What do you think?
Rate this book
Aristóteles Para Todos: Uma Introdução Simples a Um Pensamento Complexo
Apesar de Aristóteles ter sido um grego que viveu há 25 séculos, ele conhecia as linhas gerais do mundo em que nós vivemos bem o suficiente para falar sobre ele como se estivesse vivo hoje.
No que diz respeito à sua capacidade de nos ajudar a pensar filosoficamente, Aristóteles não seria melhor professor se conhecesse tudo que os cientistas modernos conhecem. A humanidade aprendeu muito desde a época de Aristóteles, graças sobretudo às descobertas da ciência moderna. A ciência aplicada criou um mundo e um modo de vida muito diferentes de seu mundo e de seu modo de vida. Ele não tinha carro, não podia falar ao telefone, nunca viu o que se pode ver num microscópio ou num telescópio, não pôde enxergar a superfície da lua, e nunca ouviu da boca de homens que estavam andando nela uma descrição de sua superfície.
Mas Aristóteles teve as mesmas experiências comuns em sua época que temos na nossa. Seu modo de refletir a respeito delas permitiu que ele as compreendesse melhor do que a maioria de nós. É por isso, e só por isso, que ele pode nos ajudar a entender melhor essas experiências comuns, e ajudar-nos a compreender nós mesmos e nossa vida, e também o mundo e a sociedade em que vivemos, ainda que nosso estilo de vida, nosso mundo e nossa sociedade sejam diferentes do dele.
No que diz respeito à sua capacidade de nos ajudar a pensar filosoficamente, Aristóteles não seria melhor professor se conhecesse tudo que os cientistas modernos conhecem. A humanidade aprendeu muito desde a época de Aristóteles, graças sobretudo às descobertas da ciência moderna. A ciência aplicada criou um mundo e um modo de vida muito diferentes de seu mundo e de seu modo de vida. Ele não tinha carro, não podia falar ao telefone, nunca viu o que se pode ver num microscópio ou num telescópio, não pôde enxergar a superfície da lua, e nunca ouviu da boca de homens que estavam andando nela uma descrição de sua superfície.
Mas Aristóteles teve as mesmas experiências comuns em sua época que temos na nossa. Seu modo de refletir a respeito delas permitiu que ele as compreendesse melhor do que a maioria de nós. É por isso, e só por isso, que ele pode nos ajudar a entender melhor essas experiências comuns, e ajudar-nos a compreender nós mesmos e nossa vida, e também o mundo e a sociedade em que vivemos, ainda que nosso estilo de vida, nosso mundo e nossa sociedade sejam diferentes do dele.
208 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1978
379 people are currently reading
2803 people want to read
About the author
Mortimer J. Adler
595 books1,062 followersNumerous published works of American educator and philosopher Mortimer Jerome Adler include
How to Read a Book
(1940) and
The Conditions of Philosophy
(1965).
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
This popular author worked with thought of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas. He lived for the longest stretches in cities of New York, Chicago, San Francisco, and San Mateo. He worked for Columbia University, the University of Chicago, Encyclopædia Britannica, and own institute for philosophical research.
Born to Jewish immigrants, he dropped out school at 14 years of age in 1917 to a copy boy for the New York Sun with the ultimate aspiration to a journalist. Adler quickly returned to school to take writing classes at night and discovered the works of Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, and other men, whom he came to call heroes. He went to study at Columbia University and contributed to the student literary magazine, The Morningside, (a poem "Choice" in 1922 when Charles A. Wagner was editor-in-chief and Whittaker Chambers an associate editor). Though he failed to pass the required swimming test for a bachelor's degree (a matter that was rectified when Columbia gave him an honorary degree in 1983), he stayed at the university and eventually received an instructorship and finally a doctorate in psychology. While at Columbia University, Adler wrote his first book: Dialectic, published in 1927.
In 1930 Robert Hutchins, the newly appointed president of the University of Chicago, whom Adler had befriended some years earlier, arranged for Chicago’s law school to hire him as a professor of the philosophy of law; the philosophers at Chicago (who included James H. Tufts, E.A. Burtt, and George H. Mead) had "entertained grave doubts as to Mr. Adler's competence in the field [of philosophy]" and resisted Adler's appointment to the University's Department of Philosophy. Adler was the first "non-lawyer" to join the law school faculty. Adler also taught philosophy to business executives at the Aspen Institute.
Adler and Hutchins went on to found the Great Books of the Western World program and the Great Books Foundation. Adler founded and served as director of the Institute for Philosophical Research in 1952. He also served on the Board of Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica since its inception in 1949, and succeeded Hutchins as its chairman from 1974. As the director of editorial planning for the fifteenth edition of Britannica from 1965, he was instrumental in the major reorganization of knowledge embodied in that edition. He introduced the Paideia Proposal which resulted in his founding the Paideia Program, a grade-school curriculum centered around guided reading and discussion of difficult works (as judged for each grade). With Max Weismann, he founded The Center for the Study of The Great Ideas.
Adler long strove to bring philosophy to the masses, and some of his works (such as How to Read a Book) became popular bestsellers. He was also an advocate of economic democracy and wrote an influential preface to Louis Kelso's The Capitalist Manifesto. Adler was often aided in his thinking and writing by Arthur Rubin, an old friend from his Columbia undergraduate days. In his own words:
Unlike many of my contemporaries, I never write books for my fellow professors to read. I have no interest in the academic audience at all. I'm interested in Joe Doakes. A general audience can read any book I write—and they do.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mortimer...
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews
August 13, 2016
Aristotle IS Everybody
We often come across teachers or books getting us to understand a philosopher. It is only common sense, they say. See, this is their thought: in a nutshell. See how easy it is? You already knew all this. You just have to remember that this guy talked of it first.
You read those and come away with a feeling that you now understand the philosopher. Worse, you might come away feeling that the great guy was so wrong! Surely you are quite smart if you know more than Aristotle!
Well, not quite, right?
As Newton said, we see farther by standing on the shoulders of many many giants and only because we stand on their shoulders. We cannot stand there and then tell them haughtily that we can see farther - they constructed the whole edifice of thought we stand on.
Ok, I am mixing metaphors here. Let us drop the shoulder metaphor and take an edifice metaphor.
So, these thinker over the years have built a complex edifice on which we can stand and look at the wonder of the universe, exult in many logical puzzles and best of all, enjoy many material pleasures derived from the techniques developed while building the edifice.
But it is not those manifestations of knowledge that matters. We are not smarter than the ancients because we can use a laptop and ‘google’ up anything we want. That is no way to judge the achievements - after all, we don’t even have to climb the edifice. We are plopped right on top - what then, if any, was our achievement? We can't just run around the top of the edifice, fiddling with our shiny toys. We have to be either looking outwards or inwards - in fact both. (Nothing smart about playing with a 'smart' phone.)
It is the edifice alone that matters. (Well, just for emphasis. Don't call me out on this)
We have to direct all our energies to examining it, the intricacies of its structure. We have to climb down and examine its foundations. We will never grasp it fully, but we have to be Janus like - we have to stand on top and look farther but all the while we have to probe (and prop up) the edifice ever deeper.
It is as much the responsibility of the ones born onto the shoulders of the giants or to the tops of this edifice to look farther as to probe the structure itself.
Coming back to this book, Adler is one of those teachers who wants to show us how easy Aristotle is. The danger is that we might walk away believing that it is true, thinking that Aristotle only talked about these really obvious things. Instead of feeling smug about knowing what Aristotle thought about , we would do better to understand how he thought of such things that went on to become obvious - the highest distinction that ideas can hope for.
Time to look at the foundations.
++++
One interesting thought was Aristotle’s concept of Justice. Aristotle considers the Pursuit of Happiness or the Good Life as the ultimate goal of a human life. For this we need wisdom to identify, courage to persevere and one more ingredient - since we are political animals, we need justice to ensure that impediments don;t pop up through others. Hence Justice becomes a very selfish motive, unless we also want Justice so that others can pursue the Good Life. Of course, for a person pursuing the Good Life, the best outcome is that everyone around him/her is also pursuing the Good Life. Aristotle goes on to say that it is the very duty of the state to aid in this Pursuit. What a noble conception of the need for a State.
October 24, 2020
In 1980, two years after completing a professional degree in psychology, after two years of earning a living as a childcare worker for ostensibly 'psychotic' adolescent boys, I decided to return to school. I'd liked the jobs I'd had, but they had no future and such challenges as they'd originally posed had been overcome.
My psychology degree hadn't been a practical one, the focus being on the depth psychologies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the thesis having been on Kant's influence on C.G. Jung. In other words, despite a hospital internship, I was more into the theory and history of psychology than its applications. Indeed, the more I'd studied psychology, the more I had gotten into its philosophical presuppositions and roots--particularly in German idealism.
