The Basic Works of Aristotle

by Aristotle, Richard Peter McKeon (editor)

The basic works of Aristotle, edited and translated by Richard McKeon. Twentieth printing, copyrighted 1941. Lifetime Library.

Genres: Philosophy, Classics, Nonfiction, History, Reference, Science, Politics

1522 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 323

About the author

Aristotle (Greek: Αριστοτέλης; 384–322 BC) was an Ancient Greek philosopher and polymath. His writings cover a broad range of subjects spanning the natural sciences, philosophy, linguistics, economics, politics, psychology, and the arts. As the founder of the Peripatetic school of philosophy in the Lyceum in Athens, he began the wider Aristotelian tradition that followed, which set the groundwork for the development of modern science.
Little is known about Aristotle's life. He was born in the city of Stagira in northern Greece during the Classical period. His father, Nicomachus, died when Aristotle was a child, and he was brought up by a guardian. At 17 or 18, he joined Plato's Academy in Athens and remained there until the age of 37 (c. 347 BC). Shortly after Plato died, Aristotle left Athens and, at the request of Philip II of Macedon, tutored his son Alexander the Great beginning in 343 BC. He established a library in the Lyceum, which helped him to produce many of his hundreds of books on papyrus scrolls.
Though Aristotle wrote many treatises and dialogues for publication, only around a third of his original output has survived, none of it intended for publication. Aristotle provided a complex synthesis of the various philosophies existing prior to him. His teachings and methods of inquiry have had a significant impact across the world, and remain a subject of contemporary philosophical discussion.
Aristotle's views profoundly shaped medieval scholarship. The influence of his physical science extended from late antiquity and the Early Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and was not replaced systematically until the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics were developed. He influenced Judeo-Islamic philosophies during the Middle Ages, as well as Christian theology, especially the Neoplatonism of the Early Church and the scholastic tradition of the Catholic Church.
Aristotle was revered among medieval Muslim scholars as "The First Teacher", and among medieval Christians like Thomas Aquinas as simply "The Philosopher", while the poet Dante Alighieri called him "the master of those who know". His works contain the earliest known formal study of logic, and were studied by medieval scholars such as Pierre Abélard and Jean Buridan. Aristotle's influence on logic continued well into the 19th century. In addition, his ethics, although always influential, gained renewed interest with the modern advent of virtue ethics.

Reviews

[Corinne · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book to understand the meaning of 'Soul', from a Western point of view, after I've read quite a few books on this subject from the East.
The chapter 'De Anima' in this book does a great job in illuminating this, if one takes the patience to read through it, and if one remembers that it was Aristotle who developed the notion of rhetorics in the first place.

It's a dense but complete read, not only one the subject of soul, but also on everything, from Physics to Medicine to Politics!! It's amazing how a man can be so versatile, and can have insight into so many truths.

[AC · Rating 5 out of 5]

The best, standard, one-volume edition of Aristotle's works in translation. It has, for example, complete, W.D. Ross' Metaphysics.

That said, I have not seen this reissue, and I don't know whether or not Reeve left the actual translations alone, and restricted his "contribution" to mucking around in the introduction. I sure as hell hope he did. McKeon's own comments in the Introduction are worthless -- and can also be safely ignored by serious students of Aristotle.

[Nathan · Rating 5 out of 5]

In my freshman year at University I took a course on Aristotle. I remember having this book in my bag everywhere I went, and chatting with all my friends about the cool and fascinating concepts found in here. Aristotle was probably the singular, most important influence on my philosophical development. It laid the foundation for all subsequent thinking and approach.

Aristotle is extremely important, and should be read by, really, everyone. Many think he is outdated and obsolete - I assure you this is not the case. While contemporary science and metaphysics has moved far beyond Aristotle, there are deep-truths to be found here. Namely, his approach to living a happy and virtuous life, I think is beyond is dispute. His concept of friendship has never been challenged by anyone aside from Montaigne. He was not only the first thinker to investigate everything he encountered, but his influence served as the basis for subsequent investigation for over 2000 years. His metaphysics and physics provide one of the first rigorous studies of ontology, and many of his notions we still think according to - whether or not we realize it. When you read Aristotle, his notions feel very basic and 'common-sense' - this is because much of our thinking has its roots in Aristotle.

