Why should I read Aristotle?

[andyklein]

We know most of what he said is untrue.

I just bought a giant book of Aristotle’s works for five bucks. Why should I read the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics?

And is it possible to approach philosophy from an Aristotelian frame of mind without accepting most of his false ideas?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It is awfully deep and may put you off philosophy. The composition is not at all what we are accustomed to. I don’t say, don’t read it. But I think it would be better to read Thomas’ commentaries on his work first. I have a copy of his works too but only read them as a reference. He is very, very technical, he doesn’t leave a stone unturned.

I think his ethics was very interesting.

Linus2nd

 

[polytropos]

He is not worth reading directly, at least if you are just beginning to read philosophy. His physics is wrong and his writings are dense. It would be better to consult more recent Aristotelians first.

 

[catholictiger]

We know most of what he said is untrue.

I would disagree with this statement. Aristotle I believe gave many good truths in his philosophy he just didn’t write it in light of Judaism (Christianity was after his time)

I just bought a giant book of Aristotle’s works for five bucks. Why should I read the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics?

Aristotles ethics is a very good book, so is the physics and metaphysics. I actually think you could argue that Aquinas is a Catholic version of Aristotle.

And is it possible to approach philosophy from an Aristotelian frame of mind without accepting most of his false ideas?

I disagree that most of his ideas are false. But I would love to hear your arguments.

Aristotle talks about the relationship between body and soul, form and matter, etc in the metaphysics. He is very close to the Catholic ideas in this. His virtue ethics while not perfect is also close to Catholic understanding, a balanced approach to certain virtues is a good thing. It reminds me of the Gospel reading a couple of days ago. Aristotle says that it is wrong for a person to have to much courage. For example it would not be courageous to attack a 100,000 person enemy if you had 1000 men. It would rather be courageous to attack even though you were at a disadvantage but you still had small chance of winning. I could go on and on but Aristotle isn’t as far from the truth as you think.

 

[catholictiger]

one more thing read plato first he is a great way to introduce yourself to philosophy.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

We know most of what he said is untrue.

I just bought a giant book of Aristotle’s works for five bucks. Why should I read the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics?

And is it possible to approach philosophy from an Aristotelian frame of mind without accepting most of his false ideas?

P.S. I second what " Tiger " said about the truth of Aristotle. It is absolutely false that most of his ideas are false. Certainly his Celestial Mechanics have been proven false and his idea about the nature of God were false ( but not entirely ). Aristotle was a pioneer in natural philosophy, metaphysics, ethics, human psychology, much more and much of it is still valid today. He is argueably one of the greatest minds God ever created, perhaps even greater than Thomas Aquinas.

Linus2nd

 

[edward_george]

I echo those who have come to Aristotle’s defense. St. Thomas Aquinas, among many other great teachers in the Church, would do likewise–Aristotle is the most sourced author in the Summa Theologiae. To say that most of what he said is false is a rather bold assumption; in fact, as I was reading the Ethics for the first time, I was blown away by how Catholic it was. It’s not, of course, that Aristotle was Catholic, but rather that much of western Catholic moral theology has its roots in the moral teaching of Aristotle, especially with regards to virtues and vices.

-ACEGC

 

[Peter_Plato]

Aristotle says that it is wrong for a person to have to much courage. For example it would not be courageous to attack a 100,000 person enemy if you had 1000 men. It would rather be courageous to attack even though you were at a disadvantage but you still had small chance of winning. I could go on and on but Aristotle isn’t as far from the truth as you think.

To be precise, I don’t think Aristotle claimed that it is wrong for a person to have too much courage. Courage would be, by definition, the appropriate virtue guided by reason. Having too much or too little courage isn’t in the question at this point. The question is whether the emotive quality is tuned properly to reason. Too much of that underlying emotive quality would be something like rashness and too little would be cowardice. The appropriate “mean” would be courage.

