What do you think?
Rate this book
Poética. Magna Moralia
Aristóteles valora mucho más la poesía que su maestro Platón (quien la proscribía en su Estado ideal), aunque coincide con él al considerarla un arte imitativo o representativo (mimesis), opuesto no a la imaginación sino a lo puramente fantástico o imposible, y concede gran importancia a su efecto sobre las emociones. Aristóteles subraya el valor psicológico y moral del arte, desembarazado de prescripciones al artista, y crea algunos conceptos cuya importancia perdura hoy: la piedad o compasión y el temor como efectos emocionales de la tragedia, la catarsis que desencadena la contemplación de las grandes acciones dramáticas. Distingue varios elementos constituyentes de la tragedia (trama o argumento, imitación del personaje o caracterización, expresión verbal, espectáculo, canto), los examina en todas sus posibilidades y expone con maestría como se combinan y enhebran para producir una intensa experiencia estética y moral.
Por su parte, Magna Moralia es un tratado de ética de autoría incierta, que trata cuestiones como la esencia de la virtud y los fundamentos de la felicidad humana. En este sentido, y aunque en un registro menor, es complementaria de la Ética nicomáquea
Por su parte, Magna Moralia es un tratado de ética de autoría incierta, que trata cuestiones como la esencia de la virtud y los fundamentos de la felicidad humana. En este sentido, y aunque en un registro menor, es complementaria de la Ética nicomáquea
- GenresPhilosophy
240 pages, Hardcover
Published January 30, 2020
12 people are currently reading
30 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,349 books5,570 followersAristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
June 11, 2019
My 2017 reading from the Great Philosophers series from Gazeta Wyborcza. I've also read:
* 2015: Seneca's Moral letters to Lucilius
* 2016: Aristotle's Protrepticus and Physics
* 2018: Plato's Symposium, Statesman, Sophist, and Euthyphro
* 2019: Plato's Republic
~~~
Great Ethics -- Etyka wielka
Aristole's "Magna Moralia" or "Great Ethics." Apparently it might not be by Aristotle at all, but a compendium by some later writer. And indeed, as I found with the Physics, this often feels like some student's scribed lecture notes: Here's what the professor thought was important, but not necessarily a good sense of *why*...
As Adler says, "Aristotle is the common-sense philosopher." Both here and in the Physics, Aristotle's tactic seems to be: Start with common sense; build a system of categories and definitions around it; and make conclusions that... are already common sense. What is the point? His ethical theory here, or physical theories there, almost never lead to any pragmatic guidance beyond what he already started with.
Much later, during the Scientific Revolution, people started coming up with systematizations that actually taught you something *new* about the world. Take common-sense observations about things falling down; mash them up with calculus and physics; and boom, now you have the ability to calculate ballistic trajectories and a better way to aim your cannons than trial-and-error or common sense.
But Aristotle's work has common sense as both the input *and* the output. It's science-flavored argument, but purely for argument's sake. It almost feels like cargo cult science *preceded* real science?!?
(I would love a historian of philosophy and science to explain why I'm wrong. For now, all I have are my Goodreads rants.)
[Edit: Aha, this interview with Han Baltussen explains a bit about Aristotle's legacy and how it got that way. Apparently he *did* do great empirical scientific observation as a naturalist, studying marine life. And his work on logic really was outstanding, and made a big impact on the early Christians, which ensured his works would continue being passed on. So I guess I'm just unlucky in which of his books *I* have read; they aren't models of logical rigor nor of careful empiricism.]
For instance, I remember hearing the Greeks were all about moderation, and this might be where that meme came from. Aristotle spends many pages listing one virtue after another, and framing each as moderation between two extremes. But it doesn't really help me think about how to be *more* virtuous.
One more weakness of his common-sense approach: At the time, everyone knew that "obviously" women were inferior to men, slaves to masters, etc. So Aristotle starts, and ends, with these assumptions, repeatedly saying that although equality is important between free male citizens, it's totally OK to have a double standard when it comes to women, slaves, & foreigners. (On the other hand, apparently Plato and others were radically willing to claim that women *could* be as wise as men if they were educated equally.) Even today in 2017, Aristotle's legacy lives on in the many guys who refuse to question "common sense" in these matters :(
HOWEVER! Even though I don't understand why Aristotle went through this rigmarole, I did like a lot of his actual advice:
* Virtue and character are acquired through habit, not inborn. So they're within our reach, even if the process is difficult, and even if it helps tremendously to have good luck (helpful inborn traits; a childhood and life with the right context and experiences). We can't decide to be "the best," but we can certainly try to be *better* every day.
