Product Description
Aristotle's great work The Organon - see the entire set of philosophy titles at www.Ravenbrook.org ... Read more

Product Description
"The Arabic Plotinus" was the most important source for Neoplatonic ideas in the Arabic world. Falsely attributed to Aristotle and known as the ‘Theology of Aristotle’, the Arabic version of Plotinus’ "Enneads" was influential on Muslim philosophers from al-Kindi to Avicenna and beyond. This book is a study of the philosophical transformation undergone by the works of Plotinus when they were rendered into Arabic as the ‘Theology’. The translator’s approach to Plotinus was creative and historically decisive: he tried to make Neoplatonism compatible with the religions of Christianity and Islam, and to assimilate Plotinus to the thought of the genuine Aristotle.

This is the first book-length study of the text, devoted to understanding the ideas and motivations of the translator who helped to determine how philosophers for centuries thereafter would confront Greek thought. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Good Start
This book is a good starting place for a beginner to Aristotelian philosophy. It is somewhat abbreviated, but it is still worth checking out. It gives a brief summary of each of Aristotle's main fields of philosophy, followed by Aristotle's own explanations. I have looked for the `Pocket' version of other philosophers' works, but I haven't seen any. So I guess just Aristotle's works have been condensed in this convenient form. For a novice, or even a student of philosophy, this book is a useful and accessible resource. ... Read more

Product Description
From Content:

"Things are said to be named 'equivocally' when, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. Thus, a real man and a figure in a picture can both lay claim to the name 'animal'; yet these are equivocally so named, for, though they have a common name, the definition corresponding with the name differs for each. For should any one define in what sense each is an animal, his definition in the one case will be appropriate to that case only. On the other hand, things are said to be named 'univocally' which have both the name and the definition answering to the name in common. A man and an ox are both 'animal', and these are univocally so named, inasmuch as not only the name, but also the definition, is the same in both cases: for if a man should state in what sense each is an animal, the statement in the one case would be identical with that in the other. Things are said to be named 'derivatively', which derive their name from some other name, but differ from it in termination. Thus the grammarian derives his name from the word 'grammar', and the courageous man from the word 'courage'.

Product Description
Hughes explains the key elements in Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics terminology and highlights the controversy regarding the interpretations of his writings. In addition, he examines the role that Aristotle's ethics continue to play in contemporary moral philosophy by comparing and contrasting his views with those widely held today. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy.In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore.It is a retrieval of Aristotle.It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state.Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology.What does "good" mean?He suggests good means "a desired end."Something desirable.Means towards these ends.Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good."In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good."Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money.Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself.Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money."Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness."This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle.Eudemonia=happiness.Today we think of happiness as a feeling.It is not a feeling for Aristotle.Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well."It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence."Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of."Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle.Can also mean fulfillment.Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation.What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth."EN isn't formula but a rough outline.Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it.When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle.Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife.He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates.The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good."In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits.Good qualities of a person who would act well.Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person.If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules.Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak.Like a musical virtuoso.Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like."In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason.For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual.Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait.Socrates said same the thing.Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause.Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing.Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good.Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working.Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends!Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation.In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia.Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs.A long interesting list.It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness.Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods.Pleasure is a condition of the soul.In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual.Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature.It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle.These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom."The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good.As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do.Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom.The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods."For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion.Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics.Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept.My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues?Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves.Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are.The virtues are capacities of a person to act well.All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis.There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated.Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually."We reach our complete perfection through habit."Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them.Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey.Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp.Learning by doing is important for Aristotle.Hexis= "state," "having possession."Theoria= "study."The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good."Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean.Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance.Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity.Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities.Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies.Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well.For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day.Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in.It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience.Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will.Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis.Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated.Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue.Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength.Continence.We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness.This is akrasia incontinence.Happens in real life.
4. Vice.The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"?Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term.Ethical weakness is not a full vice either.This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue."No one can knowingly do the wrong thing.Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires.Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this.Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees.The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4.A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.
... Read more

Product Description
Translated by Benjamin Jowett ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

If You Don't Want To Live In A State, You Are Either A God Or A Beast
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.Politics is one of Aristotle's most prescient works that had a profound impact on our Founding fathers.

Nicomachean Ethics (EN) is part of political knowledge.Politics regulates when virtue does not.Laws are created for people who are not virtuous.Polis= "city or state."Humans live in society, so virtue ethics is not just for individual living, community is a shared project for the good.Aristotle starts with his method, a phenomenological attitude.He starts with pairs, male and female, builds up to ruler and subject, master and slave as a natural relationship, the 1st social community thus is the household.Household is an economic relationship and has monarchy of patriarch.Villages are a collection of households with a king.Then you have a Polis, a fulfilled complete community formed from several villages.Self-sufficiency is the mark of a Polis.An organized social relationship is Polis and a reason is being able to take care of needs of life and promote living well.Only in a Polis can you have art, philosophy, etc.All these are actualized in a Polis.Politics is natural to human life.We are meant to be social.According to Aristotle, "If you don't want to live in a state you are either a God or a beast."