That says nothing about the amount of courage required, since great courage might be necessary in some circumstances and only a little in others, but it would still be courage.
The question of whether being outnumbered by an enemy could compromise the rationality of being courageous would be answered by Aristotle with reference to the good at stake. If the good at stake were crucial then courage might reasonably determine the risk to be worth it and a great “amount” of courage required.

Aristotle’s ethics are teleological in nature, the “good” is the ordering principle and teleological end of all ethical determinations. That is why his ethics - Nichomachean Ethics is a superb and quite readable treatise on ethics - and metaphysics align very closely to Catholic teaching on the subject. Aquinas took the best of Aristotle (there was a great deal to take) and incorporated it into his philosophy.

 

[ClearWater]

We know most of what he said is untrue.

I just bought a giant book of Aristotle’s works for five bucks. Why should I read the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics?

And is it possible to approach philosophy from an Aristotelian frame of mind without accepting most of his false ideas?

I once saw a quote by Aristotle. It went, “The young are permanently in a state resembling intoxification” which I got at thinkexist.com/

I read that and thought, “I don’t much about Aristotle, but he sounds like someone I’d like to get to know a lot better!”

He seems like he was a VERY wise man and his works have endured, become classics, I would imagine with good reason. He was considered a sage!

Sometimes, I will read something truly PROFOUND and ask, “Who said that?” Often, it will be Aesop, Aristotle, one of the saints, etc.

I’ve thought of buying one of Aristotle’s books just to see what else he had to say!

 

[catholictiger]

To be precise, I don’t think Aristotle claimed that it is wrong for a person to have too much courage. Courage would be, by definition, the appropriate virtue guided by reason. Having too much or too little courage isn’t in the question at this point. The question is whether the emotive quality is tuned properly to reason. Too much of that underlying emotive quality would be something like rashness and too little would be cowardice. The appropriate “mean” would be courage.

That says nothing about the amount of courage required, since great courage might be necessary in some circumstances and only a little in others, but it would still be courage.
The question of whether being outnumbered by an enemy could compromise the rationality of being courageous would be answered by Aristotle with reference to the good at stake. If the good at stake were crucial then courage might reasonably determine the risk to be worth it and a great “amount” of courage required.

Aristotle’s ethics are teleological in nature, the “good” is the ordering principle and teleological end of all ethical determinations. That is why his ethics - Nichomachean Ethics is a superb and quite readable treatise on ethics - and metaphysics align very closely to Catholic teaching on the subject. Aquinas took the best of Aristotle (there was a great deal to take) and incorporated it into his philosophy.

you are correct my fault

but it is incorrect to say that Aristotle is mostly wrong.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I echo those who have come to Aristotle’s defense. St. Thomas Aquinas, among many other great teachers in the Church, would do likewise–Aristotle is the most sourced author in the Summa Theologiae. To say that most of what he said is false is a rather bold assumption; in fact, as I was reading the Ethics for the first time, I was blown away by how Catholic it was. It’s not, of course, that Aristotle was Catholic, but rather that much of western Catholic moral theology has its roots in the moral teaching of Aristotle, especially with regards to virtues and vices.

-ACEGC

 

[Peter_Plato]

you are correct my fault

but it is incorrect to say that Aristotle is mostly wrong.

No fault involved.

It could be argued that Aristotle’s view of ethics is “summed up” in this paragraph from Book 1.7 of Nicomachean Ethics:

Presumably, however, to say that happiness is the chief good seems a platitude, and a clearer account of what it is still desired. This might perhaps be given, if we could first ascertain the function of man. For just as for a flute-player, a sculptor, or an artist, and, in general, for all things that have a function or activity, the good and the ‘well’ is thought to reside in the function, so would it seem to be for man, if he has a function. Have the carpenter, then, and the tanner certain functions or activities, and has man none? Is he born without a function? Or as eye, hand, foot, and in general each of the parts evidently has a function, may one lay it down that man similarly has a function apart from all these? What then can this be? Life seems to be common even to plants, but we are seeking what is peculiar to man. Let us exclude, therefore, the life of nutrition and growth. Next there would be a life of perception, but it also seems to be common even to the horse, the ox, and every animal. There remains, then, an active life of the element that has a rational principle; of this, one part has such a principle in the sense of being obedient to one, the other in the sense of possessing one and exercising thought. And, as ‘life of the rational element’ also has two meanings, we must state that life in the sense of activity is what we mean; for this seems to be the more proper sense of the term. Now if the function of man is an activity of soul which follows or implies a rational principle, and if we say 'so-and-so-and ‘a good so-and-so’ have a function which is the same in kind, e.g. a lyre, and a good lyre-player, and so without qualification in all cases, eminence in respect of goodness being added to the name of the function (for the function of a lyre-player is to play the lyre, and that of a good lyre-player is to do so well): if this is the case, and we state the function of man to be a certain kind of life, and this to be an activity or actions of the soul implying a rational principle, and the function of a good man to be the good and noble performance of these, and if any action is well performed when it is performed in accordance with the appropriate excellence: if this is the case, human good turns out to be activity of soul in accordance with virtue, and if there are more than one virtue, in accordance with the best and most complete.

But we must add ‘in a complete life.’ For one swallow does not make a summer, nor does one day; and so too one day, or a short time, does not make a man blessed and happy. Source: classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/nicomachaen.1.i.html

Regarding the opening post. If this paragraph from NE “grabs” you at a deep level, you are probably ready to delve into the rest of that work. If it leaves you glazed over, you might try some commentators as was suggested earlier.

Having a basic understanding of his metaphysics does help to unravel his ethics. I would agree with Polytropos that Aristotle’s metaphysics are better approached through modern Thomists like Feser, but his ethics are a rich source for grappling with the meaning of life.

 

[MarcusAndreas]

Thomism is Catholic Aristotelianism. You should read Aristotle because he forms the basis for virtually all post-medieval Catholic thought.

 

[catholictiger]

the only reason I would not suggest reading him is that he is a difficult read, and starting with him may not be best for introducing yourself to philosophy.

try plato instead.

 

[andyklein]

My underlying theme in this thread is to ask why study purely speculative theories like Aristote’s metaphysics in light of modern science. Not to take any sides, but why would metaphysics be worthy of study when we have physics?

And Aristotle was obviously wrong about linearity and gravity and inertia and the geocentric universe.

How could teleological theories still be relevant today?

Also, I’ve already read much of Plato. I’ve also read Augustine and Descartes and a little medieval Neoplatonism.

 

[polytropos]

My underlying theme in this thread is to ask why study purely speculative theories like Aristote’s metaphysics in light of modern science. Not to take any sides, but why would metaphysics be worthy of study when we have physics?

Well, his physics is discredited. It doesn’t follow that his metaphysics is.

Take contemporary scientific essentialists like Kit Fine, E.J. Lowe, Tuomas E. Tahko, Kathrin Koslicki, Brian Ellis, Hilary Putnam (none of them Catholics, nor even theists I think). Their views all exist on a spectrum, but they are all known for reviving a sort of essentialism that bears some resemblance to Aristotle. The fact is that the Enlightenment rejection of essences embodied by thinkers like Locke and Descartes was simply an inaccurate representation of reality; their level of epistemological skepticism is not consistent with the possibility of science, so contemporary philosophers have been noting that Aristotle wasn’t so far off after all, even if his science wasn’t right.

The other reason, though, is that metaphysics and physics simply answer different questions. You can’t avoid doing either. (Science also operates in the abstract, so it must be interpreted. Such a process is not “scientific” in the narrow sense. As Quine argued, any empirical data is undeterdetermined, ie. it could be realized by multiple consistent scientific theories.)