My roommate was pursuing a much-delayed undergraduate degree at the local university, Loyola, and had made me aware of the fact that it had the largest philosophy faculty in North America. I'd also learned that an academic doctorate, as opposed to a professional degree, was free so far as tuition charges were concerned--something I hadn't known in college. So, on what amounted to a sudden conviction, I applied there--applied after classes had already commenced.
Fortuitously, I was accepted, but only provisionally as I'd missed various deadlines and with only a part-time assistantship. Indeed, there was tuition charged that first semester, but the Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Catania, awarded me a Schmidt Fellowship to cover the expense when I went to his office to cut the red tape for such late admission.
Such was my enthusiasm that I read as much philosophy as I could during the first days of school, including unassigned books which might fill in the gaps of my background in the field. Adler's introduction to Aristotle was one such book, Aristotle never having been a favorite of mine despite a longstanding interest in classical antiquity. As an introduction, it was quite appropriate, Adler's very approachable appreciation of Aristotle inspiring me to take a second look at the philosopher himself.
My psychology degree hadn't been a practical one, the focus being on the depth psychologies of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the thesis having been on Kant's influence on C.G. Jung. In other words, despite a hospital internship, I was more into the theory and history of psychology than its applications. Indeed, the more I'd studied psychology, the more I had gotten into its philosophical presuppositions and roots--particularly in German idealism.
My roommate was pursuing a much-delayed undergraduate degree at the local university, Loyola, and had made me aware of the fact that it had the largest philosophy faculty in North America. I'd also learned that an academic doctorate, as opposed to a professional degree, was free so far as tuition charges were concerned--something I hadn't known in college. So, on what amounted to a sudden conviction, I applied there--applied after classes had already commenced.
Fortuitously, I was accepted, but only provisionally as I'd missed various deadlines and with only a part-time assistantship. Indeed, there was tuition charged that first semester, but the Dean of the Graduate School, Dr. Catania, awarded me a Schmidt Fellowship to cover the expense when I went to his office to cut the red tape for such late admission.
Such was my enthusiasm that I read as much philosophy as I could during the first days of school, including unassigned books which might fill in the gaps of my background in the field. Adler's introduction to Aristotle was one such book, Aristotle never having been a favorite of mine despite a longstanding interest in classical antiquity. As an introduction, it was quite appropriate, Adler's very approachable appreciation of Aristotle inspiring me to take a second look at the philosopher himself.
September 15, 2021
Adler, Mortimer J. Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy.
Even with the advances in science, Aristotle’s shadow is unavoidable. We still operate with concepts like “part,” “whole,” “motion,” “change,” etc. Despite modern pedagogy in the university, we still use logic and assume it is valid.
"Great Divide"
First problem: What differentiates “all living organisms from inert bodies” (Adler 5)? From this we draw a line between some living organisms and others. Aristotle keeps drawing these lines and classifying individuals. In order to do this, he posits that each thing has a nature. He finally arrives at the conclusion that man is a rational animal.
On one side of the line are “bodies.” On the other side are “attributes.” The key idea is that an attribute exists in a thing but not of itself. A stone’s weight exists in the stone, but no one thinks that the weight of a stone exists on its own. Moreover, a body changes; the attributes do not. The attribute of hardness doesn’t become “smoothness.” Rather, the stone becomes smooth.
We can best discuss man by seeing him in three different dimensions:
Man is:
Making (Beautiful). This covers the metaphysical angle.
Doing (Good)
Knowing (True)
Man the Maker
A work of art is man-made. It is more accurate to say that man produces; he does not create.
Change and Permanence
The problem is how can something always be in a state of becoming, always in change, yet remain the same. One type of change is motion (a change in place), alteration (a change in quality), and a change in quantity. All of these changes take place in time.
The Four Causes
I can’t do any better than to quote Adler:
1. Material cause: that out of which something is made.
2. Efficient cause: that by which something is made.
3. Formal cause: that into which something is made.
4. Final cause: that for the sake of which something is made
To Be or Not to Be
To understand Aristotle on being, we need a firm grasp of “matter,” “form,” “potentiality” and “actuality” (50).
Privation is a lack of a certain form. Potentiality is when you predicate the words “can be” of a thing. A matter can lack a form but nonetheless have the potentiality for it. “Matter always has a limited potentiality for acquiring other forms” (53).
Man the Doer
Man usually acts towards a goal. This is practical thinking, thinking about means and ends. Means are the ways we achieve our goal or other means. For Aristotle the end to which we aim is “living well.” However, when Aristotle says we are to aim for the right ultimate end, this isn’t relative. There is an actual objective Good to which all seek to aim. People who do not aim for this objective end have disordered passions.
This is happiness. It is important to note that ancient man didn’t consider those who were still living to be truly happy.
Man the Knower
“The senses are the doorway to the mind” (130). They are instruments, and in a nice turn of the phrase, the mind, too, is an instrument. It is the “form of forms” (134). Thinking does more, as it also “relates the ideas it produces.”
The next chapter is on the laws of logic. In some ways, that chapter alone is worthy of an entire review. On the other hand, there isn’t much in it that isn’t also found in other logic texts. Some comments are appropriate, though. For example, the term in both major and minor premises is the middle term. It functions to connect the major premise and the conclusion.
Moreover, if the major premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. A positive conclusion cannot follow from negative premises.
I recommend this book to any starter in philosophy.
Even with the advances in science, Aristotle’s shadow is unavoidable. We still operate with concepts like “part,” “whole,” “motion,” “change,” etc. Despite modern pedagogy in the university, we still use logic and assume it is valid.
"Great Divide"
First problem: What differentiates “all living organisms from inert bodies” (Adler 5)? From this we draw a line between some living organisms and others. Aristotle keeps drawing these lines and classifying individuals. In order to do this, he posits that each thing has a nature. He finally arrives at the conclusion that man is a rational animal.
On one side of the line are “bodies.” On the other side are “attributes.” The key idea is that an attribute exists in a thing but not of itself. A stone’s weight exists in the stone, but no one thinks that the weight of a stone exists on its own. Moreover, a body changes; the attributes do not. The attribute of hardness doesn’t become “smoothness.” Rather, the stone becomes smooth.
We can best discuss man by seeing him in three different dimensions:
Man is:
Making (Beautiful). This covers the metaphysical angle.
Doing (Good)
Knowing (True)
Man the Maker
A work of art is man-made. It is more accurate to say that man produces; he does not create.
Change and Permanence
The problem is how can something always be in a state of becoming, always in change, yet remain the same. One type of change is motion (a change in place), alteration (a change in quality), and a change in quantity. All of these changes take place in time.
The Four Causes
I can’t do any better than to quote Adler:
1. Material cause: that out of which something is made.
2. Efficient cause: that by which something is made.
3. Formal cause: that into which something is made.
4. Final cause: that for the sake of which something is made
To Be or Not to Be
To understand Aristotle on being, we need a firm grasp of “matter,” “form,” “potentiality” and “actuality” (50).
Privation is a lack of a certain form. Potentiality is when you predicate the words “can be” of a thing. A matter can lack a form but nonetheless have the potentiality for it. “Matter always has a limited potentiality for acquiring other forms” (53).
Man the Doer
Man usually acts towards a goal. This is practical thinking, thinking about means and ends. Means are the ways we achieve our goal or other means. For Aristotle the end to which we aim is “living well.” However, when Aristotle says we are to aim for the right ultimate end, this isn’t relative. There is an actual objective Good to which all seek to aim. People who do not aim for this objective end have disordered passions.
This is happiness. It is important to note that ancient man didn’t consider those who were still living to be truly happy.
Man the Knower
“The senses are the doorway to the mind” (130). They are instruments, and in a nice turn of the phrase, the mind, too, is an instrument. It is the “form of forms” (134). Thinking does more, as it also “relates the ideas it produces.”
The next chapter is on the laws of logic. In some ways, that chapter alone is worthy of an entire review. On the other hand, there isn’t much in it that isn’t also found in other logic texts. Some comments are appropriate, though. For example, the term in both major and minor premises is the middle term. It functions to connect the major premise and the conclusion.
Moreover, if the major premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative. A positive conclusion cannot follow from negative premises.
I recommend this book to any starter in philosophy.
May 26, 2012
This is the second book my Mortimer J. Adler that I have read. The first was ‘How to Read a Book.’ I know, how can you read a book titled How to Read a Book, if you don’t already know how to read? Adler already expected his audience to be literate, the point of the book was to read and comprehend, ascertain, and fully exercise one’s understanding faculties, when reading ANY book, no matter how difficult. Although that book was required school reading, it was one of the clearest texts I’ve ever read.