Even if you don't buy into his Ontology, understanding it is an absolute necessary prerequisite for understanding all subsequent metaphysics. Most importantly, I think the PHYSICS and METAPHYSICS are the singular most important philosophical texts, next to Marx' Das Kapital. Many people regard the Republic as the most important philosophical text of all time (and antiquity at the very least), I believe those two texts are far more important (that is not to undermine the importance of the Republic or the works of Plato). The reason being is: for Aristotle, and all subsequent philosophy until the rise of Catholicism and the Scientific Revolution (namely, Galileo) science and philosophy were one and the same. The two were not separate; and nowhere is this more evident in the Physics and Metaphysics, as well as in De Anima. Rarely, especially now, do philosophers or scientists take this approach. There is a schism between disciplines now, reinforcing our categorical and mode of thinking - thinking in the manner of verstand. Usually, this is only overcome when there is a philosophical critique of science; but this is not a unity of science and philosophy proper. What we need is a resurrection of the unity of science and philosophy, rather than propagating animosity between the two subjects; an animosity grounded in not only method, but ideology. Merleau-Ponty is someone we can all learn from, who made attempts to not simply synchronize the two, but see them as one and the same. Philosophy and Science are one and the same; and depending on the telos of your investigation, both fields are striving for something fundamentally the same. Anyway, I digress...

This is a very good compilation of Aristotle's essential works. Ideally, you want the complete works of Aristotle, but many of the works included in the complete works which are not in this edition are those which aren't read by most casual and lay-readers. This text, however, provides a nice, well-rounded, comprehensive collection of Aristotle's most widely-read works: namely the organon, de anima, physics, metaphysics, rhetoric, poetics, politics, and of course the nicomachean ethics. There are little excerpts from history of animals, parts of animals, on generation and corruption, on the heavens, on dreams, and others. Usually, this text is also sold for a reasonable price, in which case you can't go wrong. It has a nice, flexible binding, and is easy to navigate through.

Good text for anyone interested in Aristotle. I would actually recommend getting this edition before the complete works if you are just getting a taste for Aristotle.

Regarding the content: well, it's Aristotle!

[Russell · Rating 5 out of 5]

I only read Ethics and Politics from this book. If you want to understand Western thought, read him, Plato and Socrates. Aristotle is the least exciting to read out of the three (some would uncharitably call him 'boring'), but where Socrates set the stage, Plato started the ball rolling, Aristotle hammered out details like only a scientist can, and with as much charm as a white paper. I don't give this a 5 stars because it had me on the edge of my seat, entertained until the last word, but rather because it is so important to understand where we have come from and how Western Civilization as evolved and why. Aristotle had a powerful mind, getting acquainted with one of the foremost thinkers in history is well worth your time.

[Rick Sam · Rating 5 out of 5]

One of my all time favorite works

Why?

1. Aristotle, comma Western Civilization

2. Aristotle, was first genuine scientist

3. Islamic writers absorbed Aristotle

4. Christian writers absorbed Aristotle

5. He is the, Father of Fathers for most writers, scientists of all types

6. Aristotle invented formal logic et al

Few years ago -- In Tirunelveli, I would carry this every where.

Each day, I would visit this historical church.

Inside the church, there were many historical cemeteries.

I'd sit near one of them, reading Aristotle's writings.

I would recommend this to everyone

Deus Vult
Gottfried

[Harry Cai · Rating 4 out of 5]

If I knew nothing about modern science then I would’ve believed him when he said all motion were originated from floaty spheres that were also gods

[Peter Crouse · Rating 5 out of 5]

Took me three months to finish but, while at times it certainly wasn't easy, I'd have to say that it was time well spent, if only for the fact that it helped me gain a deeper appreciation for the revolutionary synthesis that Aristotle introduced into ancient Greek thought (a fact that is only glimpsed when reading his works individually). In this respect, understanding his logic and epistemology was the key. In practice that meant slogging through the Organon, including the extremely dry but here thankfully truncated Prior Analytics. The last two books of the Metaphysics were also no treat. Apart from that, while not exactly a literary "river of gold", as thought-provoking as one would expect from the western world's most influential philosopher. The De Anima was for me a new-found gem, along with its non-individuated interpretation of the human soul.

