>Metaphysics
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Secretum Secretorum
What else is a must-read? What can be skipped?
 |
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
Okay
>Metaphysics
>Nicomachean Ethics
>Secretum Secretorum
What else is a must-read? What can be skipped?
|
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
|
>secretion of secretions
gay
Nobody?
I want to read Poetics
All of it can be skipped, if a philosopher who has had good Ideas which have been successful in practice (and reproducible since then) references Aristotle then you can go look up the relevant passages or more likely the modern interpretation and English translation thereof.
Almost all philosophers of the last few hundred years have been irrelevant, the ones who aren't are usually called (computer) scientists, engineers, economists, statisticians, to a much less extent mathematicians etc.
There is quite literally an unreadably large amount of literature on most subjects that you are interested in. Though you may have to build some kind of real skill to make use of it.
In this order:
Categories -> On Interpretation -> Poetics -> Rhetoric -> Topics -> Prior Analytics -> Posterior Analytics -> On sophistical refutations
Also read Olavo de Carvalho's Theory of the 4 discourses.
So not Metaphysics?
Want to read On the Soul too btw, just forgot to mention in OP.
If my memory serves his metaphysics book was alot of outdated stuff about astronomy and kinetic force which is beyond obsolete as well. Look, Aristotle is a legit philosopher, all his stuff is good to read, I just remember Nicomachean ethics and Politics being my favorites, if he is trying to do too much in natural philosophy in whatever book you are reading it is obsolete.
How many teeth does a woman have?
>outdated
It's still interesting, because anything he says will probably be more intuitive than "our" knowledge today. So there has to be some truth to it and when people thought it for thousands of years, it's good enough for everyday life, just not in academia maybe.
People thought the world was flat for thousands of years and that is decidedly false. I learned classical mechanics in high school, not exactly the world of academia. If you think Aristotle's ideas about physics are still relevant and actual physics is wrong you can stay in your dream world, the rest of society understands it is just obsolete.
It's okay, Aristotle has been dead for 2000 years, he can't hurt you.
>People thought the world was flat for thousands of years
That's what I mean by "more intuitive". It looks flat, so nothing wrong with treating it as flat, as long as you know it's not the case when you have a serious discussion.
>People thought the world was flat for thousands of years and that is decidedly false.
wildly exaggerated
>If you think Aristotle's ideas about physics are still relevant and actual physics is wrong you can stay in your dream world, the rest of society understands it is just obsolete.
most of Aristotle's ideas are "understood" only through misreadings and straw men parroted by uncritical morons like you. there's plenty of particular claims of Aristotle that are wrong but were supported by the evidence of his day. furthermore, you read these philosophers to understand their method and intuition so that it may enhance yours. imagine what Aristotle would have said had he had access to our enormous scientific enterprise. that is what you should hope to gain out of reading these books.
OP here. I like your kind of thinking, anon.
Hate those
>ehh there is one deboonked fact, so not worth reading the whole book and you can't gain anything from it
gays.
>wildly exaggerated
Also not what Aristotle thought. The key point of disagreement between the moderns and Aristotle isn't the flatness or roundness of earth, but whether the heavenly bodies move around a stationary earth, or if the earth moves around bodies while other bodies move. This is something interesting and instructive if one wants to appreciate how modern science developed; we're usually taught the conclusion that the earth moves around the sun, but not necessarily the proofs or arguments, which, if you're just a really smart guy without a good telescope for resolving parallax or sufficiently tall architecture to prove corialis effect or Newton's account of gravitation, are very hard to come by.
>This is something interesting and instructive if one wants to appreciate how modern science developed; we're usually taught the conclusion that the earth moves around the sun, but not necessarily the proofs or arguments, which, if you're just a really smart guy without a good telescope for resolving parallax or sufficiently tall architecture to prove corialis effect or Newton's account of gravitation, are very hard to come by.