I saw Adler had written a book on Aristotle, and since he’s the philosopher I’m the most ignorant of, and the one who puts me to sleep the fastest, I figured I’d read his rendition of Aristotle. He does a perfect job of presenting Aristotle for all audiences. A prepubescent teenager could wrestle with this book, and come out far more logical, and empirical in his/her studies. That’s Adler’s point, to make uncommon sense (Aristotles thought), become the readers’ basic common sense (i.e., what the reader employs when understanding the world). Thus, if you want an introduction to Aristotle that will stick with you and be entirely comprehensible, regardless of your background and training, this is the text.
There are only three minor quibbles, none of which actually warrant deducing a star. After all, in the end, Adler achieves his goal as outlined in the introduction. The first quibble is that he opens with the claim that Aristotle is the superior philosopher to Plato, and offers no evidence to back his claim. This is of course a bold claim. I don’t count myself an idealist, and it’s a crude truism that if Plato founded idealism, Aristotle founded empiricism, and an everlasting divide has existed ever since. Nonetheless, I have always found reading Plato to be a superior experience, and prima facie there’s no evidence that suggest Plato was a less capable thinker.
Second, the author will occasionally use the strangest logical demonstrations to demonstrate Aristotelian logic, while claiming his bizarre premises are true. For instance, one premise was “Angels are neither male nor female….” Then he goes on to draw a conclusion, referring to his argument as sound. Soundness means the premise was true. Well, maybe stick to a premise that isn’t so controversial before demonstrating soundness to a wide audience. This isn’t an isolated event, he does this several times, mostly with pious claims, and frequently with political ones too.
Third, in making this book truly ascertainable for any audience, it loses the potential vivid experience an experienced philosopher would gleam from it. There are serious elements of contention in Aristotle’s philosophy that are not explored because it would take the reader outside the scope of a layman text.
I saw Adler had written a book on Aristotle, and since he’s the philosopher I’m the most ignorant of, and the one who puts me to sleep the fastest, I figured I’d read his rendition of Aristotle. He does a perfect job of presenting Aristotle for all audiences. A prepubescent teenager could wrestle with this book, and come out far more logical, and empirical in his/her studies. That’s Adler’s point, to make uncommon sense (Aristotles thought), become the readers’ basic common sense (i.e., what the reader employs when understanding the world). Thus, if you want an introduction to Aristotle that will stick with you and be entirely comprehensible, regardless of your background and training, this is the text.
There are only three minor quibbles, none of which actually warrant deducing a star. After all, in the end, Adler achieves his goal as outlined in the introduction. The first quibble is that he opens with the claim that Aristotle is the superior philosopher to Plato, and offers no evidence to back his claim. This is of course a bold claim. I don’t count myself an idealist, and it’s a crude truism that if Plato founded idealism, Aristotle founded empiricism, and an everlasting divide has existed ever since. Nonetheless, I have always found reading Plato to be a superior experience, and prima facie there’s no evidence that suggest Plato was a less capable thinker.
Second, the author will occasionally use the strangest logical demonstrations to demonstrate Aristotelian logic, while claiming his bizarre premises are true. For instance, one premise was “Angels are neither male nor female….” Then he goes on to draw a conclusion, referring to his argument as sound. Soundness means the premise was true. Well, maybe stick to a premise that isn’t so controversial before demonstrating soundness to a wide audience. This isn’t an isolated event, he does this several times, mostly with pious claims, and frequently with political ones too.
Third, in making this book truly ascertainable for any audience, it loses the potential vivid experience an experienced philosopher would gleam from it. There are serious elements of contention in Aristotle’s philosophy that are not explored because it would take the reader outside the scope of a layman text.
November 19, 2020
Two common games--"Twenty Questions" and "Animal, Vegetable, Mineral"--are Aristotelian because they classify things.
Man's three dimensions: 1. making not only works of art but all man-made things, 2. doing in both social and moral spheres, and 3. knowing or acquiring knowledge. Another way to put it: making is the concern for beauty, doing is the concern for the good, and knowing is the concern for the truth. Beauty, goodness, and truth.
The good man obeys just laws because he is virtuous, not because he is afraid of the punishments to follow. Government is not for him an evil like it is for the bad man.
The good man does not feel his freedom limited by government. He does not want more freedom than he can use without injuring others. Only the bad man wants more freedom than that.
Government should serve the common good of the people, not the needs of those who govern. The power of the government should rest on rules set up by the governed.
Contradictory statements do not make the truth.
Statements with "all" can be contradicted with only one example to the contrary.
Scientific statements rely on the preponderance of the evidence.
Because men are not angels, government is necessary for human society.
Philosophical conclusions are different that scientific ones because they are based on "common experience." I disagree. There are only scientific conclusions. Research and experiments are necessary to verify any conclusions.
Man's three dimensions: 1. making not only works of art but all man-made things, 2. doing in both social and moral spheres, and 3. knowing or acquiring knowledge. Another way to put it: making is the concern for beauty, doing is the concern for the good, and knowing is the concern for the truth. Beauty, goodness, and truth.
The good man obeys just laws because he is virtuous, not because he is afraid of the punishments to follow. Government is not for him an evil like it is for the bad man.
The good man does not feel his freedom limited by government. He does not want more freedom than he can use without injuring others. Only the bad man wants more freedom than that.
Government should serve the common good of the people, not the needs of those who govern. The power of the government should rest on rules set up by the governed.
Contradictory statements do not make the truth.
Statements with "all" can be contradicted with only one example to the contrary.
Scientific statements rely on the preponderance of the evidence.
Because men are not angels, government is necessary for human society.
Philosophical conclusions are different that scientific ones because they are based on "common experience." I disagree. There are only scientific conclusions. Research and experiments are necessary to verify any conclusions.
May 17, 2014
I didn't realize, when I started this, that it was intended for young readers -- Adler mentions that his 11 year old and 13 year old sons critiqued the manuscript. His tone is, at a few points, annoyingly condescending, but otherwise this was a pleasant, quick introduction to Aristotle. Actually, aside from the section on Eternity, which was new to me, most of this was familiar, but a little review never hurts.
A friend of mine who sampled this and decided against it commented that it seemed like a book intended for people who did not plan to actually read Aristotle. She had it exactly right. In the Epilogue, Adler strongly discourages his readers from trying to read Aristotle for themselves. He says,
"I did (in the Introduction) not recommend that anyone should start by reading the books that Aristotle wrote. That is the very last thing I would tell anyone to do.
Aristotle's books are much too difficult for beginners..."
Given his young audience, this is not unreasonable (although I know no children who would require such vehement discouragement, and a little pep talk to the effect of "some day, when you are grown up, you really Should try Aristotle because he is worth the effort!" would have been more positive), but I found it unattractive. Anyway, I am not planning to take his advice. Nicomachean Ethics is next on the list (and when my brain melts into a puddle of goo from Aristotle's deadly difficulty, Mr. Adler can chortle knowingly from on high!).
A friend of mine who sampled this and decided against it commented that it seemed like a book intended for people who did not plan to actually read Aristotle. She had it exactly right. In the Epilogue, Adler strongly discourages his readers from trying to read Aristotle for themselves. He says,
"I did (in the Introduction) not recommend that anyone should start by reading the books that Aristotle wrote. That is the very last thing I would tell anyone to do.
Aristotle's books are much too difficult for beginners..."
Given his young audience, this is not unreasonable (although I know no children who would require such vehement discouragement, and a little pep talk to the effect of "some day, when you are grown up, you really Should try Aristotle because he is worth the effort!" would have been more positive), but I found it unattractive. Anyway, I am not planning to take his advice. Nicomachean Ethics is next on the list (and when my brain melts into a puddle of goo from Aristotle's deadly difficulty, Mr. Adler can chortle knowingly from on high!).
September 17, 2017
Excellent introduction.
April 7, 2020
When I was in Turkey during my back-for-good to Malaysia last year, I learnt new thing when I attended some classes on philosophy in Marmara University. The lecturer said that Aristotle discusses more on science while Plato discusses more on philosophy.
I already noticed Plato on it due to some of my readings previously on it like Meno, Gorgias, The Symposium and a few more dialogues.
In this book, Adler enlightens the readers a lot on almost all main ideas and works written by Aristotle.
Aristotle originally is the most problematic student of Plato until Aristotle opens his own academy in The Lyceum after Plato died.
Adler is one of the main fans of Aristotle and he believes that Aristotle is a better teacher because Aristotle gives answers, unlike Plato who only gives questions. Adler only become Platonist when he is discussing on man and woman because Aristotle accepts the inferiority of women which is the conventional view of his day, unlike Plato who accepts the equality for both of them.