Logos= "rationality or language" is what helps us to be political animals.Rational language expands capacity in human life.Since Aristotle thinks the Polis has a telos or an end then the Polis as potential comes even before the household.This is similar to the acorn having the telos to become a mighty oak tree.Politics completes the human condition for Aristotle.Need a Polis to develop other human capacities.

Aristotle's hierarchy.Slaves are a living tool for Aristotle.Aristotle argues that some people are meant to be slaves right from birth."Born to be ruled."Slavish person does not have enough rationality to rule themselves.Aristotle says not every form of actual enslavement is justified according to him.He justifies the human use of animals as a natural act.

Aristotle now wants to find what kind of government is best.In a Polis citizens have things in common.Aristotle criticizes Plato's Republic, he finds it to be overly controlling.Socrates says the soul has 3 aspects and so does the Polis.The Soul has:

1. Reason
2. Passion
3. Appetite
The Polis has:
1. Philosopher King.
2. Guardians, (military).
3. Commoners.

Both are a hierarchal ordering.Socrates and Plato talk about the state holding all property in common.This includes the state raising children after birth instead of the parents, thus there will be no family clans trying to better themselves over their neighbors.Aristotle criticizes this idea.Aristotle says a Polis is a plurality of people thus people are not all the same and a Polis must accommodate differences in people, which actually makes a Polis better.Aristotle criticizes Socrates and Plato's idea of a Polis needing to have "unity" of people.This is a contrast to the Polis of Sparta.Aristotle says the best way to integrate citizens to the Polis is to allow them taking turns in ruling it.Aristotle believes that holding property or rearing of children in common as in the Republic is wrong no one really loves children like their own and communal property never gets really taken care of.Love is diminished the less nuclear family we are.
Aristotle says you need a mix of private and public property.Thus, the best kind of Polis is a combination of a governing element.Aristotle affirms a constitutional democracy or Polity.A citizen participates in government by definition for Aristotle.

Comparison of virtue and the good citizen.Excellence of virtuous man not the same as a good citizen.There will be few virtuous men, but good citizens just have to follow the law.Aristotle says good political virtue and good moral virtue don't have to go together."Living finely then most of all is the goal of the city."

Aristotle classifies 3 types of government which occur naturally in nature and 3 types of deteriorations of those governments, they are:

1. "Monarchy," rule by one man a king, this is a top down rule.The deterioration is a "Tyranny," who is a ruler who rules for his own benefit.
2. "Aristocracy," rule by the best few men in the Polis, also this is a top down rule.The deterioration is an "oligarchy,' which he defines as rule of the rich who want to perpetuate themselves.
3. "Polity," All citizens participate in government with a constitution set above them to guide them instead of a king or aristocracy.The deterioration is a "democracy or what today we call mob rule or tyranny of the majority.He calls it rule of the poor.

Aristotle does a good job of looking at states and how they can be corrupted.Aristotle's concept of political justice and what is the best concept.What does justice mean?Not necessarily equality for all.Not all people are equal.He implies sometimes it is unjust to treat people equally.Justice is not necessarily equality for all; sometimes it would be unjust to treat all people equally.Politics is rated high by Aristotle as a human good.Education is a central feature of political life for Aristotle."But we must find the relevant respect of equality or inequality; for this question raises a puzzle that concerns political philosophy."First, because someone is unequal on hierarchy that means better than others like more virtuous.This is like "distributive justice" who gets what goods.Do you give the best flute to the best flute player which is based on merit or to the richest or best looking person?Aristotle says inequality should tip towards those who earn it on merit.His concept of equality and inequality is based on merit.Another philosopher coined a famous formula for this based on Relevant Respect:

P= Person, Q= Quality, C= Context.
It would be just to treat P1 + P2 equally or unequally if P1 + P2 are equal or unequal in Q (quality) relevant to C (content).This is a formula on how to treat people relevant to goods.This is context dependent.Allot of empirical work to be done before we use the formula.

