What do you think?
Rate this book
Very Short Introductions #032
Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction
The influence of Aristotle, the prince of philosophers, on the intellectual history of the West is second to none. In this book, Jonathan Barnes examines Aristotle's scientific researches, his discoveries in logic and his metaphysical theories, his work in psychology and in ethics and politics, and his ideas about art and poetry, placing his teachings in their historical context.
About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
About the Series: Combining authority with wit, accessibility, and style, Very Short Introductions offer an introduction to some of life's most interesting topics. Written by experts for the newcomer, they demonstrate the finest contemporary thinking about the central problems and issues in hundreds of key topics, from philosophy to Freud, quantum theory to Islam.
160 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1982
138 people are currently reading
2223 people want to read
About the author
Jonathan Barnes
156 books40 followersJonathan Barnes, FBA (born 26 December 1942 in Wenlock, Shropshire) is an English scholar of ancient philosophy.
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
See also Jonathan Barnes or Jonathan Barnes
Librarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name.
See also Jonathan Barnes or Jonathan Barnes
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews
June 28, 2021
Jonathan Barnes's book demonstrates the breadth of Aristotle's thought. However, his primary focus is on Aristotle's contribution to the sciences. As a result, he devotes just seven pages to his practical philosophy of ethics and politics. Ironically, in his final chapter, Barnes states that many of Aristotle's scientific ideas have become outdated and remain of interest only to historians of science. In contrast, contemporary philosophers still debate many of his ideas on ethics today. I would have liked the book more if he had gone into greater depth into Aristotle's views on ethics, especially his theory of virtue.
May 4, 2014
On Approaching Aristotle
I enjoyed this VSI. What was most valuable was that it gave me a good frame of reference to tackle Aristotle — by letting me prepare for Aristotle in relation to Plato. Of course, Jonathan Barnes mostly assumes that the the reader has already taken the trouble to read Plato. That is the trouble with inviting such a distinguished scholar to write a basic introduction.
This was just what I needed as I prepare to take my first tentative steps towards a fuller reading of Aristotle (having a dabbled a bit with Rhetoric before). Putting Aristotle’s works in perspective by relating them to their points of departure from Plato, makes a whole corpus suddenly much more familiar and in tune with things I have been reading and thinking about for months on end now. The VSI only hints at this and does not do this exhaustively, but that is enough and the reader can do the heavy slugging on their own.
The Popularity Contest
Besides directing the studies in the Academy, Plato himself gave lectures and his hearers took notes. It is important to notice that these lectures were not published, and that they stand in contrast to the dialogues, which were published works meant for "popular" reading.
If we realize this fact, then some of the sharp differences that we naturally tend to discern between Plato and Aristotle disappear, at least in part:
We possess Plato's popular works, his dialogues, but not his lectures. The situation is the exact opposite in regard to Aristotle, for while the works of Aristotle that are in our hands represent his lectures, his popular works or dialogues have not come down to us—only fragments remain. We do not possess a record of the lectures that he delivered in the Academy (though we have more or less cryptic references in Aristotle), and this would be all the more to be regretted if those are right who would see in the dialogues popular work designed for the educated laymen, to be distinguished from the lectures delivered to professional students of philosophy.
We cannot, therefore, by a comparison of Plato's dialogues with Aristotle's lectures, draw conclusions, without further evidence, as to a strong opposition between the two philosophers in point of literary ability, for instance, or emotional, aesthetic and "mystical" outlook.
We are told that Aristotle used to relate how those who came to hear Plato's lecture on the Good, were often astonished to hear of nothing but arithmetic and astronomy, and of the limit and the One. So we can assume that if we had only his lecture notes, even the supremely inventive Plato might be able to bore us!
An Unfair Contrast
Thus we have a queer situation here. What has come down to us from Plato were exactly the material he had designed to be read by the public, while most of the surviving writings of Aristotle were perhaps never intended to be read; for it seems likely that the treatises which we possess were almost wholly put together later from Aristotle’s lecture notes.
The notes were made for his own use and not for public dissemination. They were no doubt tinkered with over a period of years. Moreover, although some of the treatises owe their structure to Aristotle himself, others were plainly put together by later editors – the Nicomachean Ethics is evidently not a unitary work, the Metaphysics is plainly a set of essays rather than a continuous treatise. In the light of this, it will hardly be a surprise to find that the style of Aristotle’s works is often rugged.
Plato’s dialogues are finished literary artefacts, the subtleties of their thought matched by the tricks of their language. Aristotle’s writings for the most part are terse. His arguments are concise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set among staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy. If the treatises are unpolished, that is in part because Aristotle had felt no need and no urge to take down the beeswax. But only in part; for Aristotle had reflected on the appropriate style for scientific writing and he favoured simplicity.
Aristotle could write finely – his style was praised by ancient critics who read works of his which we cannot – and some parts of the surviving items are done with power and even with panache. But he probably did not feel the need for it in his lectures, where the premium was on packing maximum information into limited time available, much like today.
The Best Approach to Aristotle
All this is not to suggest that reading the treatises is a dull slog. Aristotle has a vigour which is the more attractive the better it is known; and the treatises, which have none of the camouflage of Plato’s dialogues, reveal their author’s thoughts – or at least appear to do so – in a direct and stark fashion.
Above all, Aristotle is tough. A good way of reading him is this: Take up a treatise, think of it as a set of lecture notes, and imagine that you now have to lecture from them. You must expand and illustrate the argument, and you must make the transitions clear; you will probably decide to relegate certain paragraphs to footnotes, or reserve them for another time and another lecture; and if you have any talent at all as a lecturer, you will find that the jokes add themselves.
Let it be admitted that Aristotle can be not only tough but also vexing. Whatever does he mean here? How on earth is this conclusion supposed to follow from those premises? Why this sudden barrage of technical terms? One ancient critic claimed that ‘he surrounds the difficulty of his subject with the obscurity of his language, and thus avoids refutation – producing darkness, like a squid, in order to make himself hard to capture’. Every reader will, from time to time, think of Aristotle as a squid. But the moments of vexation are outnumbered by the moments of elation. Aristotle’s treatises offer a peculiar challenge to their readers; and once you have taken up the challenge, you would not have the treatises in any other form.
It is easy to imagine that you can overhear Aristotle talking to himself.
June 7, 2016
(3.5 stars, but I’ll round up to 4.)
Aristotle has proven to be one of the most difficult philosophers for me to come to grips with. For lack of a better phrase, I just don’t get it.
His writings are some of the most dry, disorganized, and tedious works that I’ve made myself read. This, of course, is due to their being lecture notes, not finished works. Even so, I’m usually at a loss to understand how these lecture notes could have played such a decisive role in the history of Western thought. Much of his works consist of sterile catalogues of data—data, moreover, that often seems quite obvious and not worth cataloguing. Other sections are often impenetrable or irrelevant, like he couldn't stick to the task at hand.
On top of the writing style, I have often found his ideas unappealing and, at times, idiotic. Consider his reply to Plato’s advocacy that women should be educated like men: Aristotle essentially responds, “well, if women were doing the tasks of men, who would do the cooking?” Also consider Aristotle’s idea that some men are naturally slaves, and that enslaving them was merely to treat them as they should be treated. Did it not occur to Aristotle that some men act servile because they were born into slavery?