Adler starts this book with the question of why human is a philosophical animal (hayawān al-nātiq) – because human asks general questions and seeks answers by observation and thought. That's why, if we draw a pyramid, inanimate things will be at the lowest block, followed by plants, then animals and then human because the more they perform vital functions, the higher their form of existence and life will be.
According to Aristotle, there are three types of thinking:
i. Productive thinking – thinking about things to be made (like make an art). This is more to science and lead to beauty. Need to have know-how or productive ideas.
ii. Practical thinking – thinking about what to be done (like doing an art for the sake of what?). This is more to philosophy and this will determine either we do it for good/evil (good/bad) purpose. Need to have idea of a goal to be reached, ways to reach it and reasons why the goal is better than other goals.
iii. Speculative/Theoretical thinking – where men know. This is to know the truth.
The use of science is in "making" or "producing things" while the use of philosophy is in "doing" or "to direct our lives for betterment, not worse".
End comes when we think, means come when we do.
Socrates says, unexamined life is not worth living. Aristotle adds, unplanned life is not worth examining, for an unplanned life is one in which we do not know what we are trying to do or why, and one in which we do not know where we are trying to get and how to get there.
To have a good life is to have a right plans. The right end that all of us ought to pursue is – a good life/happiness/living well.
Friendship, according to Aristotle is for psychological or soul good (we attain knowledge and skills with them), not for external/bodily good.
The name that Aristotle gives to all good habits is excellence/virtue. Success in living a good life depends on two things – moral virtue and good fortune/good luck.
When Aristotle declares man is by nature a political animal, he means that man must live together in cities ("civis" in Latin, civilized in English) or states ("polis" in Greek, political in English). The good life is the civil/civilized life.
Moving to discussion on logic, logical thinking may not reach a true conclusion while true may be reached with illogical thinking.
And then, Adler touches on logical terms that Aristotle uses like,
i. Statement subcontrary (pair of statements, which both can be true, but both of which cannot be false).
ii. Immediate inference (disjunctions that enable us to make simple, direct inference).
iii. Illicit conversion (when we treat two classes as coextensive when they are not).
When discussion on the differences between opinion and knowledge, Aristotle adds, opinion that is held either by most men or by most expert or the best-qualified among experts is likely to turn out to be the better opinion to hold.
Established knowledge occur when the generalization goes longer without being falsified.
Aristotle only restrict one type of knowledge which is when we understand truths that are self-evident. But Adler adds another four types which are (1) the well-founded opinions of mathematical thought – the conclusions that mathematicians able to demonstrate; (2) the well-established generalizations of scientific research or investigation; (3) the philosophical opinions that are based on common experience and on the refinement of common sense by philosophical reflection; and (4) the opinions about particular facts that historians able to support by historical research.
Moving to the last which is the difficult chapter, Aristotle defines time as the measure of motion or change. The forms of material things in physical world are the immaterial aspects of them (we have brains which is material and we have minds which is immaterial).
Pure actuality (form without matter) can exist, but pure potentiality (matter without form) cannot exist. This lead Aristole to the conclusion that the prime mover is the pure actuality (a being totally devoid of matter or potentiality) – God.
The conception of God comes in Aristotle's mind to explain the eternity of universe and its everlasting motion.
I already noticed Plato on it due to some of my readings previously on it like Meno, Gorgias, The Symposium and a few more dialogues.
In this book, Adler enlightens the readers a lot on almost all main ideas and works written by Aristotle.
Aristotle originally is the most problematic student of Plato until Aristotle opens his own academy in The Lyceum after Plato died.
Adler is one of the main fans of Aristotle and he believes that Aristotle is a better teacher because Aristotle gives answers, unlike Plato who only gives questions. Adler only become Platonist when he is discussing on man and woman because Aristotle accepts the inferiority of women which is the conventional view of his day, unlike Plato who accepts the equality for both of them.
Adler starts this book with the question of why human is a philosophical animal (hayawān al-nātiq) – because human asks general questions and seeks answers by observation and thought. That's why, if we draw a pyramid, inanimate things will be at the lowest block, followed by plants, then animals and then human because the more they perform vital functions, the higher their form of existence and life will be.
According to Aristotle, there are three types of thinking:
i. Productive thinking – thinking about things to be made (like make an art). This is more to science and lead to beauty. Need to have know-how or productive ideas.
ii. Practical thinking – thinking about what to be done (like doing an art for the sake of what?). This is more to philosophy and this will determine either we do it for good/evil (good/bad) purpose. Need to have idea of a goal to be reached, ways to reach it and reasons why the goal is better than other goals.
iii. Speculative/Theoretical thinking – where men know. This is to know the truth.
The use of science is in "making" or "producing things" while the use of philosophy is in "doing" or "to direct our lives for betterment, not worse".
End comes when we think, means come when we do.
Socrates says, unexamined life is not worth living. Aristotle adds, unplanned life is not worth examining, for an unplanned life is one in which we do not know what we are trying to do or why, and one in which we do not know where we are trying to get and how to get there.
To have a good life is to have a right plans. The right end that all of us ought to pursue is – a good life/happiness/living well.
Friendship, according to Aristotle is for psychological or soul good (we attain knowledge and skills with them), not for external/bodily good.
The name that Aristotle gives to all good habits is excellence/virtue. Success in living a good life depends on two things – moral virtue and good fortune/good luck.
When Aristotle declares man is by nature a political animal, he means that man must live together in cities ("civis" in Latin, civilized in English) or states ("polis" in Greek, political in English). The good life is the civil/civilized life.
Moving to discussion on logic, logical thinking may not reach a true conclusion while true may be reached with illogical thinking.
And then, Adler touches on logical terms that Aristotle uses like,
i. Statement subcontrary (pair of statements, which both can be true, but both of which cannot be false).
ii. Immediate inference (disjunctions that enable us to make simple, direct inference).
iii. Illicit conversion (when we treat two classes as coextensive when they are not).
When discussion on the differences between opinion and knowledge, Aristotle adds, opinion that is held either by most men or by most expert or the best-qualified among experts is likely to turn out to be the better opinion to hold.
Established knowledge occur when the generalization goes longer without being falsified.
Aristotle only restrict one type of knowledge which is when we understand truths that are self-evident. But Adler adds another four types which are (1) the well-founded opinions of mathematical thought – the conclusions that mathematicians able to demonstrate; (2) the well-established generalizations of scientific research or investigation; (3) the philosophical opinions that are based on common experience and on the refinement of common sense by philosophical reflection; and (4) the opinions about particular facts that historians able to support by historical research.
Moving to the last which is the difficult chapter, Aristotle defines time as the measure of motion or change. The forms of material things in physical world are the immaterial aspects of them (we have brains which is material and we have minds which is immaterial).
Pure actuality (form without matter) can exist, but pure potentiality (matter without form) cannot exist. This lead Aristole to the conclusion that the prime mover is the pure actuality (a being totally devoid of matter or potentiality) – God.
The conception of God comes in Aristotle's mind to explain the eternity of universe and its everlasting motion.
September 9, 2019
Conversational.
Makes Accessible to all those have forgotten Aristotle the rhetor-philosopher.
Read to make sure I understand the philosophy that informs the rhetoric of Poetics. A GR friend gently warned our buddy group that we can read too much, so I have kept the background of the philosophy lite with just this book.
I did a first read and may come back to do a reread.
Makes Accessible to all those have forgotten Aristotle the rhetor-philosopher.
Read to make sure I understand the philosophy that informs the rhetoric of Poetics. A GR friend gently warned our buddy group that we can read too much, so I have kept the background of the philosophy lite with just this book.
I did a first read and may come back to do a reread.
July 30, 2020
Finally a book on philosophy that anyone can understand. This is consequently the first book that I would recommend to someone new to philosophy (especially to thomism which is based on Aristotle's thought). Very accessible and extremely clear introduction to the main notions and theses of Aristotle of all fields (metaphysics, physics, ethics, logic). Adler avoids as much as possible technical term, gives a great deal of examples for all the notions covered. All his sentences are natural, it is as if he was giving a course of philosophy to teenagers (which I reckon could be exaggerated). The main default that frustrates me is that the book is not at all structured (each chapter is a monolithic text without subsections...) which can unfortunately confuse the reader,
December 7, 2025
Very analytical about simple things, then got into more complex things. Hard to listen to in one setting though. Better to break it up.
October 29, 2020
Amazingly clear, though it can seem a bit redundant at times, if you have already read Aristotle or about him.
August 25, 2024
Perfect for someone with no formal education in philosophy (like myself).
