Just to be persnickety -Porphyry  lived from 234? to  305? BC - Thomas Taylor
from 1758 - 1835 AD
so this is what Taylor has to say about Porphyry.

I think reading Taylor could be very interesting but why approach Aristotle from
someone else's point of view? Especially a neo-platonist.
What I am doing is trying to find my copy of the Categories and I have also
started a search for the Taylor book [that is; a library to check out the book]
as it does seem to be an interesting book.  I do appreciate the google link.
That is good for reading short excerpts; but, for me, not extensive reading.




--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "steve" <alchent01@...> wrote:
>
> --- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "steve" <alchent01@> wrote:
> >
> > Lester
> THE INTRODUCTION OF PORPHYRY
> TO ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES
> http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/TTS_Catalogue/20_-_Organon/20_-_organon.html
>  Here's another place to start looking.  Prometheus trust has prepared  an
Organon on Aristotle of which this URl takes you to what Porphyry has to say on
the categories as trannslated by Taylor.
>
> > Steve Learnard
> >
>

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "steve" <alchent01@...> wrote:
>
> Lester
THE INTRODUCTION OF PORPHYRY
TO ARISTOTLE'S CATEGORIES
http://www.prometheustrust.co.uk/TTS_Catalogue/20_-_Organon/20_-_organon.html
  Here's another place to start looking.  Prometheus trust has prepared  an
Organon on Aristotle of which this URl takes you to what Porphyry has to say on
the categories as trannslated by Taylor.

> Steve Learnard
>

Lester

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5vhyW_ICKHkC&dq=Thomas+Taylor,+Philosophy\
+of+Aristotle&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JXUPG_WSc5&sig=WnLxqkw-eORz4Tx3\
bRckLzci-GE#PPA5,M1

This Url, if you paste the whole thing into your browser will take you to an
abbreviated part of Taylor's work or dissertation on the Philosophy of
Aristotle.  It has several hundred pages of the original manuscript, but is
missing the section starting at page 389 where Taylor goes through a huge number
of translator's of Aristotle and shows where and how they missed the mark.

This work is not on Plato but is entirely on Aristotle.  Taylor also translated
Plato and almost everyone else of interest among the Greek philosophers and ties
them neatly together.
Steve Learnard

Do you want to study Aristotle or Thomas Taylor?  Correct me if I am wrong; the
book[s] below were published in 1812 and Mr. Taylor is a platonist.

He did translations of Aristotle; but would it not be better to use a more
contemporary translation? Especially since the meaning of words in English have
changed so much since the 1800's.

Have you started reading the Categories? Or would you rather read and discuss
Mr. Taylor's book?

Charles Daniels

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "steve" <alchent01@...> wrote:
> --- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "ms.woody956" <ms.woody956@> wrote:
> > Hello, is there anybody there? If so, know that I am new to this group, I am
resuming the study of Aristotle after thirty years starting with Categories, and
after that I don't know. Hello... hellloooo
> >
> Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle By Thomas Taylor
> Amazon.com - $34.16
>
> In four books, in which his principal physical and metaphysical dogmas are
unfolded; and it is shown, from indubitable evidence, that his philosophy has
not been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The insufficiency
also of the philosophy that has been substituted by the moderns for that of
Aristotle, is demonstrated.
> Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle
> By Thomas Taylor
> Translated by Thomas Taylor
> Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003
> ISBN 0766159817, 9780766159815
> 612 pages
>
> Just got this book and it is the most readable book and seems to transmit
Aristotle's  ideas in a manner beyond the words.  Thomas Taylor penetrated ideas
in Greek Philosophy more deeply that anyone I have found and uncovered things
that no one else seems to hve noticed.
>
> Steve Learnard
>

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "ms.woody956" <ms.woody956@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, is there anybody there? If so, know that I am new to this group, I am
resuming the study of Aristotle after thirty years starting with Categories, and
after that I don't know. Hello... hellloooo
>
Here is a large part of Taylor's Dissertation on the philosophy of Aristotle &
Plato.

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5vhyW_ICKHkC&dq=Thomas+Taylor,+Philosophy\
+of+Aristotle&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=JXUPG_WSc5&sig=WnLxqkw-eORz4Tx3\
bRckLzci-GE#PPA5,M1

Steve Learnard

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "ms.woody956" <ms.woody956@...> wrote:
>
> Hello, is there anybody there? If so, know that I am new to this group, I am
resuming the study of Aristotle after thirty years starting with Categories, and
after that I don't know. Hello... hellloooo
>
Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle By Thomas Taylor
Amazon.com - $34.16

In four books, in which his principal physical and metaphysical dogmas are
unfolded; and it is shown, from indubitable evidence, that his philosophy has
not been accurately known since the destruction of the Greeks. The insufficiency
also of the philosophy that has been substituted by the moderns for that of
Aristotle, is demonstrated.
Dissertation on the Philosophy of Aristotle
By Thomas Taylor
Translated by Thomas Taylor
Published by Kessinger Publishing, 2003
ISBN 0766159817, 9780766159815
612 pages

Just got this book and it is the most readable book and seems to transmit
Aristotle's  ideas in a manner beyond the words.  Thomas Taylor penetrated ideas
in Greek Philosophy more deeply that anyone I have found and uncovered things
that no one else seems to hve noticed.

Steve Learnard

You will allways find someone around Aristotle


--- On Wed, 6/17/09, ms.woody956 <ms.woody956@...> wrote:


From: ms.woody956 <ms.woody956@...>
Subject: [aristotle] hello
To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 2:09 AM








Hello, is there anybody there? If so, know that I am new to this group, I am
resuming the study of Aristotle after thirty years starting with Categories, and
after that I don't know. Hello... hellloooo



















[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello, is there anybody there? If so, know that I am new to this group, I am
resuming the study of Aristotle after thirty years starting with Categories, and
after that I don't know. Hello... hellloooo

This is the Midrash of the Song of Solomon,  II: 10-14, or better named "The
Quintessence of Quintessences" per Carlos Suares

                                                                 II

1  Breath
I am in your body, depth of the upper Breath, Breath of the depth, double
emanation.

  2  Love   (to woman)
And you are these two Breaths, in existence and life, among unshaped substance.

3  Woman
I see you as you appear to me.  I was full of joy, inhabiting my body, and there
you sprang to life from your tabernacle of glorified dust.