Even his more respectable theories have left me cold. The main idea that ties the Nicomachean Ethics together is the notion of the ‘golden mean’ (which is not Aristotle’s phrase); essentially, everything in moderation. This sounds reasonable; but consider that some of the most admired and successful individuals in history have been distinguished precisely for their lack of moderation. Aristotle’s own life was a case in point; he certainly didn’t moderate his philosophizing.
Aristotle was also capable of tremendous oversight. For all of the interesting insights in his Politics, the relevance of his ideas is hampered by Aristotle’s certainty that the Greek city-state was ideal. This is particularly egregious, since he was alive in the time of Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, who were establishing vast empires. What’s more, he has hardly anything to say about foreign policy—which, it would seem, was crucial, considering how many times Athens was taken over. This oversight, combined with the various anecdotes and misinformation he includes in his more scientific works, gives the impression of a man lacking in perspicacity and basic common sense.
In fact, Aristotle reminds me of nothing so much as a self-satisfied Oxford don, who bustled from lecture to lecture, pontificating about everything under the sun, while overlooking most of what actually lay there; a man who neither excelled at logical argument or empirical observation, and whose main virtue was his industriousness.
This is a very uncharitable view of the man, which is why I wanted to read somebody else’s perspective. For I strongly suspected that my negative opinion was due to a defect in myself, rather than Aristotle.
Interestingly enough, I could hardly have picked a better book to redeem Aristotle in my eyes; for Barnes’s VSI is as much an apology as an introduction. Barnes comes across as a loyal Aristotelian, intent on defending his master. And the defense is a good one. Barnes ably brings out what is best in Aristotle, while deemphasizing what is worst. For Barnes, Aristotle is the quintessential philosopher-scientist, both an assiduous collector of facts, and an ingenious constructor of theories.
Barnes cites many passages in Aristotle to support this view; and he covers many of Aristotle’s less-read scientific works. There is much of interest and value in those works, to be sure; but Barnes does a disservice to Aristotle by chiefly emphasizing the scientific work, for it is that work which is now obsolete; and it is Aristotle’s works on ethics, politics, rhetoric, and aesthetics which remain quite alive.
What’s more, Barnes didn’t quite convince me that Aristotle was a consummate scientist. Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, cites several ancient authors who, through ingenious observations and careful mathematics, managed to predict eclipses, as well as to estimate the curvature and size of the earth. Next to such thinkers, Aristotle’s empiricism is that of a stamp-collector, a mere collection of facts, without any real explanatory or predictive power. What’s more, when Aristotle does create theories to account for data, they seem almost childish—much like the golden mean—relying on bizarre assumptions about Nature and Goodness.
Again, I think my criticisms of Aristotle are most likely due to my own shortcomings rather than his. But I cannot help holding these opinions, and every passage quoted in this book reinforced them. But Barnes did do one very important thing—he convinced me to read more Aristotle; much more.
Aristotle has proven to be one of the most difficult philosophers for me to come to grips with. For lack of a better phrase, I just don’t get it.
His writings are some of the most dry, disorganized, and tedious works that I’ve made myself read. This, of course, is due to their being lecture notes, not finished works. Even so, I’m usually at a loss to understand how these lecture notes could have played such a decisive role in the history of Western thought. Much of his works consist of sterile catalogues of data—data, moreover, that often seems quite obvious and not worth cataloguing. Other sections are often impenetrable or irrelevant, like he couldn't stick to the task at hand.
On top of the writing style, I have often found his ideas unappealing and, at times, idiotic. Consider his reply to Plato’s advocacy that women should be educated like men: Aristotle essentially responds, “well, if women were doing the tasks of men, who would do the cooking?” Also consider Aristotle’s idea that some men are naturally slaves, and that enslaving them was merely to treat them as they should be treated. Did it not occur to Aristotle that some men act servile because they were born into slavery?
Even his more respectable theories have left me cold. The main idea that ties the Nicomachean Ethics together is the notion of the ‘golden mean’ (which is not Aristotle’s phrase); essentially, everything in moderation. This sounds reasonable; but consider that some of the most admired and successful individuals in history have been distinguished precisely for their lack of moderation. Aristotle’s own life was a case in point; he certainly didn’t moderate his philosophizing.
Aristotle was also capable of tremendous oversight. For all of the interesting insights in his Politics, the relevance of his ideas is hampered by Aristotle’s certainty that the Greek city-state was ideal. This is particularly egregious, since he was alive in the time of Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, who were establishing vast empires. What’s more, he has hardly anything to say about foreign policy—which, it would seem, was crucial, considering how many times Athens was taken over. This oversight, combined with the various anecdotes and misinformation he includes in his more scientific works, gives the impression of a man lacking in perspicacity and basic common sense.
In fact, Aristotle reminds me of nothing so much as a self-satisfied Oxford don, who bustled from lecture to lecture, pontificating about everything under the sun, while overlooking most of what actually lay there; a man who neither excelled at logical argument or empirical observation, and whose main virtue was his industriousness.
This is a very uncharitable view of the man, which is why I wanted to read somebody else’s perspective. For I strongly suspected that my negative opinion was due to a defect in myself, rather than Aristotle.
Interestingly enough, I could hardly have picked a better book to redeem Aristotle in my eyes; for Barnes’s VSI is as much an apology as an introduction. Barnes comes across as a loyal Aristotelian, intent on defending his master. And the defense is a good one. Barnes ably brings out what is best in Aristotle, while deemphasizing what is worst. For Barnes, Aristotle is the quintessential philosopher-scientist, both an assiduous collector of facts, and an ingenious constructor of theories.
Barnes cites many passages in Aristotle to support this view; and he covers many of Aristotle’s less-read scientific works. There is much of interest and value in those works, to be sure; but Barnes does a disservice to Aristotle by chiefly emphasizing the scientific work, for it is that work which is now obsolete; and it is Aristotle’s works on ethics, politics, rhetoric, and aesthetics which remain quite alive.
What’s more, Barnes didn’t quite convince me that Aristotle was a consummate scientist. Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, cites several ancient authors who, through ingenious observations and careful mathematics, managed to predict eclipses, as well as to estimate the curvature and size of the earth. Next to such thinkers, Aristotle’s empiricism is that of a stamp-collector, a mere collection of facts, without any real explanatory or predictive power. What’s more, when Aristotle does create theories to account for data, they seem almost childish—much like the golden mean—relying on bizarre assumptions about Nature and Goodness.
Again, I think my criticisms of Aristotle are most likely due to my own shortcomings rather than his. But I cannot help holding these opinions, and every passage quoted in this book reinforced them. But Barnes did do one very important thing—he convinced me to read more Aristotle; much more.
May 31, 2025
Aristotle In The Very Short Introduction Series
Readers may explore the volumes in Oxford University Press' "Very Short Introduction" series for a variety of reasons. The books are valuable to readers new to a subject. Such readers may want to expand their basic knowledge of a subject without delving into it in detail. Readers with knowledge of a subject may still want to read a well-informed introduction both to learn and also as a summary or refresher of their own understanding.
I am far from an expert on Aristotle, but I have studied some of his books in graduate-level philosophy seminars. Thus, I came to Jonathan Barnes' "Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction" (2000) reasonably informed. (In fact, Barnes' book is an edited version of an introduction to Aristotle he published in 1982, which I vaguely remember reading.) Barnes, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Geneva, is a master of his subject. He edited the Revised Oxford Translation of Aristotle and has published many books on the "Master of those who know" as well as other Greek philosophers. Readers can approach this introduction with confidence in the knowledge and background of the author.