Despite the fact that the shorter selections aren't really necissary, for those who are already familiar with Aristotle and are looking for a comprehensive collection of his core works this 1500-page brick of an edition really is the best bang for your buck. Newcomers should start with his individual works though, as he can be quite daunting to the uninitiated. Time and effort are required not only to understand his thought but also the form that this thought has reached us in. The results can be astounding.

[Heatherblakely · Rating 4 out of 5]

I thiiiink I used this for my grad treatise and not my undergrad thesis, but I'm not 100% sure. But hey! Aristotle!

[Alexander · Rating 4 out of 5]

Honestly, not as dry as I expected. Interesting to see how much of our common thought today that we don’t even question derived from Aristotle.

[Alan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Continuing my tour of the foundational texts of the so-called "Axial Age" (the 1st millenium BC when these texts, that defined most subsequent religion and philosophy, were written), after Chinese Analects and Indian Upanishads it made sense to venture into Greek philosophy. Past attempts to read Aristotle failed, this time was more successful, with partially complete forays into the Metaphysica and the Politica. Aristotle wrote many treatises, why read these two? Aristotle seems to have set out to classify all pursuits of knowledge as he knew it (all the "sciences" in his parlance), and he put most into 2 big baskets, the "theoretic sciences" and the "practical sciences", and it was, well, practical for me to read the most important treatise (as far as I could tell from Aristotle) from each basket: Metaphysica and Politica. I ended up not finishing either treatise, but I do think I succeeded in reading the most important parts of these most important treatises. Metaphysica is literally "beyond Physica", another treatise, where Aristotle seeks to explain change and motion in nature. He also calls the topic of Metaphysica "first philosophy", implying it is more fundamental than the other theoretic sciences. Metaphysica is not an easy read. Unlike the Analects or the Upanishads or Plato's dialogues, Aristotle's treatises are extremely dry, with no attempt at art or poetry or wit. This dry prose is in itself interesting, as it may mark a turn from most Axial Age literary style and anticipates how many academic papers are written today. In addition to being artless, the text is filled with familiar words being used in unfamiliar ways. Aristotle is aware of this, even deliberate, and includes a glossary of terms inside Metaphysica. Depsite the denseness, and the confusing multiple uses of the word "cause", the argument that Aristotle makes for a "prime mover" (what has been interpreted as "God" by countless later Christian and Islamic thinkers) is clear. However, modern day philosophers, theologians, and scientists don't seem to place must stock with this argument, and more generally it is unclear to me what is the specific influence of the theoretic sciences on contemporary thought. In contrast, the influence of the Politica is clear. Aristotle says that the state (for him, likely a Greek city-state) is the culmination of both Man and Nature; to function well in a well-functioning polity is the true and ultimate purpose of the ethical life. Putting aside his presumably at-the-time-standard views of the natural inferiority of women, slaves, and barbarians, his classification of forms of government is lucid. He concludes that the best polity is probably a sort of mixture of aristocracy and democracy, and he even classifies public official functions into legislative, executive, and judicial. This anticipates America's constitution (3 branches of government, bicameral legislature), or perhaps more accurately shows that America's founders knew their Aristotle. A foundational text after all.

[Brett · Rating 3 out of 5]

Disclaimer: I am not assigning a star rating to Aristotle's work, which is really above my pay grade, but just to this specific volume. It has a useful introductory preface and, at 1500 pages, is the best one-volume compendium you are likely to find. It includes many of Aristotle's essays (if this is really an accurate term) in full, and good selections of many others. What it lacks is much for useful footnotes in any of the sections, providing little context to help a lay reader.

To paraphrase the old 1960s tune, I don't know much about philosophy. I always wanted to take some classes as an undergrad, but never squeezed it in and I still occasionally feel pangs of guilt over my lack of understanding. This leads me to impulse purchase things like this volume, and fight my way through them, hoping to establish some baseline knowledge. In all honesty, I don't think it did me much good.