People who fight wars control politics in the Polis.The more people who have weapons in a civilian army is a guarantee that a small group of people will not take control of the government and democracy grows, like our 2nd amendment, this is a historical perspective of the idea that works.
Democracy spreads power to citizens a bottom up structure.Expertise in relation to politics.Many professions we tend to defer to the experts for judgment, physicians, lawyers, etc.Plato's Republic does this with his advocacy of Philosopher king running government.Aristotle says the judgment of the many combined as acting as one is better then a monarch or a few wise men to run the government.In principle, pooling of multiple people to run Polis is good.Politics by nature is a communal effort so you should use all the people's expertise.Aristotle is against letting experts running the Polis they are not always the best of judges.The best judge of the function of a house is the owner, not the builder.In addition, Aristotle says there may not really be any such thing as a political expert, like a philosopher king.Aristotle advocates for a constitutional democracy a written set of laws to protect Polis from a tyranny of the majority."Law is reason unaffected by desire."A government of laws not men.A living being as the last word is not good.

Role of education in politics.Politics is coming together to foster human development and happiness for community, citizens, and improving human life like education.Aristotle says it should be public education.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

... Read more

Product Description
The Posterior Analytics is a text from Aristotle's Organon that deals with demonstration, definition, and scientific knowledge. The demonstration is distinguished as a syllogism productive of scientific knowledge, while the definition marked as the statement of a thing's nature, ... a statement of the meaning of the name, or of an equivalent nominal formula. In the "Prior Analytics", syllogistic logic is considered in its formal aspect; in the Posterior it is considered in respect of its matter. The "form" of a syllogism lies in the necessary connection between the premises and the conclusion. Even where there is no fault in the form, there may be in the matter, i.e. the propositions of which it is composed, which may be true or false, probable or improbable. When the premises are certain, true, and primary, and the conclusion formally follows from them, this is demonstration, and produces scientific knowledge of a thing. Such syllogisms are called apodeictical, and are dealt with in the two books of the Posterior Analytics. When the premises are not certain, such a syllogism is called dialectical, and these are dealt with in the eight books of the Topics. A syllogism which seems to be perfect both in matter and form, but which is not, is called sophistical, and these are dealt with in the book On Sophistical Refutations. ... Read more

Product Description
Written by renowned Aristotle scholar Sir David Ross, this study has long been established as one of the foremost surveys of Aristotle's life, work and philosophy. With John L. Ackrill's introduction and updated bibliography, created for the sixth edition, the book continues to serve as a standard guide, both for the student of ancient history and the general reader. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Only recommended for those who need a detailed study of Aristotelian philosophy
I was thoroughly looking forward to this book on Aristotle and was greatly dissappointed. The biographical sketch of Aristotle is meager (and admittedly may be all that is available) and 90% of the book is devoted to a detailed study of Aristotelian philosophy which is extremely tedious to read. Part of the problem is that the book was originally written in the 1920s using a style of writing that is clearly directed towards a graduate level study of Aristotle. The book is also full of typographical errors which is quite unacceptable for a book that is over 80 years old and in its 6th edition.

I imagine this book will be valuable for someone looking for an exhaustive (although ponderously written) study of Aristotelian philosophy, but everyone else will likely wish to save their hard earned money for something more enjoyable. We definitely need a modern look at Aristotle along the lines of Luis Navia's wonderful book on Socrates.

Aclassic review of Aristotle
Unfortunately I can not be extremely positive about this work of Ross. Still how you will benefit from the work will depend on your expectations.If you need some summary to draw upon in an undergraduate course, this work will be helpful.But the work will not give you real insight, either because it does not intend it, or simply because it can not achieve it.Sorry that I have to talk like this on a great scholar's book.

Aristotle unraveled
Sir David Ross' explication of Aristotle's philosophy is most helpful. Aristotle's works that have survived to today seem to be post-lecture notes, a sort of "here's what I covered in today's lecture"recap. As such, Aristotle's books are sometimes confusing, occasionallycontradictory and often just plain difficult to understand. In addition,Aristotle was a scientist first and philosopher second. This makes hisworks, which we read for their philosophical content, more difficult tograsp in some cases. Further, as with any translated works, varioustranslators convey Aristotle's assertions in different ways, some of themmore useful than others.

Ross' deep understanding of The Philosopher,gained through years of study, teaching and translation, gives him thebackground needed to help the reader understand more clearly Aristotle'sposition on various subjects. Ross is able to reconcile some apparentcontradictions, to point out some of Aristotle's underlying assumptions andmake confusing passages clear.

As a graduate student in philosophy, Ifind Ross' work to be very helpful and expect to use it extensively asbackground material for my thesis. But the value derived from reading andunderstanding Aristotle is not limited to students or philosophers, and thevalue of Ross' book is wide-ranging as well. Aristotlewill be helpful tostudents, teachers or lay readers interested in philosophy but strugglingwith some of the archaic attitudes presented in many translations of ThePhilosopher's work. ... Read more

Product Description
'Robinson's book is an extremely lucid and engaging overview of Aristotle's entire system of thought...Accessible to beginning students' - Richard Kraut, Northwestern University. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (5)

Spectacular
I picked this book up about sixth months ago before diving into a serious and focused study of Aristotle. I knew barely anything about his philosophy beforehand, and after reading a number of Aristotle's works and some other scholarly works about his ideas, I know hardly more about them than I did after reading this book. Whether you're already familiar with Aristotle and want to see a fuller picture or are looking for an introduction, this book short book is all you need.