The book shows its mastery by giving the reader the gist of Aristotle in a short space. A sign of knowledge, for Aristotle and many others, is the ability to separate the trivial from the essential and to explain in the circumstances or space made available. Aristotle's works are massive, wide-ranging, and complex. Most of the time, he is not a particularly graceful writer as is, for example, Plato. For readers of varying backgrounds in Aristotle, it is valuable to have the writings sorted out and organized, an effort which is itself Aristotelian.
Barnes views Aristotle as a scientist-philosopher. After a quick discussion of Aristotle's life, Barnes begins with Aristotle's biological investigations which are broader, more sophisticated, and more empirically based, than some would give him credit for. Barnes argues that Aristotle used his love for fact and for knowledge as the basis for philosophical conceptualization and organization rather than the other way round. Thus, Barnes views Aristotle's great contributions to logic as a way of schematizing and organizing empirically gathered information rather than a way of making facts fit preconceptions. He passes from biological science and logic to a consideration of Aristotle's physical theories and to his more recognizably philosophical work on the nature of knowledge and explanation, substance and metaphysics, and theology. Barnes passes quickly over Aristotle's large contributions to "practical" philosophy -- ethics and politics --- and to poetics.
Barnes explains Aristotle with a great deal of sympathy. He shows the reader that much may be learned from Aristotle's empiricism, from his love of knowledge, and from his understanding of the good life. His discussion of the teleological character of Aristotle's thought and its relationship to contemporary functionalism is particularly insightful. For all his admiration of Aristotle, Barnes states unequivocally that "Aristotle's account of the world is wholly exploded". Readers no longer turn to Aristotle to learn biology, physics, or logic even though his influence remains pervasive. Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics continue to be discussed and assessed among students of philosophy.
Barnes has written a valuable "very short introduction" to Aristotle. Readers without the inclination to pursue Aristotle further will get a good solid overview of his science and philosophy and of his importance. Students will be able to use this book to focus their reading. Those familiar with Aristotle will find this book a valuable quick summation. This book all told is an inspiring brief summary of the love of knowledge and wisdom, and of the life of the mind.
Robin Friedman
Readers may explore the volumes in Oxford University Press' "Very Short Introduction" series for a variety of reasons. The books are valuable to readers new to a subject. Such readers may want to expand their basic knowledge of a subject without delving into it in detail. Readers with knowledge of a subject may still want to read a well-informed introduction both to learn and also as a summary or refresher of their own understanding.
I am far from an expert on Aristotle, but I have studied some of his books in graduate-level philosophy seminars. Thus, I came to Jonathan Barnes' "Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction" (2000) reasonably informed. (In fact, Barnes' book is an edited version of an introduction to Aristotle he published in 1982, which I vaguely remember reading.) Barnes, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Geneva, is a master of his subject. He edited the Revised Oxford Translation of Aristotle and has published many books on the "Master of those who know" as well as other Greek philosophers. Readers can approach this introduction with confidence in the knowledge and background of the author.
The book shows its mastery by giving the reader the gist of Aristotle in a short space. A sign of knowledge, for Aristotle and many others, is the ability to separate the trivial from the essential and to explain in the circumstances or space made available. Aristotle's works are massive, wide-ranging, and complex. Most of the time, he is not a particularly graceful writer as is, for example, Plato. For readers of varying backgrounds in Aristotle, it is valuable to have the writings sorted out and organized, an effort which is itself Aristotelian.
Barnes views Aristotle as a scientist-philosopher. After a quick discussion of Aristotle's life, Barnes begins with Aristotle's biological investigations which are broader, more sophisticated, and more empirically based, than some would give him credit for. Barnes argues that Aristotle used his love for fact and for knowledge as the basis for philosophical conceptualization and organization rather than the other way round. Thus, Barnes views Aristotle's great contributions to logic as a way of schematizing and organizing empirically gathered information rather than a way of making facts fit preconceptions. He passes from biological science and logic to a consideration of Aristotle's physical theories and to his more recognizably philosophical work on the nature of knowledge and explanation, substance and metaphysics, and theology. Barnes passes quickly over Aristotle's large contributions to "practical" philosophy -- ethics and politics --- and to poetics.
Barnes explains Aristotle with a great deal of sympathy. He shows the reader that much may be learned from Aristotle's empiricism, from his love of knowledge, and from his understanding of the good life. His discussion of the teleological character of Aristotle's thought and its relationship to contemporary functionalism is particularly insightful. For all his admiration of Aristotle, Barnes states unequivocally that "Aristotle's account of the world is wholly exploded". Readers no longer turn to Aristotle to learn biology, physics, or logic even though his influence remains pervasive. Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics continue to be discussed and assessed among students of philosophy.
Barnes has written a valuable "very short introduction" to Aristotle. Readers without the inclination to pursue Aristotle further will get a good solid overview of his science and philosophy and of his importance. Students will be able to use this book to focus their reading. Those familiar with Aristotle will find this book a valuable quick summation. This book all told is an inspiring brief summary of the love of knowledge and wisdom, and of the life of the mind.
Robin Friedman
June 24, 2024
Helpful. Kind of boring.
August 1, 2025
Back in 1998, in the sultry corridors of our college's Political Science department, I remember Dr. Kashinath Kayal — towering in intellect and stature — handing me a copy of Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction like it was a secret scroll.
“You’ll need this,” he said, his tone firm, almost conspiratorial. I was knee-deep in Poetics and Politics, wrestling with terms like telos and eudaimonia, and drowning in the long-winded prose of the Master of Those Who Know.
Jonathan Barnes, in under 150 pages, swooped in like a much-needed lifeguard. This wasn’t just a primer; it was clarity in paperback. Barnes didn’t dilute Aristotle—he distilled him. From metaphysics to logic and ethics to natural science, the book showed how Aristotle wasn't just a philosopher but a system-builder, a thinker obsessed with categorising reality down to its last syllogism. The dry bones of the Organon suddenly danced.
What struck me then—and still stays with me—is how Barnes humanised the philosopher. Here was a man shaped by Plato, defined by observation, and obsessed with causes. The book gave Aristotle back his pulse.
That thin little volume became a dog-eared companion through my postgrad years. Even today, I return to it when Aristotle starts sounding more like algebra than wisdom. Dr. Kayal’s suggestion, it turns out, wasn’t just academic—it was prescient. Sometimes, the shortest introductions leave the longest echoes.
“You’ll need this,” he said, his tone firm, almost conspiratorial. I was knee-deep in Poetics and Politics, wrestling with terms like telos and eudaimonia, and drowning in the long-winded prose of the Master of Those Who Know.
Jonathan Barnes, in under 150 pages, swooped in like a much-needed lifeguard. This wasn’t just a primer; it was clarity in paperback. Barnes didn’t dilute Aristotle—he distilled him. From metaphysics to logic and ethics to natural science, the book showed how Aristotle wasn't just a philosopher but a system-builder, a thinker obsessed with categorising reality down to its last syllogism. The dry bones of the Organon suddenly danced.
What struck me then—and still stays with me—is how Barnes humanised the philosopher. Here was a man shaped by Plato, defined by observation, and obsessed with causes. The book gave Aristotle back his pulse.
That thin little volume became a dog-eared companion through my postgrad years. Even today, I return to it when Aristotle starts sounding more like algebra than wisdom. Dr. Kayal’s suggestion, it turns out, wasn’t just academic—it was prescient. Sometimes, the shortest introductions leave the longest echoes.