4  You carried me to an intoxication where consciousness must stop or lose
itself.  But your new life in me is a response to love.

5  Oh that I could be strong enough to take your seed into my body!  And be
living Breath in its living support!

6  His left hand conveys the sacred Name.  His right hand is about me and makes
me breathe it.

7  Girls of the city!  I send you the Heavenly Company.  Do not shut away the
universal splendour inside your frozen institutions. Don’t dispute it; it is the
Emanation.

8  See, Breath rushes through Space towards me, violently breaks into my
strength, rays out inside me.

9  And this radiation is a new birth, original, organic, developing in me.

10  Saying “Enter your own organic movement, then go into the world’s, towards
yourself”.

11  For the sake of shared pleasure, my feminine sex opened the way to Breath. 
I have gone beyond myself and come to my Essence.

12  Now I have knowledge of universal impregnation.  Constructive energy works
in the two lives of nature.  Breath is conceived in the flower buds, is welcomed
by the songs of time.

13  Lover
Everything is made vibrant by Breath, even the fig tree in the dry sands.  Get
up, beautiful friend, move toward your selfhood.

14  Breath
I am reborn.  Immanence rises from your depths, having passed through a cycle in
primordial stuff.  Developed forms conceal the living drive within them.  Guard
against the spell of their rhythm, since you are true perception, mysterious
presence of uprightness, symbol of Israel.  You voice my name.

15  Guide the new life which is growing in you.  The young foxes ravage the
flowering vines.  But your vine, need you abandon it?

16  Psyche
Breath is mine.  I am his.  Let him stir and guide me.  Two Breaths as one.

17  Before the day leads you to an irreversible event, be, my love, the
indeterminate freshness of your universal home.


Steve Learnard


----- Original Message -----
From: PRAGER WALTHER
To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 2/14/2007 4:29:41 AM
Subject: RE: [aristotle] pnc


Following a notice provided by C. Kirwan in his commentary to Aristotle's Met.
IV, Aristotel never names the PNC as PNC. In the same time, as you remarked,
Aristotle connects this so-called PNC with his theory of substance. How can an
indefinite and a no named rule to justified Aristotel's enterprise to found his
most important ontological view? Is it possible that PNC, having only the
significance of a proof, to play this role? I suggest that Aristotle in Met. IV
only pretends that he justified the impossibility of contradiction, while he
states undemonstratively that the ancient concept of being is identical with his
specifical notion of substance. Look, for example, in Met. 4, 3 where Aristotle,
discussing Heraclitus' allegued claim, connect unexpected his PNC with an
appology for a philosophy that simply assert the being; didn't he think that
establishing PNC expresses the overall assumption of philosophy that the being
is, and, in the same time, try to suggest that
being is in fact his concept of substance?

"alchent01@..." <alchent01@...> wrote: In Metaphysics IV,
Aristotle begins his dicussion of substance with an
examination of the principle of non-contradiction. The general thrust and
import of this examination was that even though we cannot prove the PNC,
we also cannot disprove it; however, at the same time, in speaking and
thinking, we are nevertheless forced to employ it. A significant
consequence of this argument is that if the PNC is denied, then substance
must also be denied; as Aristotle says, "Now, to signify a thing's
substance is to signify that being that thing is nothing other than its
substance" (1007a27-28). In much the same way, it would seem that if
Aristotle's argument for the PNC is accepted, then the existence of
substance would too have to be accepted; that is, if it is the case that
it is "impossible for the same thing both to belong and not to belong at
the same time to the same thing in the same respect" (1005b19-20), then it
would seem to follow that things must belong to some definite thing at
some definite time in some definite respect; a conclusion which would, it
seems, lead to the affirmation of the existence of substance. This
approach seems to be a viable alternative to other philosophical analyses
of substance.

http://lists.gonzaga.edu/phil401-l/0052.html

----- Original Message -----
From: PRAGER WALTHER
To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 2/3/2007 4:50:24 AM
Subject: [aristotle] pnc

I would to know if everyone is studying in present the occurrence of PNC in
Aristotle' Met.

---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Following a notice provided by C. Kirwan in his commentary to Aristotle's Met.
IV, Aristotel never names the PNC as PNC. In the same time, as you remarked,
Aristotle connects this so-called PNC with his theory of substance. How can an
indefinite and a no named rule to justified Aristotel's enterprise to found his
most important ontological view? Is it possible that PNC, having only the
significance of a proof, to play this role? I suggest that Aristotle in Met. IV 
only pretends that he justified the impossibility of contradiction, while he
states undemonstratively that the ancient concept of being is identical with his
specifical notion of substance. Look, for example, in Met. 4, 3 where Aristotle,
discussing Heraclitus' allegued claim, connect unexpected his PNC with an
appology for a philosophy that simply assert the being; didn't he think that
establishing PNC expresses the overall assumption of philosophy that the being
is, and, in the same time, try to suggest that
  being is in fact his concept of substance?

"alchent01@..." <alchent01@...> wrote:           In
Metaphysics IV, Aristotle begins his dicussion of substance with an
examination of the principle of non-contradiction. The general thrust and
import of this examination was that even though we cannot prove the PNC,
we also cannot disprove it; however, at the same time, in speaking and
thinking, we are nevertheless forced to employ it. A significant
consequence of this argument is that if the PNC is denied, then substance
must also be denied; as Aristotle says, "Now, to signify a thing's
substance is to signify that being that thing is nothing other than its
substance" (1007a27-28). In much the same way, it would seem that if
Aristotle's argument for the PNC is accepted, then the existence of
substance would too have to be accepted; that is, if it is the case that
it is "impossible for the same thing both to belong and not to belong at
the same time to the same thing in the same respect" (1005b19-20), then it
would seem to follow that things must belong to some definite thing at
some definite time in some definite respect; a conclusion which would, it
seems, lead to the affirmation of the existence of substance. This
approach seems to be a viable alternative to other philosophical analyses
of substance.

http://lists.gonzaga.edu/phil401-l/0052.html

----- Original Message -----
From: PRAGER WALTHER
To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 2/3/2007 4:50:24 AM
Subject: [aristotle] pnc

I would to know if everyone is studying in present the occurrence of PNC in
Aristotle' Met.