February 21, 2015
Starting in college, I tried to read Aristotle and found it hard going, to say the least. Every few years, thinking that maybe I was becoming more mature with age (hah!), I would pick the book up and try again. The only part of his writing that I got through without a problem was his writings on the various constitutions of the Greek city states, which was pretty much straight history. Anyway, I had already read one book by Mortimer Adler that was written with wonderful clarity about a difficult subject, so I gave it a try and I loved it. Finally, I have a feeling for what Aristotle was trying to do that had eluded me before. I may even open the original source and try again. Some people have complained that this book is written for a young audience. That may be true. But by writing it the way he did, he made it crystal clear. I, for one, did not feel as though he were talking down to me. I did always feel, however, that Mr. Adler was a very smart guy and someone very worth reading.
May 2, 2016
A great introduction to Aristotle. And I read it twice.
Clearly written, without resorting to the opaque and - the ideas are well structured and though it barely grazes Aristotle's breadth of work, it introduces some of his most important ideas on logic, ethics, and epistemology.
It is also very well structured, new chapters lead on from earlier chapters, answering questions that were raised and reinforcing ideas that were already introduced.
Clearly written, without resorting to the opaque and - the ideas are well structured and though it barely grazes Aristotle's breadth of work, it introduces some of his most important ideas on logic, ethics, and epistemology.
It is also very well structured, new chapters lead on from earlier chapters, answering questions that were raised and reinforcing ideas that were already introduced.
May 26, 2016
very simple and quick explanations for Aristotle's philosophy. It is not shallow though. The matters he is dealing with are all important from a philosophical point of view.
January 3, 2024
Huge Help
I am a graduate student taking a course on Ethics and Catholic Moral Theology. I read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle before reading this and was completely lost. This book was a huge help in understanding Aristotle’s writings. I actually would recommend this as a starting place if you are entering a course on Ethics.
I am a graduate student taking a course on Ethics and Catholic Moral Theology. I read Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle before reading this and was completely lost. This book was a huge help in understanding Aristotle’s writings. I actually would recommend this as a starting place if you are entering a course on Ethics.
August 27, 2024
The unplanned life is not worth examining.- Aristotle
April 3, 2021
5 stars overall:
5 stars for presentation of Aristotle's views;
5 stars for Aristotle's revolutionary philosophic views millennia ago;
10 stars for this philosophy compared to the garbage that passes for thinking today;
4 stars in terms of philosophical correctness, judged by the standard of what's known today (which was built on his shoulders)
5 stars for presentation of Aristotle's views;
5 stars for Aristotle's revolutionary philosophic views millennia ago;
10 stars for this philosophy compared to the garbage that passes for thinking today;
4 stars in terms of philosophical correctness, judged by the standard of what's known today (which was built on his shoulders)
November 19, 2020
This small book is a good first introduction to Aristotle and it is easily read. However, it requires some amount of attention on the reader’s part to understand the import of what Adler is talking about otherwise certain points can easily slip by.
Some of the early chapters can be frustrating because Aristotle gives the appearance that he can prove anything just by choosing his arguments to fit his observations which gives one the impression that his argument is circular. Aristotle can be forgiven because he developed a philosophy of common sense and it wasn’t until a more refined development of the scientific method that one tested the theory to determine if it explained observations other than the ones used to develop the theory.
The chapter "Logic's Little Words" is probably one of the more important in terms of terminology and it can provide the reader with a succinct introduction to syllogistic reasoning. Adler provides a clearer picture of what the laws of reasoning are and how to use them to one's profit.
The chapters discussing government are very interesting from the perspective of today’s political debates about the function and size of government. Aristotle’s view is that the institution of government is good because it is necessary to live a good life; a good government serves the good of the governed and governs by laws and a just constitution. Concerning rights, a good man does not want more freedom than he can use without causing injury to others.
Aristotle's theory of truth is the correspondence theory i.e. it either corresponds to the right desire as it relates to morality or corresponds to reality in terms of scientific explanation.
The final chapters dealing with difficult philosophical questions on infinity, mind, and God provide some insight into Aristotle’s thinking but leave you wanting more detail. Adler abides the reader with an epilogue that points the reader to specific sections of Aristotle’s works for additional study.
Some of the early chapters can be frustrating because Aristotle gives the appearance that he can prove anything just by choosing his arguments to fit his observations which gives one the impression that his argument is circular. Aristotle can be forgiven because he developed a philosophy of common sense and it wasn’t until a more refined development of the scientific method that one tested the theory to determine if it explained observations other than the ones used to develop the theory.
The chapter "Logic's Little Words" is probably one of the more important in terms of terminology and it can provide the reader with a succinct introduction to syllogistic reasoning. Adler provides a clearer picture of what the laws of reasoning are and how to use them to one's profit.
The chapters discussing government are very interesting from the perspective of today’s political debates about the function and size of government. Aristotle’s view is that the institution of government is good because it is necessary to live a good life; a good government serves the good of the governed and governs by laws and a just constitution. Concerning rights, a good man does not want more freedom than he can use without causing injury to others.
Aristotle's theory of truth is the correspondence theory i.e. it either corresponds to the right desire as it relates to morality or corresponds to reality in terms of scientific explanation.
The final chapters dealing with difficult philosophical questions on infinity, mind, and God provide some insight into Aristotle’s thinking but leave you wanting more detail. Adler abides the reader with an epilogue that points the reader to specific sections of Aristotle’s works for additional study.
September 22, 2012
This book establishes Aristotle's "uncommon common sense" as central to the thinking of our everyday lives in Western society--that is, society that has come out of the Greco-Roman and Judeo-Christian traditions. The early chapters seem to illustrate truths so elementary that it is strange to realize that there was a time that these notions were not regarded as common knowledge. The later chapters regarding Aristotle's logic and terminology were painful to me. I have studied symbolic logic and found it vastly easier to process when symbols were used and specific fallacies discussed. Despite my knowledge of symbolic logic and common fallacies, I found this section remarkably opaque. I think the writing and explanation suffered from the writer's choice to use just one pair of premises (all swans are black or all swans are not black) and contort them into every form and fallacy. The final section addressing immateriality, material, and the prime mover/God was better. Overall, I've read better explanations of Aristotle, but this may work for some people.
June 24, 2009
Mortimer J. Adler is a renowned philospher, but this slim paperback avoid the jargon and linguistic complexities that make modern philosophy too often turgid and self-involved. Instead, Adler just summarizes Aristotle's thought, and though at times it seems a little too simplistic, at book's end, the reader will have a clear and distinct impression of Aristotle's philosophy.
At the same time, the reader will begin to understand why Aristotle was so revered in medieval times: The range and depth of his work is simply amazing, and his thinking is both subtle and profound. ("On Politics," as a freestanding work, describes today's struggles between elites and the masses perfectly, despite being written 2,500 years ago.)
"Aristotle for Everybody" is a valuable, though slightly limited, book that outlines the ideas that shaped Western thought, and still underly much of how we think today. And it is indeed for everybody ...
At the same time, the reader will begin to understand why Aristotle was so revered in medieval times: The range and depth of his work is simply amazing, and his thinking is both subtle and profound. ("On Politics," as a freestanding work, describes today's struggles between elites and the masses perfectly, despite being written 2,500 years ago.)
"Aristotle for Everybody" is a valuable, though slightly limited, book that outlines the ideas that shaped Western thought, and still underly much of how we think today. And it is indeed for everybody ...
May 15, 2016
For everybody? Even a child can understand? No.
It seems ironic to me that many people seem to think this book is too simple to understand. I think it suffers from the opposite problem. If you are not interested in philosophy persé and just want to know about Aristotle because he seems to be one of the few philosophers that actually had anything practical and insightful to say then you will be disappointed with this book. It reads like a philosophy book: dull, complex and verbose, needlessly so. The whole reason that I bought this book is because I had hoped Adler had picked the interesting parts of Aristotle's philosophy and made it even more interesting. This is not the case! I might have been better off just reading the works of Aristotle himself.
Definitely not for everybody!
It seems ironic to me that many people seem to think this book is too simple to understand. I think it suffers from the opposite problem. If you are not interested in philosophy persé and just want to know about Aristotle because he seems to be one of the few philosophers that actually had anything practical and insightful to say then you will be disappointed with this book. It reads like a philosophy book: dull, complex and verbose, needlessly so. The whole reason that I bought this book is because I had hoped Adler had picked the interesting parts of Aristotle's philosophy and made it even more interesting. This is not the case! I might have been better off just reading the works of Aristotle himself.
Definitely not for everybody!
December 22, 2016
A good little book introducing Aristotelian thought. The major points are all clearly explained: Essentials and Accidents, Natural and Artificial, types of changes (quantity, quality, time, and being/nonbeing), the Four Causes, the notion of Eudemonia or Happiness as our teleological end; Ends and Means, three of the four cardinal virtues, man as a political animal, the ends of the state, how ideas are formed in our head and how that's different from sense perception, and the basics of logic.