 

[Anthony86]

why would metaphysics be worthy of study when we have physics?

Metaphysics and physics have different subject matter. One is no substitute for the other.

 

[Peter_Plato]

My underlying theme in this thread is to ask why study purely speculative theories like Aristote’s metaphysics in light of modern science. Not to take any sides, but why would metaphysics be worthy of study when we have physics?

And Aristotle was obviously wrong about linearity and gravity and inertia and the geocentric universe.

How could teleological theories still be relevant today?

Also, I’ve already read much of Plato. I’ve also read Augustine and Descartes and a little medieval Neoplatonism.

“Modern science,” at least in the eyes of some, seems to make claims that the idea of having a “metaphysics” is itself a nonsensical idea. The insistence is that physics is all there is and all that is required.

However, that is an underhanded way of sneaking one rather incoherent metaphysic (eliminative materialism) as the final answer with the same stroke as denying metaphysics altogether.

The question of which metaphysics best explains and accounts for the physics is a live one, but eliminative materialists are claiming, by fiat, that no accounting or explanation for the physics is necessary because the existence of the physics is merely a “brute fact.”

Let’s call that a “brute fact” metaphysics and question whether that metaphysic can possibly be correct before we accept it and reject other alternatives.

Denying teleology goes hand in hand with denying metaphysics. Yet, all kinds of teleology is, again, surreptitiously snuck into science with the qualifier “apparent” attached to it. In biology, for example, wings on birds or insects are designed for flight. The purpose of wings is to enable flight. That is undeniable. There is an end or “goal” for which wings exist as part of the animal’s morphology. Does that entail the wings were designed by purposeful intelligence? That is an open question, but merely because we don’t “see” the designer does not mean one does not exist, which is the simplistic view that some scientists seem to endorse. Why should we throw out the concept of purpose or cause being oriented to an end (the meaning of teleology) just because we don’t like a possible implication (the existence of God, for example?)

Having a sound grasp of open metaphysical questions is an antidote that keeps us from falling for simplistic “metaphysical” answers, just as having a sound grasp of science keeps us from falling for simplistic and errant “scientific” answers.

 

[Qoeleth]

We know most of what he said is untrue.

I just bought a giant book of Aristotle’s works for five bucks. Why should I read the Ethics, Physics, and Metaphysics?

And is it possible to approach philosophy from an Aristotelian frame of mind without accepting most of his false ideas?

Essentially, the best originial works of Aristotle to read (the most interesting, anyway) are De Anima, and De Caelo et Terra. I strongly advocate reading primary sources first, and then possibly commentaries (of which those of S. Thomas are the most outstanding- but, requiring immense to plough through).

The good thing about the Metaphysics and the Physics is they are important sources for the thinking of the pre-Socratics.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

My underlying theme in this thread is to ask why study purely speculative theories like Aristote’s metaphysics in light of modern science. Not to take any sides, but why would metaphysics be worthy of study when we have physics?

And Aristotle was obviously wrong about linearity and gravity and inertia and the geocentric universe.

How could teleological theories still be relevant today?

Also, I’ve already read much of Plato. I’ve also read Augustine and Descartes and a little medieval Neoplatonism.

You did not make that clear. You shouldn’t judge Aristotle by the state of his science. He was an originator in science, perhaps the first scientist. How could he be expected to up to date on things like linearity, gravity, and inertia? Don’t you think that would be setting the bar too high for the first stages of science?

What you need is some perspective. A good place to start would be the works of William A. Wallace who is a renouned expert in the History of Philosophy, who specializes in the Philosophy. His latest and probably his last work ( he is 94 now ) is The Modeling of Nature. He also has an online course ( free ) which may be helpful.
home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c02000.htm I like this one because he gives you the basics of philosophy along with some of the scientific issues. Then there is Science before Science by Anthony Rizzi. He does the same thing.

Just some suggestions. I have read some of both. My preference is Wallace.

Linus2nd