---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






---------------------------------
Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel
bargains.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In Metaphysics IV, Aristotle begins his dicussion of substance with an
examination of the principle of non-contradiction. The general thrust and
import of this examination was that even though we cannot prove the PNC,
we also cannot disprove it; however, at the same time, in speaking and
thinking, we are nevertheless forced to employ it. A significant
consequence of this argument is that if the PNC is denied, then substance
must also be denied; as Aristotle says, "Now, to signify a thing's
substance is to signify that being that thing is nothing other than its
substance" (1007a27-28). In much the same way, it would seem that if
Aristotle's argument for the PNC is accepted, then the existence of
substance would too have to be accepted; that is, if it is the case that
it is "impossible for the same thing both to belong and not to belong at
the same time to the same thing in the same respect" (1005b19-20), then it
would seem to follow that things must belong to some definite thing at
some definite time in some definite respect; a conclusion which would, it
seems, lead to the affirmation of the existence of substance. This
approach seems to be a viable alternative to other philosophical analyses
of substance.

http://lists.gonzaga.edu/phil401-l/0052.html

----- Original Message -----
From: PRAGER WALTHER
To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 2/3/2007 4:50:24 AM
Subject: [aristotle] pnc


I would to know if everyone is studying in present the occurrence of PNC in
Aristotle' Met.

---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I would to know if everyone is studying in present the occurrence of PNC in
Aristotle' Met.


---------------------------------
Never miss an email again!
Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. Check it out.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My plato-timaeus list has been quiet for some time, but a few
subscribers have recently indicated a desire to launch a slow reading of
this dialogue. If you would like to join them, you may subscribe by
sending email to plato-timaeus-subscribe@yahoogroups.com, or, if you
have a Yahoo identity, you may go to
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/plato-timaeus/ and subscribe from there.

Lancelot Fletcher
The Free Lance Academy
lrf@...

My first guess is in the posterior analytics, although I haven't
checked.

Jeremy


--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "Anthony Crifasi" <crifasi@...> wrote:
>
>
> I'm trying to find a certain text where I remember Aristotle saying
that a
> view is strong if the cause that it posits predicts many phenomena
> successfully - in other words, the hypothetico-deductive method (I'm
not
> thinking of the texts where he supports a version of Ockham's Razor).
Does
> anyone know where Aristotle says this?
>
> Anthony Crifasi
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on
how to
> get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement
>

I'm trying to find a certain text where I remember Aristotle saying that a
view is strong if the cause that it posits predicts many phenomena
successfully - in other words, the hypothetico-deductive method (I'm not
thinking of the texts where he supports a version of Ockham's Razor). Does
anyone know where Aristotle says this?

Anthony Crifasi

_________________________________________________________________
On the road to retirement? Check out MSN Life Events for advice on how to
get there! http://lifeevents.msn.com/category.aspx?cid=Retirement

Examples would be 'man' and 'horse'.  Not a particular
man or horse but (for lack of a better term) the
concept man and horse.




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com

Secondary substance: tree, cow.

Primary substance: that actual being actually growing in the yard; that actual
beast munching in the field.

Primary substances are actually existing beings. Secondary substances are
*kinds*. There would be no such things - or anything else - if there were no
primary substances.

Aristotle scholars, please feel free to correct.

Lloyd Mitchell
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: johnjillard
   To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Friday, October 01, 2004 5:01 PM
   Subject: [aristotle] Aristotle on Substance



   What would Aristotle call "secondary substances?"  Can anyone give
   me a couple of examples?






   This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of Slow
Reading:
   http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by e-mail,
mailto:aristotle-unsubscribe@onelist.com




         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aristotle/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     aristotle-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

This summer I started walking a couple of miles before breakfast every day. It
was hard. It was against every habit and inclination for what to do at that hour
(or any other!) of the day. I kept at it. I've done it every day now since June.
It's still hard. But now when I don't do it, I miss it.

Habits get laid down by actions. Once you've got the habit, the actions are
(more and more) automatic.

Lloyd Mitchell
   ----- Original Message -----
   From: sesklokid
   To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
   Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 11:21 PM
   Subject: [aristotle] Re: Aristotle's Ethics Book 1 and 2



   --- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "flatters1" <flatters1@c...> wrote:
   > Does A. really believe that actions determine states?  Don't states
   > decide actions?  If I am bad I commit bad acts.  I don't become bad
   > as a result of bad acts... What do you think?


   Aristotle describes the process of habituation by which people who
   commit bad acts become bad people. For example, if a person lies all
   the time, lying becomes easier, and truth telling becomes more
   difficult. This is when the person becomes a liar. Conversely,
   someone who tells the truth all the time, even if it is hard to do,
   will find that they begin to automatically tell the truth, and it
   takes an effort to lie. This person is honest. A person cannot
   be "bad" without doing something to class him as such- free will
   denies that people are simply born bad- they must act in some way
   which shows them to be bad. The same is true for virtue.






   This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of Slow
Reading:
   http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by e-mail,
mailto:aristotle-unsubscribe@onelist.com




         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
               ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Yahoo! Groups Links

     a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/aristotle/

     b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     aristotle-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

     c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What would Aristotle call "secondary substances?"  Can anyone give
me a couple of examples?

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "flatters1" <flatters1@c...> wrote:
> Does A. really believe that actions determine states?  Don't states
> decide actions?  If I am bad I commit bad acts.  I don't become bad
> as a result of bad acts... What do you think?