AFAIK the evidence was inconclusive, supporting both models for hundreds of years, and then there was trouble adapting to the heliocentric model because there was something "off" about it regarding comets and such. you can't exactly argue for
>go for the less wrong argument!
because for all they knew, heliocentrism was "worse" than geocentrism. today, we know that both arguments are wrong, and perhaps "equally" wrong, in a way that one can't quantify the "incorrectness" of a model. we just assume that the heliocentric model was better because it came later and it neatly fits a historical narrative of progress.
(Which is to say I agree with you, not calling you out or anything)
>If my memory serves his metaphysics book was alot of outdated stuff about astronomy and kinetic force which is beyond obsolete as well.
It didn't serve you well. Neither does your judgment. Ignore the particular facts and focus on the intuition and the general reasoning.
I would go in the order:
Categories
Topics
Sophistical Refutations
Rhetoric
On Interpretation
Prior Analytics
Posterior Analytics
The order being roughly dialectical, rhetorical (which he takes to be related to dialectic), and then demonstrative argument as a kind of peak. If one had to read all of the Organon + Rhetoric, that is.
Definitely read On the Soul; it's effectively the nexus of just about all of his surviving writings.
>If my memory serves his metaphysics book was alot of outdated stuff about astronomy and kinetic force
I think you're confusing the Metaphysics with the Physics and On the Heavens.
Last anon you replied to here, that is entirely possible, been years since I read the Aristotle canon.
You can skip his "physics" book, which isn't actually a bad book but it is outdated to a point beyond obsolescence. I would say the essential Aristotle is Nichomachean ethics and Politics, but all his stuff is good.
He looks like a chud from this perspective. Shave his beard, put on rectangular spectacles and voila.
Poetics is mandatory
read a few tragedies first though
Here you homosexuals go: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/
It does contain obsolete natural philosophy nonsense that science does a better job of. That doesn't mean the book is useless, it just means you can ignore the parts that are obsolete by modern scientific standards. I didn't realize this board was full of aristotelian larpers who disavow scientific facts in favor of some ancient attempt at it, whew didn't realize I was talking to the big brains.
>It does contain obsolete natural philosophy nonsense that science does a better job of. That doesn't mean the book is useless, it just means you can ignore the parts that are obsolete by modern scientific standards.
Like what? What exactly is obsolete, and what is it replaced by in science?
>geocentric model is false
And yet ptolemy's heavens are still what I see in the sky at night from this limited vantage here on this planet -- not to mention, star and planet transit gnosis helps smash nu age pucci
>muh heliocentrism
But it moves! The sun revolves around center of galaxy. And galaxy moves too...
>I am smarter than Aristotle
If so, why are you not a famous philosopher scientist hybrid like him today? You have advantage of le heckin modern science!!! People think they are smarter than folks like Plato but couldn't be assed to write a single page of dialogue as sublime as the lowest points of prose in his extensive and mellifluous corpus of works.
Nta, but Aristotle is better served by not papering over faulty conclusions, even if based on solid observation and argument for someone lacking a telescope. Aristotle is defensible to read, but not through cheap cope. Nor is Plato defended well by appeal to the supposed qualities of his style as opposed to other qualities.
>you (an onions boy): oh no if someone reads aristotle then they will suddenly forget all of the facts and theories of modern science^tm because of minor and understandable albeit unfortunate errors that most children already are informed not to make
>chad actual scientists (newton, leibniz, goedel, bohme, mach, einstein): science is an always incomplete and evolving process and reading classics is important to be inspired by the universality of reason and creativity and all the things people like aristotle got right and why and how and why they also got things wrong and maybe to learn about foundations of our sciences, perhaps even to challenge them
Aristotle and Plato were both geniuses. People today may know more scientific facts but I'd rather read a genius from antiquity than a midwit from modernity, not to say moderns are all midwits either. But ya. You're fighting imaginary enemies. Or smokin copium because you feel guilty about being too lazy to read people like aristotles
Nvm, I didn't realize I was arguing with an ESL moron, carry on everyone else.