This volume will look (I hope) impressive on my shelf, next to the other philosophic texts that I have only vaguely understood, but if you are going it alone without the benefit of a professor or other knowledgeable person that can help you through it, I would not recommend starting with the primary text. I'm going to reform my approach in the future and just buy some philosophy 101 textbooks.

[mariana staudt · Rating 3 out of 5]

I read maybe an eighth of this book and understood an eighth of that eighth. Recommend for smart people.

[Brok3n · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good without God

I read this book in order to counter an idea I often hear from Christians -- that it is impossible for an atheist to be a good person. There are three main arguments presented. The first is that a "Good person" *by definition* must have faith in God. The second is that it is impossible to know good from evil unless you RTFM: you need a higher authority to tell you which is which. And the third is that the only possible reason anyone could have to be good is fear of Hell. The first argument is vacuous. As for the third: people who are honest and kind only because they fear an afterlife of everlasting torment are not good people -- their opinions should be ignored. Argument 2 is just wrong, and this book shows it. In it Aristotle sets out to systematically explore good. He was not a Christian, having lived hundred of years before Christianity got off the ground. In fact, religion plays no important role in the book. Aristotle shows that it is possible to think about good without a God to tell you what it is.

So, I read it. Aside from proving that it is possible to think about good without God, I do not find it a useful guide to action. In this regard Plato is more convincing. Even though Plato does not systematically survey the subject of ethics in one place, the questions of what is good, what is virtue, and how should a good person act arise frequently in Plato, and the views presented there are clearer and more convincing than Aristotle's. So, in that regard Ethics is disappointing.

Why is this? There are a few reasons. First, it should be noted that there is a hugely important technical difficulty in reading Ethics: vocabulary and translation. A good illustration of this is Aristotle's discussion of courage. It became obvious immediately when I began to read the chapter on the subject that what Aristotle means by (the word translated as) courage is not at all what I and most English speakers mean by it. Aristotle's concept is much narrower, really covering only physical courage in war. In fact, the word Aristotle uses is ανδρεία (andreia), which is derived from άνδρας (andros -- man). So what Aristotle here discusses is something like "manliness", and even of that he has a narrow concept. (Google translate informs me that modern Greek has two other words for courage that correspond more closely to the modern concept: θάρρος (tharros) and κουράγιο (couragio)). I don't know if those words were in use in Aristotle's time, but I can tell you that his discussion of courage is seriously flawed from my point of view since it has little to do with anything that I would recognize as courage. It is barely even possible to imagine a courageous woman in Aristotle's views. (Chinese has a similar vocabulary problem: here is brave: 勇, and here is male: 男. The English word "courage" is derived from the Latin for heart, and is thus free of sexual etymology.)

This points towards another problem with Aristotle: he considers man superior to non-man, to the point of incomparability. Non-man includes women, children, and animals. Women and children are barely mentioned in Ethics. For instance, he has this to say about animals and boys: "It is natural, then, that we call neither ox nor horse nor any other of the animals happy; for none of them is capable of sharing in such activity. For this reason also a boy is not happy; for he is not yet capable of such acts, owing to his age." He does seem to consider the possibility that there might be such things as womanly virtues, although they are clearly far inferior to those available to men.

Another problem I find with Aristotle is the view that a man's will is unitary. (This he shares with Plato and Socrates.) It is the idea that what one wants is what one wants, i.e. that there is no such thing as internal conflict -- the very idea makes no sense. Aristotle, unlike Plato and Socrates, does admit a limited exception, which he calls incontinence, where, under certain circumstances a less-than-perfectly virtuous person may give in to temptation even though he knows he should not.

This error (for so, I maintain, it is) also infects his discussion of courage. Aristotle thinks a courageous man does not fear death in battle. In fact, I believe, as I think most people do, that without fear there is no courage. Courage is doing the thing you fear when it is right. Aristotle cannot fully conceive the idea that a man fears dying in battle yet does so voluntarily.