Aristotle describes the process of habituation by which people who
commit bad acts become bad people. For example, if a person lies all
the time, lying becomes easier, and truth telling becomes more
difficult. This is when the person becomes a liar. Conversely,
someone who tells the truth all the time, even if it is hard to do,
will find that they begin to automatically tell the truth, and it
takes an effort to lie. This person is honest. A person cannot
be "bad" without doing something to class him as such- free will
denies that people are simply born bad- they must act in some way
which shows them to be bad. The same is true for virtue.

(apologies for cross-posting)

I've been hard-pressed to locate a translation, either in English or in
French, of the article Gadamer wrote on the Protrepticus for the journal
Hermes in 1928, entitled "Der Aristotelische Protreptikos und die
Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Betrachtung der Aristotelischen Ethik." If
you've had more luck than me, please send a note my way, either at this
email or on the list.

Cordially,

Jules

Thanks for the reply.
My thinking isn't anywhere near as deep as yours.

>Again, all of this is irrelevant to a discussion of the
>philosophical
>issues. I don't think that there is much scope for doubting the
>authenticity of the works of the Organon (tho I'm no expert there).
>The reason for the late "discovery" of much of Aristotle is the
>filter through which it passed - the Arabic translators (most of
>whom were Syrian Nestorian Christians, out of interest).

Ah, but everything we have of Aristotle... well almost everything is
from the notes of others. I wonder how so much can be given credit
to just one man... but I do believe it to be true.

As far words having more than one meaning, I'm only pointing out
thast words may have multiple meanings, or dual meanings.

I ended up adding a little more material on Aristotle to the paper
and organised it better... got an "A" on it at the local community
college.

The title of the paper was simply "Bacon's Attack on Aristotle." I
didn't have to research much on Bacon, but did have to talk it down
some for other students. Aristotle was a bit more difficult to
research do to most of his work being philosphical in nature. The
paper was simple a comparison of Bacon and Aristotle.

I figured the material I covered would pertain to this discussion
group because the group discription doesn't state philosophy only.

I didn't get to read your reply until after I turned the paper in,
so I'm rethinking the whole thing in a new light.

Again thanks for your input,
Eric

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "Daniel Johnson" <daniel@d...>
wrote:
> Eric,
>
> Just a couple of random points. I must confess that I've never
read the
> Novum Organon, but I've studied a reasonable chunk of the Vetus,
so I
> hope it's some help...
>
>  Despite Aristotle's
> > pervasive influence on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century
thought -
> > his texts were used in virtually all schools and colleges
>
> I think this perhaps is a little sweeping. If you look at
educational
> treatises of the time, certainly Aristotle is recommended, but
more for
> his Rhetoric and Poetics (with some emphasis on the Ethics), than
more
> his logical teachings. The study of logic declines rather in the
early
> renaissance period. If you're interested, take a look at "Thomism
and
> the Italian Thought of the Renaissance" by Paul Oskar Kristeller
> (reprinted in "Mediaeval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed.
> Kristeller); or at some primary sources in "Humanist Educational
> Treatises" ed. Kallendorf.
>
>
>  Bacon wasn't right nor was he
> > completely wrong, by discounting deductive reasoning, the
prevailing
> > method of use in his time. I think his biggest problem was that
he
> > didn't see that both methods should be used in a cycle, to keep
> > reverting between the two styles.
>
> The whole issue of what Scientific laws and theories are
> (prescriptive/descriptive) is a rather vexed philosophical issue -
> probably not within the purvue of this list! But in any case, since
> there are conflicting opinions, it would be interesting to know
which
> Bacon espoused...
>
>
> > Bacon was bucking the system with his idea, for long held was
the
> > teaching of Aristotle as the gospel. I think of it is a funnel,
from
> > the large opening end you would start with deductive.
> > Bacon stressed gathering "facts" and "evidence" first, and
building
> > theories later.  Nowadays scientific thinkers are more likely to
> > admit that they are often guided by imagination, intuition and
grand
> > theories that they only back up with facts later.  But modern
> > science is no longer dominated by religion they way it was in
> > Bacon's day (The Renaissance). Bacon waged war his whole life
> > against too much "deductive" reasoning because he was born into
> > an "Age of Faith" when knowledge was "official" only if it came
from
> > authorities like the Bible and Aristotle. ("Francis Bacon")
>
> I think that this is rather unfair on poor old Aristotle, if not
on his
> Renaissance interpreters!! A. would never have sanctioned blind
> acceptance of facts, but only an agreement on logical method - to
which
> he contributed most until (arguably) Frege.
>
> > Bacon used a straight forward approach while writing the Four
Idols,
> > called enumeration (Jacobus). I have to admit that I'm hesitant
in
> > trusting any ideas coming from a man that lost his high position
in
> > society due to a bribery scam.
>
> If this is a philosophy essay, then surely Jacobean power-politics
is
> rather irrelevant!
>
>
> One of the first things I found
> > confusing was his use of the world "idol," I haven't ever seen
it
> > used in such a manner. The definition he used for idol must have
> > been along the line of the word illusion or fake;
>
> I would suggest that he is using it as a transliteration of the
Greek
> "eidolon" - roughly translated into English as an image, idol,
statue,
> representation
>
>
>  His four illusions are easier to
> > understand if taken by the time frame that they were written.
> > Aristotle's work is translated from Greek, which would seem to a
> > fairly reliable translation.
>
> Probably still the Aristoteles Latinus, compiled in the Middle
Ages by
> mostly Arabic translators.
>
> Aristotle wasn't surrounded by scandal
> > as Bacon was. What would make Aristotle's work suspect would
that
> > most of it wasn't to be found until after his death; some of it
> > would be discovered until the twelfth-century AD. Much of
Aristotle
> > work wasn't written with the intent of being published.
>
> Again, all of this is irrelevant to a discussion of the
philosophical
> issues. I don't think that there is much scope for doubting the
> authenticity of the works of the Organon (tho I'm no expert
there). The
> reason for the late "discovery" of much of Aristotle is the filter
> through which it passed - the Arabic translators (most of whom were
> Syrian Nestorian Christians, out of interest).
>
>
> > Idols of the Tribe, means trouble learning that is based on
human
> > nature. People are too shallow in thinking, tend to look for
> > patterns to stuff things into, senses can fool, believe the more
> > palatable, tend generalize, search for only evidence that proves
the
> > idea.
>
> Some things never change :)
>
> > Idols of the Cave, means the trouble learning by the individual.
> > Individuals may prefer antiquity, while others prefer novelty.
An
> > individual may search for an idea that will support prior
> > conclusions. The individual might prefer differences, while
another
> > might prefer similarities; this example is very similar to one
in
> > the tribe, just that it is different because it is on an
individual
> > level.
> > Idols of the Marketplace, meaning People have a great
imagination to
> > name things that don't even exist. Confusion due to a word being
> > able to have more then one meaning is very common.
>
> I'm intruiged by this one. DO you mean - they use words which do
not
> correspond to any reality (eg "a round square"), or rather that
they use
> words inappropriately?
>
> > Idols of the Theater, meaning a misunderstanding due to the
> > philosophy and theology, because of tradition that man can hold
so
> > dear.
>
> However, I'm not sure how these present a contrast to Arisotle.
While he
> is often silent about methodology, he does present examples of him
> examining previous authors and rejecting common assumptions.
>
> The rest of your ideas are all biographical details - again,
interesting
> in and of themselves, but not really relevant if you're writing a
> philosophy essay!
>
> Hope some of that helps,
> Daniel

