What do you think?
Rate this book
Aristotle: The Desire to Understand
This is a philosophical introduction to Aristotle, and Professor Lear starts where Aristotle himself started. He introduces us to the essence of Aristotle's philosophy and guides us through all the central Aristotelian texts--selected from the Physics, Metaphysics, Ethics, Politics and the biological and logical works. The book is written in a direct, lucid style that engages the reader with the themes in an active and participatory manner. It will prove a stimulating introduction for all students of Greek philosophy and for a wide range of others interested in Aristotle as a giant figure in Western intellectual history.
342 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
35 people are currently reading
845 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Lear
46 books72 followersJonathan Lear is an American philosopher and psychoanalyst. He is the John U. Nef Distinguished Service Professor in the Committee on Social Thought at the University of Chicago and served as the Roman Family Director of the Neubauer Collegium for Culture and Society from 2014 to 2022.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews
February 5, 2013
I can hardly praise this book too highly. It’s truly exceptional. A few years ago, after reading many of Plato’s dialogues, I decided to try tackling Aristotle and got the Modern Library Basic Works. But where to start? With Plato it’s fairly easy – early, then middle, then late dialogues, and beginning with those centered on Socrates’ death. And Plato’s a literary great – his art draws you into his philosophy. Aristotle’s a far harder case: his extant works are probably lecture notes, famously dry. And there’s no obvious point of entry or sequence of study. But concepts that are spread throughout his work are integral to an understanding of the parts and the whole.
I was at a loss until I found Lear’s book. He’s clearly spent many years contemplating Aristotle’s thought, with the result being breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding, fortuitously combined with lucidity in explication and an inspired choice of the sequence of topics. Then he adds invaluably to this by making reading suggestions at each chapter and most subheads. I followed these suggestions, so it took a while to get through the book – getting through hundreds of pages of Aristotle in the process – but Lear shines all the more when taking that approach. I highly recommend it.
This will necessarily be overly simple, but I’ll give a sense of the book’s content and flow. It starts with Aristotle’s view of man as the rational animal, having a desire to understand - the product (and reflection, more or less) of an intelligible cosmos. So this desire is integral to the nature of the cosmos. Lear very clearly explains Aristotle’s complex and nuanced causality – something pretty foreign to the modern mind but important throughout Aristotle’s thought, as is his affinity for the mean and for finding solutions through the middle of conundrums. Lear takes us through fundamental Aristotelian concepts from his Physics – the nature and structure of the physical cosmos and of time and change (critical issues in Pre-Socratic philosophy), of life (from the biological works) and the soul and mind. Then ethics and the good life (primarily from the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics), leading through the logical works (a great achievement) to the heart of the Metaphysics.
It gets dense here, but Lear’s paved the way brilliantly. This last part revolves around substance and essence; Aristotle’s God, his activity and relationship to the cosmos; the concept that all things “desire” God, however unconsciously, and are most fully actualized in pursuing this desire; and that man is most fully actualized, paradoxically, by transcending his nature (as a political and social, i.e. ethical, animal) and becoming the most God-like he can be through the contemplative life. Lear points out that some of this is conjecture on his part and varies from some common traditional understandings of the Metaphysics.
There’s much in Aristotle’s conception of God I don’t accept, and I have problems with aspects of his conceptions of the good life and the best life, along with some other things in his thought. But studying Aristotle has been richly rewarding and has given me concepts and perspectives I hadn’t even conceived of before (as with Plato). I don’t know how I would have approached Aristotle or processed much of it without Lear’s help. Perhaps the book weakens slightly at the end as Lear seems to want to tidily wrap up Aristotle’s philosophy as a self-consistent, reasonable and fairly comprehensive whole. Perhaps. But that’s a minor quibble and maybe not even a fair or accurate one. I’d have to study Aristotle longer and more deeply to better judge that. Regardless, if you’re looking for a guide to Aristotle’s philosophy, Lear’s outstanding and I imagine you could hardly find a better one than him.
