheading Metaphysics the claim is made that Aristotle coined the term 'metaphysics'. This is untrue, metaphysics is a name retroactively attributed to the text by scholars and the term does not appear in the text itself. Removing the sentence 'Aristotle coined the term "metaphysics"' would increase the accuracy of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicholas.daniel1 (talkcontribs) 05:51, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018[edit]

"After the death of Hermias" should be removed from the sentence in the "Life" section, as it is incorrect. Hermias was still alive and, as stated on his own Wikipedia page, died 2/3 years later in 342 BCE, while Aristotle was in Macedon. Jumblebelle (talk) 07:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jumblebelle: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. If you would like these changes to be implemented, you must provide a reliable source to support them. There is often considerable variability when it comes to dating classical texts and authors and we very rarely know the exact dates when people were born or died. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

The source is footnote 5 on Hermias' page, "Chroust, Anton–Hermann (April–June 1972). "Aristotle's Sojourn in Assos". Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte. Franz Steiner Verlag. 21 (2): 170–176. JSTOR 4435258" which gives the date as 341/0. I have edited the introduction to match.

 Done - by another - Arjayay (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)