January 26, 2023
Jonathan Barnes's introduction to Aristotle is clever and well-written. For me, as someone educated in the Thomist tradition of interpreting Aristotle, it is interesting to see an interpretation from very different presuppositions. At times Barnes measures Aristotle too much with the accepted opinions of modern academic disciplines, rather than vica-versa. For example, his criticisms of Aristotle's logic are from the perspective of the propositional logic of analytic phiilosophy, which in my opinion can only be called logic equivocally. Thus he doesn't even see that The Categories is the foundational text of Aristotle's logic. He thinks it to be about "ontology".
April 19, 2020
Aristotle ialah seorang pemikir yang sistematik. Beliau selalu memikirkan aksiom bagi setiap penemuan sains, bagi membentuk suatu teorem. Sumbangan terbesar beliau adalah dalam bidang Sains Biologi dan Logik.
Aristotle merupakan murid kepada Plato (belajar di Akademi), kemudian dipanggil oleh Raja Philip untuk menjadi mentor kepada Alexander The Great, pastu dia mengajar di Lyceum. Selepas Alexander mati, Aristotle melarikan diri ke Chalchis. Katanya lari sebab tak nak orang Athens melakukan kesalahan kedua terhadap falsafah! (Kes pertama, menghukum mati Socrates; guru kepada guru beliau)
Antara yang menarik dalam kajian beliau ialah perbezaan pendapat berkenaan dengan "zat". "Zat" dalam konsep Bentuk (Form) Plato adalah wujud secara kekal dalam bentuk yang sama selama-lamanya. Tetapi "zat" pada Aristotle pula menyatakan, item yang tidak kekal dan berubah-ubah. Terdapat 4 jenis perubahan dalam "zat": pertukaran zat, kualiti, kuantiti dan tempat.
Empat elemen dalam sains yang ditemui oleh Aristotle adalah: bumi, udara, api dan air. Setiap elemen tersebut pula ditakrifkan dengan menikut empat kuasa atau kualiti utama: kekeringan, kesejukan, kepanasan dan kebasahan. Menarik, kan?
Sumbangan beliau dalam Sains Fizik dan Sains Kimia tidak dapat diketengahkan kerana beliau lebih mementingkan kualitatif berbanding kuantitatif. Hal ini boleh difahami kerana, pada zaman itu (tahun 384-322 SM) masih ketandusan alat dan konsep dalam membuat sesuatu pengukuran empirikal. Zaman tu, belum ada jam untuk menyukat masa, belum ada termometer untuk menyukat suhu. Sebab tu hasil karya Fizik dan Kimia beliau boleh disanggah.
Aristotle merupakan murid kepada Plato (belajar di Akademi), kemudian dipanggil oleh Raja Philip untuk menjadi mentor kepada Alexander The Great, pastu dia mengajar di Lyceum. Selepas Alexander mati, Aristotle melarikan diri ke Chalchis. Katanya lari sebab tak nak orang Athens melakukan kesalahan kedua terhadap falsafah! (Kes pertama, menghukum mati Socrates; guru kepada guru beliau)
Antara yang menarik dalam kajian beliau ialah perbezaan pendapat berkenaan dengan "zat". "Zat" dalam konsep Bentuk (Form) Plato adalah wujud secara kekal dalam bentuk yang sama selama-lamanya. Tetapi "zat" pada Aristotle pula menyatakan, item yang tidak kekal dan berubah-ubah. Terdapat 4 jenis perubahan dalam "zat": pertukaran zat, kualiti, kuantiti dan tempat.
Empat elemen dalam sains yang ditemui oleh Aristotle adalah: bumi, udara, api dan air. Setiap elemen tersebut pula ditakrifkan dengan menikut empat kuasa atau kualiti utama: kekeringan, kesejukan, kepanasan dan kebasahan. Menarik, kan?
Sumbangan beliau dalam Sains Fizik dan Sains Kimia tidak dapat diketengahkan kerana beliau lebih mementingkan kualitatif berbanding kuantitatif. Hal ini boleh difahami kerana, pada zaman itu (tahun 384-322 SM) masih ketandusan alat dan konsep dalam membuat sesuatu pengukuran empirikal. Zaman tu, belum ada jam untuk menyukat masa, belum ada termometer untuk menyukat suhu. Sebab tu hasil karya Fizik dan Kimia beliau boleh disanggah.
Read
May 9, 2021پیش درآمدی بر ارسطو و نه فقط "فلسفه ی ارسطو" . از بیست فصل موجود در کتاب ، سه یا چهار فصل به جنبه هایی از آثار ارسطو میپردازند که امروزه ارسطوی فیلسوف را با آنها نمیشناسیم ؛ نظیر فعالیت های مورخ-مانندِ او در ثبت تاریخ رقابتهایی ورزشی در یونانِ وقت و یا اینکه گام اول را در زیست شناسی برداشت و با نوشتن مشاهدات خود از اندام جانوران ، به گونه ای خالقِ علم زیست شناسی شد . اما در باقی فصلها نویسنده سعی در معرفی و توضیح مسائل کلیدی فلسفه ی ارسطو دارد ؛ که خوشبختانه تنها به ارجاعات ویکیپدیایی و اشاره های موجز محدود نیست ،بلکه دیدگاه منتقدان را هم به طور مختصری بیان میکند که در این بین خودِ مولف گاهی یک منتقد است ؛ مثلا به صراحت دستگاهِ سیاسی مطلوب ارسطو را از جهاتی یادآور توتالیتاریسم میبیند و یا بی هیچ غل و غشی ایرادات ارسطو را در همان نظریه های جانورشناسی اش روشن میسازد . اما هرگز از عوامل مثبت و پوینده ی ارسطو غافل نیست و تا جایی که ببیند ابزار و ادله ای برای دفاع از نظریات هست ، به نقدها پاسخ میدهد . با توجه به سابقه شغلی نویسنده ( که برادر جولین بارنزِ رمان نویس هم هست از قضا) که زندگی اش را وقف مطالعه فلسفه باستان و به ویژه ارسطو کرده ، فکر میکنم این کتاب در جایگاه یک <<مقدمه>> از این کتاب و همچنین این کتاب منظم تر مطالب را گفته باشد و عمیق تر و جزئی تر موضوعات را بازگو کرده باشد
October 18, 2010
An excellent introduction to the life and work of Aristotle, written by someone who is an obvious authority on the man. Concise and intelligible, the book is ideal for beginners, accomplishing a surprising amount in a limited space. Barnes is clearly an admirer of his subject, but he doesn't let that admiration hold him back from offering fair-minded criticism at various stages of the book.
The first couple of chapters provide useful context by detailing the main stages of Aristotle's life and the political backdrop underpinning it. Then Barnes turns to the studies, offering short and sweet commentary and analysis of his works and ideas. Beginning with Aristotle's copious zoological research, Barnes moves on to his work on logic, metaphysics, politics, ethics, aesthetics, psychology and more. Finally, he offers a balanced analysis of Aristotle's influence and legacy.
All in all, a top-notch addition to the VSI series, and an essential one if you plan on tackling the later philosophers.
The first couple of chapters provide useful context by detailing the main stages of Aristotle's life and the political backdrop underpinning it. Then Barnes turns to the studies, offering short and sweet commentary and analysis of his works and ideas. Beginning with Aristotle's copious zoological research, Barnes moves on to his work on logic, metaphysics, politics, ethics, aesthetics, psychology and more. Finally, he offers a balanced analysis of Aristotle's influence and legacy.