I was at a loss until I found Lear’s book. He’s clearly spent many years contemplating Aristotle’s thought, with the result being breadth and depth of knowledge and understanding, fortuitously combined with lucidity in explication and an inspired choice of the sequence of topics. Then he adds invaluably to this by making reading suggestions at each chapter and most subheads. I followed these suggestions, so it took a while to get through the book – getting through hundreds of pages of Aristotle in the process – but Lear shines all the more when taking that approach. I highly recommend it.
This will necessarily be overly simple, but I’ll give a sense of the book’s content and flow. It starts with Aristotle’s view of man as the rational animal, having a desire to understand - the product (and reflection, more or less) of an intelligible cosmos. So this desire is integral to the nature of the cosmos. Lear very clearly explains Aristotle’s complex and nuanced causality – something pretty foreign to the modern mind but important throughout Aristotle’s thought, as is his affinity for the mean and for finding solutions through the middle of conundrums. Lear takes us through fundamental Aristotelian concepts from his Physics – the nature and structure of the physical cosmos and of time and change (critical issues in Pre-Socratic philosophy), of life (from the biological works) and the soul and mind. Then ethics and the good life (primarily from the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics), leading through the logical works (a great achievement) to the heart of the Metaphysics.
It gets dense here, but Lear’s paved the way brilliantly. This last part revolves around substance and essence; Aristotle’s God, his activity and relationship to the cosmos; the concept that all things “desire” God, however unconsciously, and are most fully actualized in pursuing this desire; and that man is most fully actualized, paradoxically, by transcending his nature (as a political and social, i.e. ethical, animal) and becoming the most God-like he can be through the contemplative life. Lear points out that some of this is conjecture on his part and varies from some common traditional understandings of the Metaphysics.
There’s much in Aristotle’s conception of God I don’t accept, and I have problems with aspects of his conceptions of the good life and the best life, along with some other things in his thought. But studying Aristotle has been richly rewarding and has given me concepts and perspectives I hadn’t even conceived of before (as with Plato). I don’t know how I would have approached Aristotle or processed much of it without Lear’s help. Perhaps the book weakens slightly at the end as Lear seems to want to tidily wrap up Aristotle’s philosophy as a self-consistent, reasonable and fairly comprehensive whole. Perhaps. But that’s a minor quibble and maybe not even a fair or accurate one. I’d have to study Aristotle longer and more deeply to better judge that. Regardless, if you’re looking for a guide to Aristotle’s philosophy, Lear’s outstanding and I imagine you could hardly find a better one than him.
May 31, 2014
This book is, quite honestly, the best introduction to Aristotle's philosophical thought that I have ever read. Jonathan Lear takes the reader on a philosophical journey from Aristotle's Physics to the conclusion of the Metaphysics. He seeks to help the reader to understand Aristotle's philosophical inquiries, and to understand the wonderful truth and coherence of Aristotle's system. In so doing he takes the time to point out difficulties in Aristotle's thought (and how they can, or have been, resolved), as well as how modern philosophers (such as Kant and Hegel) have interacted with Aristotle's thought. Every student of philosophy should read this book! This is not to say that I agree with everything the author says, but that this is one of those rare books that is worth reading numerous times (regardless of whether you agree with it or not.) because it forces the reader to think philosophically. Furthermore, if you are able to coherently disagree with what the author says (and defend your disagreement), then you have truly entered into the world of philosophical thought.
April 5, 2022
After reading Grayling’s “History of Philosophy” a few months ago, I decided that investing the time and effort to do a dive into “serious philosophy” made sense. So I decided to begin with this book, a general analysis of Aristotle’s philosophical outlook.
In my younger years I had read a few dialogues by Plato (his Apology, Crito, Syposium and Republic, which I only understood the very surface of - if that), Nietzsche’s Zarathustra (which I understood none of), and some more accessible “practical philosophy” (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and so on). So, essentially, this was my first serious attempts where I was committed to do my best to actually understand what I was reading.