* To achieve happiness, we can't just "have virtue" but must *act* virtuously; not just know what's right, but do it. And that means actively engaging your good judgment; if you actions turn out to be good but just due to chance or instinct, that doesn't count.
* Friendship is an action too. The act of cultivating friendships is its own goal. As my wife says, "To have friends, be one" :) and I know I really need to be better about this, but it's funny to hear it from Aristotle as well. Also, don't try to take on too many friendships---if you can't keep up with them all, you're liable to be seen as a poor friend.
* Friends are people who can act as our mirrors, who help us get to know ourselves, who help us become our better selves; people with whom we can share a life of virtue. Awwww :)
~~~
Poetics -- Poetyka
Apparently the Poetics comes up a lot in The Name of the Rose, which I'm reading next. This might also be the Aristotle that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values complained about; I'm also due for a re-read of that.
So, as usual with Aristotle, there are endless definitions and breakdowns here. Sometimes it sounds like a vocab worksheet from a high school literature class: iambic, climax, metaphor, ...
However! Unlike the other Aristotle works I've read, here he puts them to practical use, giving real advice. For example, it's hard to talk about effective use of metaphor in tragic poetry/theater without defining the word "metaphor"----so he defines it, and then actually discusses how to create good metaphors and employ them well! Failing to disambiguate technical jargon can cause real problems in this kind of discussion, so his approach works well here. (Except that he follows the section on metaphor by insisting that it's an inborn talent and can't be taught. So why bother teaching it to the reader?!?)
He mentions that humans are the animal which is best at mimicry, and recognition brings us joy: it's a sheer pleasure to spot a resemblance in a painting or a connection in a logical argument. It made me wonder if that's his goal with all these definitions: not to *create new* insights through systematization, but the simple pleasure of recognizing where every idea/concept belongs, having a place for everything and everything in its place.
There's some interesting advice (on writing poetry, plays, and epics).
* For the most part, a story should be short enough that you can encompass the whole thing in your memory: just enough to show the main character's fate turn and change (whether from good to bad or vice versa).
* The plot should all follow naturally from the events and characters: nothing by authorial fiat, no unconnected episodic format.
* Recognition (of 2 characters by each other, or of one's fate by the main character) is key to a good tragedy---it all comes together in the moment when you finally realize what you did, or to whom, or what it meant, and this moment is most effective at moving the audience emotionally.
* It's better to show things that are "impossible but likely," rather than "unlikely but possible" :P I guess he meant: it's OK to show things that didn't actually happen in the history you're retelling, but could have happened? But don't show things so unlikely as to be ridiculous?
(like those annoying action-movie chase scenes where the pursuer immediately catches up to 5 feet behind the protagonist but then *stays* 5 feet behind for the rest of the chase, oh man I hate those, Aristotle would have hated them too, this is the first time I'm feeling I'd enjoy hanging out with the guy, we could watch terrible movies together and complain about them)
In the end, it's fun to hear his occasional complaints about bad writing and overacting, and his advice on winning theatrical contests---sometimes he shines through as a real human with charming crotchety opinions! I wish this had inspired me to read more Aristotle. Where else do his writings convey a sense of his personality? It's been so rare in these 3-4 works I've read...
* 2015: Seneca's Moral letters to Lucilius
* 2016: Aristotle's Protrepticus and Physics
* 2018: Plato's Symposium, Statesman, Sophist, and Euthyphro
* 2019: Plato's Republic
~~~
Great Ethics -- Etyka wielka
Aristole's "Magna Moralia" or "Great Ethics." Apparently it might not be by Aristotle at all, but a compendium by some later writer. And indeed, as I found with the Physics, this often feels like some student's scribed lecture notes: Here's what the professor thought was important, but not necessarily a good sense of *why*...
As Adler says, "Aristotle is the common-sense philosopher." Both here and in the Physics, Aristotle's tactic seems to be: Start with common sense; build a system of categories and definitions around it; and make conclusions that... are already common sense. What is the point? His ethical theory here, or physical theories there, almost never lead to any pragmatic guidance beyond what he already started with.
Much later, during the Scientific Revolution, people started coming up with systematizations that actually taught you something *new* about the world. Take common-sense observations about things falling down; mash them up with calculus and physics; and boom, now you have the ability to calculate ballistic trajectories and a better way to aim your cannons than trial-and-error or common sense.
But Aristotle's work has common sense as both the input *and* the output. It's science-flavored argument, but purely for argument's sake. It almost feels like cargo cult science *preceded* real science?!?
(I would love a historian of philosophy and science to explain why I'm wrong. For now, all I have are my Goodreads rants.)