I would recommend this to anyone. It was easy to read, easy to follow, and concerns a worthwhile subject. As Adler said, philosophy isn't about learning more things, but about having a better understanding of what you do know.
I would recommend this to anyone. It was easy to read, easy to follow, and concerns a worthwhile subject. As Adler said, philosophy isn't about learning more things, but about having a better understanding of what you do know.
July 26, 2008
After this book I remembered why I did not want to major in Philosophy.
March 29, 2013
Great book everybody should read, great views on Greek/classical morality and living a good life.
February 7, 2017
I figured Adler could explain Aristotle in an interesting way. I was wrong.
February 13, 2017
Easy to read and comprehend as Aristotle's original books are extremely difficult to understand. This is a great start when researching Aristotle's philosophies.
August 18, 2022
Adler says this book is for everybody but philosophers. The latter might complain he tweaks Aristotle to boost Christian “commonsense”.
November 11, 2016
I picked up this book, hoping for a guide to reading Aristotle myself. In that sense, Adler did help me by giving a summary of where A is going, to recall the big picture when I'm mired in his dense arguments. But I wish it spent more time on *why* it's worth reading A at all. Instead, Adler actually discourages you from reading A directly!
As other reviewers have also pointed out, this book is mostly
"Here are some conclusions Aristotle came to"
without much context. I came away unsure why he even asked some of these questions; why his conclusions were novel compared to his predecessors; or why they are still interesting today. A's conclusions about ethics and politics may be useful, and the ones about knowledge vs. opinion are interesting. But *why* should I care about his definitions of "the four causes," or his definitions of matter, form, actuality, potentiality?
I would have rather read
"Here is why Aristotle is still seen as important and influential today."
Historically, how did he influence those who came after?
Or I would have settled for "Here is how Aristotle approached problems and reached his conclusions, and how that's useful today."
There's a bit of the latter: (apart from starting with "common-sense" premises and never testing them empirically, hmm), it seems that A was big into (1) making up definitions and taxonomies, and (2) breaking down ideas/questions hierarchically into sub-problems. Of course these are still useful skills today, but reading this book isn't training in those skills.
Nonetheless, some interesting ideas did come up here. Actually a lot more than I expected. I must have been unlucky---starting with A's Physics was exactly the wrong place! I care enough about ethics and politics and epistemology to read and ponder and question A's thoughts on these matters. I just didn't care enough about the scope of *his physics* to engage much with the definitions, premises, or conclusions there.
Some notes-to-self:
* p.ix: "Why should everyone learn how to think philosophically---how to ask the kind of searching questions that children and philosophers ask and that philosophers sometimes answer? ... It is in another way that philosophy is useful---to help us to understand things we already know, understand them better than we now understand them. That is why I think everyone should learn how to think philosophically."
[That's Adler's whole justification for learning philosophy. No further exploration of what that means, how it's helpful, whether it's meant to be practical or fun or virtuous---that's all we get.]
* p.59-60: On science and tech-based knowledge of making things, vs common-sense know-how:
"Does Aristotle's uncommon common sense give us any useful know-how? Does philosophical thought---the understanding of natural processes that we have been considering in the preceding chapters---help us to produce things? No, it does not. Scientific knowledge can be applied productively... But the philosophical reflection or understanding that improves our common-sense grasp of the physical world in which we live gives us neither the skill nor the power to produce anything... Is philosophy totally useless, then, as compared with science? Yes, it is, if we confine ourselves to the use of knowledge or understanding for the sake of producing things. Philosophy bakes no cakes and builds no bridges. But... Knowledge and understanding can be used to direct our lives and manage our societies so that they are better rather than worse lives and better rather than worse societies... In that dimension of human life, philosophy is highly useful---more useful than science."
[I was hoping for a stronger defense of the preceding 60 pages than "Sure, it's useless, but the *next* section will be better!"]
* p.70-1: Apparently A writes, and Adler agrees, that we criticize older persons who devote "too much of their time and energies to playing and not enough to serious activities." Gee, what a buzzkill :) Yes, it's worthwhile to make yourself a plan for the good life, but isn't there some virtue in play itself (at least in moderation)? Are we using "play" differently and talking past each other?
* p.87-89, 95: How do you live the good life? First answer: You pursue happiness, for which you need several "real goods." Some are bodily goods: As animals, our bodies need health and vitality, and we ought to seek bodily pleasure and avoid bodily pain (within moderation). To achieve this, we also need external goods or wealth: food, shelter, sleep, etc. Finally, as humans and not just animals, we need psychological goods: knowledge, skill, socialization and love, mental pleasures like enjoyment of art, and (deserved) honor.
Second answer: In order to achieve these goods, you need "good habits of choice." You must practice habitually making good choices. Choose not to overindulge e.g. in overeating or oversleeping (virtue of temperance or moderation). Choose to suffer discomfort and do challenging things for a good cause e.g. studying difficult topics (virtue of courage).
OK, practical advice on virtue and ethics and perseverance. Now we're getting somewhere.
* p.97: But not all the "real goods" we need are purely up to the individual. Even if we have wisdom and virtue, we might be unlucky and lack the health & wealth we need. "Good luck is as necessary as good habits." Still, good habits are the thing we can control best, and they can make the best of a bad-luck situation.
How does this compare to the Stoics? Sounds a bit similar, except the Stoics seemed to focus on good habits above all, and essentially say you don't need good luck for a good life---just be a virtuous person in whatever circumstances befall you. However, A points out that "Even acquiring knowledge and skill or forming good habits of choice may depend on having helpful parents and teachers, which is beyond our own control." What did the Stoics have to say to that? Did they pass judgment on people unlucky enough to grow up with bad teachers; or merely on those who chose not to follow good teachings; or were they all about self-improvement and didn't judge others one way or the other?
* p.106-7: A's definition of justice raises interesting question. Justice means we have the right to expect others will not harm us; and a just state ought to protect us from such harm by others. But we don't necessarily have the right to be positively helped by others; nor does the state have an obligation to force people to help each other. But it's unclear where A draws that line: he also says the state can & should obligate individuals to work towards the welfare of our society as a whole. Plus, on p.115, the state can & should give citizens good external conditions---mitigate the effects of bad luck---so that if a person fails to live the good life, it's due to their personal choice and not to bad luck e.g. starting in poverty or having a disability.
So, if the state ought to provide such a safety net, and individuals *ought* to work towards a common welfare, yet we *shouldn't* be forced into helping others---does that mean A thought required taxes are or aren't just? Still a relevant question today. Also, for context: who paid for administering the state back in A's day?
* p.112: If liberty is a good, doesn't that make government bad, because its laws restrict liberty? According to A, that's not a problem in a *just* government, because a *good* person doesn't want more freedom than a just-gov't's laws allow; and a good person keeps the laws because they are just, not because of fear of punishment. So only a "bad" person wants more freedom than just-laws allow, and so restricting their freedom isn't a real restriction.
Maybe this answers my Q above about taxes: a good person in a just gov't will *want* to pay (the right amount of) taxes to support the common welfare.
That all sounds nice; but here in the real world, no gov't's laws are always perfectly just, even well-intended ones. What happens then? Shall a good person follow unjust laws (or pay taxes to fund unjust gov't actions), thus failing to live the good life by limiting their own liberty? Or shall a good person do what is just, even if it breaks the law, and thus fail to live the good life by weakening the gov't & rule of law? (Aristotle seems to count gov't in its own right among "goods," since the good life requires ways to enforce justice and ways to perform common decision-making.)
* p.112-3: Another lens is A's hierarchy of gov't types. Worst is tyrannical, serving the rulers and not the ruled. Better but still bad is despotic, which may serve the ruled but only by whim of the rulers, who rule by power & fear rather than by their subjects' freely-accepted authority. Best is constitutional or "political" gov't, based on laws that apply even to those who govern. Among these, it's best when those laws are just laws.
So again, when we're not in the ideal case, what is the better option? Civil disobedience to a bad state, undermining the rule of law? Or meek adherence to unjust laws, limiting our own freedom? Since A seems to claim both are necessary for the good life, and the good life is presented in black-and-white (either it's good or not) rather than in degrees, this is quite unclear. I am curious to read A directly on these matters.
* p.113: Unfortunately... Aristotle accepted his day's common-sense view that slaves, women, and others were innately inferior. So, such people are never fit to be ruled as free & equal citizens, only as inferiors at best. So much for "Let's base our ethical system purely on common-sense thinking and self-evident truths!" It leaves no scope for experiments such as "Hey, what if we stopped treating (and educating) women etc. as inferiors? Could they possibly grow into equals if we actually raised them equally?"