So this book was much harder than I expected. For the most part, it was a struggle for me. There were a lot of very interesting parts, but the effort required for me to mentally access them was extremely high, making the entire endeavor rather unpleasant. Now, I made an honest effort, studying all cited excerpts from the original texts (both from translations but also from the Ancient Greek originals - this also required a fair amount of looking into the etymology of words and so on). All in all, it took me 51 days of fairly disciplined effort to complete (where studying this book was my number one priority).
Though working my way through the book was a struggle, I think I did manage to get a grasp on most parts. This required a type of abstract thought of a degree which I think I’ve never really engaged in before (abstracting on top of a previous abstraction, kind of like the “dream within a dream” from the movie “Inception”). It seems to me that this required absolute focus (in order to maintain all abstract objects and their relationships in thought, and then proceed to process/manipulate them), which I had real trouble with. Also, at points in time, it just felt like banging my head against a wall, because I just couldn’t make sense out of the text I was reading. I did gradually make my way through the book, though. And some parts (like Aristotle’s ethical philosophy) were more easily accessible than others (like his metaphysics).
Near the very end of the book, there is a 20-page chapter on the seventh book of Metaphysics. Here the author notes:
“Metaphysics VII represents Aristotle's mature thoughts on substance, yet understanding what he says there is extraordinarily difficult.”
“Because Metaphysics VII is so difficult, there are very different views as to what Aristotle's argument is. A definitive interpretation will, I am sure, be the size of a small encyclopedia. That being said, I do not intend to present any of the alternative interpretations; nor do I even intend to present an interpretation of all the difficult passages. I am writing for someone who is reading Metaphysics vn for the first or the second or the third time. The reader should not expect to understand everything that is said there.”
“Please do not feel that you have to make a visit. This is a very technical book of the Metaphysics and, though I shall try to present the central ideas as clearly and simply as possible, the discussion cannot fail to be a bit technical without also failing to be about Metaphysics VII. For those who do not wish to work through the arguments, read the first and last paragraphs of this section and then skip to the next section...”
I decided to resist the temptation to skip the chapter altogether. It was after spending several days trying make sense of it that I felt things finally started to click. It was here, and in the few remaining pages after it, that I finally managed to find some flow into my reading; were it felt like I could start to get a better glimpse of how the ideas fit together. It feels like some sort of very vivid (childlike in intensity) imaginative space were abstract concepts seem to acquire some kind of substantive existence - almost like a visual/geometrical representation - were they can be controlled, manipulated and combined in a certain sense. I‘d say the feeling during and immediately after such a reading session was strangely pleasant and somewhat similar to what I sometimes experience during and immediately after very good meditation sessions. After having achieved this “insight”, reading through a few chapters from earlier in the book I experienced them quite differently (and with much greater clarity). I had gotten really close to finishing the book without having this experience (and without even knowing it was there to be had), so I am very glad to have experienced it before finishing the book (“in the nick of time”, so to speak).
In addition to the above, I think that spending the last 51 days with Aristotle (including his original Greek texts) may have noticeably influenced how I organize and articulate my thoughts. Aristotle’s language is very particular and he has a very distinct logical composition to his sentences that is hard not to be influenced by.
All in all, this book was an experience for me (one that you feel a bit of a different person for having gone through). For the most part it was a hard and rather unpleasant struggle, but with a substantially redeeming moment near the very end. I do wonder this, though: is it possible that this same content could have been described in an easier-to-understand way (without sacrificing any of its richness of meaning), or does this really have to be this inaccessible? I’m honestly not sure that it couldn’t (but neither can I be certain that it could).
Would I recommend this book? I think wouldn’t want to take that responsibility; this is something for you to decide for yourself.
In my younger years I had read a few dialogues by Plato (his Apology, Crito, Syposium and Republic, which I only understood the very surface of - if that), Nietzsche’s Zarathustra (which I understood none of), and some more accessible “practical philosophy” (Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and so on). So, essentially, this was my first serious attempts where I was committed to do my best to actually understand what I was reading.
So this book was much harder than I expected. For the most part, it was a struggle for me. There were a lot of very interesting parts, but the effort required for me to mentally access them was extremely high, making the entire endeavor rather unpleasant. Now, I made an honest effort, studying all cited excerpts from the original texts (both from translations but also from the Ancient Greek originals - this also required a fair amount of looking into the etymology of words and so on). All in all, it took me 51 days of fairly disciplined effort to complete (where studying this book was my number one priority).
