Just Finished Reading: Aristotle – A Very Short Introduction by Jonathan Barnes.
This 141 page overview of the work of Aristotle constituted a bit of background reading to my course. After reading some of the work of the man himself – specifically The Politics and The Nicomachean Ethics – I found Barnes' book a bit too dry and too focused on Aristotle’s scientific work which time has made obsolete.
Aristotle did indeed have an amazing academic career spanning just about every subject you could imagine. He was a true polymath arguably founding the sciences of both Biology and Logic as well as contributing to much else besides. If that wasn’t impressive enough he went onto write the two books mentioned above on politics and ethics which are still being studied in Universities over two thousand years later.
This wasn’t a bad introduction to the man and his ideas but I did struggle with it at times. Probably not something I could recommend as your first experience of Aristotle.
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
9 comments:
Aristotle . . . good stuff. It's often amazing, reading Aristotle, just how modern he sounds. He was truly a great mind.
I'm fascinated with the 'great minds' through all of time. If you'd like to see a contermporary 'great mind' please go to www.wikipedia.org and look up "William James Sidis"
At the age of 17 he could learn a language in a day, he had a photographic memory of what he read, and could read the New York Times at 18 months.
This is nothing to say of his Dark Matter and Black Hole theories that he had discovered well before their time.
It's amazing that there are people who existed who single handedly changed the course of science/technology. It's a shame that Sidis was a media sideshow and because of that became introverted in his adult life and didn't publish much of his work.
I wonder if we'd have had an Aristotle in the 'modern age' had Sidis been nurtured and supported.
Sidis is a good example of why genius and abstract thought has to be grounded to some extent in real concerns of the everyday world. There are a lot of problems that are intellectually stimulating that don't have any bearing on anything. Wasn't Sidis's grand masterpiece a book on the streetcar system?
karlo said: Aristotle . . . good stuff. It's often amazing, reading Aristotle, just how modern he sounds. He was truly a great mind.
Indeed. I too was surprised at just how modern some of his writing sounded. I found the same when I read Seneca.
sirkolgate asked: I wonder if we'd have had an Aristotle in the 'modern age' had Sidis been nurtured and supported.
I seriously doubt it. Aristotle was a polymath because most of the subjects he studied (or founded) didn't have the complexity or the depth of knowledge of even one of todays areas. It is pretty much impossible for any one person to be an expert in even one discipline. I'm afraid that those days are long over.
karlo said: Sidis is a good example of why genius and abstract thought has to be grounded to some extent in real concerns of the everyday world.
Genius without application *is* pretty much pointless....
I don’t know that Sidis was as much genius without application as he was genius without social support. He had communistic ideals and because of that was spurned mightily by the media.
Karlo, those works on streetcars have found purchase in modern day transit systems. It may not be a particularly glamorous application of genius, but if you’ve ever had to consider the path finding algorithms required to determine a ‘shortest path’ you’d know that it is a branch of applied mathematics that many people devote their lives to.
Sidis is more of a study in society’s failure of a member than the member failing society.
Regardless, as interesting as he is Sidis has faded into the annuls of history while most people know that name Aristotle.
"It's often amazing, reading Aristotle, just how modern he sounds"
True, and he said soem great things. But we cherry pick the good bits for the modern worl. he had some pretty weird views too....
in astronomy: "Aristotle proposed a finite, spherical universe, with the earth at its center. This central region was comprised of four elements: earth, air, fire, and water which were all strictly part of the imperfect earthly sphere. Earthly motion is always linear and always comes to a halt, "
In biology: "a women's only role in procreation was to provide an incubator"
In equality: "Full excellence" can be realized only by the mature male adult of the upper class, not by women, or children, or barbarians (non-Greeks), or salaried "mechanics" (manual workers). "
:-)
JM said: True, and he said some great things. But we cherry pick the good bits for the modern worl. he had some pretty weird views too....
Very true. Though any of his weird scientific views can be forgiven on the grounds that he was never really a scientist in the sense that we would recognise.
His ethical and political views - especially about the place of women, slaves and 'mechanics'.... Well, he *was* very much of his age and also an elitist snob [grin].
But *apart* from the aquaduct, roads and street lighting.... [rotflmao].
"he was never really a scientist in the sense that we would recognise"
Except that he did near enough invent empirical evidence as the basis of science.....
JM said: Except that he did near enough invent empirical evidence as the basis of science.....
Kind of. From my reading he did collect a lot of useful data and cataloged it. But he apparently wasn't really interested in quantifying things to the extent we do today. Also he would've had a huge problem because a lot of the measuring equipment we take for granted had yet to be invented so he could not measure things like temperature or time to any acceptable accuracy.
Post a Comment