All in all, a top-notch addition to the VSI series, and an essential one if you plan on tackling the later philosophers.
November 9, 2017
First the good: this book keeps up with the high standards of the VSI series. The author (I think) explains the vast range of Aristotle's writings and theories. I suspect that this book will be of great assistance to the serious student of philosophy or the history of science.
The not so good: primarily my own fault. I consider myself a general reader and I found the book hard to follow at times. This short introduction required some effort to finish and is probably not for the casual reader. While the last chapter was a good summing up of why Aristotle is important, I would have liked more discussion on his influence on Medieval philosophy (especially as it concerned the Catholic church).
Also, as is often the case with Kindle editions, the footnotes and index was useless.
The not so good: primarily my own fault. I consider myself a general reader and I found the book hard to follow at times. This short introduction required some effort to finish and is probably not for the casual reader. While the last chapter was a good summing up of why Aristotle is important, I would have liked more discussion on his influence on Medieval philosophy (especially as it concerned the Catholic church).
Also, as is often the case with Kindle editions, the footnotes and index was useless.
January 30, 2024
Not a particularly good introduction to Aristotle.
I found it maddening that Barnes spent most of his time discussing Aristotle’s logical, empiricists and biological treatises. As Barnes avers himself (“Aristotle’s general account of the world is wholly exploded. Most of his explanations are now seen to be false.”), these are the parts of Aristotle’s work that are no longer applicable today, as they have been superceded by advances in science and philosophy.
The most relevant aspects of his work, the Poetics and his discussion of constitutions and politics, get a 10% sliver at the back of the book.
Why would you spend most of your time discussing the least relevant parts of Aristotle?
I found it maddening that Barnes spent most of his time discussing Aristotle’s logical, empiricists and biological treatises. As Barnes avers himself (“Aristotle’s general account of the world is wholly exploded. Most of his explanations are now seen to be false.”), these are the parts of Aristotle’s work that are no longer applicable today, as they have been superceded by advances in science and philosophy.
The most relevant aspects of his work, the Poetics and his discussion of constitutions and politics, get a 10% sliver at the back of the book.
Why would you spend most of your time discussing the least relevant parts of Aristotle?
September 15, 2021
A bit too shallow for my taste. I would recon one might to better in skipping it and move directly to the biography of Shields (Routlegde, Second Edition, 2014) instead.
May 17, 2022
Axiomatization
Metaphysics (Being qua being)
Ontology
Theology (‘quintessence’, ‘unmoved mover’)
Epistemology
Change
Cause
Aristotelian elements
Sentence Patterns (Converse)
Syllogism
Soul
Separability
Teleology
State
Notes
we should as far as possible immortalize ourselves and do all we can to live by the finest element in us – for if in bulk it is small, in power and worth it is far greater than anything else’.
A man’s proper aim is to immortalize himself, to imitate the gods; for in doing so he becomes most fully a man and most fully himself. Such self-realization requires him to act on that desire for knowledge which as a man he naturally possesses.
after all, men desire by nature to discover the truth; nature would not have given men such a desire and left its satisfaction impossible; and consequently, if men generally believe something, then that is a sign that it is more likely to be true than false.
For he was equally impressed by the apparent independence of the sciences. Mathematicians and doctors, biologists and physicists, work in different domains, discuss different objects, and follow different methods.
‘If there are no substances apart from natural substances, natural science will be the primary science; but if there are changeless substances, the science of them will be prior and will be the primary philosophy’. Aristotle agreed with Plato that there are such changeless substances, and he called such substances divine. Their study may thus be called theology, or the science of things divine. Theology is superior to natural science: ‘the theoretical sciences are preferable to the rest, and this to the other theoretical sciences’.
‘Beings qua being’ are not a special class or kind of being; indeed, there are no such things as beings-qua-being at all. When Aristotle says that there is a science which studies beings qua being, he means that there is a science which studies beings, and studies them qua being; that is to say, there is a science which studies the things that exist (and not some abstract item called ‘being’), and studies them qua existing.
beings qua being will study ‘the things which the mathematicians call axioms’ or ‘the first principles of deduction’; ‘for they belong to everything that exists, and not to some particular kind of thing separately from the others’.
Aristotle held that whiteness exists insofar as certain substances are white. Plato, on the contrary, held that a substance is white insofar as it shares in whiteness. In Aristotle’s opinion, white things are prior to whiteness, for the existence of whiteness is simply a matter of there being white things. In Plato’s opinion, whiteness is prior to white things, for the existence of white things is simply a matter of their sharing in whiteness. Aristotle’s arguments against this Platonic notion are powerful; but they have not convinced determined Platonists – nor is it easy to see how the dispute might be settled.
Can we say anything more, in general terms, about those middle-sized material objects which are the chief substances in Aristotle’s world? One of their most important features is that they change. Unlike Plato’s Forms, which exist eternally and are always the same, Aristotle’s substances are for the most part temporary items which undergo a variety of alterations.
The heavenly bodies, which Aristotle often refers to as ‘the divine bodies’, are made of a special stuff, a fifth element or ‘quintessence’; for ‘there is some other body, separate from those here about us, whose nature is more honourable in that it is further removed from the world below’. Now ‘it is the function of what is most divine to think and to use its intellect’, so that the heavenly bodies, being divine, must therefore be alive and intelligent. For although ‘we tend to think of them as though they were simply bodies – units exhibiting order but quite without life – we must suppose that they partake in action and in life . . . We must think that the actions of the stars are just like those of animals and plants.’
In Book VIII of the Physics Aristotle argues for the existence of a changeless source of change – an ‘unmoved mover’ as it is normally called. If there is to be any change in the universe, there must, he holds, be some original source which imparts change to other things without changing itself. The unmoved mover is outside the universe: ‘must there or must there not be something unchanging and at rest outside whatever is changing and no part of it? And must this be true of the universe too? It would presumably seem absurd if the principle of change were inside it.’
four types of change: a thing can change in respect of substance, of quality, of quantity, and of place
Aristotle stresses that in nature many things hold ‘for the most part’, and he believes that most of the truths of the natural sciences will be expressible by way of sentences of the form ‘By nature, every so-and-so is such-and-such’, sentences which are true if for the most part so-and-so’s are such-and-such.
Aristotle needs to show that from ‘Some sea-creatures are mammals’ we may infer ‘Some mammals are sea-creatures’, that from ‘Some men are Greeks’ we may infer ‘Some Greeks are men’, that from ‘Some democracies are illiberal’ we may infer ‘Some illiberal regimes are democratic’, and so on – he wants to show (as the jargon has it) that every particular affirmative proposition converts. He does so by considering the sentence pattern ‘Some A is B’, and by proving that from a sentence of that pattern we can infer the corresponding sentence of the pattern ‘Some B is A’.
It seems that Socrates might exist without his paleness but that Socrates’ paleness cannot exist without Socrates. Socrates may lie on the beach and so cease to be pallid: he is there without his pallor – but his pallor cannot be there without him. Socrates is separable from his paleness. Socrates’ paleness is not separable from Socrates. That is perhaps part of what Aristotle means by separability; but it is probably not a complete account. For one thing, Socrates may cease to be pale, but he cannot cease to be coloured; he may be separable from paleness, but he is not in the same way separable from colour.
there is no sharp boundary between non-living and living things; and although living things can be arranged in a hierarchy – a ‘ladder of nature’ of ascending worth and complexity – the levels in the hierarchy are not rigorously separated. Between plants and the lowest form of animals there is no precise boundary; and from the lowest animals to men, who naturally stand at the top of the ladder, there is a continuous progression.
Circular motion, that is, the motion of the heavens, has been seen . . . to be eternal, because it and the motions determined by it come into being and will exist from necessity. For if that which moves in a circle is always moving something else, the motion of the latter too must be circular – for example, since the upper movement is circular, the sun moves in this way; and since this is so, the seasons for that reason come into being in a circle and return upon themselves; and since they come into being in this way, so again do the things governed by them.
(2000 years ago)
Aristotle’s first general account of the soul amounts to this: for a thing to have a soul is for it to be a natural organic body actually capable of functioning. The second general account explains what those functions are. Thus Aristotle’s souls are not pieces of living things, nor are they bits of spiritual stuff placed inside physical bodies; rather, they are sets of powers, sets of capacities or faculties. Possessing a soul is like possessing a skill. A carpenter’s skill is not some part of him, responsible for his skilled acts; similarly, a living creature’s animator or soul is not some part of it, responsible for its living activities.
Fulfilments cannot exist apart from the things that are fulfilled. Souls are fulfilments of bodies. Hence souls cannot exist apart from bodies, any more than skills can exist apart from skilled men. Plato had held that souls pre-existed the birth and survived the death of those bodies they animated. Aristotle thought that this was impossible. A soul is simply not the sort of thing that could survive. How could my skills, my temper, or my character survive me?
for she has provided the greater and superior thing with that which is less, and not the less with that which is more honourable and greater. Thus if this is better, and if nature does what is the best in the circumstances, man is not most intelligent because of his hands but has hands because he is the most intelligent of animals.
Those who see the State as a promoter of Good end up as advocates of repression. Lovers of liberty prefer to assign a negative function to the State and to regard it as a defence and protection against Evil.
Metaphysics (Being qua being)
Ontology
Theology (‘quintessence’, ‘unmoved mover’)
Epistemology
Change
Cause
Aristotelian elements
Sentence Patterns (Converse)
Syllogism
Soul
Separability
Teleology
State
Notes
we should as far as possible immortalize ourselves and do all we can to live by the finest element in us – for if in bulk it is small, in power and worth it is far greater than anything else’.
A man’s proper aim is to immortalize himself, to imitate the gods; for in doing so he becomes most fully a man and most fully himself. Such self-realization requires him to act on that desire for knowledge which as a man he naturally possesses.
after all, men desire by nature to discover the truth; nature would not have given men such a desire and left its satisfaction impossible; and consequently, if men generally believe something, then that is a sign that it is more likely to be true than false.
For he was equally impressed by the apparent independence of the sciences. Mathematicians and doctors, biologists and physicists, work in different domains, discuss different objects, and follow different methods.
‘If there are no substances apart from natural substances, natural science will be the primary science; but if there are changeless substances, the science of them will be prior and will be the primary philosophy’. Aristotle agreed with Plato that there are such changeless substances, and he called such substances divine. Their study may thus be called theology, or the science of things divine. Theology is superior to natural science: ‘the theoretical sciences are preferable to the rest, and this to the other theoretical sciences’.
‘Beings qua being’ are not a special class or kind of being; indeed, there are no such things as beings-qua-being at all. When Aristotle says that there is a science which studies beings qua being, he means that there is a science which studies beings, and studies them qua being; that is to say, there is a science which studies the things that exist (and not some abstract item called ‘being’), and studies them qua existing.
beings qua being will study ‘the things which the mathematicians call axioms’ or ‘the first principles of deduction’; ‘for they belong to everything that exists, and not to some particular kind of thing separately from the others’.
Aristotle held that whiteness exists insofar as certain substances are white. Plato, on the contrary, held that a substance is white insofar as it shares in whiteness. In Aristotle’s opinion, white things are prior to whiteness, for the existence of whiteness is simply a matter of there being white things. In Plato’s opinion, whiteness is prior to white things, for the existence of white things is simply a matter of their sharing in whiteness. Aristotle’s arguments against this Platonic notion are powerful; but they have not convinced determined Platonists – nor is it easy to see how the dispute might be settled.
Can we say anything more, in general terms, about those middle-sized material objects which are the chief substances in Aristotle’s world? One of their most important features is that they change. Unlike Plato’s Forms, which exist eternally and are always the same, Aristotle’s substances are for the most part temporary items which undergo a variety of alterations.
The heavenly bodies, which Aristotle often refers to as ‘the divine bodies’, are made of a special stuff, a fifth element or ‘quintessence’; for ‘there is some other body, separate from those here about us, whose nature is more honourable in that it is further removed from the world below’. Now ‘it is the function of what is most divine to think and to use its intellect’, so that the heavenly bodies, being divine, must therefore be alive and intelligent. For although ‘we tend to think of them as though they were simply bodies – units exhibiting order but quite without life – we must suppose that they partake in action and in life . . . We must think that the actions of the stars are just like those of animals and plants.’
In Book VIII of the Physics Aristotle argues for the existence of a changeless source of change – an ‘unmoved mover’ as it is normally called. If there is to be any change in the universe, there must, he holds, be some original source which imparts change to other things without changing itself. The unmoved mover is outside the universe: ‘must there or must there not be something unchanging and at rest outside whatever is changing and no part of it? And must this be true of the universe too? It would presumably seem absurd if the principle of change were inside it.’
four types of change: a thing can change in respect of substance, of quality, of quantity, and of place
Aristotle stresses that in nature many things hold ‘for the most part’, and he believes that most of the truths of the natural sciences will be expressible by way of sentences of the form ‘By nature, every so-and-so is such-and-such’, sentences which are true if for the most part so-and-so’s are such-and-such.
Aristotle needs to show that from ‘Some sea-creatures are mammals’ we may infer ‘Some mammals are sea-creatures’, that from ‘Some men are Greeks’ we may infer ‘Some Greeks are men’, that from ‘Some democracies are illiberal’ we may infer ‘Some illiberal regimes are democratic’, and so on – he wants to show (as the jargon has it) that every particular affirmative proposition converts. He does so by considering the sentence pattern ‘Some A is B’, and by proving that from a sentence of that pattern we can infer the corresponding sentence of the pattern ‘Some B is A’.
It seems that Socrates might exist without his paleness but that Socrates’ paleness cannot exist without Socrates. Socrates may lie on the beach and so cease to be pallid: he is there without his pallor – but his pallor cannot be there without him. Socrates is separable from his paleness. Socrates’ paleness is not separable from Socrates. That is perhaps part of what Aristotle means by separability; but it is probably not a complete account. For one thing, Socrates may cease to be pale, but he cannot cease to be coloured; he may be separable from paleness, but he is not in the same way separable from colour.
there is no sharp boundary between non-living and living things; and although living things can be arranged in a hierarchy – a ‘ladder of nature’ of ascending worth and complexity – the levels in the hierarchy are not rigorously separated. Between plants and the lowest form of animals there is no precise boundary; and from the lowest animals to men, who naturally stand at the top of the ladder, there is a continuous progression.
Circular motion, that is, the motion of the heavens, has been seen . . . to be eternal, because it and the motions determined by it come into being and will exist from necessity. For if that which moves in a circle is always moving something else, the motion of the latter too must be circular – for example, since the upper movement is circular, the sun moves in this way; and since this is so, the seasons for that reason come into being in a circle and return upon themselves; and since they come into being in this way, so again do the things governed by them.