Though working my way through the book was a struggle, I think I did manage to get a grasp on most parts. This required a type of abstract thought of a degree which I think I’ve never really engaged in before (abstracting on top of a previous abstraction, kind of like the “dream within a dream” from the movie “Inception”). It seems to me that this required absolute focus (in order to maintain all abstract objects and their relationships in thought, and then proceed to process/manipulate them), which I had real trouble with. Also, at points in time, it just felt like banging my head against a wall, because I just couldn’t make sense out of the text I was reading. I did gradually make my way through the book, though. And some parts (like Aristotle’s ethical philosophy) were more easily accessible than others (like his metaphysics).
Near the very end of the book, there is a 20-page chapter on the seventh book of Metaphysics. Here the author notes:
“Metaphysics VII represents Aristotle's mature thoughts on substance, yet understanding what he says there is extraordinarily difficult.”
“Because Metaphysics VII is so difficult, there are very different views as to what Aristotle's argument is. A definitive interpretation will, I am sure, be the size of a small encyclopedia. That being said, I do not intend to present any of the alternative interpretations; nor do I even intend to present an interpretation of all the difficult passages. I am writing for someone who is reading Metaphysics vn for the first or the second or the third time. The reader should not expect to understand everything that is said there.”
“Please do not feel that you have to make a visit. This is a very technical book of the Metaphysics and, though I shall try to present the central ideas as clearly and simply as possible, the discussion cannot fail to be a bit technical without also failing to be about Metaphysics VII. For those who do not wish to work through the arguments, read the first and last paragraphs of this section and then skip to the next section...”
I decided to resist the temptation to skip the chapter altogether. It was after spending several days trying make sense of it that I felt things finally started to click. It was here, and in the few remaining pages after it, that I finally managed to find some flow into my reading; were it felt like I could start to get a better glimpse of how the ideas fit together. It feels like some sort of very vivid (childlike in intensity) imaginative space were abstract concepts seem to acquire some kind of substantive existence - almost like a visual/geometrical representation - were they can be controlled, manipulated and combined in a certain sense. I‘d say the feeling during and immediately after such a reading session was strangely pleasant and somewhat similar to what I sometimes experience during and immediately after very good meditation sessions. After having achieved this “insight”, reading through a few chapters from earlier in the book I experienced them quite differently (and with much greater clarity). I had gotten really close to finishing the book without having this experience (and without even knowing it was there to be had), so I am very glad to have experienced it before finishing the book (“in the nick of time”, so to speak).
In addition to the above, I think that spending the last 51 days with Aristotle (including his original Greek texts) may have noticeably influenced how I organize and articulate my thoughts. Aristotle’s language is very particular and he has a very distinct logical composition to his sentences that is hard not to be influenced by.
All in all, this book was an experience for me (one that you feel a bit of a different person for having gone through). For the most part it was a hard and rather unpleasant struggle, but with a substantially redeeming moment near the very end. I do wonder this, though: is it possible that this same content could have been described in an easier-to-understand way (without sacrificing any of its richness of meaning), or does this really have to be this inaccessible? I’m honestly not sure that it couldn’t (but neither can I be certain that it could).
Would I recommend this book? I think wouldn’t want to take that responsibility; this is something for you to decide for yourself.
May 17, 2024
This was so very painful but enlightening.
I am now free of this book, just as man becomes free of his human form in his contemplation of substance and as does god in his contemplation man takes on the essence of the divine. I will transcend this book just as man transcends his nature in the true fulfilment of his nature. Finally I will become alienated from this text just as man is in a sense alienated from his nature when he most fulfills that nature.
I am now free of this book, just as man becomes free of his human form in his contemplation of substance and as does god in his contemplation man takes on the essence of the divine. I will transcend this book just as man transcends his nature in the true fulfilment of his nature. Finally I will become alienated from this text just as man is in a sense alienated from his nature when he most fulfills that nature.
August 12, 2015
Aristotle 100%, No BS!
February 6, 2024
Bu kitabı fiziksel olarak ikiye bölün. Eğer 412 sayfalık Türkçe tercümesi elinizdeyse, ortası, tam olarak 206ıncı sayfaya denk geliyor. Aristoteles'i bildim demek için bu ilk yarısını muhakkak okumalısınız. İkinci yarısı isteğe bağlı olarak terk edilebilir. Yazarın bir çok yerde "Aman kitabımın hepsini okuyun, Aristoteles'in tüm felsefesini bilmelisiniz yoksa anlama arzusunun ne olduğunu kavrayamazsınız" dediğine bakmayın. Kalan bölümleri görmeseniz dahi anlama arzusunun ne olduğunu pek de güzel kavrayabilirsiniz.
Aristoteles'in epistemolojisine ve doğa felsefesine hayran kalmamak elde değil. Kendisini hala sevmiyorum, çoğu düşüncesine de katılmıyorum. Ama biçimler teorisi ne güzel kurgulanmış! Yazara da bir pay ayıralım, filozofla bütünleşmiş gibi son derece akıcı bir üslubu var. Dil kullanımı açısından anlayamadığım kısımlar yalnızca Aristoteles'in metafizik, mantık, etik, siyaset gibi sıkıcı -çoğunlukla da boş olan- tahlilleriyle ilgili olan bölümleriydi.
Metafiziğe "boş" dememe kızmayın. Metafizik'in, veya İlk Felsefe'nin, niçin çalışmadığını görmek mi istiyorsunuz? 6.3 numaralı "Varlık Olması Bakımından Varlığın Bilimi" bölümüne gidin. Şunu benim için cevaplayın: Biçimler teorisi şurada dururken İlk Felsefe ne yapacak?
Aristoteles'in epistemolojisine ve doğa felsefesine hayran kalmamak elde değil. Kendisini hala sevmiyorum, çoğu düşüncesine de katılmıyorum. Ama biçimler teorisi ne güzel kurgulanmış! Yazara da bir pay ayıralım, filozofla bütünleşmiş gibi son derece akıcı bir üslubu var. Dil kullanımı açısından anlayamadığım kısımlar yalnızca Aristoteles'in metafizik, mantık, etik, siyaset gibi sıkıcı -çoğunlukla da boş olan- tahlilleriyle ilgili olan bölümleriydi.
Metafiziğe "boş" dememe kızmayın. Metafizik'in, veya İlk Felsefe'nin, niçin çalışmadığını görmek mi istiyorsunuz? 6.3 numaralı "Varlık Olması Bakımından Varlığın Bilimi" bölümüne gidin. Şunu benim için cevaplayın: Biçimler teorisi şurada dururken İlk Felsefe ne yapacak?
Read
January 18, 2020Člověk je jediným tvorem na zemi, jehož život nabízí příležitost k metafyzickému zdaru.
November 3, 2010
This was a fantastic friend to have with me throughout my readings of Aristotle thus far in life. I particularly like the recommended readings before each section, as well as Lear's helpful but not overwhelming examination of interpretations that differ from his own.
His general approach is to have us as readers imitate Aristotle's intellectual journey, and so come to see the world from a new viewpoint. This is of immense value in itself, to clarify our own beliefs and how we arrived at (or assumed) them, and it is also of enormous value if one plans to continue reading later philosophy.
I have often heard it said that philosophy spins one around; one never finds answers, only more questions. But thus far it has been the opposite. Although I find that my culturally inherited materialism feels much shakier than it did prior to studying Aristotle, my mind in general is clearer: I have a greater sense of what I truly know and what I am dogmatic about, and I am left excited to venture forward through intellectual history to continue this process of clarification.
His general approach is to have us as readers imitate Aristotle's intellectual journey, and so come to see the world from a new viewpoint. This is of immense value in itself, to clarify our own beliefs and how we arrived at (or assumed) them, and it is also of enormous value if one plans to continue reading later philosophy.
I have often heard it said that philosophy spins one around; one never finds answers, only more questions. But thus far it has been the opposite. Although I find that my culturally inherited materialism feels much shakier than it did prior to studying Aristotle, my mind in general is clearer: I have a greater sense of what I truly know and what I am dogmatic about, and I am left excited to venture forward through intellectual history to continue this process of clarification.
January 18, 2011
A very good book about Aristotle, maybe not as an introduction, but if you know a bit about him this is a wonderful read.
The last paragraph says it all: "It is man's natural desire to understand that propels him forward through a life of inquiry and experience until he is able to realize what he truly is. It is his natural desire that propels him to transcend his nature. And yet there is a trace of humanity which even remains in this divine life: it can only be lived for a short period. Death even overtakes the philosopher. But, while it lasts, the life of the mind is god-like. Aristotle, no doubt, thought that he had lived such a life."
The last paragraph says it all: "It is man's natural desire to understand that propels him forward through a life of inquiry and experience until he is able to realize what he truly is. It is his natural desire that propels him to transcend his nature. And yet there is a trace of humanity which even remains in this divine life: it can only be lived for a short period. Death even overtakes the philosopher. But, while it lasts, the life of the mind is god-like. Aristotle, no doubt, thought that he had lived such a life."
July 5, 2021
For me, it is an exciting book to explore. I love the way Lear explained Aristotle's opinion about human, nature, logic, and man's desire to understand. Aristotle indeed not a perfect person, and the writer described it honestly. Even he compared him to another philosophers. Without reading Metaphysic, Aristotle ultimate book, we could dive into his mind and I could say that he is one of the most rational philosopher.
July 25, 2020
Easily the best introduction to Aristotle for someone (like me a few years ago) thinking of wading into the thoughts of perhaps the most important figure in all western philosophy, but with no idea where to begin.
October 22, 2016
The best introduction to Aristotle. Comprehensive, rigorous, excellent writing.
Read
August 4, 2022Lear is helping me with my desire to understand Aristotle. He delivers the concept clearly and he's clearly saving my undergraduate philosophy career!
Read
September 29, 2025El trabajo de Jonathan Lear en este libro es, sin dudas, excepcional. Es admirable encontrar a autores con genuina pasión sobre su objeto de estudio y con una capacidad genial de articulación de conceptos complejos; otorgar sentido a un corpus tan vasto, hondo en contenido y elevado en complejidad; hilar en un nexo coherente y, a mi parecer, revolucionario, en las interpretaciones al uso de un autor tan fascinante como Aristóteles es digno de una mente que en su actividad, roza la divinidad. Lamentablemente, hace exactamente siete días que el profesor Lear abandonó el plano material y se elevó al de la pura forma. Ojalá su trabajo siga siendo motor de nuestra curiosidad y ayude a muchos otros que, como yo mismo, buscan satisfacer ese insaciable deseo por comprender.
"It is man's natural desire to understand that propels him forward through a life of inquiry and experience until he is able to realize what he truly is. It is this natural desire that propels him to transcend his nature. And yet there is a trace of humanity which remains even in this divine life: it can only be lived for a short period. Death overtakes even the philosopher. But, while it lasts, the life of the mind is god-like."
D.E.P., Jonathan Lear, 22/09/25
"It is man's natural desire to understand that propels him forward through a life of inquiry and experience until he is able to realize what he truly is. It is this natural desire that propels him to transcend his nature. And yet there is a trace of humanity which remains even in this divine life: it can only be lived for a short period. Death overtakes even the philosopher. But, while it lasts, the life of the mind is god-like."
D.E.P., Jonathan Lear, 22/09/25
June 2, 2025
A very dense introduction to the concepts of Aristotle’s teachings bringing together some of his most famous ideas and an analysis of them. I would say this is a good place to start for any ‘laymen’ who want to read Aristotle
unfinished
February 20, 2020(read: introduction + chapter on ethics)
September 2, 2021
excellent
August 23, 2024
Taught me how to be a philosophy student: Read the recommended Aristotle sections, take notes, compare with Lear, repeat.
