What do you think?
Rate this book
Traité Du Ciel
This volume brings together the three most original and influential ancient Greek treatises on literature. Artistotle's "Poetics" contains his treatment of Greek tragedy: its history, nature, and conventions, with details on poetic diction. Stephen Halliwell makes this seminal work newly accessible with a translation that is both accurate and readable. His authoritative introduction traces the work's debt to earlier theorists (especially Plato), its distinctive argument, and the reasons behind its enduring relevance. The essay "On the Sublime," usually attributed to "Longinus" (identity uncertain), was probably composed in the first century A.D.; its subject is the appreciation of greatness ("the sublime") in writing, with analysis of illustrative passages ranging from Homer and Sappho to Plato and Genesis. In this edition, Donald Russell has revised and newly annotated the text and translation by W. Hamilton Fyfe and provides a new introduction. The treatise "On Style," ascribed to an (again unidentifiable) Demetrius, was perhaps composed during the second century B.C. It seems to reflect the theoretical energy of Hellenistic rhetorical works now lost, and is notable particularly for its theory and analysis of four distinct styles. Doreen Innes' fresh rendering of the work is based on the earlier Loeb translation by W. Rhys Roberts. Her new introduction and notes represent the latest scholarship.
480 pages, Mass Market Paperback
First published January 1, 351
34 people are currently reading
1082 people want to read
About the author
Aristotle
4,329 books5,548 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 - 30 of 34 reviews
April 11, 2021
On the Heavens (350 BCE) is Aristotle's take on "cosmology". Aristotle’s universe is spherical, one, and finite in scale. It is vast in volume and mass but does not stretch to infinity, and no time or space, not even emptiness, exists beyond it. So, there are no multiple universes (the multiverse) in Aristotle's world. His interpretation of the cosmos is that it was not created, so it is unborn, and it is imperishable, therefore, eternal. Where all the bodies and elements that move in perfect circular motion are reserved only for the heavens and the straight lines and their variants for our sublunary world. A world in which the heavy elements and bodies naturally move downwards, toward the center, and the light ones, move upwards, away from the center.
Everything in Aristotle's universe serves a purpose and nothing in it is excessive or meaningless. He claims that the Earth is small, round, motionless, and composed of and enveloped by the four elements; earth, air, fire, and water and that the Earth sits in the center of the universe where all the heavenly bodies, made up of the pure fifth element, aether, revolve around it.
I would say that the absolute majority of Aristotle's description of the universe is not in line with the discoveries made in cosmology and astronomy in the last half of the millennium. But who can blame him? We don't feel the Earth's rotation, and when we look at the sky, in all directions, it does seem as if we are in the center of something. Furthermore, all the planets and the Sun appear like they are revolving around us. Hence, Aristotle's viewpoint is a rational and logical one that he deduced from observation through his senses. But it seems that we can't depend on our delicate senses and rationality to unravel the cosmos?
Aristotle is also overly critical of his predecessors Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, and Plato and their concept of the universe, but it was these individuals' descriptions of the cosmos, utilizing their mathematics, imagination, mysticism, and reasoning that modern cosmology can find their roots, not in Aristotle's cosmos.
(3.5/5.0)
Everything in Aristotle's universe serves a purpose and nothing in it is excessive or meaningless. He claims that the Earth is small, round, motionless, and composed of and enveloped by the four elements; earth, air, fire, and water and that the Earth sits in the center of the universe where all the heavenly bodies, made up of the pure fifth element, aether, revolve around it.
I would say that the absolute majority of Aristotle's description of the universe is not in line with the discoveries made in cosmology and astronomy in the last half of the millennium. But who can blame him? We don't feel the Earth's rotation, and when we look at the sky, in all directions, it does seem as if we are in the center of something. Furthermore, all the planets and the Sun appear like they are revolving around us. Hence, Aristotle's viewpoint is a rational and logical one that he deduced from observation through his senses. But it seems that we can't depend on our delicate senses and rationality to unravel the cosmos?
Aristotle is also overly critical of his predecessors Pythagoras, Anaxagoras, Democritus, Empedocles, and Plato and their concept of the universe, but it was these individuals' descriptions of the cosmos, utilizing their mathematics, imagination, mysticism, and reasoning that modern cosmology can find their roots, not in Aristotle's cosmos.
(3.5/5.0)
October 1, 2019
This is quite a charming little book. In it, one can find the description of an entire way of viewing the natural world. Aristotle moves on from the abstract investigations of the Physics to more concrete questions: Is the earth a sphere or flat? What are the fundamental constituents of matter? Why do some things fall, and some things rise? Is the earth the center of everything? Aristotle’s answers, I’m afraid, have not stood the test of time; such, it appears, is the risk of all science—obsolescence.
The reader is immediately presented with a beautiful piece of Aristotelian reasoning. First, the good philosopher reminds us that “the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing.” Circular motion, therefore, is more perfect than simple up-and-down motion like we see on earth; and since we do not find bodies whose natural motion is circular on earth, and since nature always strives towards perfection, it follows that there must be bodies not on earth which naturally move in a circular fashion. Again, since none of the earth-bound elements—fire, water, air, and earth—exhibit natural (i.e. unforced) circular motion, it follows that the heavenly bodies must be composed of something different; and this different substance (let us call it aether), since is exhibits the most perfect motion, must be itself perfect.
In Aristotle’s words:
Everything below the moon must be born and pass away; but the heavenly bodies abide forever in their circular course. Q.E.D.
In his physical investigations, it seems that Aristotle was not especially prescient. For example, he argues against “the Italian philosophers known as the Pythagoreans… At the centre, they say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre.” Not so, says Aristotle; the earth is the center. He also argues against Democritus’s atomic theory, which posits the existence of several different types of fundamental particles, which are intermingled with “void,” or empty spaces in between them.
To be fair, Aristotle does think that the earth is round; he even includes an estimation of the earth’s circumference at 400,000 stadia, which is, apparently, somewhere around 40,000 miles. (The current-day estimate is about 24,000 miles.) Aristotle also thinks that “heavy” objects tend toward the earth’s surface; but puzzlingly (for the modern reader), he doesn’t think this has anything to do with the pull of the earth, but instead thinks it has something to do with earth’s position in the center of all things. In his words: “If one were to remove the earth to where the moon now is, the various fragments of earth would each move not towards it but to the place in which it now is.”
Then Aristotle launches into his investigation of the elements. As aforesaid, Aristotle posits four sublunary elements: earth, water, fire, and air. Earth is the heaviest, followed by water, and then air; and fire is the lightest. Aristotle believes that these elements have “natural” motions; they tend toward their proper place. Earth tries to go downward, towards the center of the planet. Fire tries to go upward, towards the stars. Aristotle contrasts this “natural” motion with “unnatural” or “violent” motion, which is motion from an outside source. I can, of course, pick up a piece of earth, thereby thwarting its natural tendency towards its proper place on the ground.
The elements naturally sort themselves into order: we have earth on the bottom, then water floating on top, then the air sitting on the water, and fire above the air. (Where all that fire is, I can’t say.) There are some obvious difficulties with this theory. For example, how can boats float? and birds fly? This leads Aristotle to a very tentative definition of buoyancy, with which he ends the book:
The more one reads Aristotle, the more one grasps just how much his worldview was based on biology. The key word of his entire philosophy is entelechy, which simply means the realization of potential. We can see this clearly in his definition of motion: “The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially, is motion.” That’s a mouthful, but think of it this way: the act of building a house can be thought of as the expression of the potential of a house; the physical house in progress is the partially actualized house, but the building itself is the potential qua potential.
It is easy to see how Aristotle might get interested in the expression of potentialities from investigating living things. For what is an egg but a potential chicken? What is a child but a potential man? This idea of fully realizing one’s potential is at the basis of his ethics and his physics; just as fire realizes its potential for moving upwards, so do citizens realize their potential through moderation. Aristotle’s intellectual method is also heavily marked by one who spent time investigating life; for it is the dreary task of a naturalist to catalogue and to categorize, to investigate the whole by looking at the parts.
While this mindset served him admirably in many domains, it misled him in the investigation inanimate matter. To say that chickens grow from eggs as an expression of potential is reasonable; but to attribute the downward motion of rocks as an expression of their potential sounds odd. It is as if you asked somebody why cars move, and they responded “because it is the nature of the vehicle”—which would explain exactly nothing. But it is difficult not to be impressed by Aristotle; for even if he reached the wrong conclusions, at least he was asking the right questions.
The reader is immediately presented with a beautiful piece of Aristotelian reasoning. First, the good philosopher reminds us that “the perfect is naturally prior to the imperfect, and the circle is a perfect thing.” Circular motion, therefore, is more perfect than simple up-and-down motion like we see on earth; and since we do not find bodies whose natural motion is circular on earth, and since nature always strives towards perfection, it follows that there must be bodies not on earth which naturally move in a circular fashion. Again, since none of the earth-bound elements—fire, water, air, and earth—exhibit natural (i.e. unforced) circular motion, it follows that the heavenly bodies must be composed of something different; and this different substance (let us call it aether), since is exhibits the most perfect motion, must be itself perfect.
In Aristotle’s words:
… we may infer with confidence that there is something beyond the bodies that are about us on this earth, different and separate from them; and that the superior glory of its nature is proportionate to its distance from this world of ours.
Everything below the moon must be born and pass away; but the heavenly bodies abide forever in their circular course. Q.E.D.
In his physical investigations, it seems that Aristotle was not especially prescient. For example, he argues against “the Italian philosophers known as the Pythagoreans… At the centre, they say, is fire, and the earth is one of the stars, creating night and day by its circular motion about the centre.” Not so, says Aristotle; the earth is the center. He also argues against Democritus’s atomic theory, which posits the existence of several different types of fundamental particles, which are intermingled with “void,” or empty spaces in between them.
To be fair, Aristotle does think that the earth is round; he even includes an estimation of the earth’s circumference at 400,000 stadia, which is, apparently, somewhere around 40,000 miles. (The current-day estimate is about 24,000 miles.) Aristotle also thinks that “heavy” objects tend toward the earth’s surface; but puzzlingly (for the modern reader), he doesn’t think this has anything to do with the pull of the earth, but instead thinks it has something to do with earth’s position in the center of all things. In his words: “If one were to remove the earth to where the moon now is, the various fragments of earth would each move not towards it but to the place in which it now is.”
Then Aristotle launches into his investigation of the elements. As aforesaid, Aristotle posits four sublunary elements: earth, water, fire, and air. Earth is the heaviest, followed by water, and then air; and fire is the lightest. Aristotle believes that these elements have “natural” motions; they tend toward their proper place. Earth tries to go downward, towards the center of the planet. Fire tries to go upward, towards the stars. Aristotle contrasts this “natural” motion with “unnatural” or “violent” motion, which is motion from an outside source. I can, of course, pick up a piece of earth, thereby thwarting its natural tendency towards its proper place on the ground.
The elements naturally sort themselves into order: we have earth on the bottom, then water floating on top, then the air sitting on the water, and fire above the air. (Where all that fire is, I can’t say.) There are some obvious difficulties with this theory. For example, how can boats float? and birds fly? This leads Aristotle to a very tentative definition of buoyancy, with which he ends the book:
… since there are two factors, the force responsible for the downward motion of the heavy body and the disruption-resisting force of the continuous surface, there must be some ratio between the two. For in proportion as the force applied by the heavy thing towards disruption and division exceeds that which resides in the continuum, the quicker will it force its way down; only if the force of the heavy thing is the weaker, will it ride upon the surface.
The more one reads Aristotle, the more one grasps just how much his worldview was based on biology. The key word of his entire philosophy is entelechy, which simply means the realization of potential. We can see this clearly in his definition of motion: “The fulfillment of what exists potentially, in so far as it exists potentially, is motion.” That’s a mouthful, but think of it this way: the act of building a house can be thought of as the expression of the potential of a house; the physical house in progress is the partially actualized house, but the building itself is the potential qua potential.
It is easy to see how Aristotle might get interested in the expression of potentialities from investigating living things. For what is an egg but a potential chicken? What is a child but a potential man? This idea of fully realizing one’s potential is at the basis of his ethics and his physics; just as fire realizes its potential for moving upwards, so do citizens realize their potential through moderation. Aristotle’s intellectual method is also heavily marked by one who spent time investigating life; for it is the dreary task of a naturalist to catalogue and to categorize, to investigate the whole by looking at the parts.
While this mindset served him admirably in many domains, it misled him in the investigation inanimate matter. To say that chickens grow from eggs as an expression of potential is reasonable; but to attribute the downward motion of rocks as an expression of their potential sounds odd. It is as if you asked somebody why cars move, and they responded “because it is the nature of the vehicle”—which would explain exactly nothing. But it is difficult not to be impressed by Aristotle; for even if he reached the wrong conclusions, at least he was asking the right questions.
September 27, 2022
The primary difficulty with this work is we are so used to a Copernican cosmology that we almost can’t understand what he is saying. His conclusions we can dismiss outright. It might be well, however, to reflect on how he set the stage for cosmology for the next 2,000 years.
His geocentrism appears, and I say it appears because I don’t always understand what he is saying here, to hinge on the argument is that the earth can’t move. We’ll try to unpack that. The heavens cannot move because they are infinite, and an infinite body can’t move in a circle because it would have to move across an infinite range in finite time.
In language anticipating Christian theism, he says heaven is eternal. Well, true. He doesn’t mean by heaven what we mean by heaven, though. What is heaven? Imagine the boundary point between our world and the next (sky, maybe?). Heaven is the substance of the circumference.
Since heaven is eternal, and heaven always has a limit, this means the earth is eternal (283b). This also explains why the earth doesn’t move. If it moves, then it must have begun in time.
Good
He introduces numerous fascinating discussions on the concept of “infinity” that are still in play today (271b). Quite rightly, he notes that an infinite cannot be traversed.
He believes that the earth is a sphere. Sorry, flat-earthers.
Bad
He rejects the idea of a plurality of worlds (278a) since only our world contains the entirety of matter.
He says the universe is spherical. I’m not so sure, given big-bang cosmology. It’s more of a funnel-shape.
“We take it for granted that the earth is at rest” (289b).
He says imagine that there are circles within circles. The circles closest within would take longer in the revolution. You don’t need modern science to know this is false. The Greeks ran track. Any runner knows that whoever is on the outer lanes has to run longer.
He rejects the idea of the earth spinning on its axis (296a).
His geocentrism appears, and I say it appears because I don’t always understand what he is saying here, to hinge on the argument is that the earth can’t move. We’ll try to unpack that. The heavens cannot move because they are infinite, and an infinite body can’t move in a circle because it would have to move across an infinite range in finite time.
In language anticipating Christian theism, he says heaven is eternal. Well, true. He doesn’t mean by heaven what we mean by heaven, though. What is heaven? Imagine the boundary point between our world and the next (sky, maybe?). Heaven is the substance of the circumference.
Since heaven is eternal, and heaven always has a limit, this means the earth is eternal (283b). This also explains why the earth doesn’t move. If it moves, then it must have begun in time.
Good
He introduces numerous fascinating discussions on the concept of “infinity” that are still in play today (271b). Quite rightly, he notes that an infinite cannot be traversed.
He believes that the earth is a sphere. Sorry, flat-earthers.
Bad
He rejects the idea of a plurality of worlds (278a) since only our world contains the entirety of matter.
He says the universe is spherical. I’m not so sure, given big-bang cosmology. It’s more of a funnel-shape.
“We take it for granted that the earth is at rest” (289b).
He says imagine that there are circles within circles. The circles closest within would take longer in the revolution. You don’t need modern science to know this is false. The Greeks ran track. Any runner knows that whoever is on the outer lanes has to run longer.
He rejects the idea of the earth spinning on its axis (296a).
March 21, 2021
Having finally gotten around to reading something by Aristotle, I can say I enjoyed this book as far as I was able to. However, listening to it on audio was not the best way to go because I struggle to follow what's being said when reading on that medium if the content is particularly abstract in nature. I expected that would be the case here, but nevertheless I decided to listen to it on audio anyway, so it is what it is.
As far as I was able to follow it though, it was a thought-provoking exposition on the heavenly bodies and the viability of a realm beyond our temporal one. I can see why Christian theologians are particularly fond of Aristotle, and as a Christian myself I certainly intend to read more of his work. I am actually more interested in reading his Metaphysics. This book was a more random choice, but a worthwhile one all the same.
As far as I was able to follow it though, it was a thought-provoking exposition on the heavenly bodies and the viability of a realm beyond our temporal one. I can see why Christian theologians are particularly fond of Aristotle, and as a Christian myself I certainly intend to read more of his work. I am actually more interested in reading his Metaphysics. This book was a more random choice, but a worthwhile one all the same.
December 3, 2024
Of considerable historical interest for its discussion of earlier ideas and its influence on later thought and art.
March 6, 2021
The primary difficulty with this work is we are so used to a Copernican cosmology that we almost can’t understand what he is saying. His conclusions we can dismiss outright. It might be well, however, to reflect on how he set the stage for cosmology for the next 2,000 years.
His geocentrism appears, and I say it appears because I don’t always understand what he is saying here, to hinge on the argument is that the earth can’t move. We’ll try to unpack that. The heavens cannot move because they are infinite, and an infinite body can’t move in a circle because it would have to move across an infinite range in finite time.
In language anticipating Christian theism, he says heaven is eternal. Well, true. He doesn’t mean by heaven what we mean by heaven, though. What is heaven? Imagine the boundary point between our world and the next (sky, maybe?). Heaven is the substance of the circumference.
Since heaven is eternal, and heaven always has a limit, this means the earth is eternal (283b). This also explains why the earth doesn’t move. If it moves, then it must have begun in time.
Good
He introduces numerous fascinating discussions on the concept of “infinity” that are still in play today (271b). Quite rightly, he notes that an infinite cannot be traversed.
He believes that the earth is a sphere. Sorry, flat-earthers.
Bad
He rejects the idea of a plurality of worlds (278a) since only our world contains the entirety of matter.
He says the universe is spherical. I’m not so sure, given big-bang cosmology. It’s more of a funnel-shape.
“We take it for granted that the earth is at rest” (289b).
He says imagine that there are circles within circles. The circles closest within would take longer in the revolution. You don’t need modern science to know this is false. The Greeks ran track. Any runner knows that whoever is on the outer lanes has to run longer.
He rejects the idea of the earth spinning on its axis (296a).
His geocentrism appears, and I say it appears because I don’t always understand what he is saying here, to hinge on the argument is that the earth can’t move. We’ll try to unpack that. The heavens cannot move because they are infinite, and an infinite body can’t move in a circle because it would have to move across an infinite range in finite time.
In language anticipating Christian theism, he says heaven is eternal. Well, true. He doesn’t mean by heaven what we mean by heaven, though. What is heaven? Imagine the boundary point between our world and the next (sky, maybe?). Heaven is the substance of the circumference.
Since heaven is eternal, and heaven always has a limit, this means the earth is eternal (283b). This also explains why the earth doesn’t move. If it moves, then it must have begun in time.
Good
He introduces numerous fascinating discussions on the concept of “infinity” that are still in play today (271b). Quite rightly, he notes that an infinite cannot be traversed.
He believes that the earth is a sphere. Sorry, flat-earthers.
Bad
He rejects the idea of a plurality of worlds (278a) since only our world contains the entirety of matter.
He says the universe is spherical. I’m not so sure, given big-bang cosmology. It’s more of a funnel-shape.
“We take it for granted that the earth is at rest” (289b).
He says imagine that there are circles within circles. The circles closest within would take longer in the revolution. You don’t need modern science to know this is false. The Greeks ran track. Any runner knows that whoever is on the outer lanes has to run longer.
He rejects the idea of the earth spinning on its axis (296a).
January 17, 2025
Aristo baba bize geometri öğret, bize düşünmeyi öğret, bize hayatı öğret,
Çok büyük adamlar gerçekten yazdıklarını yazdıkları yılı bilimin seviyesini düşündükçe şaşırıyorum, Dünyanın küre olması gerektiğini söylüyor elindeki bir avuç veriyle, kendisinden önceki yazarların kitapalrını okuyup yorumlamış, Dünyanın evrenin merkezinde değil de dönen başka bir gezegen olabileceği dahil Güneşin Ayın dönme hareketletini üzerine düşünmüş, ihtimal vermiştir, Galileo ve diğer bilim adamlarından iki bin yıl öncesinde bunları düşünmek ve dile getirmek gerçekten büyük başarı,
Geometride ki anlatımları bilgisi yaptığı basit çizimlerle konuyu anlatması o zamanlardaki insanların matematik ve geometri bilgisi şaşırtıcı,
Bir konuyu en başından alıp derinlemesine ve geniş planda incelemesi ve anlatması, doğru olmayan ihtimallerin de üzerinde durması nedenlerini sorması gerçekten felsefeciden çok bilim adamı hissi veriyor,
Kitap dört bölümden oluşuyor, gökyüzüne baktığımızda gördüklerini yorumlayıp neyin me olabileceğini inceliyor,
Dünyanın yuvarlak olması gerektiğini, uzaktan gördüğümüz yıldızlardan daha küçük olduğunu ayın döndüğünü, yakın cisimlerin daha hızlı dönmesi gerektiğini söylüyor,
Felsefe ve bilimin en temel taşlarını arayanlar Aristoteles'le tanışmalılar
Çok büyük adamlar gerçekten yazdıklarını yazdıkları yılı bilimin seviyesini düşündükçe şaşırıyorum, Dünyanın küre olması gerektiğini söylüyor elindeki bir avuç veriyle, kendisinden önceki yazarların kitapalrını okuyup yorumlamış, Dünyanın evrenin merkezinde değil de dönen başka bir gezegen olabileceği dahil Güneşin Ayın dönme hareketletini üzerine düşünmüş, ihtimal vermiştir, Galileo ve diğer bilim adamlarından iki bin yıl öncesinde bunları düşünmek ve dile getirmek gerçekten büyük başarı,
Geometride ki anlatımları bilgisi yaptığı basit çizimlerle konuyu anlatması o zamanlardaki insanların matematik ve geometri bilgisi şaşırtıcı,
Bir konuyu en başından alıp derinlemesine ve geniş planda incelemesi ve anlatması, doğru olmayan ihtimallerin de üzerinde durması nedenlerini sorması gerçekten felsefeciden çok bilim adamı hissi veriyor,
Kitap dört bölümden oluşuyor, gökyüzüne baktığımızda gördüklerini yorumlayıp neyin me olabileceğini inceliyor,
Dünyanın yuvarlak olması gerektiğini, uzaktan gördüğümüz yıldızlardan daha küçük olduğunu ayın döndüğünü, yakın cisimlerin daha hızlı dönmesi gerektiğini söylüyor,
Felsefe ve bilimin en temel taşlarını arayanlar Aristoteles'le tanışmalılar
December 15, 2019
مطلبی کوتاه نوشته بودم سالها پیش در مورد این کتاب و اینجا مختصر مینویسم که در دنیای علم ما همچنان ارسطویی پیش میرویم.
معرفی درآسمان
معرفی درآسمان
Read
March 25, 2021Ein philosophischer Klassiker, deshalb keine Sternenbewertung, da ich mir vorenthalte, Titel wie diesen mit banalen Sternen zu bewerten.
Es ist ein kurzer Text, der aber sehr aufschlussreich ist, und zeigt, wie viel die Griechen schon über unsere Welt wussten. Die Urheberschaft des Aristoteles' wird jedoch stark angezweifelt und im Nachwort widerlegt. Überhaupt hat der Reclam-Verlag dem Bändchen einen umfassenden und aufschlussreichen Informationsbereich angedeihen lassen, sodass man sein Wissen über den Text und dessen Hintergründe vertiefen kann.
Wenn man bedenkt, dass es purer Zufall war, dass mir dieses Büchlein in die Hände fiel, so bin ich froh, dass es geschehen ist. Irgendwie fühlt sich mein -nicht nur- philosophisches Weltbild nun etwas runder an.
Es ist ein kurzer Text, der aber sehr aufschlussreich ist, und zeigt, wie viel die Griechen schon über unsere Welt wussten. Die Urheberschaft des Aristoteles' wird jedoch stark angezweifelt und im Nachwort widerlegt. Überhaupt hat der Reclam-Verlag dem Bändchen einen umfassenden und aufschlussreichen Informationsbereich angedeihen lassen, sodass man sein Wissen über den Text und dessen Hintergründe vertiefen kann.
Wenn man bedenkt, dass es purer Zufall war, dass mir dieses Büchlein in die Hände fiel, so bin ich froh, dass es geschehen ist. Irgendwie fühlt sich mein -nicht nur- philosophisches Weltbild nun etwas runder an.
April 21, 2017
Really interesting as this was the basis for Dante's Paradise (and was basically what every Christian believed).
October 10, 2025
eu quando sou um corpo em movimento circular na periferia da esfera supra-lunar redpilled e inalterável (alfa) e tu és só um elemento terrestre perecível em movimento retilíneo (beta)
May 9, 2013
On the Heavens by Aristotle translated into English by j. L. Stocks is the second part of his physical treatises. This book deals with how objects interact with the world including how the heavens are formed. The book starts but a discussion of movement which is inaccurate and leads to many of the other flaws that Aristotle's logic leads to. He basically defines natural movement as something going to the point where it naturally should be. This leads to his idea that all objects have a place where they are naturally and anything outside of this is unnatural and thus can not last long term. He also concludes that the simplest movement is that of a circle and uses that as the reason why the objects which he states are the closest to perfection move in circles. While he did incorrectly believe that the earth was the center of the universe he does correctly identify many things which are often caricatured as foreign to his thought. He is not a believer in a flat earth but instead insists that the earth is a sphere where all parts are pulled to a central core. While he does not define gravity he explains how it works on earth to a very accurate measure. The last half of the book deals with his conception of the elements and how they are constructed and deal with each other. While he does incorrectly define the amount of elements as four and states that the idea of atomic theory is incorrect he does deal with how objects have different masses well without being able to truly explain it. I found this book intriguing and would recommend it to anyone who wonders how ancients could believe what they did about the earth based on common sense.
September 20, 2018
Ok book.
Aristotle starts by checking natural (or not) movements. Criticizing Anaxagoras as usual. He examines the infinite, if it's possible to exist, after it the check goes to the universe, and if it's infinite or not, and concomitantly destructible or not. There is a confrontation against Plato universe generation on the Timaeus, which Aristotle rejects.
When discussing about the movement of the stars, a funny point is brought up, why there is no huge sound when the bodies move? Also, he questions other's views of the Earth being a cube as it is at rest.
It's interesting to see some ancient view before the discovery of gravity, like "fire has no weight, earth has no lightness", and movements upwards and downwards.
Being an old book, even though it's wrong, it adds some things more correctly than, let's say, some Anaximander views.
Aristotle starts by checking natural (or not) movements. Criticizing Anaxagoras as usual. He examines the infinite, if it's possible to exist, after it the check goes to the universe, and if it's infinite or not, and concomitantly destructible or not. There is a confrontation against Plato universe generation on the Timaeus, which Aristotle rejects.
When discussing about the movement of the stars, a funny point is brought up, why there is no huge sound when the bodies move? Also, he questions other's views of the Earth being a cube as it is at rest.
It's interesting to see some ancient view before the discovery of gravity, like "fire has no weight, earth has no lightness", and movements upwards and downwards.
Being an old book, even though it's wrong, it adds some things more correctly than, let's say, some Anaximander views.
December 16, 2018
Kitapta Aristoteles’in gökyüzü, evren ve dünya hakkındaki görüşleri ve akıl yürütmeleri anlatılıyor. Aristoteles’in kendi çağındaki bilgi seviyesi düşünüldüğünde çok parlak çıkarımları var. Doğayı basit gözlemlerle edinilen bilgilerden yola çıkarak vardığı sonuçlar etkileyici.
Kitap, 4 alt kitaptan (kısım) oluşuyor. İlk iki kitapta gökyüzünü ve cisimlerin hareketlerini inceliyor. 3. kitapta cisimlerin sahip olduğu öğeleri (özellikleri) inceliyor. Son kitaptaysa ağırlık ve hafiflik kavramları üzerinde duruyor.
Çeviriden mi yoksa antik Yunanca’nın yapısından mı bilmiyorum, cümleler gereksiz karışık. Zamirlerin neyi gösterdiği karışıyor, tamlamalar birbirine giriyor. Bu yüzden kitap çok yavaş okunabiliyor, okurken büyük çaba gerekiyor.
İnsanlığın değişen evren görüşü hakkında ilginiz varsa okumanız gereken bir kitap.
Kitap, 4 alt kitaptan (kısım) oluşuyor. İlk iki kitapta gökyüzünü ve cisimlerin hareketlerini inceliyor. 3. kitapta cisimlerin sahip olduğu öğeleri (özellikleri) inceliyor. Son kitaptaysa ağırlık ve hafiflik kavramları üzerinde duruyor.
Çeviriden mi yoksa antik Yunanca’nın yapısından mı bilmiyorum, cümleler gereksiz karışık. Zamirlerin neyi gösterdiği karışıyor, tamlamalar birbirine giriyor. Bu yüzden kitap çok yavaş okunabiliyor, okurken büyük çaba gerekiyor.
İnsanlığın değişen evren görüşü hakkında ilginiz varsa okumanız gereken bir kitap.
June 1, 2020
“The mathematical science that is most akin to philosophy is astronomy,” according to Aristotle. The body of Aristotle’s work seems to be a “theory of everything,” that he makes all efforts to tie out neatly. He applies ample reasoning to what is known and derives answers to the best of his ability that makes the most sense in his scheme of the universe. This work is his most macro view. Although the text is just 91 pages, the introduction (36 pages) and notes (150 pages) by C.D.C Reeve in the version I read pulls relevant portions of his “system” together quite well, and that really helped me get the most of it.
Why it was important for me to understand this work was its pivotal role in the history of cosmology. As is Aristotle’s modus operandi, he first thoroughly accounts for what others have said on the topic and then supports or refutes them. So he rounds up much of the western cosmological thinking up until his day, then establishes his version, which will go on for thousands of years. Ptolemy’s Almagest includes an outline of Aristotle’s cosmology, which is a work that was used until the Copernican revolution, alongside all of the Aristotelian views adopted by Christians along the way. By knowing more about these views, I better understand the scientific perspective for a large portion of history, and also what the Enlightenment was moving on from.
An interesting observation while reading the text, and especially how it’s tied to his other works, was that it feels like Aristotle’s system becomes too big to fail. All of his building blocks and relationships all make some kind of rational sense, but especially in the case of the order of the universe, it’s clear now (though thousands of year later), that is was just a bridge too far to be as right as he seemed to think he was. What’s interesting is that there is no room to fault Aristotle on his reasoning capabilities. He relied on a system that made sense, as far as he could tell, and obviously had a supreme intellect. You can see opportunities for him to latch on to ideas that are closer to what we accept today, but passes them by for not fitting his worldview. Would those theories, given more evidence or more detail, caused Aristotle to reconsider? I wonder.
Why it was important for me to understand this work was its pivotal role in the history of cosmology. As is Aristotle’s modus operandi, he first thoroughly accounts for what others have said on the topic and then supports or refutes them. So he rounds up much of the western cosmological thinking up until his day, then establishes his version, which will go on for thousands of years. Ptolemy’s Almagest includes an outline of Aristotle’s cosmology, which is a work that was used until the Copernican revolution, alongside all of the Aristotelian views adopted by Christians along the way. By knowing more about these views, I better understand the scientific perspective for a large portion of history, and also what the Enlightenment was moving on from.
An interesting observation while reading the text, and especially how it’s tied to his other works, was that it feels like Aristotle’s system becomes too big to fail. All of his building blocks and relationships all make some kind of rational sense, but especially in the case of the order of the universe, it’s clear now (though thousands of year later), that is was just a bridge too far to be as right as he seemed to think he was. What’s interesting is that there is no room to fault Aristotle on his reasoning capabilities. He relied on a system that made sense, as far as he could tell, and obviously had a supreme intellect. You can see opportunities for him to latch on to ideas that are closer to what we accept today, but passes them by for not fitting his worldview. Would those theories, given more evidence or more detail, caused Aristotle to reconsider? I wonder.
Read
January 8, 2023Aristotle in this book argues in favor of a spherical Earth (something flat earthers seem to still have a hard time with), he argues in favor of the motion of planets occurring in a circle, as he considered a circle one of two natural motions (the other being a straight line. He argues in favor of the “heavens” as not being eternal, since he believes that nothing eternal can have a beginning or an end. He argues that the “heavens” are perfect, and thus, the planets move in the perfect shape of a circle.
This was an early work on the geocentric model, which would later be supplanted with the Heliocentric model with the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Obviously, the geocentric model is no longer a workable theory that doesn’t really need to be explained.
That said, it can be difficult to judge the value of Aristotle’s work, given the time period he was writing in, around 2,400 years ago. It’s hard for me to know, as someone who is not a historian, what ideas concerning astronomy were already proposed by then (Pythagoras and a few others come up often, and Ptolemy is said to have come up after Aristotle and improved on his work). As a result, it can be difficult for me to evaluate whether Aristotle’s work did have a positive contribution in terms of further scientific thought at the time, or if his work was just a reflection of common ideas held by the educated, and whatnot.
So I can’t really rate this text appropriately as a result. The text in general doesn’t really provide solid evidence of why one idea of the universe is either false or true, that can be applied today. He does mention one or two ideas that some people may hold simultaneously, and he uses logic to say that they can’t occur simultaneously at the same time due to the being contradictory ideas. Outside of that aspect (and I’ve already forgotten the idea he presented as being contradictory), it’s hard to see how much use this book would have for a modern reader.
This was an early work on the geocentric model, which would later be supplanted with the Heliocentric model with the work of Copernicus, Kepler, and Galileo. Obviously, the geocentric model is no longer a workable theory that doesn’t really need to be explained.
That said, it can be difficult to judge the value of Aristotle’s work, given the time period he was writing in, around 2,400 years ago. It’s hard for me to know, as someone who is not a historian, what ideas concerning astronomy were already proposed by then (Pythagoras and a few others come up often, and Ptolemy is said to have come up after Aristotle and improved on his work). As a result, it can be difficult for me to evaluate whether Aristotle’s work did have a positive contribution in terms of further scientific thought at the time, or if his work was just a reflection of common ideas held by the educated, and whatnot.
So I can’t really rate this text appropriately as a result. The text in general doesn’t really provide solid evidence of why one idea of the universe is either false or true, that can be applied today. He does mention one or two ideas that some people may hold simultaneously, and he uses logic to say that they can’t occur simultaneously at the same time due to the being contradictory ideas. Outside of that aspect (and I’ve already forgotten the idea he presented as being contradictory), it’s hard to see how much use this book would have for a modern reader.
Read
September 9, 2025As usual with Aristotle, really interesting to see how people understood the universe back then and also really boring.
It made me really think about how I would imagine space if I had never been taught how to think about it in school. It made space more interesting to me. In school it was mostly memorize these facts about the planets and gravity/orbits and stars ect. But to think about a time when that wasn't figured out and image what conclusions people would come to was super interesting.
Boring because, as usual, Aristotle's arguments are dry, pedantic and of course, the conclusions are incorrect because he is working from faulty premises.
It was also interesting to find out that there were thinkers who argued that the earth revolves around the sun even back then. There were others who thought there was an earth and a "counter earth". There was a philosopher who theorized about water having surface tension. People really were just throwing ideas out to see what stuck. It's cool to see such freedom of thought. I feel like the uniformity of modern education may inhibit that today. Of course, Aristotle "proves" them all wrong, but it's cool to see all the variety of ideas about the universe.
Definitely won't read again. haha
It made me really think about how I would imagine space if I had never been taught how to think about it in school. It made space more interesting to me. In school it was mostly memorize these facts about the planets and gravity/orbits and stars ect. But to think about a time when that wasn't figured out and image what conclusions people would come to was super interesting.
Boring because, as usual, Aristotle's arguments are dry, pedantic and of course, the conclusions are incorrect because he is working from faulty premises.
It was also interesting to find out that there were thinkers who argued that the earth revolves around the sun even back then. There were others who thought there was an earth and a "counter earth". There was a philosopher who theorized about water having surface tension. People really were just throwing ideas out to see what stuck. It's cool to see such freedom of thought. I feel like the uniformity of modern education may inhibit that today. Of course, Aristotle "proves" them all wrong, but it's cool to see all the variety of ideas about the universe.