Great work that helps to "illuminate" Aristotle's philosophy
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.Timothy Robinson's "Aristotle in Outline," is a great introductory work to understanding Aristotle's philosophy.We only have lecture notes of Aristotle's works, so no finished texts survive, which is one of the reasons we need books like Robinson's to "polish" Aristotle's arguments.

Aristotle wrote treatises, he wrote to find results and doesn't leave questions unanswered.Aristotle is the first biologist.His way of thinking is scientific.He doesn't use story telling or myth like Plato.Aristotle is a realist, a naturalist, an empiricist.Plato was more of a rational intuitionist.Aristotle believed we were born into a fully real world.We are natural beings.There is no "higher" realm for him, unlike Socrates and Plato.This is also counter to the major religions.Thus, natural life is not a "fallen" condition he is more Greek than Plato is in this regard.The Egyptians influenced Plato and Socrates.Everything Aristotle does begins with what we normally encounter in the world.Thus, our body, and human passions are natural.

Aristotle finds that the desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings it is in our nature.Philosophy is the ultimate consequence of desire.Our desires have many aspects; such as, food, sex, etc.Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and curiosity comes from within us.Aristotle argues that philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder.Aristotle points out that wonder is an actual disposition.Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer.Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known.Aristotle always begins his inquiries with observing the familiar.The difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato's dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions; Aristotle argues that if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Robinson helps to explain Aristotle's answers to these questions in his book illuminating the works of the "Physics," "Nicomachean Ethics," and the "Politics."

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, politics, or anyone who wants to have a basis of a "classical" education.For me, Aristotle is the smartest human that walked the planet!

"Aristotle in Outline"
I am delighted to add a line to the many reviews about Professor Timothy A. Robinson's "Aristotle in Outline".It contains only 125 pages; but it is definitely a dynamite. Professor Timothy A. Robinson has set a record that will stand for a long time.

arresting aristotle
It is rare to find a professional philosopher who writes as clearly, simply, and comprehensively as does Professor Timothy A. Robinson. Moreover, his intended audience will be delighted to have found this gem"of an outline."

[By the way, this book has served a purposethat probably was not envisioned by Professor Robinson. It has formed thebasis of my World Religions course - introductory unit. The class is madeup of special education students, identified slow learner, learningdisabled, gifted, as well as some general and advanced students. They don'tknow they are "doing Aristotle" and yet they are hooked. I cannotthink of a better recommendation for this book.]

The bibliographic essayis one of the best I have ever read. Hackett would do well to have Robinsonsign on permanently with them.

LUCID EXPLANATION OF THE ESSENSE OF ARISTOTLE
Excellent.Clearest explanation I've ever read.You can actually use Aristotle's concepts in your thinking.But it's mistitled. "Aristotle In Outline" suggests Cliff's Notes.A much better title would be"The Essense of Aristotle." ... Read more

Product Description
Uncovering Aristotle's motivations and basic views while paying careful attention to his arguments, this introduction to the Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle's great masterpiece of moral philosophy, offers a thorough examination of the entire work. The chapter on friendship captures Aristotle's doctrine with clarity and insight, and Michael Pakaluk develops original and compelling interpretations of the Function Argument, the Doctrine of the Mean, courage and other character virtues, Akrasia, and the two treatments of pleasure. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

We Reach Our Complete Perfection Through Habit
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.I think Aristotle's ethics is his most seminal work in philosophy.In the early 1960's virtue ethics came to fore.It is a retrieval of Aristotle.It has very close parallels to the ancient Chinese philosophy of Confucius and the modern philosophy espoused in the 1970's called Communitarianism.

For Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics, (EN) is about human life in an embodied state.Area of inquirery for EN is "good" this is his phenomenology.What does "good" mean?He suggests good means "a desired end."Something desirable.Means towards these ends.Such as money is good, so one can buy food to eat because "eating is good."In moral philosophy distinction between "intrinsic good" vs. "instrumental good."Instrumental good towards a desire is "instrumental good" like money.Thus, money is an "instrumental good" for another purpose because it produces something beyond itself.Instrumental good means because it further produces a good, "intrinsic good" is a good for itself, "for the sake of" an object like money."Intrinsic good" for him is "Eudemonia=happiness."This is what ethics and virtues are for the sake of the organizing principle.Eudemonia=happiness.Today we think of happiness as a feeling.It is not a feeling for Aristotle.Best translation for eudaimonia is "flourishing" or "living well."It is an active term and way of living for him thus, "excellence."Ultimate "intrinsic good" of "for the sake of."Eudaimonia is the last word for Aristotle.Can also mean fulfillment.Idea of nature was thought to be fixed in Greece convention is a variation.What he means is ethics is loose like "wealth is good but some people are ruined by wealth."EN isn't formula but a rough outline.Ethics is not precise; the nature of subject won't allow it.When you become a "good person" you don't think it out, you just do it out of habit!

You can have ethics without religion for Aristotle.Nothing in his EN is about the afterlife.He doesn't believe in the universal good for all people at all times like Plato and Socrates.The way he thought about character of agent, "thinking about the good."In addition, Aristotle talked about character traits.Good qualities of a person who would act well.Difference between benevolent acts and a benevolent person.If you have good character, you don't need to follow rules.Aretç=virtue, in Greek not religious connotation but anything across the board meaning "excellence" high level of functioning, a peak.Like a musical virtuoso.Ethical virtue is ethical excellence, which is the "good like."In Plato, ethics has to do with quality of soul defining what to do instead of body like desires and reason.For Aristotle these are not two separate entities.

To be good is how we live with other people, not just focus on one individual.Virtue can't be a separate or individual trait.Socrates said same the thing.Important concept for Aristotle, good upbringing for children is paramount if you don't have it, you are a lost cause.Being raised well is "good fortune" a child can't choose their upbringing.Happenstance is a matter of chance.

Pleasure cannot be an ultimate good.Part of the "good life" involves external goods like money, one can't attain "good life" if one is poor and always working.Socrates said material goods don't matter, then he always mooched off of his friends!Aristotle surmises that the highest form of happiness is contemplation.In Aristotle's Rhetoric, he lists several ingredients for attaining eudaimonia.Prosperity, self-sufficiency, etc., is important, thus, if you are not subject to other, competing needs.A long interesting list.It is common for the hoi polloi to say pleasure=happiness.Aristotle does not deny pleasure is good; however, it is part of a package of goods.Pleasure is a condition of the soul.In the animal world, biological beings react to pleasure and pain as usual.Humans as reasoning beings must pursue knowledge to fulfill human nature.It must be pleasurable to seek knowledge and other virtues and if it is not there is something wrong according to Aristotle.These are the higher pleasures and so you may have to put off lower pleasures for the sake of attaining "higher pleasures."

Phronçsis= "intelligence," really better to say "practical wisdom."The word practical helps here because the word Phronçsis for Aristotle is a term having to do with ethics, the choices that are made for the good.As a human being, you have to face choices about what to do and not to do.Phronçsis is going to be that capacity that power of the soul that when it is operating well will enable us to turn out well and that is why it is called practical wisdom.The practically wise person is somebody who knows how to live in such a way so that their life will turn out well, in a full package of "goods."For Aristotle, Phronçsis is not deductive or inductive knowledge like episteme; Phronçsis is not a kind of rational knowledge where you operate in either deduction or induction, you don't go thru "steps" to arrive at the conclusion.Therefore, Phronçsis is a special kind of capacity that Aristotle thinks operates in ethics.Only if you understand what Aristotle means by phronesis do you get a hold on the concept.My way of organizing it, it is Phronçsis that is a capacity that enables the virtues to manifest themselves.

What are the virtues?Phronçsis is the capacity of the soul that will enable the virtues to fulfill themselves.Virtue ethics is the characteristics of a person that will bring about a certain kind of moral living, and that is exactly what the virtues are.The virtues are capacities of a person to act well.All of the virtues can be organized by way of this basic power of the soul called Phronçsis.There are different virtues, but it is the capacity of Phronçsis that enables these virtues to become activated.Basic issue is to find the "mean" between extremes; this is how Aristotle defines virtues.

Humans are not born with the virtues; we learn them and practice them habitually."We reach our complete perfection through habit."Aristotle says we have a natural potential to be virtuous and through learning and habit, we attain them.Learn by doing according to Aristotle and John Dewey.Then it becomes habitual like playing a harp.Learning by doing is important for Aristotle.Hexis= "state," "having possession."Theoria= "study."The idea is not to know what virtue is but to become "good."Emphasis on finding the balance of the mean.Each virtue involves four basic points.

1. Action or circumstance.Such as risk of losing one's life.
2. Relevant emotion or capacity.Such as fear and pain.
3. Vices of excess and vices of deficiency in the emotions or the capacities.Such as cowardice is the excess vice of fear, recklessness is the excess deficiency.
4. Virtue as a "mean" between the vices and deficiencies.Such as courage as the "mean."