September 11, 2024
Very pithy. Understandable in some ways; but only for those at the very least mildly acquainted w/ Aristotle's philosophy. Requires extensive note-taking and tense wrapping-one's-head-around.
December 16, 2023
Sadly I only understood about 30% of this book at most, therefore I feel I can only give a 3/5 rating. This was mostly interesting to read however I found it very difficult to read. I must have picked up this book at least 100 separate times from start to finish.
December 29, 2022
Jonathan Lear's book on Aristotle is a synoptic and superb treatment of this philosopher's systematic insights into nature, man's place in nature, and his development of the tools for organizing these insights. Unlike W.D. Ross's Aristotle, which has similar ambitions to Lear's, but stays very close to Aristotle's texts, consisting mostly of (accurate and helpful) summary, Lear's book embodies orginal and striking interpretations. His account of the teaching of Metaphysics is noteworthy for its novel account.
Reading through this wonderfully written work also gives one an excellent introduction to philosophy, and the way philosophy is practiced by genuine philosophers.
Reading through this wonderfully written work also gives one an excellent introduction to philosophy, and the way philosophy is practiced by genuine philosophers.
July 8, 2013
I found this book unnecessarily dense and, as a result, thoroughly unenjoyable. This is the primary reason for my low rating, but the book does act as a fairly comprehensive introduction to Aristotelian philosophy. Personally I'd prefer to read the first-hand texts, but it was Lear's work that was on my syllabus.
Writing style notwithstanding, the content of thought is excellent and exemplifies wonderfully the true genius of Aristotle who, despite his exceptional renown, perhaps nevertheless remains the world's most underrated philosopher.
Writing style notwithstanding, the content of thought is excellent and exemplifies wonderfully the true genius of Aristotle who, despite his exceptional renown, perhaps nevertheless remains the world's most underrated philosopher.
December 5, 2025
It's a good read lead to more understanding of Aristotle.
Currently reading
April 26, 2019There is no escaping from Aristotle. If you believe that human history signifies something more than various kings and armies cutting each other's throats in various battlefields, and the real meaning of this history lies in the progressive unveiling of the universe to the human mind, than you have to understand Aristotle, whose interpretation of the existence surrounding us dominated even the most brilliant of the human minds for centuries.. And, in some very deep sense, we are still following the course Aristotle charted for us...
The problem with Aristotle is, he is notoriously difficult to understand. Hence, most books written about him tend to oversimplify. They lovingly delve into his ethics and politics, while avoiding to touch his logical works, physics and metaphysics. Here, Lear's book separates its way from the pack. Lear tries to give a complete view of Aristotle. Hence his book is a torture to read.. But, after finishing it, one can be certain that he knows what Aristotle is all about..
A forewarning: Very frequently, it is not clear what Aristotle says.. Hence, in Arsitotelian corpus, there are lenghty passages with no immediately obvious meaning. In such places, every scholar has his own interpretation, and these interpretations always contradict with each other. Lear is no exception. Many sections in Lear's book is nothing but Lear's interpretation of Aristotle. To his credit, Lear never neglects to notify us when there are other interpretations of the topics he discusses.
As I have mentioned, this is a very difficult book. My copy is 20+ years old, and this is my third reading of it..
The problem with Aristotle is, he is notoriously difficult to understand. Hence, most books written about him tend to oversimplify. They lovingly delve into his ethics and politics, while avoiding to touch his logical works, physics and metaphysics. Here, Lear's book separates its way from the pack. Lear tries to give a complete view of Aristotle. Hence his book is a torture to read.. But, after finishing it, one can be certain that he knows what Aristotle is all about..
A forewarning: Very frequently, it is not clear what Aristotle says.. Hence, in Arsitotelian corpus, there are lenghty passages with no immediately obvious meaning. In such places, every scholar has his own interpretation, and these interpretations always contradict with each other. Lear is no exception. Many sections in Lear's book is nothing but Lear's interpretation of Aristotle. To his credit, Lear never neglects to notify us when there are other interpretations of the topics he discusses.
As I have mentioned, this is a very difficult book. My copy is 20+ years old, and this is my third reading of it..
Displaying 1 - 24 of 24 reviews