Who the Hell am I, who thinks he has the standing to find fault with Aristotle? I am an educated 21st-century human. I am somewhat familiar with 2300 years of history that had not yet happened when Aristotle lived. I am aware of real governments, constitutions, movements, and nations of which he could barely conceive. I am infected by the liberal values of my time, which hold that humans are far more alike than they are different. For instance, except for sexual physiology, men and women are mostly alike. Humans are animals (Aristotle knew that) and are not discontinuously different from other animals. I am also, as it happens, a retired neuroscientist. Thus I know that we reason and philosophize with our brains. This was not generally appreciated in Aristotle's time. Aristotle himself, believed that the brain was a kind of radiator whose purpose was to cool the heart, which he, like most people of his time, believed to be the seat of reason. (It was not until Harvey's description of the circulation of the blood in 1628 that anyone correctly understood the purpose of the heart.) I know that the brain is a complicated organ of many parts, and that these parts may act in opposition, so that a human is almost constantly in a state of internal conflict. There is nothing logically incoherent in the idea of a person overcoming his/her fear.

I bought The Basic Works of Aristotle intending to read Ethics and Politics, and then perhaps others of Aristotle's works. However, I am sufficiently disappointed in Ethics that I do not intend to read Politics. As I already said, Plato is better.

[James Henderson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This text was my introduction to Aristotle during my college years. I read from this work alongside readings from the dialogues of Plato. Then I decided I was at heart an Aristotelian. That means among other things that I "desire to know" as Aristotle puts it in his Metaphysics. It also means that I am interested in the real world and that there is such a world that exists independent of my mind. Aristotle's works have been part of my reading life ever since. This is one of the best one volume collections of his work. I would recommend it to all who are interested in philosophy and have the desire to know.

[Chris Maguire · Rating 1 out of 5]

I accept that this is regarded as a major milestone in human understanding but it's very hard to follow. A picture here and there would be illuminating. An edition with pictures or "Cole's Notes" explaining what the heck Aristotle is talking about would be nice.

I'm mostly reading this to dispel the mystery of what it's about and to check it off the list so I'm not taking the time to try and understand the content based on the content itself; I'd go to Khan Academy or a similar resource if I actually wanted to learn the content. Maybe learning from an ancient text alone would strengthen my reading comprehension and academic conviction but I'm not passionate about either of those.

[Christopher · Rating 5 out of 5]

I recently returned to the biological works to clarify a few points recounted in the book HypnoBirthing: The Mongan Method: A natural approach to a safe, easier, more comfortable birthing If your interested in this, there is a good summarizing article by P. M. Dunn located here Perinatal Lessons from the Past

[Garrett McMahon · Rating 4 out of 5]

Slavery is fine

[Sarah · Rating 5 out of 5]

If ever a written work deserved 5 stars, surely Aristotle's do. His writings changed me as a person. I deeply admire his curiosity, his thought process, his organization, his attention to detail, and his tremendous insights into the human existence. Theories aside, it was fascinating to see how drastically his approach to philosophical thinking differed from Plato's. (And I love Plato, too.)

Brief impressions of each work I read:

1. Organon (selections from Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics): 4 stars. I'm very glad I read this first, because the later works came back to these foundational concepts again and again. I respect and appreciate what Aristotle was doing with this work in laying the groundwork for further discussion on multiple topics. But it was very, very hard to follow.

2. Physics: 4 stars. Like Organon, this had a satisfyingly orderly structure. I really like how Aristotle lays out his position and systematically builds to his conclusions. But I definitely finished this work not really knowing what to do with it.

3. Metaphysics: 5 stars. Even though I undoubtedly understood only a fraction of its insights, it was obvious this was a work of great importance. Got me thinking about things like... What is existence? What is truth; is it relative or absolute? Do good and evil exist separate from things? What is the difference between potentiality and actuality? I'm seeing why Aristotle is often considered the most important philosopher of all time.

4. On the Soul: 5 stars. For Aristotle, soul is what gives things life. All living things have soul, including plants and animals. His famous divisions of the soul (irrational, found in plants and animals; and rational, found in humans) articulate what sets humans apart from other living things: the ability to reason. I loved the discussions on the mind and how thinking, perceiving, and imagining are distinguished.

5. Poetics: 5 stars. Applicable to books, movies, and plays even today. I loved how this showed the breadth of Aristotle's interests. The man really did it all: science, philosophy, writing.

