This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There are several problems, or complexities, in the history of pre-modern Aristotelianism that need to be mentioned in this article:
Thus there is an initial stage in which Aristotle is (almost entirely) forgotten. Then, upon his 'rediscovery', there were established 'systems' (not the right word) of thought -neo/Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and later, Christianity, Islam and Judaism- that all commented on the recently uncovered Arostotelian texts. 'Aristotelianism' was never a school unto itself; for the most part it lived within or besides other systems that looked to the logical works or the metaphysics of Aristotle for artillary to use in their own various causes. By the time the Monotheists arrive on the scene there are Neoplatonic tracts like the so-called Theology of Aristotle and the Book of Causes that are mistaken for works of Aristotle. Pomonomo2003 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This important article needs to be expanded urgently. Madhava 1947 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't and being a layman, I've no idea what it is apart from the fact that it originates from Plato and a few other people that further developed it. ... You're not the only one! __earth ( Talk) 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a big enough topic that it can be broken down into sections: definition, history, etc. Aquinas needs his own section since he was the single biggest example of Aristotelian philosophy (he also referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher). Uberveritas 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds rude, but I agree with the first post. I read the entire article and still have no idea waht aristotelianism is. Perhaps someone with anyknowledge on this can help with at least a few sentences of summary. 71.219.59.103 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A third comment: You're not the only one! Surely someone reading this article has done philosophy and can edit? [sorry, I don't know my IP address, but wikipedia should cater to even the more technologically slow of users surely ...?]
I have just reverted an edit from a London, UK, IP which seems to be part of a campaign of linkspam (see User talk:Kelvin Knight). The trouble is, if you connect the various London IP's in this article's history to Knight, it appears that Knight has substantially written this article by himself, including citations to his own work, and has often intervened to remove competing material added by others. I have just removed much of the trail of spam in other articles, but removing it from this one is a more complex task I can't attempt right now. Add in the general and well-founded skepticism about the article's quality as stated several times above, and I wonder if the encyclopedia would be better off without the article. Perhaps it can be regarded as a fork of Virtue ethics. In any case, the article needs careful attention to the history of additions and removals motivated by a conflict of interest. Wareh ( talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2010 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. For, there is a section called Contemporary Aristotelianism on the page, and CASEP is the only serious academic center that is devoted to this field of study. If you just check who are involved in CASEP, you will realize that almost all contemporary academics specialized on Aristotelianism are there. Moreover, you will realize that there a huge information about contemporary Aristotelianism, which could not be found or situated in Wikipedia. So, my purpose was not to promote CASEP, but to direct people (who wants to learn more about contemporary Aristotelianism) to an academic website, where they can find very detailed information about contemporary Aristotelian studies. Isn't the purpose of external links is to direct people to other websites, where they can find more information about what they are searching for? I don't think I was doing anything more than that when I linked the page to CASEP home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa logos ( talk • contribs)
Now my question, as of 7 March, 2011 is (after 4 years 3 months and 9 days):
I would say that any serious person today would have to reject 95% of Aristotle, but obviously something survived that is still valuable? What is it? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Article needs a summary:
I am making this new section because I feel like the request got lost in comments the first time. Please do not comment in this section, comment below. brain ( talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
==I totally agree. This article provides a somewhat detailed history of the transmission of ideas from one thinker to another, and across generations (and centuries) without any usable information about what the ideas contained in Aristotelianism are, and what impact they have had on how Western civilization has thought about itself or about major issues in science, ethics, politics, etc.
Not at all useful for someone who is not steeped in the history of philosophy, and is simply trying to find a coherent and intelligent summary of what the PRINCIPLES, rather than the GENEAOLOGIES, of the Aristotelian tradition are.
Uoguma ( talk) 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the splurge of historical information, you are very smart. Could you please now explain WHAT ARISTOTELIANISM ACTUALLY IS?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.45.134 ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to ask this exact same question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.59 ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
There are several problems, or complexities, in the history of pre-modern Aristotelianism that need to be mentioned in this article:
Thus there is an initial stage in which Aristotle is (almost entirely) forgotten. Then, upon his 'rediscovery', there were established 'systems' (not the right word) of thought -neo/Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism, and later, Christianity, Islam and Judaism- that all commented on the recently uncovered Arostotelian texts. 'Aristotelianism' was never a school unto itself; for the most part it lived within or besides other systems that looked to the logical works or the metaphysics of Aristotle for artillary to use in their own various causes. By the time the Monotheists arrive on the scene there are Neoplatonic tracts like the so-called Theology of Aristotle and the Book of Causes that are mistaken for works of Aristotle. Pomonomo2003 02:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
This important article needs to be expanded urgently. Madhava 1947 ( talk) 14:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't and being a layman, I've no idea what it is apart from the fact that it originates from Plato and a few other people that further developed it. ... You're not the only one! __earth ( Talk) 14:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think this is a big enough topic that it can be broken down into sections: definition, history, etc. Aquinas needs his own section since he was the single biggest example of Aristotelian philosophy (he also referred to Aristotle as The Philosopher). Uberveritas 00:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry if this sounds rude, but I agree with the first post. I read the entire article and still have no idea waht aristotelianism is. Perhaps someone with anyknowledge on this can help with at least a few sentences of summary. 71.219.59.103 03:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
A third comment: You're not the only one! Surely someone reading this article has done philosophy and can edit? [sorry, I don't know my IP address, but wikipedia should cater to even the more technologically slow of users surely ...?]
I have just reverted an edit from a London, UK, IP which seems to be part of a campaign of linkspam (see User talk:Kelvin Knight). The trouble is, if you connect the various London IP's in this article's history to Knight, it appears that Knight has substantially written this article by himself, including citations to his own work, and has often intervened to remove competing material added by others. I have just removed much of the trail of spam in other articles, but removing it from this one is a more complex task I can't attempt right now. Add in the general and well-founded skepticism about the article's quality as stated several times above, and I wonder if the encyclopedia would be better off without the article. Perhaps it can be regarded as a fork of Virtue ethics. In any case, the article needs careful attention to the history of additions and removals motivated by a conflict of interest. Wareh ( talk) 03:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
2010 (UTC)
I think there is a misunderstanding here. For, there is a section called Contemporary Aristotelianism on the page, and CASEP is the only serious academic center that is devoted to this field of study. If you just check who are involved in CASEP, you will realize that almost all contemporary academics specialized on Aristotelianism are there. Moreover, you will realize that there a huge information about contemporary Aristotelianism, which could not be found or situated in Wikipedia. So, my purpose was not to promote CASEP, but to direct people (who wants to learn more about contemporary Aristotelianism) to an academic website, where they can find very detailed information about contemporary Aristotelian studies. Isn't the purpose of external links is to direct people to other websites, where they can find more information about what they are searching for? I don't think I was doing anything more than that when I linked the page to CASEP home page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustafa logos ( talk • contribs)
Now my question, as of 7 March, 2011 is (after 4 years 3 months and 9 days):
I would say that any serious person today would have to reject 95% of Aristotle, but obviously something survived that is still valuable? What is it? Rursus dixit. ( mbork3!) 21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
Article needs a summary:
I am making this new section because I feel like the request got lost in comments the first time. Please do not comment in this section, comment below. brain ( talk) 17:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
==I totally agree. This article provides a somewhat detailed history of the transmission of ideas from one thinker to another, and across generations (and centuries) without any usable information about what the ideas contained in Aristotelianism are, and what impact they have had on how Western civilization has thought about itself or about major issues in science, ethics, politics, etc.
Not at all useful for someone who is not steeped in the history of philosophy, and is simply trying to find a coherent and intelligent summary of what the PRINCIPLES, rather than the GENEAOLOGIES, of the Aristotelian tradition are.
Uoguma ( talk) 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the splurge of historical information, you are very smart. Could you please now explain WHAT ARISTOTELIANISM ACTUALLY IS?
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.45.134 ( talk) 17:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
I came to the talk page to ask this exact same question — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.96.160.59 ( talk) 17:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)