Joho the Blog
|
|
|
June 26, 2004
I read Book Alpha of Aristotle's Metaphysics this afternoon (trans. Richard Hope). (A book is about 40 pages.) He reads like Bach sounds. Book Alpha takes on a different cast when you read it looking for clues about the way in which things organize themselves into genuses and species. For example, the book begins, famoulsy, "All men naturally have an impulse to get knowledge." This is not an unargued premise. Aristotle presents evidence for it: "A sign of this is the way we prize our senses." We most highly value sight, even when "we have nothing practical in view." Why? "The reason is that of all the senses it can best bring us knowledge and best discerns the many differences among things." So, now we know that knowledge has to do with seeing the differences among things. But, if you only see what makes something distinct, the world becomes populated by unique things, and knowledge is impossible: I need to distinguish Plato from Critias, yet see that both are men, and distinguish men from chickens yet see both are bipeds. So, knowledge requires the distinctions and groupings that a genus-species arrangement gives. We see this in Aristotle's critique of Plato. Most of Book Alpha is given over to showing how Aristotle's predecessors got it wrong. Aristotle spends more time on Plato, his old teacher, than on anyone else. (Go have students!) Here's one of his complaints about Plato's notion of Ideas:
Again, this is a problem that a nested, hierarchical view solves. In Book Alpha the Less, Aristotle argues for a single "root," a single first principle. But, of course, this first principle is not just an abstract category. It is also what gives traits to what follows from it:
So, we're not looking merely at the order of knowledge but also at the order of being. BTW, it's hard for me to tell, but I think Aristotle is making a joke in this section:
Hoho! Good one, Ari! And, say, what's a Grecian urn? Posted
by D. Weinberger at June 26, 2004 05:48 PM
|
Comments
j.C. (john cleary) at b.c. (boston college) is the most amazing aristotelian Ive known (noein). but, to be blunt here, "come gather 'round people, where e'er you roam...and admit that the waters around you have grown...and accept it that soon you'll be drenched to the bone...if the time to you is worth savin...for you better start swimming or you'll sink like a wind-egg...for the times...they are arranging.
now, you're obviously tryin ta sound funky, but "all men by nature desire to no"...i cant abide by all the modern contortions of speculation, 'cause i worked too freakin hard last week, and i just want to rest my weary bones for an instant. signed, Zeno.
Posted by: bw | June 26, 2004 09:19 PM
Aristotle was technically not a Greek but a Macedonian ... granted he spent alot of his time in Athens.. but nevertheless calling him a "Greek" is n't truly correct.
P
Posted by: Pete | July 15, 2004 02:35 AM
Sorry, Pete, but in 384 BC, when Aristotle was born, his birthplace, Stagira, was an independent Greek city-state. Stagira was originally settled by colonists from Euboea and Andros, Greek Islands. Stagira resisted Philip II's imperial ambitions until 349 or so when Philip destroyed the city. So Aristotle was an Ionian Greek, not a Macedonian. He did reside in Macedon when he was a boy and again later when he was associated with Philip and Alexander, but if one goes by time in residence then Aristotle would be an Athenian.
Posted by: Ralph | May 31, 2005 03:10 PM