6. Nicomachean Ethics: 5 huge stars. Aristotle defines human happiness as a certain kind of life: a life of arete, which can be translated as virtue or excellence--a state or property that makes something a good version of itself. In particular, a life of contemplation is a life of arete because it is a fulfillment of human nature. Contemplation is a function of reason (the highest human faculty) and is directed a eternal truth (the highest object). Thus, a life of contemplation of truth is perfect happiness. We often think of moral virtue when we use the word virtue, and a life of moral virtue is also happy, though to a secondary degree. Aristotle further notes that achieving happiness is not entirely within a person's control. It requires choice, yes, but also some chance/luck in having the necessary external goods.

7. Politics: 5 stars. Ethics examined the good for the individual; Politics examines the good for the community. Its influence on the founding of America's government is undeniable and engrossing. I also liked how Aristotle did not dwell on the "ideal state" and instead spent a lot of time considering the achievable state.

8. Rhetoric: 5 stars. Useful, understandable, and practical for understanding how to persuade. I still admire Aristotle's meticulous and thorough analysis and conclusions, even when the topic is not one of deep philosophical thought.

[Brent Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Aristotle focus in “The Basic Works of Aristotle” is that “all men suppose what is called wisdom to deal with the first causes and the principles of things.” These causes and principles are the subject matters referred to as “first philosophy.” Considered to be one of the first true scientists, he created an early version of the scientific method to observe and draw conclusions. The approach begins with reviewing the opinions of others and even the history of thought.

He drew distinctions between things that are “better known to us” and things that are “better known in themselves,”. He said we start with what is best known to us and then move to things better known in themselves.

Aristotle’s said “the study of being qua “is frequently and easily misunderstood, because it seems to suggest that there is a single subject matter—being qua being. The subject matter of “being” included within it three things: (1) a study, (2) a subject matter (being), and (3) a way the subject matter is studied (qua being).

Much of Aristotle’s teachings were preserved by Arabic mathematicians and canonized by Christian scholars. His works have shaped Western thought, science, and religion for nearly two thousand years. Richard McKeon’s The Basic Works of Aristotle is the one-volume source for understanding this scholar.

The books approach is especially useful in comparing him to Plato. Plato's world was one of changeless things assigned for lofty contemplation and for Aristotle, as we are told in the introduction, it was a world for empirical investigation. Aristotle had a fascination with living things.

The contents list a Preface, Introduction, Bibliography, Organon (logical treatises), Physica, DeCaelo, De Generatione, Parva Naturalia, Historia Animalium, De Partibus, De Generatione, Metaphysica, Ethica Nicomachea, Politica, Rhetorica, and De Poetica.

In the preface it tells us that this book is an aid to understanding the man and his thoughts. A study of an ancient writer. The re-discovery and assemblage of useful items of information and knowledge and inquiry into truths whose specifications do not change with time. “The Basic Works of Aristotle by Richard McKeon” is a must-have book to understand and have a useful reference for understanding this important scholar. For more on this book see web site at www.connectedeventsmatter.com

[Burke Peters · Rating 5 out of 5]

I challenged myself to read this cover-to-cover for a variety of reasons. First, I enjoy philosophy so it is hard to avoid Aristotle. Second, because Aristotle has had a deeply significant and long lasting impact on the world. Third, because, while some of his stuff is outdated, in many ways it feels as fresh and relevant as anything else being written today.

This is a collection of works by Aristotle so it also has different levels of conceptual difficulty while all of them remain interesting through the use of continual anecdotes and humanizing remarks. The Metaphysics is probably the most challenging alongside some sections of the Organon while the ethics, politics, rhetoric, and poetics are a bit easier though still packed full with interesting concepts.