[Edit: Aha, this interview with Han Baltussen explains a bit about Aristotle's legacy and how it got that way. Apparently he *did* do great empirical scientific observation as a naturalist, studying marine life. And his work on logic really was outstanding, and made a big impact on the early Christians, which ensured his works would continue being passed on. So I guess I'm just unlucky in which of his books *I* have read; they aren't models of logical rigor nor of careful empiricism.]
For instance, I remember hearing the Greeks were all about moderation, and this might be where that meme came from. Aristotle spends many pages listing one virtue after another, and framing each as moderation between two extremes. But it doesn't really help me think about how to be *more* virtuous.
One more weakness of his common-sense approach: At the time, everyone knew that "obviously" women were inferior to men, slaves to masters, etc. So Aristotle starts, and ends, with these assumptions, repeatedly saying that although equality is important between free male citizens, it's totally OK to have a double standard when it comes to women, slaves, & foreigners. (On the other hand, apparently Plato and others were radically willing to claim that women *could* be as wise as men if they were educated equally.) Even today in 2017, Aristotle's legacy lives on in the many guys who refuse to question "common sense" in these matters :(
HOWEVER! Even though I don't understand why Aristotle went through this rigmarole, I did like a lot of his actual advice:
* Virtue and character are acquired through habit, not inborn. So they're within our reach, even if the process is difficult, and even if it helps tremendously to have good luck (helpful inborn traits; a childhood and life with the right context and experiences). We can't decide to be "the best," but we can certainly try to be *better* every day.
* To achieve happiness, we can't just "have virtue" but must *act* virtuously; not just know what's right, but do it. And that means actively engaging your good judgment; if you actions turn out to be good but just due to chance or instinct, that doesn't count.
* Friendship is an action too. The act of cultivating friendships is its own goal. As my wife says, "To have friends, be one" :) and I know I really need to be better about this, but it's funny to hear it from Aristotle as well. Also, don't try to take on too many friendships---if you can't keep up with them all, you're liable to be seen as a poor friend.
* Friends are people who can act as our mirrors, who help us get to know ourselves, who help us become our better selves; people with whom we can share a life of virtue. Awwww :)
~~~
Poetics -- Poetyka
Apparently the Poetics comes up a lot in The Name of the Rose, which I'm reading next. This might also be the Aristotle that Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values complained about; I'm also due for a re-read of that.
So, as usual with Aristotle, there are endless definitions and breakdowns here. Sometimes it sounds like a vocab worksheet from a high school literature class: iambic, climax, metaphor, ...
However! Unlike the other Aristotle works I've read, here he puts them to practical use, giving real advice. For example, it's hard to talk about effective use of metaphor in tragic poetry/theater without defining the word "metaphor"----so he defines it, and then actually discusses how to create good metaphors and employ them well! Failing to disambiguate technical jargon can cause real problems in this kind of discussion, so his approach works well here. (Except that he follows the section on metaphor by insisting that it's an inborn talent and can't be taught. So why bother teaching it to the reader?!?)
He mentions that humans are the animal which is best at mimicry, and recognition brings us joy: it's a sheer pleasure to spot a resemblance in a painting or a connection in a logical argument. It made me wonder if that's his goal with all these definitions: not to *create new* insights through systematization, but the simple pleasure of recognizing where every idea/concept belongs, having a place for everything and everything in its place.
There's some interesting advice (on writing poetry, plays, and epics).
* For the most part, a story should be short enough that you can encompass the whole thing in your memory: just enough to show the main character's fate turn and change (whether from good to bad or vice versa).
* The plot should all follow naturally from the events and characters: nothing by authorial fiat, no unconnected episodic format.
* Recognition (of 2 characters by each other, or of one's fate by the main character) is key to a good tragedy---it all comes together in the moment when you finally realize what you did, or to whom, or what it meant, and this moment is most effective at moving the audience emotionally.
* It's better to show things that are "impossible but likely," rather than "unlikely but possible" :P I guess he meant: it's OK to show things that didn't actually happen in the history you're retelling, but could have happened? But don't show things so unlikely as to be ridiculous?
(like those annoying action-movie chase scenes where the pursuer immediately catches up to 5 feet behind the protagonist but then *stays* 5 feet behind for the rest of the chase, oh man I hate those, Aristotle would have hated them too, this is the first time I'm feeling I'd enjoy hanging out with the guy, we could watch terrible movies together and complain about them)
In the end, it's fun to hear his occasional complaints about bad writing and overacting, and his advice on winning theatrical contests---sometimes he shines through as a real human with charming crotchety opinions! I wish this had inspired me to read more Aristotle. Where else do his writings convey a sense of his personality? It's been so rare in these 3-4 works I've read...
September 25, 2024
4.5/5 estrellas
August 31, 2025
Poetics is goated
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews