Rate this book

Clear rating

1 of 5 stars 2 of 5 stars 3 of 5 stars 4 of 5 stars 5 of 5 stars

Metaphysics

3.91 of 5 stars 3.91 · rating details · 4,356 ratings · 59 reviews

Metaphysics (Greek: τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά) is one of the principal works of Aristotle and the first major work of the branch of philosophy with the same name. The principal subject is "being qua being", or being understood as being. It examines what can be asserted about anything that exists just because of its existence and not because of any special qualities it has. Also co...more

Paperback, 368 pages

Published March 1st 1999 by Green Lion Press (first published January 1st 1992)

more details... edit details

Get a copy:

More…

Friend Reviews

To see what your friends thought of this book, please sign up.

Lists with This Book

Thus Spoke Zarathustra by Friedrich Nietzsche

Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant

Best Philosophy Book

39th out of 465 books — 435 voters

BEST BOOKS FOR LAW STUDENTS

14th out of 63 books — 28 voters

More lists with this book...

Community Reviews

(showing 1-30 of 3,000)

filter | sort: default (?) | rating details

May 18, 2013 JP rated it 4 of 5 stars

Again, he starts each section with a review of the extant literature. I found his commentary on Thales interesting, the latter having said that water was the fundamental element, being found even in seeds. He most frequently references Anaxagous. In every instance, he gets to the cause and then brings in the early bases of logic to make his point. He again goes straight for the reality of any concept, criticizing the Pythagoreans who found mathematics in everything and made numbers the basis of...more

like · see review

Aug 16, 2012 Susi rated it 5 of 5 stars

A Filosofia Primeira ou a existência das coisas.
3 princípios aristotélicos:identidade, não-contradição e terceiro excluído. Os princípios lógicos são ontológicos porque definem as condições sem as quais um ser não pode existir nem ser pensado; os primeiros princípios garantem, simultaneamente, a realidade e a racionalidade das coisas;

Pela causa das coisas podemos constatar a existência,sendo estas 4,em Aristóteles:material,motora e final.A teoria aristotélica sobre as causas estende-se sobre tod...more

like · see review

Dec 05, 2010 Erik Graff rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition Recommends it for: philosophers

Recommended to Erik by: Peter Maxwell

Shelves: philosophy

Hippocrates G. Apostle, the translator of this text, taught at Grinnell while I attended college there and some of my friends worked with him. Other than teaching, he and his wife also maintained a Personal column in the town newspaper, a column with notices such as the following: "M.E. Nalus reports the return of wife, Helen, from Turkish tour." I, having insufficient Greek, never more than glancingly met the fellow.

Aristotle's Metaphysics is of uncertain orign. We don't know when it was writte...more

1 like · like · see review

Dec 14, 2012 Jesse Lopes rated it 5 of 5 stars

What is the being of that thing which underlies any phenomenon? The central question of metaphysics is an intriguing one, and it must be said for the benefit of all the numbskull atheists on here who might think that this is a religious question, it is a perfectly scientific query, for it is in fact the question of, how can we say a person is the same person even though all of her organs have been shed and renewed, or, in the case of an artefact, how is a house the same house after it has been r...more What is the being of that thing which underlies any phenomenon? The central question of metaphysics is an intriguing one, and it must be said for the benefit of all the numbskull atheists on here who might think that this is a religious question, it is a perfectly scientific query, for it is in fact the question of, how can we say a person is the same person even though all of her organs have been shed and renewed, or, in the case of an artefact, how is a house the same house after it has been renovated? Now Aristotle's foray into the fog beyond the flux is one of the most fascinating of intellectual mountains to climb - however, you must bring an oxygen pack (that is, you must take many mulling walks, or, my preference, many sips of coffee). Substance is that thing which is the unqualified subject of the categories (quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, activity, passivity) but it is also the bearer of form - in fact, species-form. So substance must be the essence, or the what-it-was-to-be-that-thing (the literal translation from the Greek of essence); but substance isn't a universal (atheists applaud) for it is possessed of thisness (this-thing-here in Greek), and so it is ontologically separate and independent; yet, it must not just carry form and matter, it must actually be form, specifically of a species. An outstanding ambiguity of this account is, is the form that is the soul for a person an individual, in which case there are as many forms as there are particulars, or is the form something intermediate between universal and particular? Nussbaum thinks the former; Lear thinks the latter. Now Aristotle explicitly says, "Substance isn't a universal", so there are no substantial universals (by the way, Russell, who was an atheist, believed in substantial universals, so will you please stop thinking about God! We will get to God, but it is not yet) but if thisness, which is a quality of substance, means particular, as Nussbaum thinks, then Aristotle is open to the charge that, if no two things have the same form, which follows on this account, then form cannot be identified with the "what-it-was-to-be-that-thing" - but form is to be identified with essence, because matter is just potential, it can potentially have form, but in itself, matter is nothing. So there is that problem. Another problem is, Aristotle says that only the universal can be cognized - if so, then we can't know the essence, because if the essence is substance, and substance isn't universal, then it is unintelligible. These problems are left unsolved in the text. Species-form is obviously a variety of universals, yet one can argue that universals are dependent upon particulars, but species-form informs both as an ontologically independent reality; this seems more compelling than the particularists, but it entails believing in the same thing that Plato believed in - that there are separate forms informing particulars. So either Aristotle just restated what Plato said in new terminology, sprinkled with "common-sense prejudices pedantically expressed" as Russell so aptly put it, or he falls into contradictions everywhere. Good God!
Well, I guess that's why Aristotle believes in God. Every effect has a distinct cause in nature, so to stop the infinite regress, there must be a God. But God is pure form, unchangeable. Yet, it was stated in the Physics that to change is to be changed - not so for God! How? Well, God inspires love. OH! Yeah, so every form in matter is striving to actualize itself further in a teleological process of development of the whole of nature, and so each part, and God as pure form just makes everyone go nuts, like he's doing some heavy metal solo and every metalhead with form is just banging their heads away - that's like the universe. And how do we know that God is totally shredding, inspiring everyone and everything with respect to form/actuality? Well, you will admit that change is everywhere. Yes. So, like, don't you think change has always been? I mean, hold on, let me take a drag, mmmm.... so, wow.
So, man, there's been change for eternity.
Wow.
And if change then time... time's eternal too man.
But like, the world's always been here.
Aw man... but that's like impossible if change is for eternity cause then the world would be just like, not... it'd be like, changed, you know?
Yeah. But think of it this way. Change and time are just a part of the universe, and if there is at least one eternal thing as a part of the universe, then there must be an eternal thing that is the whole universe. Therefore, God exists. QED maaan. Cool. But God doesn't love you.
What?
God can't love you, because he is perfect and thinking about himself, cause when you're perfect, who ya gonna think about? Something less perfect? That would be funny. No man, God's thinking about God for eternity.
So we have to love God in order to actualize our form which is our essence - how do we do that?
By doing what God does - contemplating form (himself).
How do we contemplate form man?
By studying Aristotle (Aristotle was apparently the world's first master of academic self-promotion).(less)

1 like · like · see review

Feb 06, 2013 Dean Cummings rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: philosophy, favorites

Considered by many academics to be the most challenging work throughout all of literature, Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is more than just fancy words and non-sensical theorems. It deals with the most important theme possible: being/existence - both generally and specifically. For the Greek philosopher, nothing takes precedence over being because without being, there would be nothing. In other words, Aristotle deals with First Principles of knowledge by determining what composes the fabrics of our v...more Considered by many academics to be the most challenging work throughout all of literature, Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is more than just fancy words and non-sensical theorems. It deals with the most important theme possible: being/existence - both generally and specifically. For the Greek philosopher, nothing takes precedence over being because without being, there would be nothing. In other words, Aristotle deals with First Principles of knowledge by determining what composes the fabrics of our very existence. Ultimately, he concludes that substance, essence, form and matter and the unity established between them is - out of necessity - the so-called fabrics of not just being but nearly everything, with a few exceptions. The most difficult challenge in reading a work of this intellectual magnitude is understanding the difference between substance, essence, form and matter and how they apply differently to becoming (a potentiality, therefore a non-actualized state of being) and being (the state after becoming is actualized - like ourselves). Moreover, Aristotle's treatise on being is not devoid of faith for he will demonstrate in the final books that the so-called "Unmoved Mover" (i.e. God) is responsible for setting all actions into motion which allows everything that is in a potential state to be actualized (being). Without sparking controversy, many scholars claim that Aristotle's interpretation of God as the Unmoved Mover - being the first philosophy to conceive of a single, omnipotent God - greatly influenced "The Holy Bible" and the way God is portrayed throughout its holy pages. On a final note, I fear that this read would be too difficult for most readers which is why I highly recommend taking a course (like I did) or read additional guides to aid you in your endeavour in conquering this intimidating book. Read it for its genius, read it for its impact on Western culture but most of all, read it for a personal challenge and feel proud that Aristotle was indeed mortal and human like ourselves, even though his timeless wisdom suggests otherwise.

(less)

like · see review

Jul 19, 2010 Matt rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Metaphysics, true to its name, studies the essence of being. The study of “being qua being” seems to be the phrase of choice. Much of the book appears to be an extension of ideas originally brought forth in Categories. Essentially, Aristotle attempts to define the essence of a thing. What makes each thing…“be.”

Not surprisingly, Aristotle spends considerable time with definitions. He reacts to his predecessors, contemporaries and the absurdities in the sophist tradition.

And definition arises out

...more Metaphysics, true to its name, studies the essence of being. The study of “being qua being” seems to be the phrase of choice. Much of the book appears to be an extension of ideas originally brought forth in Categories. Essentially, Aristotle attempts to define the essence of a thing. What makes each thing…“be.”

Not surprisingly, Aristotle spends considerable time with definitions. He reacts to his predecessors, contemporaries and the absurdities in the sophist tradition.

And definition arises out of the necessity of stating what we mean; since the statement of which the word is a sign becomes a definition. Now the argument of Heraclitus, to the effect that all things are and are not, seems to present all things as true, whereas that of Anaxagoras, that there is an intermediate between contradictories, seems to present all things as false; for when things are mixed, the mixture is neither good nor not good, so that one cannot say anything true. pg. 84; Book Gamma

With mathematical precision, Aristotle then defines his terms, ultimately leading to the same effort to define essence. Aristotle concludes the essence of a thing is found in the whole that precedes its parts. Repeatedly, he comes back to the idea of man. For example, man may be musical but the music doesn’t define what a man is. But the constant division of substance into categories seems to yield the same problem Aristotle notes other philosophers encounter when they search for independent substance in numbers:

it was other philosophers who separated them from things and gave them the name “ideas”. And they concluded by practically the same reasoning that there is an idea for each general term; as if they thought it was easier to count many than few. pg. 277-278; Book Mu

Likewise, the constant division to reach a prior whole by unique identifiers ultimately leaves categorization meaningless. It seems impossible to identify essence through observation of traits.

As Aristotle struggles with distinguishing wholeness from “accidentals” (such as musicality, whiteness, etc.) to define man, he clearly is starting from a definite position that he doesn’t try to explain; why is man a whole and not an accidental? Maybe the essence of man is found in constituent parts. Maybe man is an accidental. Aristotle did not have the advantage of knowing genetics, or, in even more elemental form, the 118 elements of the periodic table. Most of Aristotle’s attempt at definition get stumped at what can be observed. Such science also must be taken into consideration in Book Mu and Book Nu where Aristotle disregards the independent essence of numbers. “How can whiteness be a ratio between numbers?” he asks at one point. In genetic terms, very easily. Of course, his questions of “being qua being” still apply to genes and elements, but his analysis obviously cannot reach such a stage.

The most enduring principles out of Metaphysics seem to be the idea of a prime mover and the principles of contradiction (a thing cannot be and not-be at the same time). The idea of prime mover, or first cause, I recall being a foundational principle of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Christian Neoplatonists, but I’ve still got about a millennia of works to get through before I get to them.(less)

like · see review

Jul 27, 2007 Kevin rated it 4 of 5 stars

I went to school where Joe Sachs teaches, and his translations are excellently faithful, even if that does mean a little initial adjustment on the part of the reader; compound Greek words are often translated as hyphenated English phrases, ie, "entelecheia" is "being-at-work-staying-itself," if I recall.

1 like · like · see review

Apr 04, 2013 Malcolmaffleck rated it 4 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Given that Ibn-Sina - one of the great Islamic Philosophers - once claimed to have read the Metaphysics 40 times and not understood it, I think I'm in pretty good company having read it once and only understood fleeting parts of it. I don't think that's a problem with Artistotle's ideas, just that this isn't a book that Aristotle would have written, more a collection of his teachings or lecture notes that were jumbled together from different periods of Aristotle's life into one collection.

Howeve...more

like · see review

Mar 16, 2013 Joseph Sverker added it · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

The first thing I must confess is that I read this book far to sketchy. This is not even a book that is possible to read in a skimming manner, because then you will miss the very intricate argument, which is exactly what I did. But my reason for reading it was actually just to have a sense of what it is about and that I got. I was interested in his thoughts on the First philosophy on, even though I didn't quite follow it, the idea of the monads, the first cause. A further thing that I am glad th...more

like · see review

May 09, 2010 Rizal Nova Mujahid rated it 3 of 5 stars

Ternyata setelah selesai dibaca, tak seseram yang kukira. Tentu terlalu sombong jika dikata memahami semua isinya. Tapi, kira-kira inilah yang kutangkap dari Metaphysics

Setiap manusia pada kodratnya menghasrati pengetahuan dan kebijakan. Untuk itu pengembaraan ilmu haruslah tanpa pamrih.

Metaphysics, terdiri dari empat belas buku. Buku pertama sampai buku tiga diisi dengan ringkasan pemikiran filsafat pada masa sebelum Aristoteles. Dia menjelaskan tentang kebijakan dimulai dengan persepsi inderaw...more Ternyata setelah selesai dibaca, tak seseram yang kukira. Tentu terlalu sombong jika dikata memahami semua isinya. Tapi, kira-kira inilah yang kutangkap dari Metaphysics

Setiap manusia pada kodratnya menghasrati pengetahuan dan kebijakan. Untuk itu pengembaraan ilmu haruslah tanpa pamrih.

Metaphysics, terdiri dari empat belas buku. Buku pertama sampai buku tiga diisi dengan ringkasan pemikiran filsafat pada masa sebelum Aristoteles. Dia menjelaskan tentang kebijakan dimulai dengan persepsi inderawi yang kemudian diabstarksi ke dalam wilayah ilmu pengetahuan. Pengetahuan seperti itu memerlukan pemahaman akan fakta inderawi dan penyebab-penyebabnya. Selain itu, kebijakan hanya akan didapat jika mampu memahamai prinsip universal dan penyebab utama berdasarkan pengetahuan itu.

Pada buku empat dia berargumen berkenaan beberapa pemikiran menyesatkan. Dia berasyik-masyuk dengan hukum kontradiksi, bahwa sesuatu tidak bisa sekaligus menjadi be dan bukan be pada saat yang bersamaan. Pembahasan tentang relativisme dan nihilisme—hal yang menghasilkan pemikirian kontradiktif—di sini lebih dia perdalam lagi. Hubungan antara bentuk dan materi juga nampak jelas menjadi masalah utama Aristoteles. Dia yakin keduanya substansial. Lebih tepatnya, materi adalah potensi, sedang bentuk adalah aktualnya. Keduanya tak terpisahkan, berkelindan.

Buku berikutnya membicarakan berbagai topik, seperti kebhinekaan, ketunggalan, objek matematika, dll—sebagian besar tidak dibahas mendalam, cenderung diabaikan, mungkin karena tidak langsung bersentuhan dengan tema utama Metaphysics.

Buku 12 merupakan klimaks pemikiran metafisikanya, di sini dia malah membicarakan sistem teologi. Dimulai dengan ide tentang substansi—ada tiga macam, berubah dan fana, berubah dan abadi, dan yang tak berubah. Jika semua yang berubah fana, konsekuensinya “kiamat” tidak dapat dihindari. Kemudian dia memasukkan dua entitas yang tidak mungkin fana, gerak dan waktu.

Jika waktu diciptakan, maka pasti tidak ada waktu sebelum penciptaan, tapi kata “sebelum” sudah pasti berhubungan dengan konsep waktu. Sedangkan gerak yang tak mungkin terputus adalah gerak melingkar. Dari sini dia masuk ke ide tentang Penggerak-yang-tak-bergerak, karena cuma dialah yang bisa menyebabkan gerak melingkar abadi. Penggerak-yang-tak bergerak merupakan penyebab akhir semesta dan murni sekedar aktus, tanpa materi, karena dialah yang menyebabkan dirinya sendiri. Karena penggerak tidak akan bergerak jika dia bergerak tidak dalam tataran fisik.

Penggerak atau Tuhan sepertinya merupakan konsep standar tentang being yang bersifat Tuhan. Walau Aristoteles menegaskan bahwa dia (penggerak-yang-tak-bergerak) merupakan mahluk hidup dan membawai sifat ketuhanan, dia juga tidak memiliki hasrat terhadap dunia dan tidak bisa dikenali karena dia ada pada level yang sangat abstrak dan transenden. Aktivitasnya hanyalah pengetahuan dan hanya pengetahuan tentang dirinya, karena being yang sangat abstrak sudah mengatasi pemikiran pun pengalaman, hanya mengetahui yang paling.(less)

like · see review

Jan 06, 2013 Ismet rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: favorites

Aristoteles, metafiziği "varlık olması bakımından varlığın bilimi" olarak tanımlar. Metafizik 14 kitaptan oluşuyor ve her kitapta farklı konular ele alınıyor. Birinci kitap önsöz niteliğindedir. Platon ve öncesindeki filozofların görüşlerine kısaca yer verilir. İkinci kitapta felsefe üzerine genel düşünceler vardır. Üçüncü kitapta metafiziğin 14 ana problemi sıralanır. Dördüncü kitapta metafiziğin tanımı yapılır ve amacı açıklanır. Protogorasın görelilik görüşü eleştirilir. Beşinci kitapta Arist...more Aristoteles, metafiziği "varlık olması bakımından varlığın bilimi" olarak tanımlar. Metafizik 14 kitaptan oluşuyor ve her kitapta farklı konular ele alınıyor. Birinci kitap önsöz niteliğindedir. Platon ve öncesindeki filozofların görüşlerine kısaca yer verilir. İkinci kitapta felsefe üzerine genel düşünceler vardır. Üçüncü kitapta metafiziğin 14 ana problemi sıralanır. Dördüncü kitapta metafiziğin tanımı yapılır ve amacı açıklanır. Protogorasın görelilik görüşü eleştirilir. Beşinci kitapta Aristoteles'in terminolojisindeki temel kavramların tanımı yapılır. Altıncı kitapta ilineksel anlamda varlık ve doğru anlamda varlık açıklanır. Yedinci ve sekizinci kitapta töz hakkındaki farklı kuramlar, oluşun analizi, madde, form ve bileşik varlık kavramları anlatılır. Dokuzuncu kitap Aristoteles metafiziğinin temelidir; kuvve-fiil ayrımı, kuvvenin fiile geçişi, fiilin kuvveye üstünlüğü açıklanır. Onuncu kitapta birlik ve çokluğun, tür bakımından ve cins bakımından başkalığın, oluşa ve yokoluşa tabi olan ve olmayan varlıkların ayrımı yapılır. Onbirinci kitapta hareketin, değişmenin ve sonsuzun analizi yapılır. On ikinci kitapta ilk hareket ettiricinin zorunluluğu gösterilir ve doğası açıklanır. On üçüncü ve ondördüncü kitapta sayıların analizi yapılır. İdealar kuramı, idea-sayılar kuramı ve diğer filozofların sayılar hakkındaki görüşleri eleştirilir.

Bu, kolay kolay herkese önerebileceğim bir kitap değil. Bu, felsefe literatüründeki en ağır kitaplardan biri. Ahmet Arslan bu kitabı üç farklı dildeki çeviriden ve pek çok şerhçinin yorumlarından faydalanarak büyük bir titizlikle on beş yılda çevirmiş. Sonuç çok iyi, çevirinin dili yalın ve anlaşılır. Ama zor olan Aristoteles'in akıl yürütmelerini takip etmek. Bu kitabı okumayı göze aldıysanız aynı paragrafı on defa okumayı ve en iyimser tahminle 3-6 ayınızı harcamayı göze alın. Bu kitaptan en iyi verimi alabilmeniz için tavsiyem önce Platon'un varlık felsefesiyle ilgili kitaplarını, sonra Aristoteles'in Organon(mantık) serisini ve Fizik kitabını, son olarak Metafizik'i okumanız.

Bu kadar uğraşa değer mi derseniz, kesinlikle değer. Aristoteles bir tohumun ağaca dönüşmesinden evrenin işleyiş prensibine kadar varlığın arkasında yatan sırra bir açıklama getiriyor. Okuyan kişinin ufkunu da bir kat daha genişletiyor. Aristoteles'in kendi sözüyle: "Sabır acıdır fakat meyvesi tatlıdır."(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Feb 26, 2012 Fernando Álvarez rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: metaphysics

Siempre será complejo entender las cuestiones del ser en tanto que ser. La metafísica es la ciencia que se ocupa de esto y Aristóteles nos ilustra en su obra magna "Metafísica". Aristóteles fue discípulo de Platón, y este último de Sócrates.

Esta obra se comprende por once libros concernientes a las razones del ser y lo que emana de él. Aristóteles van tan lejos hasta contradecir a su mentor, Platón, quien creía que todas las cosas provienen de sus contrarios. Aristóteles se pregunta: ¿cómo las...more

like · see review

Jul 20, 2011 Yann rated it 2 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: antiquité, philosophie, grece

J'étais très curieux de lire ce petit livre, sur lequels se penchèrent des commentateurs célèbres, comme Maïmonides, Averroes, ou encore Thomas d'Aquin. J'ai vite compris pourquoi des hommes prétendant trouver leur chemin dans le labyrinthe de la Métaphysique ont pu en imposer à leur semblables, tant le brouillard qui enveloppe les idées exposées dans l'ouvrage est épais. Cette épaisseur tranche d'ailleurs avec la clarté d'autres ouvrages d'Aristote, comme la Poétique ou la Rhétorique. On pourra...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 27, 2008 Zach added it

a few thoughts i wrote out about this book:

Prime Mover, Paragon of Thinkers

The prime mover is as such, we learn in Metaphysics, because its thoughts are the cause of motion in all that is beautiful (1072a.26-29) and are thoughts of itself, for “its thinking is a thinking of thinking” (1074b.35). And this beautiful, it is noted, is in the highest, most complete sense imaginable, which seems to express that all that is whole and complete in the universe, all that is as it is, is because of the th...more a few thoughts i wrote out about this book:

Prime Mover, Paragon of Thinkers

The prime mover is as such, we learn in Metaphysics, because its thoughts are the cause of motion in all that is beautiful (1072a.26-29) and are thoughts of itself, for “its thinking is a thinking of thinking” (1074b.35). And this beautiful, it is noted, is in the highest, most complete sense imaginable, which seems to express that all that is whole and complete in the universe, all that is as it is, is because of the thinking of the prime mover. This thinking is a being-at-work where the act of thinking is one with what is thought (1075a.6-7) and can be understood as a being-at-work that is constantly converging as a being-at-work-staying-complete, for it is a ceaseless, everlasting being-at-work (1072a.23-29, 1072b.29, & 1073a.7)—its thinking is an end. People carry on or partake in the prime mover’s being-at-work/being-at-work-at-staying-complete because, although for humans thinking is only a stretching towards knowing (severely unaccomplished in comparison with the prime mover’s thinking), this stretching towards knowing is a natural motion (980a.21), an innate being-at-work, which they may improve upon if they are able. By attending to Aristotle’s advice in the importance of primacy and the knowing of causes, the prime mover, as the prime thinker, is revealed as an apotheosis for all thinkers.

Thinking, or stretching out towards knowing, as a natural motion in people (980a.21) is something of an odd being-at-work. As Aristotle notes, it is primary in our senses and most preferred in our sight because sight most easily allows us to discover things and differences among them (980a.2-7). But as we grow from baby to child to adult, the being-at-work of the intellect is experienced as a being-at-work with a nuanced ability for progression, or evolution. That is to say, most people are able to progress by the natural motion of the intellect being-at-work from being a baby beginning with only a knowing through the senses to an adult with the ability to think of the senses and evaluate them, but genuine progression in knowing, wherein a person’s ability to think is subsumed or made to be a smaller part of a greater ability, happens only with concerted effort. Like the continuous circle of thought made by the prime mover that stays in the same place (1071b.12) & is always at work in the same way (1072a.10-12), the human mind too is happy at its work, being-at-work—the possibility of traveling in a larger circle (greater thinking/knowing ability) isn’t readily admitted. This can most easily be seen in people’s tendency to compartmentalize thinking and knowledge: the child is happy studying butterflies for hours on end without a thought for the healthy soil required for the flowers that the butterflies so desperately need; the adult works hard for certificates of merit in a few different fields of knowledge, is content if he can truly master these, but gives little thought to how his knowing might gain from fully understanding a friend’s thinking ability. This tendency to remain in the same circle of thought (or to compartmentalize thinking and knowledge) can also be understood as a way in which people partake in the motion of the prime mover’s being-at-work-staying-complete (as opposed to only being-at-work) because it is akin to thinking that the sum of thoughts are an end in themselves, but this can never truly be the case for people as it is for the prime mover because for people there is always something beyond their current thinking and knowing.

Yet some people seem to have a slightly different version (or can at least intermittently access a different kind) of the innate motion of stretching towards knowing, one that strives to be more than itself. Aristotle seems to intimate this in Book One when he is discussing whether it is appropriate for anyone to know of first sources and causes (982b.29-30) and concludes, “a man is not worthy of seeking anything but the kind of knowledge that fits him” (982b.33). This passage raises more questions than it answers, for it is puzzling to wonder exactly what kind of traits people must have to be worthy of seeking the knowledge of first philosophy and how these people would come to know this of themselves—one might imagine it as a potency that lies dormant within the intellect until the right situation makes it become an actuality, but this only partially answers one question of many that could follow from a closer examination of the passage. However, the important point to bear in mind is that Aristotle thinks some people do have the worth to seek the noblest knowledge.

For those people that have the worth (or the potential, for it seems this may be a kind of potency within the intellect) to seek the knowledge of the first causes and sources, Aristotle makes it clear that though all other kinds of knowledge are more necessary none are better or more primary than the knowledge of first philosophy (983a.10-11 & 1026a.30-33). It is this particular sort of stretching towards knowing that enables the intellect to be more than itself, to allow its circle to be enlarged, because it causes the human intellect to mirror the prime mover’s thinking beyond the incomplete partaking of the intellect’s being-at-work-staying-complete mentioned above. First philosophy leads one to thinking like the prime mover because to think of causes, forms, eternal motion, and the thinking of thinking is in some small manner to think like the prime mover, and yet these are the least of the reasons why the prime mover is the paragon of thinkers—to find better reasons we must look to the beautiful.

It is hard not hear an admonishment towards thinking of and like the first mover when its intellect, which is a being-at-work that is life, is elucidated as a being-at-work that is in itself everlasting and the best life (1072b.28-29) because it is a being-at-work that is for the beautiful, for the end is that for the sake of which the being-at-work is, and the being-at-work of the first mover is for the beautiful° (1072a.26-29) [To put the beautiful as the reason for the prime mover’s importance as model thinker begs the question, what is the beautiful as it is the thoughts of the prime mover? As was suggested in the introduction, beautiful is meant in the highest and most complete sense imaginable, yet this seems an unsatisfactory answer here. Perhaps the beautiful will be clearer if it is conceived as the complete good because it seems that what the beautiful might be is only limited by the thinker thinking the limit and what it cannot be is clear by whatever does not partake of the beautiful (or the good)]. To stretch towards knowing in such a manner as to try to imitate the prime mover then means to intend all activity for the beautiful—or, as has been noted, for the complete good. For an example of what it might look like for this to be achieved we can turn to Socrates’ description in Phaedo of the philosopher having successfully detached his soul from the body. Socrates notes that when the soul is “herself by herself, she investigates, she goes off There, to what’s pure and is always and is deathless and keeps to the same condition,” and he then describes the sum of these actions as thoughtfulness (79d). This remarkable imagery can be seen as depicting the soul as the thinker thinking like the prime mover in the manner of eternal forms of the beautiful, which is itself; it is as if Aristotle takes this notion of perfect thoughtfulness in detaching the soul from the body and in Metaphysics offers a mirror image consisting of different details, but the same theme.

Socrates, however, never links this thoughtfulness to the first causes, and in fact despairs of ever finding anyone that could prove that the mind is responsible for all things and that it is the “Good-and-Binding” that truly binds and holds things together (97-99); but where Socrates despairs, Aristotle is able to construct a lengthy inquiry that eventually links intellect and the good (as the beautiful) as the cause and very quintessence of existence; and when reading Phaedo and Metaphysics next to each other, it even seems like Aristotle is directly responding to Socrates’ wish for a teacher that might save Socrates from relying on his “randomly smushed together” (97b) version of how the soul, thinking, and existence inform each other by providing the prime mover as the model for all thinkers.

Works Cited
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Trans. Joe Sachs. Santa Fe: Green Lion Press, 2002.
Plato. Phaedo. Trans. Eva Brann, Peter Kalkavage, and Eric Salem. Newburyport: Focus Publising: 1998.
(less)

like · see review

May 23, 2010 Jesse Lopes rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

An incredibly lucid text, though admittedly a brain-twister, Aristotle here examines First Philosophy and finds Plato's Forms wholly deficient of a real existence. He concludes that there is a prime mover, and refutes the sophistic reasoning of almost all of his contemporaries. Aristotle leaves metaphysics an open issue, generally, perhaps recalling, despite, no doubt, being an atheist, that to deny metaphysics is just as arrogant as to detail it. Read after his Organon.

1 like · like · see review

Jul 17, 2012 Ariston rated it 4 of 5 stars

Joe Sachs's translation is eccentric, but enlightening. His attempts to render core Aristotelian concepts in everyday English often backfire, but they are a useful complement to the usual, Latinate vocabulary. My favorite is his rendering of ἐνέργεια as ‘being–at–work’.

Sachs's introduction is, additionally, a wonderful short argument for a unitary reading of Metaphysics, against the critical reading which has seen various sections of it as mutually incompatible.

like · see review

Nov 23, 2009 Sarah rated it 3 of 5 stars

This is, of course, one of the foundational texts of western philosophical thought. It contains many fundamental doctrines and questions/explorations (including the inaugural presentation of the Law of Non-Contradiction). However, the translation was pretty painful, and for more complex, mind-bending investigations, there are many other volumes that get much more of a rise out of me. This is kind of like if you need to brush up on your Calculus and you start by going all the way back to multipic...more

like · see review

May 15, 2009 Neal Tucker rated it 3 of 5 stars

Great book by Aristotle. This translation, though, is, or rather can be, very, very, immensely over-confusing. I found myself frustrated more at the translator's words than Aristotle's ideas, which in and of themselves, are pretty confusing at times. Read a different, more traditional translation. Unless you like words with 38 hyphens.

like · see review

May 01, 2013 Andrew Cutler rated it 5 of 5 stars

This is the text where he 'proves a Prime Mover' and sets off an entire history of linear thinking and progress taken up as the Christian cosmological argument. A wonderful summary of all the philosophy that lead up to him including pre-Socratics and his attacks on Plato's form theory.

like · see review

Oct 10, 2009 Brian rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: philosophy

This was a difficult read. There was light on the other side of the tunnel however, because it drilled into my head that if we are going to talk about things we have to posit its substance, if we can not, then, metaphysics! And that forces a whole new dialogue.

like · see review

Mar 01, 2012 Margad Esme rated it 5 of 5 stars

энэ номыг нэг хүн 30 удаа уншаад ойлгоогүй гэсэн... би лав өөрийхөөрөө хэд хэд уншаад ойсон ч ахин унших бүрт ахин шинэ зүйл нэмэгдээд сонин шүү

like · see review

Jun 08, 2012 Pranav added it · review of another edition

A rather complicated work of philosophy which i found extremely difficult to decipher. I did read through the entire text though i couldn't make out what the book was about.

like · see review

Feb 14, 2012 Katie rated it 3 of 5 stars

Not as easy to understand as Phaedo, but my realistic to the ideas we have now. Gotta go reread now...

like · see review

Feb 17, 2009 Alisha G rated it 5 of 5 stars

Studying this in college was my favorite intellectual exercise of those four years.

like · see review

Dec 07, 2008 eesenor rated it 5 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Aristotle invents Metaphysics, for him the study of the permanent features of existence.

like · see review

Apr 15, 2010 Michael Fogleman rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: freshman-year, sjc, 2010, philosophy

Read I.1-7, II, IV.1-4, VII.1-3, 17, IX.6, 8, XII.1, 6-10.
Would like to go back and read V, where Aristotle discusses the terms he uses in his texts and their multiple meanings.

like · see review

Feb 26, 2009 S marked it as to-read · review of another edition

Hugh Lawson-Tancred, trans

also Art of Rhetoric
penguin 1991

like · see review

May 29, 2010 Ray Lang rated it 3 of 5 stars · review of another edition

Shelves: as-an-undergrad

Metaphysics isn't just some flaky "Shirley MacLaine" kind of thing.

like · see review

Mar 04, 2009 Heather rated it 1 of 5 stars

i dislike all the classics. that goes for aristotle.

like · see review

Feb 19, 2013 Casey rated it 4 of 5 stars

Any good philosophical thinker should read this!

like · see review

« previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 99 100 next »

new topic
Discuss This Book

There are no discussion topics on this book yet. Be the first to start one »

Recommend it | Stats | Recent status updates

combine
Other Editions (93)

More editions...

Genres

Philosophy

334 users

Classics

38 users

Non Fiction

27 users

Philosophy > Metaphysics

16 users

Literature > Ancient

8 users

History

8 users

Academic > School

5 users

Science

4 users

Academic > College

4 users

Philosophy > Theory

2 users

See top shelves...

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Aristotle

Aristotle (Greek: Ἀριστοτέλης, Aristotélēs) (384 BC – 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher, a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He wrote on many subjects, including physics, metaphysics, poetry, theater, music, logic, rhetoric, politics, government, ethics, biology and zoology.

Together with Plato and Socrates (Plato's teacher), Aristotle is one of the most important founding figures...more

More about Aristotle...

Books by Aristotle

The Complete Works of Aristotle 1: Revised Oxford Translation

More…

Share This Book

Facebook Twitter Your website

Trivia About The Metaphysics

No trivia or quizzes yet. Add some now »

Quotes from Metaphysics

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.” — 4,132 people liked it

“If things do not turn out as we wish, we should wish for them as they turn out.” — 29 people liked it

More quotes…

title link	preview: Metaphysics
avg rating	preview: Metaphysics Goodreads rating: 3.91 (4356 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/208036.Metaphysics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1355049704l/208036.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/208036.Metaphysics?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Metaphysics by Aristotle[/url]

Metaphysics

Friend Reviews

Community Reviews

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website