Eric,

Just a couple of random points. I must confess that I've never read the
Novum Organon, but I've studied a reasonable chunk of the Vetus, so I
hope it's some help...

  Despite Aristotle's
> pervasive influence on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century thought -
> his texts were used in virtually all schools and colleges

I think this perhaps is a little sweeping. If you look at educational
treatises of the time, certainly Aristotle is recommended, but more for
his Rhetoric and Poetics (with some emphasis on the Ethics), than more
his logical teachings. The study of logic declines rather in the early
renaissance period. If you're interested, take a look at "Thomism and
the Italian Thought of the Renaissance" by Paul Oskar Kristeller
(reprinted in "Mediaeval Aspects of Renaissance Learning, ed.
Kristeller); or at some primary sources in "Humanist Educational
Treatises" ed. Kallendorf.


  Bacon wasn't right nor was he
> completely wrong, by discounting deductive reasoning, the prevailing
> method of use in his time. I think his biggest problem was that he
> didn't see that both methods should be used in a cycle, to keep
> reverting between the two styles.

The whole issue of what Scientific laws and theories are
(prescriptive/descriptive) is a rather vexed philosophical issue -
probably not within the purvue of this list! But in any case, since
there are conflicting opinions, it would be interesting to know which
Bacon espoused...


> Bacon was bucking the system with his idea, for long held was the
> teaching of Aristotle as the gospel. I think of it is a funnel, from
> the large opening end you would start with deductive.
> Bacon stressed gathering "facts" and "evidence" first, and building
> theories later.  Nowadays scientific thinkers are more likely to
> admit that they are often guided by imagination, intuition and grand
> theories that they only back up with facts later.  But modern
> science is no longer dominated by religion they way it was in
> Bacon's day (The Renaissance). Bacon waged war his whole life
> against too much "deductive" reasoning because he was born into
> an "Age of Faith" when knowledge was "official" only if it came from
> authorities like the Bible and Aristotle. ("Francis Bacon")

I think that this is rather unfair on poor old Aristotle, if not on his
Renaissance interpreters!! A. would never have sanctioned blind
acceptance of facts, but only an agreement on logical method - to which
he contributed most until (arguably) Frege.

> Bacon used a straight forward approach while writing the Four Idols,
> called enumeration (Jacobus). I have to admit that I'm hesitant in
> trusting any ideas coming from a man that lost his high position in
> society due to a bribery scam.

If this is a philosophy essay, then surely Jacobean power-politics is
rather irrelevant!


One of the first things I found
> confusing was his use of the world "idol," I haven't ever seen it
> used in such a manner. The definition he used for idol must have
> been along the line of the word illusion or fake;

I would suggest that he is using it as a transliteration of the Greek
"eidolon" - roughly translated into English as an image, idol, statue,
representation


  His four illusions are easier to
> understand if taken by the time frame that they were written.
> Aristotle's work is translated from Greek, which would seem to a
> fairly reliable translation.

Probably still the Aristoteles Latinus, compiled in the Middle Ages by
mostly Arabic translators.

Aristotle wasn't surrounded by scandal
> as Bacon was. What would make Aristotle's work suspect would that
> most of it wasn't to be found until after his death; some of it
> would be discovered until the twelfth-century AD. Much of Aristotle
> work wasn't written with the intent of being published.

Again, all of this is irrelevant to a discussion of the philosophical
issues. I don't think that there is much scope for doubting the
authenticity of the works of the Organon (tho I'm no expert there). The
reason for the late "discovery" of much of Aristotle is the filter
through which it passed - the Arabic translators (most of whom were
Syrian Nestorian Christians, out of interest).


> Idols of the Tribe, means trouble learning that is based on human
> nature. People are too shallow in thinking, tend to look for
> patterns to stuff things into, senses can fool, believe the more
> palatable, tend generalize, search for only evidence that proves the
> idea.

Some things never change :)

> Idols of the Cave, means the trouble learning by the individual.
> Individuals may prefer antiquity, while others prefer novelty. An
> individual may search for an idea that will support prior
> conclusions. The individual might prefer differences, while another
> might prefer similarities; this example is very similar to one in
> the tribe, just that it is different because it is on an individual
> level.
> Idols of the Marketplace, meaning People have a great imagination to
> name things that don't even exist. Confusion due to a word being
> able to have more then one meaning is very common.

I'm intruiged by this one. DO you mean - they use words which do not
correspond to any reality (eg "a round square"), or rather that they use
words inappropriately?

> Idols of the Theater, meaning a misunderstanding due to the
> philosophy and theology, because of tradition that man can hold so
> dear.

However, I'm not sure how these present a contrast to Arisotle. While he
is often silent about methodology, he does present examples of him
examining previous authors and rejecting common assumptions.

The rest of your ideas are all biographical details - again, interesting
in and of themselves, but not really relevant if you're writing a
philosophy essay!