No formal rule or "mean" it depends on the situation and is different for different people as well.For example--one should eat 3,000 calories a day.Well depends on the health and girth of the person, and what activity they are engaged in.It is relative to us individually.
All Aristotle's qualifications are based on individual situations and done with knowledge of experience.Some things are not able to have a "mean" like murder and adultery because these are not "goods."
Akrasia= "incontinence" really "weakness of the will.Socrates thought that all virtues are instances of intelligence or Phronçsis.Aristotle criticizes Socrates idea of virtue, virtue is not caused by state of knowledge it is more complicated.Aristotle does not think you have to have a reasoned principle in the mind and then do what is right, they go together.

The distinctions between continent and incontinent persons, and moderate (virtue) and immoderate (not virtuous) persons is as follows:

1. Virtue.Truly virtuous people do not struggle to be virtuous, they do it effortlessly, very few people in this category, and most are in #2 and #3.
2. Ethical strength.Continence.We know what is right thing to do but struggle with our desires.
3. Ethical weakness.This is akrasia incontinence.Happens in real life.
4. Vice.The person acts without regret of his bad actions.

What does Aristotle mean by "fully virtuous"?Ethical strength is not virtue in the full sense of the term.Ethical weakness is not a full vice either.This is the critique against Socrates idea that "Knowledge equals virtue."No one can knowingly do the wrong thing.Thus, Socrates denies appetites and desires.Aristotle understands that people do things that they know are wrong, Socrates denies this.Socrates says if you know the right thing you will do it, Aristotle disagrees.The law is the social mechanism for numbers 2, 3, 4.A truly virtuous person is their own moral compass.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Finally --- something clear
This book is the first intro to Aristotle I have read which really seems like an intro --- and is really clear.Pakaluk takes it seriously --- and the introduction in the book is worth the price of the book alone.This is a great way to get a course on the Ethics that you never got in college.Pakaluk is one of the world's experts on the topic and reading the book you understand why.Get a good translation of the Ethics, sit down with this introduction, and it will get you through the Ethics as if you were in college again.Except it will make sense this time. ... Read more

Product Description
Aristotle - the "master of those who know". For fifteen hundred years he remained the paradigm of knowledge itself, a foundational thinker in every field of inquiry. Aristotle established a systematic logic, conceived the earliest science, a rational psychology, a political science and an outline of sociology, and gave us a crucial theory of ethics. His contributions to metaphysics continue to permeate modern philosophy. He supplied the first theory of aesthetics, and investigated dialectics and semiotics - essential to debates in postmodernism. Scientific empiricism in the 17th century, however, is said to have discredited his methods. How "scientific" is Aristotle? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (3)

Excellent Introduction
This is a very solid introduction to Aristotle and very thought-provoking as well.It is very lucid, well-organized, and one of the best in the Introducing series.

Really liked it
Quite good book in the Introducing... series, and if you like this one, make sure to pick up the Plato book also, it needs to be read after this one.

A simple yet helpful introduction to Aristotle.
Let me begin by saying that this book is far from an in-depth examination of Aristotle. It is, rather, a very elementary introduction to the philosopher and his philosophy. I rejected the idea of buying the book many times, because of it's approach; there are illustrations in pictographic form on every page. It is almost like the old "Classics Illustrated" comic books. I resented the facile approach to profound philosophy. However, the paucity of elementary introductions to Aristotle drove me to relent, and I bought it. The book is exactly what it claims to be...an introduction to Aristotle. In simple, non-philosophical language it gives an elementary introduction to the great philosopher. If you have become exasperated (as I had) at the unavailability of basic intro's to Aristotle, buy the book. Since reading the book, I have undertaken more challenging books about Aristotle, because this one gave me the elements I needed to move forward. ... Read more

Product Description
With the emergence of democracy in the city-state of Athens in the years around 460 BC, public speaking became an essential skill for politicians in the Assemblies and Councils – and even for ordinary citizens in the courts of law. In response, the technique of rhetoric rapidly developed, bringing virtuoso performances and a host of practical manuals for the layman. While many of these were little more than collections of debaters’ tricks, the Art of Rhetoric held a far deeper purpose. Here Aristotle (384–322 BC) establishes the methods of informal reasoning, provides the first aesthetic evaluation of prose style and offers detailed observations on character and the emotions. Hugely influential upon later Western culture, the Art of Rhetoric is a fascinating consideration of the force of persuasion and sophistry, and a compelling guide to the principles behind oratorical skill. ... Read more

Product Description

Aristotle, great Greek philosopher, researcher, reasoner, and writer, born at Stagirus in 384 BCE, was the son of Nicomachus, a physician, and Phaestis. He studied under Plato at Athens and taught there (367–347); subsequently he spent three years at the court of a former pupil, Hermeias, in Asia Minor and at this time married Pythias, one of Hermeias's relations. After some time at Mitylene, in 343–2 he was appointed by King Philip of Macedon to be tutor of his teen-aged son Alexander. After Philip's death in 336, Aristotle became head of his own school (of 'Peripatetics'), the Lyceum at Athens. Because of anti-Macedonian feeling there after Alexander's death in 323, he withdrew to Chalcis in Euboea, where he died in 322.

Nearly all the works Aristotle prepared for publication are lost; the priceless ones extant are lecture-materials, notes, and memoranda (some are spurious). They can be categorized as follows: I Practical: Nicomachean Ethics; Great Ethics (Magna Moralia); Eudemian Ethics; Politics; Economics (on the good of the family); On Virtues and Vices. II Logical: Categories; Analytics (Prior and Posterior); Interpretation; Refutations used by Sophists; Topica. III Physical: Twenty-six works (some suspect) including astronomy, generation and destruction, the senses, memory, sleep, dreams, life, facts about animals, etc. IV Metaphysics: on being as being. V Art: Rhetoric and Poetics. VI Other works including the Constitution of Athens; more works also of doubtful authorship. VII Fragments of various works such as dialogues on philosophy and literature; and of treatises on rhetoric, politics and metaphysics.

The Loeb Classical Library edition of Aristotle is in twenty-three volumes.

Customer Reviews (1)

Useful for the specialist and the student
Like most volumes in the Loeb series, the emphasis is not on word-for-word precision in the translation, but on acheiving greater readability in broader terms. Since the original text in ancient Greek is provided on the facing page, the editors assume that anyone with a little knowledge of Greek can supplement the looseness of the translation by referring to the original. And in general, the compromises made in this way are good ones throughout the series. In this case, perhaps, the translation may be a little too loose, and also given over to some unfortunate jargon that can distort Aristotle's meaning. But even so, this is still a very useful text for the specialist or the student. ... Read more

Product Description

Customer Reviews (1)

intense
The convo b/w Socrates and Aristotle picks up most intensely toward the end of the book - I'd say around the pleasure chapter. Anyway, I liked her development of the Hesiod line, which she refers to throughout the work.I'd say the best part of this book is her analysis of the ethical virtues.I thought her analyses of shame were superb; although Aristotle doesn't really delve so much into this emotion, Burger cleverly interweaves it into her discussion of the virutes of character, such as courage, and she carries shame, or so it seemed to me, throughout the entire book! Besides shame, a non-virtue - as she understands it, Burger carries the greatness of soul virtue throughout the work - most interestingly is when she links it to phronesis, and thus to the beautiful and to the just. She also heavily writes on praise and blame, on which ethical virtues rest, throughout.Her Benardete-like diagrams for Book 5 are very helpful.Her discussion of intellectual virtue offers insight into how desire plays a role in phronesis.She has a lot on phronesis - how it relates to sophia, nous (esp p126), the legislative art, etc.; this should prove useful for those who (will) study A's Politics. ... Read more

Product Description
Exploring Aristotle's philosophical method and the merits of his conclusions, Irwin here shows how Aristotle defended dialectic against the objection that it cannot justify a metaphysical realist's claims. He focuses particularly on Aristotle's metaphysics, epistemology, philosophy of mind, and ethics, stressing the connections between doctrines that are often discussed separately. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (2)

What is The Meaning Of Being?
I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being.What is the meaning of being?With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form.Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality.One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality.Matter can't answer the question of being without form.Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature.Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being.Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics.We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white."Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being."Word being has flexibility.Other flexible words is essence.(the what it is to be).In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence.Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature.All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word.When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for.Aristotle says you can't find it.Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health.Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy.Aristotle is OK with using examples.Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence.Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy).It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia.This is contrary to Plato.Categories vs. Metaphysics."This" is ontologically primary.Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics.The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is.Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological?Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge?Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge.Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge.However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy.This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato.In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia.Ousia =form in Metaphysics.In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter.Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form.This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics.In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle.If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable.You never come across things without their form.God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence.The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge.Definition= essence.Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human.When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form.It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form.Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is.Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done.So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1.Grammatically basic.2.Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right.The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule.Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles.It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect.An important governing thought in Western philosophy.A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite.Aristotle thought reality was organized this way.It has to do with both knowledge and being.Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality.In the same respect, what does it mean?It shifts depending on circumstances.From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable.The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction.In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play.Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time.1 of 3 factors has changed, time.A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion.Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things.Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation.This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle.This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state.All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement.Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood.Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature.Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things.He stretches the way Ousia in many ways.Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists.However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being.Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about.The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight).Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form."Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form.A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being.However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is."Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being.If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia?Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato!He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world.Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge.The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things.When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things.Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality.Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point.If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest.This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it.He wants to grasp the final.For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia.Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness.1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity.2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea.Potentiality has idea of negation in it.Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move.Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality.Ontology now moves to theology.This is his theological science.(Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle).In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends.Any actualization has potentiality it is prior.Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement.Two ways Aristotle proves this idea.1st is human reproduction brings us into being.Our parents actually reproduced us.2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas.Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it.Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place.Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential.Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine.God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality.This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought.What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out.Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality.Thus, non-rational movement is very regular.Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality.When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation.There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something.3rd level is big for Aristotle.1st two levels have limitations to them.We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers.He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics.Movement is actualization of potential.Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life.Things in nature that are alive.Soma=body.Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't.Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise.We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy.Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

Another Excellent Work in the Dumb Ox Series
This is a great translation of Aquinas' comments on Aristotle's worktitled, "Metaphysics." Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame University)wrote the preface and the work was translated by John P. Rowan. Both menare strong in their field of expertise and both are Thomists. The book is aphrase by phrase/paragraph by paragraph commentary written by Aquinas onAristotle's actual work. In other words, Aquinas took what Aristotleespoused in his "Metaphysics" and discussed it in great detail.Aquinas was not shy about admitting what he disagreed and agreed with inAristotle's philosophy. So not only is the reader of this addition gettingthe actual translated text of Aristotle's work, but also Aquinas' remarks.This is an incredible reference/resource work for those who are eitherstudying Aristotle's "Metaphysics," the thoughts of ThomasAquinas, or perhaps both. The book is 839 pages of solid text and very wellorganized so the reader knows the parts that are Aristotle's (which are allitalicized) and Aquinas'(which are in plain type). This book, if for noother reason, at least helps the student of both philosophers gain a betterunderstanding of each; since Aquinas is at his best when commenting aboutAristotle's work and the actual text of Aristotle is present for the readerto digest. This paragraph from the back cover of the book well describeswhat the buyer and reader can expect from such a great work as this -"Thomas Aquinas finds the twelve books he comments on wonderful fortheir order, both overall and in the minutest detail. His reading isgoverned by what he takes to be the clear sense of the text, hisinterpretations keep close to what Aristotle actually said, his account isbreathtaking in its acuity." Thus, this is a work that you will notwant to miss, since, unfortunately, books of this nature have a short ashelf life. ... Read more

Product Description
Dick King-Smith’s mischievous narrative and Bob Graham’s sweet, humorous watercolors capture the first eight lives of a kitten who’s ready to scamper his way into hearts everywhere.

Aristotle the kitten is so adventurous that it’s a good thing cats have nine lives. What’s even better is that Aristotle has found the kind witch Bella Donna to be his owner. Somehow she is always there when he gets into trouble, whether tumbling down the chimney, tipping over a giant milk jug, or tearing away from a snarling watchdog - just as a truck comes areening by. Is it luck? Or maybe a little bit of magic? ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Could Be a Children's Classic
We selected this book at the library because my five year old son LOVES cats.Although I'd consider the story lenghty, it completely held the attention of all the children in his Kindergarten class as his teacher read our new copy as the book of the day.Of note, the cat's owner is a witch, however, it is not dominant in the story and it would not make a good Halloween tale.The thrust of the story is more of the process of growing up.A great vocabulary word from this book is woebegone.I would consider this book to be one to sit on the shelf with the classics. ... Read more

Product Description
This latest addition to the Clarendon Aristotle Series provides a clear translation of Books I and VIII of the Topics, together with philosophical commentary and additional extracts from Books II and III.This selection gives a good general view of the main ideas of the work, a classic treatise on logic and argument. ... Read more

Customer Reviews (1)

Surprising
People would know a lot more, and know a lot more quickly if all books were written as clearly as Robin Smith writes.His version of Aristotle's Topics covers only books I and VIII. But Smith makes clear what Topics isall about and why it is so valuable today. Also, Smith doesn't assume thatyou teach philosophy every day, so he doesn't just concentrate on disputedfine points that only bored academics care about. Smith actually gets tothe heart of what the book is about.Authors of philosophical texts oftenthink mentioning what the purpose of the book is, and how the knowledge itimparts is to be used, isn't important. Either that, or many authors don'treally know themselves what the subject is about and write confusingverbiage to hide the fact they don't know what they are talking about. Smith is one of those rare individuals that understands what Aristotlemeant and can clearly tell you. ... Read more