Talk:Metaphysics (Aristotle)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socrates
Philosophy Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

[edit] Work needed on the overview

Quite a bit is needed on the overview. It should come before the summary, for a start, and a lot of it needs replacing or rewriting. I am taking a look at this over the next week. edward (buckner) 12:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks, Edward, for investing work in this article. Some of the ideas expressed in this overview seem to me less reliable and full of uncontroversial explanatory power than others. Forgive me for focusing on my reservations, to be more concise. (1) I'd rather see what Bertrand Russell says in a section at the end assembling judgments of the work's significance. Even if it has some truth at a very general level, it's too patently Russellian an explanation. Also, "a synthesis between the naturalism of common sense and empirical science" is very opaque as a gloss on it; which of the synthesized elements in this formulation is supposed to be Platonism? (2) I also doubt that a summary and genealogy of Platonism is in place here & would rather see the reader pointed to the articles on those subjects more summarily. Platonism as a hybrid between Heraclitus and Parmenides? Again, I'm aware one could produce citations for such views (it's the sort of sweeping Hegelian evolutionism that Eduard Zeller has bequeathed us), but are they reliable and useful enough to introduce the readers of this article to Aristotelian metaphysics? Also, the statement dating Heraclitus is false, and putting Parmenides in a context of Athenian imperialism is misleading. In sum, however, I don't think its explanatory power for me (or anyone else) is the real issue; even if I loved it personally, it just doesn't look like the product of bland unanimity that belongs here. Its original collocation of historical material, comparisons, etc., even seem to rise to the level of an original synthesis at least, which is a Wikipedia no-no. By calling it too original, I mean to do some honor to the fact that it has a certain persuasive and readable eloquence to it, the clear product of one author's view rather than the typical Wikipedia jumble. (That's the issue, though: too persuasive, too defined a perspective.) With more citations of scholars who hold these kind of views, I think it would go very well in an article on the Development of Aristotle's philosophy, which is a major topic worthy of treatment. If we had this kind of text there & told the reader, Jaeger says this, Rose says this, Chroust says this, Bernays says this, that would be great. In any case, an article that started by pointing out that there are many interpretations and lively ongoing arguments about the genesis of Aristotle's ideas would remove the OR worries; it's as neutral explanation of Aristotle's Metaphysics (implying, "the consensus of scholars has decided that the essential background for this book is: Russell's bon mot & an understanding of how Plato fused Heraclitus and Parmenides") that it's so strikingly partial. Wareh 03:45, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
HI - thanks for these useful thoughts. On the Russell, I recently re-read HOWP and was impressed by his often idiosyncratic way of summarising difficult views in a sweeping but witty statement. Some of these are clearly silly, but after thinking about his view on Plato and common sense, I thought it was just about right for an introduction to the Metaphysics.
On the fusion of Heraclitus and Parmenides, it seems obviously right to me. It is also persuasively argued for by Hugh Lawson-Tancred in the introduction to his (to my mind) very good translation of M. But as you say it needs more balance, or at least support from other scholars. Actually I don't think this is particularly controversial, is it?
The conjunction "A synthesis between the naturalism of common sense and empirical science" is a mistake. It was meant to have contrasted naturalism of common sense/empirical science" on the one side and some expression representing Platonic Formism on the other. I was stuck for a phrase representing what Plato stands for. Still stuck, indeed.
You are right about the dates on Heraclitus and Parmenides. I was relying on Lawson-Tancred, who says "in the middle of the fifth century BC, as the Athenian empire threatened to swallow up the whole of the Greek world, the course of philosophical speculation was dramatically and permanently changed by three men, Heraclitus of Ephesus, Parmenides of Elea, and Socrates of Athens." You could read this as meaning that Heraclitus and Parmenides had retrospective influence, but it would need to be made clearer. I'll have a go.
On whether this approach is right for an article on the Metaphysics, as opposed to evolution of Aristotle's philosophy, good question. If it is true that the central idea of the metaphysics is the what-it-was-to-be a thing, i.e. substance/essence, what a thing really is, then one needs to explain how Aristotle came to this view. I'll read around the subject some more, and meanwhile feel free to edit. edward (buckner) 09:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
I've made some changes that were obviously needed. I'm not sure it addresses the deeper problem you raise. But I stick to one point: the overview section has to explain to an unenlightened reader what Aristotle's metaphysics is really really about. It has to put this across in a few paragraphs. Not easy. edward (buckner) 09:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)