Hope some of that helps,
Daniel


> Another contrast is that unlike Aristotle, Bacon did not want
> develop school of learning. Aristotle was a philosopher, scientist,
> lecturer, researcher, writer, teacher, and a politician; while Bacon
> spent the majority of his life only in philosophy and politics.
> Aristotle met his death while studying marine life, a popular belief
> is that it may have not been an accident but a homicide. Bacon on
> the other hand died due to an accident while performing the only
> experiment he ever attempted. Aristotle and Bacon both were of the
> higher social class and were very well educated.
> Aristotle left behind the earliest written formal works of logic
> that we are aware today. To add to the greatness of the achievement,
> the works have withstood two millennia without significant change in
> spirit (Smith). Bacon never did debunk the teachings of Aristotle
> but he did shed light on some of the works that needed improvement.
> there is no work that is perfect.
> The only ancient writer for whom he [Bacon] did have respect was
> Democritus, whose materialism he adopted ("Sir Francis Bacon").
>
> Specialization also nurtures a fetishistic attachment to one
> subject, activity, or method. Francis Bacon, a founder of modern
> scientific thought, was aware of those dangers. In Novum Organum,
> published in 1620, he sought to reconstruct the sciences. The book
> is also a profound analysis of the ways in which the mind can go
> wrong. Of specialization, he wrote: (Stimpson)
>
> Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations,
> either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors
> thereof, or because they have bestowed the greatest pains upon them
> and become most habituated to them. But men of this kind, if they
> betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general
> character, distort and color them in obedience to their former
> fancies; a thing especially to be noted in Aristotle, who made his
> natural philosophy a mere bondservant to his logic, thereby
> rendering it contentious and well nigh useless. (Bacon 425)
>
>
>  ... one can imagine learning how Aristotle, working but a few
> decades after the codification of Genesis, changed from being one of
> the greatest polymaths and interdisciplinarians who ever lived to
> being the object of Francis Bacon's scorn. (Stimpson)
>
> Aristotle's work can't be easily summed up in a few pages. All areas
> of Aristotle's text have been found in other articles so much that
> nothing can be removed from Aristotle's text unless it were at the
> cost of losing entire categories of his work. Scholars have argued
> over Aristotle's work since it was first made over two thousands
> years ago. Even Bacon's attacks could not undue the lasting
> impression that Aristotle has left. Aristotle's work still stands at
> the center logical theory.
> Works Cited
> Bacon, Francis. Novum Organum  Rpt in
> <http://www.constitution.org/>. Bacon, Francis. "The Four
> Idols." Rpt. in A World of Ideas: 6th ed.
> By Lee A. Jacobus Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2002. 420-431.
> Baird, Forrest. "Introduction to the Age of Reason (the
> Enlightenment)" 2000 <http://www.whitworth.edu>.
> Baird, Forrest. "Introduction to Ancient Greek Thought" 2000
> <http://www.whitworth.edu>.
> Baker, Lyman. "Selections from Francis Bacon's." 23 Sep 1999
> <http://www-personal.ksu.edu/>.
> "Francis Bacon." 17 Mar 2003 <http://literacyproject.org/>.
> Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.
> Martins, 2002.
> "Logic" 25 Mar 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/>.
> "Sir Francis Bacon." 10 May 2003 <http://main.amu.edu.pl/>.
> Smith, Robin. "Aristotle's Logic." 05 Oct 2000
> <http://plato.stanford.edu/>.
> Stimpson, Cathrine. "General Education for Graduate Education" 01
> Nov 2002 <http://www.nyu.edu>.
> Turner,  William."Logic" Rpt in  Catholic Encyclopedia: Logic 15 Sep
> 2003 <http://www.newadvent.org/>.
> Waggoner, Ben  "Aristotle" 09 Jun 1996
> <http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits
> for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com.
> Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/pyIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading:
http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by e-mail,
mailto:aristotle-unsubscribe@onelist.com


Yahoo! Groups Links

Any ideas that anyone would wanna share? Right now the thing is just
a bunch notes.

Bacon's Attack on Aristotle
Francis Bacon was among philosophers who felt that the ways of
scientific thought must change from those of the past that were
championed such classical greats as Aristotle. Bacon's "Four Idols"
found in the Novum Organum is an argument against Aristotle's "six
treatises" in the Organum. Aristotle's scientific method is referred
to as deductive. Bacon wished to dislodge the entrenched ideas of
Aristotle by using a new scientific method called inductive.
"[Aristotle] …made a systematic study of the ways in which argument
form determines validity in syllogisms, and of the ways in which
arguments can sound persuasive but actually be invalid"( Baker).
His [Bacon's] purpose in Novum Organum (The new organon) published
in 1620, was to replace the old organon, or instrument of thought,
Aristotle's treatises on logic and thought. Despite Aristotle's
pervasive influence on sixteenth- and seventeenth-century thought –
his texts were used in virtually all schools and colleges – Bacon
thought that Aristotelian deductive logic produced error. In Novum
Organum he tried to set the stage for a new attitude toward logic
and scientific inquiry. He proposed a system of reasoning usually
referred to as induction. This quasi-scientific method involves
collecting and listing observations from nature. Once a mass of
observations is gathered and organized, Bacon believed, the truth
about what is observed will become apparent. (Jacobus 417)
Bacon points out short comings of Aristotle that would still hold
true today, but he makes a mistake of thinking that inductive
reasoning technique is the sole method of scientific thought, and
that it could always produce an accurate answer, so that it must
superior to deductive reasoning championed by Aristotle.
To get a better grasp of the idea, you must understand the
difference between the two broad methods of reasoning, deductive and
inductive approaches to scientific thinking. The deductive method is
referred to as the "top-down" method. In Prior Analytics Aristotle
states that "a deduction is speech in which, certain things having
been supposed, something different from those supposed results of
necessity because of their being so".
Nowadays scientists will use a theory or a belief to tell them what
the facts "should be," but if it does become clear that the facts
are not what a theory or a belief predicts, they will eventually
change their theory or belief.  In the Middle-Ages and the
Renaissance the word of the Bible or Aristotle was "good enough."
It could actually be dangerous to question the "Established Truth."
The inductive method of steps would go from observation, pattern,
initial hypothesis, to theory. Bacon wasn't right nor was he
completely wrong, by discounting deductive reasoning, the prevailing
method of use in his time. I think his biggest problem was that he
didn't see that both methods should be used in a cycle, to keep
reverting between the two styles.
Bacon was bucking the system with his idea, for long held was the
teaching of Aristotle as the gospel. I think of it is a funnel, from
the large opening end you would start with deductive.
Bacon stressed gathering "facts" and "evidence" first, and building
theories later.  Nowadays scientific thinkers are more likely to
admit that they are often guided by imagination, intuition and grand
theories that they only back up with facts later.  But modern
science is no longer dominated by religion they way it was in
Bacon's day (The Renaissance). Bacon waged war his whole life
against too much "deductive" reasoning because he was born into
an "Age of Faith" when knowledge was "official" only if it came from
authorities like the Bible and Aristotle. ("Francis Bacon")
So as to say the deductive is the steps going in the order of
theory, hypothesis, observation, and finally confirmation. Simply
put Logic is traditionally divided into deductive reasoning,
concerned with what follows logically from given premises, and
inductive reasoning, concerned with how we can go from some number
of observed events to a reliable generalization (Smith).
Bacon and Aristotle both held the belief that experiment and
experience of the senses is the only true source of knowledge; but
neither invented the scientific method of inquiring into nature
(Jacobus 417); neither of them had even developed a method of
testing a hypothesis.
"He [Aristotle] made a systematic study of the ways in which
argument form determines validity in syllogisms, and of the ways in
which arguments can sound persuasive but actually be invalid
(Baker);" proof of this is found in the Organon.