* p.124: More definitions of questionable utility (and questionable common-sense), now about matter vs. form. "In producing ideas, our minds take the forms out of things and turn them into ideas whereby we understand the nature of the things that have this or that form." Are these like Platonic forms? Sounds like it to my novice self, but wasn't that one of the main disagreements between Aristotle and Plato? Hmmm. Wikipedia says, "In examining Aristotle's criticism of The Forms, it is helpful to understand Aristotle's own hylomorphic forms, by which he intends to salvage much of Plato's theory." So maybe A didn't disagree outright, just wanted to refine it? Gah, this is all a hot mess.
* p.132: "illicit conversion" and other jargony names for logic mistakes. So is A the source of all those annoying people who name all your logical fallacies, instead of helping you figure out the truth together? Yes, I understand the value of logic and of getting it right... but I've never seen the point of naming all these fallacies. In my experience you just learn to notice such mistakes (because they're obvious or because you've seen them before), without needing a name for them. Naming them makes you come across as a prick who doesn't actually care about the issue at hand.
* p.133-4: "if-then" vs "since-therefore" --- OK, I agree it can be useful to distinguish between evaluating "if-then" (is this argument's logic sound?) and evaluating "since-therefore" (are the premises actually true?) Need both to say the conclusion is true.
Adler's examples: "If all swans are white, then it must follow that some swans are white." This logic is sound, whether or not any swans are white. However, "Since all swans are white, it therefore follows that some swans are white." The premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow (even though the logic is good, and the conclusion happens to be true.)
This distinction might help in some math/stats contexts I've had trouble explaining to others. I was trying to explain "if-then" logic, but they rejected the "since-therefore," and we were talking past each other.
Also reminds me of some, ahem, spirited discussion about the math/logic use of "a -> b" and how this implication is always considered true if a is false. As some commenters there point out, that really doesn't jive with common-sense examples. I guess "a -> b" is not a shorthand for "from a, you can deduce b," but more like a statement about the Venn-diagram of a and b: "a -> b" just means "(not a) or b." This is true if any points in region a are also in region b, but also true if there are no points in region a. I'm not sure why this shorthand developed. We call "->" implication, but if that metaphor held up, then when a is empty we should default to evaluating "a -> b" as Not Applicable instead of as True.
* p.141: A's epistemology sounds like what I've heard elsewhere for the Greeks. Not put in so many words, but seems to agree that knowledge is justified true belief. So he does distinguish "thinking truly" (you believe something, and it's true) from "knowing" (you believe it, and it's true, and it's justified) -- see p.151 note later, where "justified" means either it's a direct sense-perception, or self-evident, or a logical deduction from either of those.
Is this a reason why modern empirical science didn't take off in ancient Greece? If technical measurements (through a measuring device, telescope, mechanical gauge, etc) don't count as direct sense-perception (through own eyes/ears/etc), then no logical consequence of theirs counts as knowledge either. Did this concern ever actually come up? Or were such measuring-devices never developed at the time, and the issue was moot?
* p.142: "just as a *descriptive* statement is true if it agrees with or conforms to reality, so a *prescriptive* statement is true if it agrees with or conforms to right desire."
[Adler seems to imply that A's epistemology was self-interested. The motivation: trying to justify his advice on how to live the good life. If A wanted to claim "You *should* do this" and also say that his claim is *true*, then he had to define "should" and "true" appropriately.]
* p.144-6: "The more witnesses who agree on this point, the more probable it is. ... When we say that a statement is only probably true, we are not estimating the degree of its truth. We are assessing our own degree of assurance in claiming truth for it."
[As a statistician I wonder: is this just Adler talking, or did A discuss probability, in any sense close to what we mean nowadays? Almost sounds like he's trying to be both Frequentist (parameters i.e. truth-values are fixed, not random) and Bayesian (personal degree of assurance) at same time.]
* p.151-3: Defining "knowledge" strictly, A only counted "self-evident truths," or things derived by logical reasoning from them, along with some evidently-true direct perceptions of the senses. A few other things aren't *quite* knowledge, but count as well-established *tentative* knowledge (better than pure opinion) until they are overturned. These include conclusions from mathematical proof, scientific experiment, philosophical reflection, and historical research.
Distinction between science and philosophy: "The thinking that scientists do to reach these conclusions never by itself suffices. It is always thinking about the observations or findings of carefully planned and carefully executed research or investigation. In contrast, philosophical thought reaches conclusions based on common experience... They do not devise experiments or carry out investigations... It improves upon such common-sense opinions by being more reflective and analytical than most persons are."
[Maybe that explains why many philosophers of science seem to misunderstand science. They often take a Bayesian view in trying to quantify evidence: assuming we are given a fixed hypothesis and dataset, how probable is the hypothesis? But this totally ignores the choice of study design, which in some ways is more important (in convincing a scientist) than the actual data is.]
* p.167: "...we can perceive through our senses the individuality of this or that apple, but we cannot ... understand its individuality. Only kinds in general are understandable, not individuals."
As other reviewers have also pointed out, this book is mostly
"Here are some conclusions Aristotle came to"
without much context. I came away unsure why he even asked some of these questions; why his conclusions were novel compared to his predecessors; or why they are still interesting today. A's conclusions about ethics and politics may be useful, and the ones about knowledge vs. opinion are interesting. But *why* should I care about his definitions of "the four causes," or his definitions of matter, form, actuality, potentiality?
I would have rather read
"Here is why Aristotle is still seen as important and influential today."
Historically, how did he influence those who came after?
Or I would have settled for "Here is how Aristotle approached problems and reached his conclusions, and how that's useful today."
There's a bit of the latter: (apart from starting with "common-sense" premises and never testing them empirically, hmm), it seems that A was big into (1) making up definitions and taxonomies, and (2) breaking down ideas/questions hierarchically into sub-problems. Of course these are still useful skills today, but reading this book isn't training in those skills.
Nonetheless, some interesting ideas did come up here. Actually a lot more than I expected. I must have been unlucky---starting with A's Physics was exactly the wrong place! I care enough about ethics and politics and epistemology to read and ponder and question A's thoughts on these matters. I just didn't care enough about the scope of *his physics* to engage much with the definitions, premises, or conclusions there.
Some notes-to-self:
* p.ix: "Why should everyone learn how to think philosophically---how to ask the kind of searching questions that children and philosophers ask and that philosophers sometimes answer? ... It is in another way that philosophy is useful---to help us to understand things we already know, understand them better than we now understand them. That is why I think everyone should learn how to think philosophically."
[That's Adler's whole justification for learning philosophy. No further exploration of what that means, how it's helpful, whether it's meant to be practical or fun or virtuous---that's all we get.]
* p.59-60: On science and tech-based knowledge of making things, vs common-sense know-how:
"Does Aristotle's uncommon common sense give us any useful know-how? Does philosophical thought---the understanding of natural processes that we have been considering in the preceding chapters---help us to produce things? No, it does not. Scientific knowledge can be applied productively... But the philosophical reflection or understanding that improves our common-sense grasp of the physical world in which we live gives us neither the skill nor the power to produce anything... Is philosophy totally useless, then, as compared with science? Yes, it is, if we confine ourselves to the use of knowledge or understanding for the sake of producing things. Philosophy bakes no cakes and builds no bridges. But... Knowledge and understanding can be used to direct our lives and manage our societies so that they are better rather than worse lives and better rather than worse societies... In that dimension of human life, philosophy is highly useful---more useful than science."
[I was hoping for a stronger defense of the preceding 60 pages than "Sure, it's useless, but the *next* section will be better!"]
* p.70-1: Apparently A writes, and Adler agrees, that we criticize older persons who devote "too much of their time and energies to playing and not enough to serious activities." Gee, what a buzzkill :) Yes, it's worthwhile to make yourself a plan for the good life, but isn't there some virtue in play itself (at least in moderation)? Are we using "play" differently and talking past each other?
* p.87-89, 95: How do you live the good life? First answer: You pursue happiness, for which you need several "real goods." Some are bodily goods: As animals, our bodies need health and vitality, and we ought to seek bodily pleasure and avoid bodily pain (within moderation). To achieve this, we also need external goods or wealth: food, shelter, sleep, etc. Finally, as humans and not just animals, we need psychological goods: knowledge, skill, socialization and love, mental pleasures like enjoyment of art, and (deserved) honor.
Second answer: In order to achieve these goods, you need "good habits of choice." You must practice habitually making good choices. Choose not to overindulge e.g. in overeating or oversleeping (virtue of temperance or moderation). Choose to suffer discomfort and do challenging things for a good cause e.g. studying difficult topics (virtue of courage).
OK, practical advice on virtue and ethics and perseverance. Now we're getting somewhere.
* p.97: But not all the "real goods" we need are purely up to the individual. Even if we have wisdom and virtue, we might be unlucky and lack the health & wealth we need. "Good luck is as necessary as good habits." Still, good habits are the thing we can control best, and they can make the best of a bad-luck situation.
How does this compare to the Stoics? Sounds a bit similar, except the Stoics seemed to focus on good habits above all, and essentially say you don't need good luck for a good life---just be a virtuous person in whatever circumstances befall you. However, A points out that "Even acquiring knowledge and skill or forming good habits of choice may depend on having helpful parents and teachers, which is beyond our own control." What did the Stoics have to say to that? Did they pass judgment on people unlucky enough to grow up with bad teachers; or merely on those who chose not to follow good teachings; or were they all about self-improvement and didn't judge others one way or the other?
* p.106-7: A's definition of justice raises interesting question. Justice means we have the right to expect others will not harm us; and a just state ought to protect us from such harm by others. But we don't necessarily have the right to be positively helped by others; nor does the state have an obligation to force people to help each other. But it's unclear where A draws that line: he also says the state can & should obligate individuals to work towards the welfare of our society as a whole. Plus, on p.115, the state can & should give citizens good external conditions---mitigate the effects of bad luck---so that if a person fails to live the good life, it's due to their personal choice and not to bad luck e.g. starting in poverty or having a disability.
So, if the state ought to provide such a safety net, and individuals *ought* to work towards a common welfare, yet we *shouldn't* be forced into helping others---does that mean A thought required taxes are or aren't just? Still a relevant question today. Also, for context: who paid for administering the state back in A's day?
* p.112: If liberty is a good, doesn't that make government bad, because its laws restrict liberty? According to A, that's not a problem in a *just* government, because a *good* person doesn't want more freedom than a just-gov't's laws allow; and a good person keeps the laws because they are just, not because of fear of punishment. So only a "bad" person wants more freedom than just-laws allow, and so restricting their freedom isn't a real restriction.
Maybe this answers my Q above about taxes: a good person in a just gov't will *want* to pay (the right amount of) taxes to support the common welfare.
That all sounds nice; but here in the real world, no gov't's laws are always perfectly just, even well-intended ones. What happens then? Shall a good person follow unjust laws (or pay taxes to fund unjust gov't actions), thus failing to live the good life by limiting their own liberty? Or shall a good person do what is just, even if it breaks the law, and thus fail to live the good life by weakening the gov't & rule of law? (Aristotle seems to count gov't in its own right among "goods," since the good life requires ways to enforce justice and ways to perform common decision-making.)
* p.112-3: Another lens is A's hierarchy of gov't types. Worst is tyrannical, serving the rulers and not the ruled. Better but still bad is despotic, which may serve the ruled but only by whim of the rulers, who rule by power & fear rather than by their subjects' freely-accepted authority. Best is constitutional or "political" gov't, based on laws that apply even to those who govern. Among these, it's best when those laws are just laws.
So again, when we're not in the ideal case, what is the better option? Civil disobedience to a bad state, undermining the rule of law? Or meek adherence to unjust laws, limiting our own freedom? Since A seems to claim both are necessary for the good life, and the good life is presented in black-and-white (either it's good or not) rather than in degrees, this is quite unclear. I am curious to read A directly on these matters.
* p.113: Unfortunately... Aristotle accepted his day's common-sense view that slaves, women, and others were innately inferior. So, such people are never fit to be ruled as free & equal citizens, only as inferiors at best. So much for "Let's base our ethical system purely on common-sense thinking and self-evident truths!" It leaves no scope for experiments such as "Hey, what if we stopped treating (and educating) women etc. as inferiors? Could they possibly grow into equals if we actually raised them equally?"
* p.124: More definitions of questionable utility (and questionable common-sense), now about matter vs. form. "In producing ideas, our minds take the forms out of things and turn them into ideas whereby we understand the nature of the things that have this or that form." Are these like Platonic forms? Sounds like it to my novice self, but wasn't that one of the main disagreements between Aristotle and Plato? Hmmm. Wikipedia says, "In examining Aristotle's criticism of The Forms, it is helpful to understand Aristotle's own hylomorphic forms, by which he intends to salvage much of Plato's theory." So maybe A didn't disagree outright, just wanted to refine it? Gah, this is all a hot mess.
* p.132: "illicit conversion" and other jargony names for logic mistakes. So is A the source of all those annoying people who name all your logical fallacies, instead of helping you figure out the truth together? Yes, I understand the value of logic and of getting it right... but I've never seen the point of naming all these fallacies. In my experience you just learn to notice such mistakes (because they're obvious or because you've seen them before), without needing a name for them. Naming them makes you come across as a prick who doesn't actually care about the issue at hand.
* p.133-4: "if-then" vs "since-therefore" --- OK, I agree it can be useful to distinguish between evaluating "if-then" (is this argument's logic sound?) and evaluating "since-therefore" (are the premises actually true?) Need both to say the conclusion is true.
Adler's examples: "If all swans are white, then it must follow that some swans are white." This logic is sound, whether or not any swans are white. However, "Since all swans are white, it therefore follows that some swans are white." The premise is false, so the conclusion doesn't follow (even though the logic is good, and the conclusion happens to be true.)
This distinction might help in some math/stats contexts I've had trouble explaining to others. I was trying to explain "if-then" logic, but they rejected the "since-therefore," and we were talking past each other.
Also reminds me of some, ahem, spirited discussion about the math/logic use of "a -> b" and how this implication is always considered true if a is false. As some commenters there point out, that really doesn't jive with common-sense examples. I guess "a -> b" is not a shorthand for "from a, you can deduce b," but more like a statement about the Venn-diagram of a and b: "a -> b" just means "(not a) or b." This is true if any points in region a are also in region b, but also true if there are no points in region a. I'm not sure why this shorthand developed. We call "->" implication, but if that metaphor held up, then when a is empty we should default to evaluating "a -> b" as Not Applicable instead of as True.
* p.141: A's epistemology sounds like what I've heard elsewhere for the Greeks. Not put in so many words, but seems to agree that knowledge is justified true belief. So he does distinguish "thinking truly" (you believe something, and it's true) from "knowing" (you believe it, and it's true, and it's justified) -- see p.151 note later, where "justified" means either it's a direct sense-perception, or self-evident, or a logical deduction from either of those.
Is this a reason why modern empirical science didn't take off in ancient Greece? If technical measurements (through a measuring device, telescope, mechanical gauge, etc) don't count as direct sense-perception (through own eyes/ears/etc), then no logical consequence of theirs counts as knowledge either. Did this concern ever actually come up? Or were such measuring-devices never developed at the time, and the issue was moot?
* p.142: "just as a *descriptive* statement is true if it agrees with or conforms to reality, so a *prescriptive* statement is true if it agrees with or conforms to right desire."
[Adler seems to imply that A's epistemology was self-interested. The motivation: trying to justify his advice on how to live the good life. If A wanted to claim "You *should* do this" and also say that his claim is *true*, then he had to define "should" and "true" appropriately.]
* p.144-6: "The more witnesses who agree on this point, the more probable it is. ... When we say that a statement is only probably true, we are not estimating the degree of its truth. We are assessing our own degree of assurance in claiming truth for it."
[As a statistician I wonder: is this just Adler talking, or did A discuss probability, in any sense close to what we mean nowadays? Almost sounds like he's trying to be both Frequentist (parameters i.e. truth-values are fixed, not random) and Bayesian (personal degree of assurance) at same time.]
* p.151-3: Defining "knowledge" strictly, A only counted "self-evident truths," or things derived by logical reasoning from them, along with some evidently-true direct perceptions of the senses. A few other things aren't *quite* knowledge, but count as well-established *tentative* knowledge (better than pure opinion) until they are overturned. These include conclusions from mathematical proof, scientific experiment, philosophical reflection, and historical research.
Distinction between science and philosophy: "The thinking that scientists do to reach these conclusions never by itself suffices. It is always thinking about the observations or findings of carefully planned and carefully executed research or investigation. In contrast, philosophical thought reaches conclusions based on common experience... They do not devise experiments or carry out investigations... It improves upon such common-sense opinions by being more reflective and analytical than most persons are."
[Maybe that explains why many philosophers of science seem to misunderstand science. They often take a Bayesian view in trying to quantify evidence: assuming we are given a fixed hypothesis and dataset, how probable is the hypothesis? But this totally ignores the choice of study design, which in some ways is more important (in convincing a scientist) than the actual data is.]
* p.167: "...we can perceive through our senses the individuality of this or that apple, but we cannot ... understand its individuality. Only kinds in general are understandable, not individuals."
Displaying 1 - 30 of 222 reviews