(2000 years ago)
Aristotle’s first general account of the soul amounts to this: for a thing to have a soul is for it to be a natural organic body actually capable of functioning. The second general account explains what those functions are. Thus Aristotle’s souls are not pieces of living things, nor are they bits of spiritual stuff placed inside physical bodies; rather, they are sets of powers, sets of capacities or faculties. Possessing a soul is like possessing a skill. A carpenter’s skill is not some part of him, responsible for his skilled acts; similarly, a living creature’s animator or soul is not some part of it, responsible for its living activities.
Fulfilments cannot exist apart from the things that are fulfilled. Souls are fulfilments of bodies. Hence souls cannot exist apart from bodies, any more than skills can exist apart from skilled men. Plato had held that souls pre-existed the birth and survived the death of those bodies they animated. Aristotle thought that this was impossible. A soul is simply not the sort of thing that could survive. How could my skills, my temper, or my character survive me?
for she has provided the greater and superior thing with that which is less, and not the less with that which is more honourable and greater. Thus if this is better, and if nature does what is the best in the circumstances, man is not most intelligent because of his hands but has hands because he is the most intelligent of animals.
Those who see the State as a promoter of Good end up as advocates of repression. Lovers of liberty prefer to assign a negative function to the State and to regard it as a defence and protection against Evil.
December 15, 2017
Aristotle is extraordinary! From the scope and perspicacity of his writings, one would think he represents the outcome of a thousand years' work following Plato, rather than one generation. I cannot think of a similar precedent. How did he do it?
Aristotle's writings (just lecture notes, really, and inevitably corrupted through many hand written copies) are notoriously cryptic. JB does a fine job in this brief walkthrough.
Aristotle has a bad reputation because dogmatic application of his ideas prior to the enlightenment held back western progress. But if I were set on following someone dogmatically, Aristotle would be a good choice. Aristotle's sobriety is much needed corrective to Plato's I'll conceived theorising.
Aristotle's philosophy of science has tremendous reach, the the extent that he still define the epistemological outlook today. A strong light illuminates, but also blinds. Could it be that we will one day have to learn to step out of that light to further our progress?
Aristotle's writings (just lecture notes, really, and inevitably corrupted through many hand written copies) are notoriously cryptic. JB does a fine job in this brief walkthrough.
Aristotle has a bad reputation because dogmatic application of his ideas prior to the enlightenment held back western progress. But if I were set on following someone dogmatically, Aristotle would be a good choice. Aristotle's sobriety is much needed corrective to Plato's I'll conceived theorising.
Aristotle's philosophy of science has tremendous reach, the the extent that he still define the epistemological outlook today. A strong light illuminates, but also blinds. Could it be that we will one day have to learn to step out of that light to further our progress?
August 29, 2019
A sentence from this book: 'So-and-so is such-and-such, because so-and-so is so-and-such, and so-and-such is such-and-such.'
Of course, I have taken this quotation out of context for effect, but it leads me nicely to my criticism of this book. It suffers from the same weakness as others in this series: namely, it is a bit too short. Presumably in an attempt to keep the book 'very short', Barnes condenses Aristotle's philosophy and his commentary on various works by Aristotle into a few brief paragraphs each. This, for me, made large parts of this 'introduction' to Aristotle as obscure as the quoted sentence above and caused me to skim through many paragraphs.
That said, I found the biographical chapters, the chapter on the Poetics and the chapter on Aristotle's legacy very accessible and interesting.
I shall end my review with a pseudo Aristotelian syllogism: I knew virtually nothing about Aristotle before I read this book; I now know a bit more about Aristotle than I did before; therefore this book was worth reading.
Of course, I have taken this quotation out of context for effect, but it leads me nicely to my criticism of this book. It suffers from the same weakness as others in this series: namely, it is a bit too short. Presumably in an attempt to keep the book 'very short', Barnes condenses Aristotle's philosophy and his commentary on various works by Aristotle into a few brief paragraphs each. This, for me, made large parts of this 'introduction' to Aristotle as obscure as the quoted sentence above and caused me to skim through many paragraphs.
That said, I found the biographical chapters, the chapter on the Poetics and the chapter on Aristotle's legacy very accessible and interesting.
I shall end my review with a pseudo Aristotelian syllogism: I knew virtually nothing about Aristotle before I read this book; I now know a bit more about Aristotle than I did before; therefore this book was worth reading.
December 29, 2023
'all men, by nature, have the desire to know'
An OK introduction to the philosopher, although I would have preferred reading this alongside the philosopher's texts, and thought there was too much emphasis on science and not enough on his metaphysics (both are mentioned but the balance is unequal).
Jogged my memory a bit, especially the parts about the soul (psyche). I had lectures about that in college last year. But some stuff was just difficult to situate due to my unfamiliarity with the primary sources (although that's no fault of the author's).
It did what it set out to do, and for that, I can't complain.
An OK introduction to the philosopher, although I would have preferred reading this alongside the philosopher's texts, and thought there was too much emphasis on science and not enough on his metaphysics (both are mentioned but the balance is unequal).
Jogged my memory a bit, especially the parts about the soul (psyche). I had lectures about that in college last year. But some stuff was just difficult to situate due to my unfamiliarity with the primary sources (although that's no fault of the author's).
It did what it set out to do, and for that, I can't complain.
December 23, 2025
I've been trying to decide which Aristotelian text to read next, and this Very Short Introduction was helpful in this respect, providing a high-level summary of the philosopher's writings on various subjects.
This series is my go-to source when I want to explore a new topic for the first time or, at a more intermediate stage, to take stock and consider next steps.
This particular instalment is cogent and well-organised, and Barnes does a good job of capturing the scope and key themes of Aristotle's thought.
I own a few more VSIs on philosophers whose work I intend to explore more deeply, and I look forward to getting to some of them in the new year.
This series is my go-to source when I want to explore a new topic for the first time or, at a more intermediate stage, to take stock and consider next steps.
This particular instalment is cogent and well-organised, and Barnes does a good job of capturing the scope and key themes of Aristotle's thought.
I own a few more VSIs on philosophers whose work I intend to explore more deeply, and I look forward to getting to some of them in the new year.
Read
February 8, 2023Very much a defense of Aristotle, and interesting for that reason. Mostly about Aristotle's biology and logic, which is odd since Barnes later admits that the ethics and politics have remained relevant (unlike the biology and logic). Rhetoric is barely mentioned, and Barnes is oddly defensive about Poetics (which continued to dominate the teaching of literature in K-12 and university in the US till the 1980s).
April 16, 2019
A man cannot claim to know a subject unless he is capable of transmitting his knowledge to others, and teaching is the best proof and the natural manifestation of knowledge.
November 9, 2023
Philosophy really peaked with Socrates, eh?
May 5, 2025
So far the best philosophy Very Short Introduction I’ve read. Annoying it focused so much on Aristotle as a biologist/scientist rather than as a philosopher.
December 7, 2025
Прекрасне коротке введення від провідного спеціаліста по темі, яке доступне українською.
March 27, 2025
Leuk boekje, al een keer eerder gelezen maar nu even de hoofdstukken over de teleologie en de ziel opnieuw bekeken. Misschien wordt er wel iets te veel gepoogd Aristoteles in het licht van moderne opvattingen te presenteren.
Read
October 20, 2023A very nice overview of Aristotle's life, scientific inquiries, and philosophy. It doesn't get too into the weeds, and perhaps focuses a little too much on Aristotle the now-obsolete biologist versus Aristotle the debatably-still-relevant philosopher, but I felt like I learned quite a bit.
March 31, 2024
Man knows what he's talking about but it feels like he forgets that we don't. This tackles a lot of different subjects and opinions of Aristotle's and counter-opinions and it's just too much to understand. Maybe a 160 page introduction to a man that wrote tens of books is not a very good idea. It's also really not great because this man wrote about very very many topics and perhaps you just want to find out about 5 of them. Just read Aristotle based on what you want to know
June 24, 2012
This is a good introduction to Aristotle's thought. It summarizes the great thinker's philosophical and scientific contributions competently and well.
As the author (a leading translator of Aristotle's works) reminds us, Aristotle "bestrode antiquity like an intellectual colossus." No one in history contributed as much to as many different fields, from logic and biology to literary theory and ethics. So Aristotle's work is well worth studying, and this book serves as a useful preface to that work, or as a pleasant reminder to those familiar with it already.
And yet, while summarizing Aristotle's philosophy clearly, this book misses some of the magic of that philosophy. Aristotle himself believed that the goal of life is happiness, and that happiness comes ultimately through wisdom. He also found beauty all through nature and saw purpose in all things. Despite the dry tone of his writings (which might well have been intended as lecture notes), there is a deep animating passion that runs all through Aristotle's thought--a passion for wisdom.
But this book fails to convey that adequately. It focuses too much on Aristotle's scientific writings, which are of chiefly historical interest, and not enough on his political and ethical writing, which are still highly relevant. Aristotle's opinions about the weaknesses of various kinds of societies, and his advice about how to live happily and well, will hold appeal to any thinking person, while his brilliant but outmoded thoughts about the syllogism or the structure of various organisms will interest chiefly specialists and scholars.
Perhaps because he is an Aristotle scholar himself, the author seems not to recognize this, and dwells too much on parts of Aristotle's work that are outmoded, and not enough on parts that are highly relevant even now.
For a passionate (if unscholarly) introduction to Aristotle, the reader might want to look at the relevant chapters in Will Durant's popular history of philosophy. And for a deeper treatment of Aristotle's politcal and ethical ideas, he might refer to the relevant writings of Leo Strauss.
As the author (a leading translator of Aristotle's works) reminds us, Aristotle "bestrode antiquity like an intellectual colossus." No one in history contributed as much to as many different fields, from logic and biology to literary theory and ethics. So Aristotle's work is well worth studying, and this book serves as a useful preface to that work, or as a pleasant reminder to those familiar with it already.
And yet, while summarizing Aristotle's philosophy clearly, this book misses some of the magic of that philosophy. Aristotle himself believed that the goal of life is happiness, and that happiness comes ultimately through wisdom. He also found beauty all through nature and saw purpose in all things. Despite the dry tone of his writings (which might well have been intended as lecture notes), there is a deep animating passion that runs all through Aristotle's thought--a passion for wisdom.
But this book fails to convey that adequately. It focuses too much on Aristotle's scientific writings, which are of chiefly historical interest, and not enough on his political and ethical writing, which are still highly relevant. Aristotle's opinions about the weaknesses of various kinds of societies, and his advice about how to live happily and well, will hold appeal to any thinking person, while his brilliant but outmoded thoughts about the syllogism or the structure of various organisms will interest chiefly specialists and scholars.
Perhaps because he is an Aristotle scholar himself, the author seems not to recognize this, and dwells too much on parts of Aristotle's work that are outmoded, and not enough on parts that are highly relevant even now.
For a passionate (if unscholarly) introduction to Aristotle, the reader might want to look at the relevant chapters in Will Durant's popular history of philosophy. And for a deeper treatment of Aristotle's politcal and ethical ideas, he might refer to the relevant writings of Leo Strauss.
November 12, 2022
Barnes is surely historically correct to emphasize Aristotle’s work on science, logic, and metaphysics.
September 27, 2011
FINISHED!
Despite the fact that I technically have BA in Philosophy (Concentrating in Religious Studies), I find Philosophy to be incredibly challenging.
I actually picked this up when some friends were discussing Summa Theologica by Aquinas, Saint Thomas. One friend suggested reading up on Aristotle before tackling Summa Theologica and so I went ahead and got this recommended book.
There was a lot to digest in this book and reading slowly was all I could do. The chapter on the structure of the sciences was fascincating. The chapter on Logic, axioms and propositions and terms, made me want to get out a pencil and make a picture to try and understand what in the world he was talking about.
The whole book was fascinating. And while most of Aristotle's science has been proven false, I can't help be think that we (humans) had to start somewhere and Aristotle was clearly one of the men it started with.
I think the thing I will with me the most is: number and color are attributes dependent on the existance of a substance.
Despite the fact that I technically have BA in Philosophy (Concentrating in Religious Studies), I find Philosophy to be incredibly challenging.
I actually picked this up when some friends were discussing Summa Theologica by Aquinas, Saint Thomas. One friend suggested reading up on Aristotle before tackling Summa Theologica and so I went ahead and got this recommended book.
There was a lot to digest in this book and reading slowly was all I could do. The chapter on the structure of the sciences was fascincating. The chapter on Logic, axioms and propositions and terms, made me want to get out a pencil and make a picture to try and understand what in the world he was talking about.
The whole book was fascinating. And while most of Aristotle's science has been proven false, I can't help be think that we (humans) had to start somewhere and Aristotle was clearly one of the men it started with.
I think the thing I will with me the most is: number and color are attributes dependent on the existance of a substance.
July 14, 2018
What would you expect from a book that has the intention of giving a very short introduction to Aristotle?
Why did he influence the Greek philosophy, Catholic philosophy, and after even the opposing Renaissance philosophy? How was he so successful in his main framework, in the essence of his ideas so that he was able to do that? What kind of evolutions did his very fundamental ideas have throughout the history?
No, these are not what you will find.
First of all, the book concerns only and only Aristotle in the historical development context, and Plato to some part. You will feel a disconnection from rest of the long going historical philosophical conversations that you can learn from other books of the series
Second is that... Looks like the author has a traumatic relation with Aristotle, the book is mostly concerned with what Aristotle was wrong about. At some point you start seeing adjectives like 'childish' for his wrong ideas that didn't work out.
Ancient philosophers are not known for their righteousness, they are known for laying down the fundamentals of the questions, and getting a long conversation with the successors throughout the history even after they die. You need to first know what they got correct. That lets you know what is important about the philosopher.
Why did he influence the Greek philosophy, Catholic philosophy, and after even the opposing Renaissance philosophy? How was he so successful in his main framework, in the essence of his ideas so that he was able to do that? What kind of evolutions did his very fundamental ideas have throughout the history?
No, these are not what you will find.
First of all, the book concerns only and only Aristotle in the historical development context, and Plato to some part. You will feel a disconnection from rest of the long going historical philosophical conversations that you can learn from other books of the series
Second is that... Looks like the author has a traumatic relation with Aristotle, the book is mostly concerned with what Aristotle was wrong about. At some point you start seeing adjectives like 'childish' for his wrong ideas that didn't work out.
Ancient philosophers are not known for their righteousness, they are known for laying down the fundamentals of the questions, and getting a long conversation with the successors throughout the history even after they die. You need to first know what they got correct. That lets you know what is important about the philosopher.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 114 reviews