Definitely won't read again. haha
November 5, 2020
Detta är Aristoteles försök att tolka världen. Det är inte ett dåligt försök, och det förklarar, med stöd i de källor han hade i sin tid, och med en god bit empiri, hur världen kan vara baserad på tyngre och lättare vikter.
Trots namnet "om himlarna" så menar Aristoteles att det bara kan finnas EN himmel, eftersom den tunga jorden skulle slungas mot mitten, och luften bilda ett mellanrum mellan denna och elden. Tyngdkraften menar han alltså skulle stoppa existensen av multiversa. Därutöver beskriver han arter, individers skillnad från sin art, och hur människor och ting påverkas av vad vi ser runt oss.
Det finns mycket trevliga delar i denna bok. Den är lättläst, och logisk. Även om den ter sig barnslig i det att den är helt uppbyggd på en individs olärda (numera) spekulation, är det vacker spekulation den bygger på.
Om man är intresserad av att bredda sin Aristoteles bortom politik och logik, är denna definitivt läsvärd.
Trots namnet "om himlarna" så menar Aristoteles att det bara kan finnas EN himmel, eftersom den tunga jorden skulle slungas mot mitten, och luften bilda ett mellanrum mellan denna och elden. Tyngdkraften menar han alltså skulle stoppa existensen av multiversa. Därutöver beskriver han arter, individers skillnad från sin art, och hur människor och ting påverkas av vad vi ser runt oss.
Det finns mycket trevliga delar i denna bok. Den är lättläst, och logisk. Även om den ter sig barnslig i det att den är helt uppbyggd på en individs olärda (numera) spekulation, är det vacker spekulation den bygger på.
Om man är intresserad av att bredda sin Aristoteles bortom politik och logik, är denna definitivt läsvärd.
July 12, 2021
Трактатите "За небето" и "За възникването и загиването" са може би най-добрият пример за начина, по който Аристотел подхожда към материята, която днес наричаме "естествени науки". Тези трактати, наред с "Физика" и "Parva Naturalia", ни демонстрират каква би била науката, ако разсъжденията ни бяха чисто рационални, без да се задълбочаваме в емпиричните данни. С други думи - това е науката отпреди Новото време и научния метод. Ако трябва да обобщя метода на Аристотел накратко, то той би изглеждал по следния начин: "Работата на астронома е да познава звездите и къде се намират, а на философа - защо са там и каква е същността им."
Препоръчвам на любителите на философията, и в частност на античната философия, да прочетат тези два трактата, но, разбира се, имайки предвид тяхната научна стойност, да подходят към тях като към исторически документ.
Препоръчвам на любителите на философията, и в частност на античната философия, да прочетат тези два трактата, но, разбира се, имайки предвид тяхната научна стойност, да подходят към тях като към исторически документ.
March 15, 2023
Makes me think there was something else to why Galileo was imprisoned by the church- mostly because who didn’t fanboy Aristotle in the Middle Ages? Or maybe that’s why Heidegger once said that the Middle Ages had Aristotle confused. Which makes me think someone intentionally distorted Aristotle’s whole point, especially in later remarks by later authors on this work in particular.
October 15, 2020
I give this book 4 stars not because the content, but for the logic and its literature values. In that agem the concept here was superb. To think that the universe in sphere, the irregulars movements, etc. This is obviously a classic and we could study the science and the thinks in that time.
October 26, 2020
Aristotle's fascinating look at the makeup of the universe from the Ancient Greek perspective - trying to make sense out of the world without the tools of modern science. It's elegant, thoughtful, complex and full of wonder.
February 24, 2023
The most fun I've had reading ancient philosophy. It was fascinating reading through the arguments for the make up of the universe and his version of what we now call gravity. Reeve's notes were very helpful in the moments I was confused and helped connect this to Aristotle's other works. Might check out more of his translations
February 24, 2024
Cool ideas. Really dumb though! Oooh look at me Fg ∝ v! Each of the 4 elements desire towards their concentric realms! (be so fr, aristotle. IF fire wants to go to it's realm so bad why does it keep disappearing, HUH?)
September 1, 2024
Libro influyente donde se ve claro por qué la cosmología copernicana (basada en Aristóteles) duró tanto sin ser derrocada, análisis sistemáticos serios y teorías muy sólidas. Lo he disfrutado bastante .
May 7, 2024
5 stars for the edition given its quantity of explanatory notes
October 20, 2024
Letto per motivi di studio universitario; la mia valutazione è relativa all'edizione curata da Alberto Jori.
December 19, 2025
Top boek! Een professor Griekse taal had nog nooit ervan gehoord. Maar het was wel echt interessant
March 10, 2017
Geocentric.
August 20, 2015
Fantastic! Again, not an easy read by any means, but it is fascinating to look over Aristotle's shoulder as he tries to make sense of the world around him completely unaided by modern instruments, relying solely on what he can observe with his own senses and his powers of logic. Some of his ideas seem nutty by modern standards - for example he thinks there are only four elements (earth , water air and fire) and that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the stars are attached to a series of concentric spheres that rotate around the earth. But he also figured out that the earth is round by observing that during lunar eclipses the earth casts a curved shadow across the face of the moon. This observation was said to have ultimately inspired Columbus to make his attempt to find a sea route to India, China and Japan by sailing west, resulting in the his discovery of the New World. Brilliant!!
Displaying 1 - 30 of 34 reviews