Bacon used a straight forward approach while writing the Four Idols,
called enumeration (Jacobus). I have to admit that I'm hesitant in
trusting any ideas coming from a man that lost his high position in
society due to a bribery scam. One of the first things I found
confusing was his use of the world "idol," I haven't ever seen it
used in such a manner. The definition he used for idol must have
been along the line of the word illusion or fake; with this in mind
his title would read the four illusions. In this writing he points
out short comings of Aristotle that would still hold true today, but
he makes a mistake of thinking that inductive reasoning technique is
the sole method of scientific thought, and that it could always
produce an accurate answer, so that it must superior to deductive
reasoning championed by Aristotle.
	 Bacon builds a vocabulary that isn't too hard to understand;
it was translated from Latin. Using the enumeration method he goes
about explain each illusion and then sums it all up. The writing
isn't full of poetic garbage; it is clear and straight forward
without too many analogies. His four illusions are easier to
understand if taken by the time frame that they were written.
Aristotle's work is translated from Greek, which would seem to a
fairly reliable translation. Aristotle wasn't surrounded by scandal
as Bacon was. What would make Aristotle's work suspect would that
most of it wasn't to be found until after his death; some of it
would be discovered until the twelfth-century AD. Much of Aristotle
work wasn't written with the intent of being published.
It would seem that Bacon was breaking ground in psychology and
cultural understanding of those around him. The hindrance in man's
thinking became apparent upon reading the different illusions Bacon
points out.
Idols of the Tribe, means trouble learning that is based on human
nature. People are too shallow in thinking, tend to look for
patterns to stuff things into, senses can fool, believe the more
palatable, tend generalize, search for only evidence that proves the
idea.
Idols of the Cave, means the trouble learning by the individual.
Individuals may prefer antiquity, while others prefer novelty. An
individual may search for an idea that will support prior
conclusions. The individual might prefer differences, while another
might prefer similarities; this example is very similar to one in
the tribe, just that it is different because it is on an individual
level.
Idols of the Marketplace, meaning People have a great imagination to
name things that don't even exist. Confusion due to a word being
able to have more then one meaning is very common.
Idols of the Theater, meaning a misunderstanding due to the
philosophy and theology, because of tradition that man can hold so
dear.
Another contrast is that unlike Aristotle, Bacon did not want
develop school of learning. Aristotle was a philosopher, scientist,
lecturer, researcher, writer, teacher, and a politician; while Bacon
spent the majority of his life only in philosophy and politics.
Aristotle met his death while studying marine life, a popular belief
is that it may have not been an accident but a homicide. Bacon on
the other hand died due to an accident while performing the only
experiment he ever attempted. Aristotle and Bacon both were of the
higher social class and were very well educated.
Aristotle left behind the earliest written formal works of logic
that we are aware today. To add to the greatness of the achievement,
the works have withstood two millennia without significant change in
spirit (Smith). Bacon never did debunk the teachings of Aristotle
but he did shed light on some of the works that needed improvement…
there is no work that is perfect.
The only ancient writer for whom he [Bacon] did have respect was
Democritus, whose materialism he adopted ("Sir Francis Bacon").

Specialization also nurtures a fetishistic attachment to one
subject, activity, or method. Francis Bacon, a founder of modern
scientific thought, was aware of those dangers. In Novum Organum,
published in 1620, he sought to reconstruct the sciences. The book
is also a profound analysis of the ways in which the mind can go
wrong. Of specialization, he wrote: (Stimpson)

Men become attached to certain particular sciences and speculations,
either because they fancy themselves the authors and inventors
thereof, or because they have bestowed the greatest pains upon them
and become most habituated to them. But men of this kind, if they
betake themselves to philosophy and contemplations of a general
character, distort and color them in obedience to their former
fancies; a thing especially to be noted in Aristotle, who made his
natural philosophy a mere bondservant to his logic, thereby
rendering it contentious and well nigh useless. (Bacon 425)


  ... one can imagine learning how Aristotle, working but a few
decades after the codification of Genesis, changed from being one of
the greatest polymaths and interdisciplinarians who ever lived to
being the object of Francis Bacon's scorn. (Stimpson)

Aristotle's work can't be easily summed up in a few pages. All areas
of Aristotle's text have been found in other articles so much that
nothing can be removed from Aristotle's text unless it were at the
cost of losing entire categories of his work. Scholars have argued
over Aristotle's work since it was first made over two thousands
years ago. Even Bacon's attacks could not undue the lasting
impression that Aristotle has left. Aristotle's work still stands at
the center logical theory.
Works Cited
Bacon, Francis. Novum Organum  Rpt in <http://www.constitution.org/>.
Bacon, Francis. "The Four Idols." Rpt. in A World of Ideas: 6th ed.
By Lee A. Jacobus Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2002. 420-431.
Baird, Forrest. "Introduction to the Age of Reason (the
Enlightenment)" 2000 <http://www.whitworth.edu>.
Baird, Forrest. "Introduction to Ancient Greek Thought" 2000
<http://www.whitworth.edu>.
Baker, Lyman. "Selections from Francis Bacon's." 23 Sep 1999
<http://www-personal.ksu.edu/>.
"Francis Bacon." 17 Mar 2003 <http://literacyproject.org/>.
Jacobus, Lee A. A World of Ideas: 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martins, 2002.
"Logic" 25 Mar 2004 <http://en.wikipedia.org/>.
"Sir Francis Bacon." 10 May 2003 <http://main.amu.edu.pl/>.
Smith, Robin. "Aristotle's Logic." 05 Oct 2000
<http://plato.stanford.edu/>.
Stimpson, Cathrine. "General Education for Graduate Education" 01
Nov 2002 <http://www.nyu.edu>.
Turner,  William."Logic" Rpt in  Catholic Encyclopedia: Logic 15 Sep
2003 <http://www.newadvent.org/>.
Waggoner, Ben  "Aristotle" 09 Jun 1996
<http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/>.

I shall barge in on this, if I may.... :-)

Aristotle does indeed define chance as an "accidental cause". However,
there are various other important caveats here.

1. Chance is an accidental *final* cause. It can only be seen to operate
when some action brings about an unexpected result. It is not material,
efficient, or formal - but it is a final cause.

2. It is accidental to the real final cause of the action, which may or
may not be related to the actual outcome. In Aristotle's example, "going
to the theatre" is still the final cause of his meeting the creditor,
whereas "collection of the debt" is only an accident - i.e. not
fundamental to the performance of the action.

You may wish also to look at two essays in "Aristotle's Physics: A
Collection of Essays" (ed. Judson, OUP) - namely "Accidental Causes and
Real Explanations" by Cynthia Freeland, and "Chance and "Always or for
the most part" in Aristotle" by Lindsey Judson.

But then since I was taught Plato by Lindsey I would say that, wouldn't
I....

Hope that helps,
Daniel

Daniel Johnson
m] 07977 570 504
e] daniel@...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeremy [mailto:diarmait@...]
> Sent: 16 February 2004 22:20
> To: aristotle@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [aristotle] Re: Aristotle on Chance
>
>
> If truth is eternal, this reply is not tardy :)
>
> I've struggled with this question since you first brought it up.
> Aristotle speaks of chance and luck, as you know, in the sceond book,
> chapters 4-6, of the Physics.  He seems to argue in chapter 5 that
> chance DOES exist, but only as an "accidental" cause.  This is to
> distinguish it from the "four causes" formal, material, final, and
> agent.
>
> Is chance something in itself?  I can't think that it really is.  We
> say something "comes to be" by chance if we cannot see the four
> causes at work.  But can anything really happen by chance?  The
> Believer would say no, that all is according to God's Providence.
>
> What are your thoughts?
>
> Jeremy
>
>
> --- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "johnjillard" <johnjillard@y...>
> wrote:
> > According to Aristotle can anything really happen by chance? and
> Can
> > anything happen entirely by chance?
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits
> for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com.
> Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/pyIolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of
Slow Reading:
http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by e-mail,
mailto:aristotle-unsubscribe@onelist.com


Yahoo! Groups Links

If truth is eternal, this reply is not tardy :)

I've struggled with this question since you first brought it up.
Aristotle speaks of chance and luck, as you know, in the sceond book,
chapters 4-6, of the Physics.  He seems to argue in chapter 5 that
chance DOES exist, but only as an "accidental" cause.  This is to
distinguish it from the "four causes" formal, material, final, and
agent.

Is chance something in itself?  I can't think that it really is.  We
say something "comes to be" by chance if we cannot see the four
causes at work.  But can anything really happen by chance?  The
Believer would say no, that all is according to God's Providence.

What are your thoughts?

Jeremy


--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "johnjillard" <johnjillard@y...>
wrote:
> According to Aristotle can anything really happen by chance? and
Can
> anything happen entirely by chance?

I'm not sure what "self-busing" is for anybody.


--- skipogi04 <skipogi04@...> wrote:
> Hey guys! I just need some help in my research; I'd
> like to know what
> is "self-busing" for Aristotle. Please e-mail me if
> you have idea!
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free
> Lance Academy, home of Slow Reading:
> http://www.freelance-academy.org  To unsubscribe by
> e-mail, mailto:aristotle-unsubscribe@onelist.com
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>      aristotle-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html

Hey guys! I just need some help in my research; I'd like to know what
is "self-busing" for Aristotle. Please e-mail me if you have idea!
Thanks!

--- In aristotle@yahoogroups.com, "Mark" <iiomann@y...> wrote:
> I am finding it difficult to locate quotes regarding Aristotle's
> positioning on "Though and Action" within his book "Politics"
anyone
> have any suggestion?

Yes. Try book 3 of Aristotle's Politics. There is something very
interesting here on the relationship between philosophy and politics
in relation to action. The striving of the philosopher for truth
seems to be at odds with what politics is for the sake of: i.e.
action. Also book 1 deals with this in so far as the political
partnership comes about through the communication of people's
thoughts via speech (i.e. in discussing political matters) and the
polis is for the sake of "noble action." In this respect it would
seem that thought makes political action possible: political theory
(i.e. thought) must always precede the end of politics (i.e.
action). These are just some ideas, tell me what you think.

I am finding it difficult to locate quotes regarding Aristotle's
positioning on "Though and Action" within his book "Politics" anyone
have any suggestion?