I filled in most of the flyleaves filled with notes pointing to pages with interesting information on them. Here is a small selection of those notes:

p. 249/601/645 - survival of the fittest
p. 284 - Newton
p. 286 - Archimedes
p. 628 - Gambler's fallacy
p. 640 - elephant hunting
p. 712 - wisdom of crowds
p. 742 - why don't nihilists walk off cliffs?
p. 800 - black swan
p. 185/186732-735 - first principles
p. 832 - privation theory of evil
p. 971 - ends, means, action
p. 1044 - cannibalism
p. 1077 - market equilibrium
p. 1086 - mimetic conflict
p. 1107 - God is a contemplative
p. 1188 - barter and currency
p. 1156 - Malthusian and actuarial ideas
p. 1160 - hedonistic treadmill
p. 1195 - no law for men of pre-eminent virtue
p. 1258 - purpose of the pyramids
p. 1296 - Indian Caste System
p. 1362 - a habit becomes like nature
p. 1384 - a form of golden rule
p. 1388 - conflict arising from desiring the same scarce object (mimetic)
p. 1430 - the halo effect

There is of course, much, much more than this that is interesting in this work.

[Bradley]

It would be a little weird to say that I 'read' this. I did not read this from start to finish, but more like how Christians tend to read the Bible starting with the Gospels and branching out, I too started on some of the more notable bits of Aristotle and left the other pages barren. I will not rate the work and I'm marking it as read now because I've owned this book for a long time and it's been a random, constant companion throughout the years. Aristotle always strikes me as one of the deepest wells in thought. I've found him to be the most well-rounded and brilliant among...anyone, haha! I've been attracted to his works for the longest time and cannot connect the dots to when or how that came to be.

Al-Ghazali recognized Aristotle's genius even whilst procaliming him a heretic. There's something about him that can't be measured and so I will leave this ratingless. And words will fall short. He took thought, its many forms, and breathed it new. As the cover says, "The master of those who know." ~Dante

[Sinan Öner]

Aristoteles lived in the ancient Greece (around the Aegean Sea) in 5. Century B.C. Aristoteles' works spread in the different social, natural sciences, arts. Aristoteles founded "Lise" ("High School") for educate students with his methodology, philosophy and understanding the world. Aristoteles worked with ancient city states, one of the sources of Aristoteles' knowledge is his work with political ruling classes of his age in the different countries. In "The Basic Works of Aristotle", we see the most of his books in the one volume, Aristoteles is living in his book although the changes of world since his writing.

[Matt · Rating 3 out of 5]

From literary criticism and rules of grammar to political science to rhetoric and debate to natural science, there was little Aristotle did not feel compelled to discuss. It's intriguing from our vantage point to look back and see how often he knew about ideas that we think are modern. On the other hand, it's humbling to realize how little he got right about science. If humanity survives another two millenia, our science will likely seem as absurd to our descendants as his does to us.

[William · Rating 5 out of 5]

Wow. Incredible. Aristotle had an incredible mind, and he astounds me with his brilliance. I did not read all of the writings in this book (in fact, I only read his Nichomean Ethics and his Politics), but, I know I will come back and read many of his other writings as I continue reading from those who cite him. There is much to be said about Aristotle, but I favor him to his teacher, Plato. I've learned a lot.

[Bruno Dal Molin]

Does not contain all of A's works, but perhaps the main ones, mostly complete, only a few are excerpted. A middle point between https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1... and https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7.... What can I say? A must have for philosophy fans... I sort of regret not getting The Complete Works as he is such an incredible author. His ideas really seem fundamental to an understanding of reality.

[Ethan Zimmerman]

I read about 25% of this for a history of philosophy class. Clearly, Aristotle is brilliant. He's also very hard to understand at points. It's helpful to read with a guide although certainly not necessary.

I really enjoyed discovering in Aristotle philosophical terms and categories with which I was already familiar from church history and early theological development.

[EstelleLiterature · Rating 3 out of 5]

A versatile book, dense to the point of boring, but useful for a comprehensive connection among all topics from physics to medicine, from rhetorics to semantics, from poetry to politics, from spirit to non-spirit: this was used in French schools in my teenage days! The reason I give it a three star is his attitude toward animals, the reason Sartre named animals as "animated beings."

[zara · Rating 4 out of 5]

only read a few things but still wanted to log it:
De Anima
Physics
Metaphysics
Nicomachean Ethics

[Jeff Cliff · Rating 1 out of 5]

one of the driest things I've ever read

[Gabrielle Huston · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read for HUMS2000 at Carleton University. Read parts of Categories, Physics, Metaphysics, and Ethics.