|Physics (Aristotle) has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Art. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Start-Class.|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
How is the Heidegger quote helpful, exactly?
The quote from Heidegger is ponderous and goes beyond what needs to be said in an intro paragraph. I suggest shortening it to the quote about how there would be no Galileo without Aristotle.188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
hum, an entry on potentiality and actuality (Aristotle) would be quite important for the Philosophy project and to expand information on A's metaphysics. "Actuality" is a word with a current meaning and a distant technical meaning in Aristotle... --zuben
I just removed this sentence from the general "Books" level-2 section: "Force may be defined as the cause for separation of an object from one point of reference and union with another point of reference." It may be true (I can't say), but it seems out of place. JKeck (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm removing this sentence: "Books III and IV are lacking in interest and probably formed a textual whole, defining the preconditions of motion." I'm not sure what "lacking in interest" means (uninteresting?) and "defining the preconditions of motion" is patently false, as the definition of motion cannot be a precondition for motion. It might be true that some have claimed that the two books formed a textual whole (in some hypothetical source text? Or seem to complete each other as they now stand?), but it needs to be footnoted. I'm also redoing the sentence on the definition of motion, which as stated ("Change is the passage from being something potentially and becoming it actually...")is circular (see Kosman 1969). JKeck (talk) 02:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Online versions of the Hardie-Gaye translation
None of the online versions have the italics present in the Britannica edition. I'm just wondering if the italics were in the original edition published by Oxford in 1930 or an addition by the editor of the Britannica version. Anyone have a copy of the original? JKeck (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- There is a "searchable-image PDF" scan of the 1930 Oxford edition of the Physics available at the Internet Archive . (Unfortunately it's a soiled, marked-up copy of the volume.) It contains the italics which were retained in the Britannica (Great Books) edition. I don't know if these italics were the work of the translators or editor (W.D. Ross) or both, but they are helpful in marking the use of the familiar Latin phrases used by the translators as well as in getting the sense of Aristotle's sentences which are notoriously compressed in style (what we might call note-taking or telegraphic style). For example, writing of Parmenides at 186a33:
- It is necessary for him, then, to assume not only that 'being' has the same meaning, of whatever it is predicated, but further that it means (1) what just is1 and (2) what is just one.2
- 1 i.e. substance.
- 2 i.e. indivisible unity.
- Notice that I retained the explanatory notes. The Great Books version drops all these very helpful explanatory notes, as does the two volume 1984 Oxford Revised edition of the Complete Works of Aristotle, to save space.
- —Blanchette (talk) 05:45, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Contrary to popular belief and many so-called disciples of Aristotle, what he calls void is not the same as an absence of air or other sensible body.
Says who? As far as I can understand, he uses it both as "a nothing" – which nobody believe exists – and then as an empty space – which most people believe exist today – as a means to prove that matter is not atomic, because if it were, then vacuums, i.e. nothingnesses, can exist, and that is inherently a contradiction. So Aristotle "disproves" vacuum and atoms by using what we today call an obscurantism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
- Or more specifically an Equivocation, one of the classical fallacies in Aristotles Organon, not his only one. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Might need a new section on recensions of the (original) text. Would include Bekker, Ross. Maybe this one as well: Carl Prantl, Publisher: Lipsiae : in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1879. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)