Customer Reviews

An Approach to Aristotle's Physics

5 star:		(1)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

I am not one to quibble with the opinions of good men, but I am compelled to quibble with the opinions of the prior two reviewers.

Let me begin by saying that I believe Bolotin's book is an invaluable contribution to the study of both Aristotle and natural science. Bolotin's reading of Aristotle is anything but "shallow", rather his Approach displays a virtually unrivaled profundity and rigor of thought. An Approach to Aristotle's Physics shares those characteristics with Bolotin's other published works, including a translation of, and commentary on, Plato's Lysis and articles on Plato's Theaetetus and Philebus (which may easily found with an internet search for the back issues of the academic journal Interpretation).

Both reviewers correctly identify Bolotin as saying that Aristotle was compelled to conceal his true teaching on natural science so as to avoid the fate of Socrates (death penalty on the charge of impiety). However, immediately after discussing that point Bolotin states political persecution is not sufficient to account for why Aristotle concealed his true teaching on natural science. The previous two reviewers neglect to mention (and therefore likely miss the full import of) this other reason for Aristotle's concealment. Bolotin says, "What emerges from this contrast between Aristotle's surface teaching and his genuine views is that in the former he presented the natural world as being far more completely intelligible than he believed it was" (151).

If I am not mistaken, Bolotin's book (and Aristotle's Physics as Bolotin demonstrates) is aimed at showing the reasons for, and implications of, Aristotle view that the natural world is not wholly intelligible. In other words, I think both books aim to show the conditions for the possibility of a perfect, self-sufficient natural science--- conditions which yield patently absurd conclusions and also, *conditions which are necessarily impossible to meet.*

Bolotin argues Aristotle believed (and demonstrates to the careful reader) the roots of the natural world are necessarily "mysterious", or undiscoverable through natural science/natural philosophy (top of page 152). As such, the profundity of Bolotin's work lies precisely in his reflection on this problem; he concludes that it is "hubris" (to use the word from the shallow review by the anonymous "customer") on the part of the natural philosopher, or natural scientist who believes his science is self-sufficient, or who believes that the natural world, and it's roots, are completely knowable to man. For what could be a greater act of hubris than to pursue a science of nature when the fact of the very ground of that science, namely, nature (necessity or knowable limits of beings) remains undemonstrated (pg. 23-24 with 151-153)?

The value of Bolotin's work is laying bare that problem which underlies all natural science/philosophy (including modern natural science see especially pages 33-34). Fortunately for the reader Bolotin does so with greater force, clarity, and depth than my book review. For the serious student of Aristotle, Plato, philosophy and natural science Bolotin's book is must read. When properly understood, as the two prior reviewers demonstrate is clearly not a given, Bolotin's Approach owns a place along side the works of the greatest commentators on Aristotle.

This book argues that in the Physics, Aristotle concealed his real views, probably out of fear for his physical safety. Instead, Aristotle supposedly held views that are actually closer to the truth than what modern physical science tells us. Bolotin speaks of a "widespread and growing critique of modern science". One gets the sense of a recent uprising here. But when we go to the sources, it turns out they are the likes of Husserl and even Goethe.

This does not begin to capture the strangeness of this book, however. For an inkling, go to p. 7 where Bolotin states "Aristotle is generally thought of, from the perspective of our modern knowledge, as having been naively speculative or even manifestly wrong. But I will try to show in all these cases not only that his genuine views are consistent with modern discoveries, but that they stem from a broader and deeper grasp than modern science possesses of the matters to which they are related."

This would be mad, if it were not simply preposterous. Much of the "evidence" for this thesis is the inconsistencies and logical lapses in Aristotle's writings on nature. Surely Aristotle couldn't have meant what he wrote? Perhaps, then, he had an understanding of physics something like that of early modern science? But when we compare what Aristotle said, for example, about laws of motion with the work of Galileo and successors, we find that Aristotle's notions were simply primitive.

His books on nature are most probably lecture notes written down by students, hastily put together and perhaps corrupted by the transcribers or others. He was a man with a lot of original insights about a great many subjects. It would be ridiculous to think that he could have figured out what Galileo took a whole lifetime to do, while also writing everything that he wrote on metaphysics, biology, logic, poetics, philosophy.

For all I know, there may have been some concealment in Aristotle's writings. To extrapolate this hypothesis to Bolotin's wild thesis is simply absurd. Aristotle's achievements were staggering just as they are. It is not necessary to imagine that he did things that he simply didn't do.

This work should serve as a wake-up call to all of those who believe themselves to be interpreting texts in the manner of the late Leo Strauss. It is not enough to ape the master; one must also attempt to achieve a comparable mastery of the material before one starts drawing conclusions. The two best examples of this felicitous marriage (in the field of ancient philosophy) are still Stanley Rosen and Seth Benardete.

David Bolotin's work discovers an Aristotle far more conventional than the one which is commented upon by the medieval scholastics and the later ancients. In an attempt to show us how Aristotle is subjugating his physics to harsh, political necessities and that the Physics is really an exoteric work Bolotin prefers to avoid the profound in search of the banal. Let me make this perfectly clear: I think Bolotin's guiding idea, that Aristotle wrote very carefully, is absolutely correct. Where I part company with him is in the fact that Bolotin appears to be deaf to the very radicalism of the Physics. In the span of 8 books Aristotle sets forth an bold vision of how the world of motion-and-rest functions, effectively overwriting all previous attempts to do this. The ultimate result is that Aristotle delimits the area in which the subject of physics will be discussed and how it will be discussed. He also gives us glimpses into his assumptions and the "little white-lies" he tells in order to render his account complete. Bolotin does not seem terribly concerned with this stunning achievement and prefers to point out that Aristotle was fearful of meeting the fate of Socrates. Aquinas knew better since the good saint wasn't worried about citing Aristotle as the authority for the view that the philosopher is the one who puts things in their correct order (Summa Contra Gentiles 1.1). I will point out, in passing, that the gods are frequently credited with this very activity. Philosophy, in the classic sense, is the best life because it is the one closest to the activity of the divinities. The profundity (and hubris) of this view is worth serious reflection but we don't get any of that in Bolotin's work. It is a shame since the work could have been so much more had the author decided to toss out his prejudices in favor of reading the work as it needs to be read. A quick glance at his bibliography lends further credence to the conclusion that this book was already written before it was committed to paper; that the author had concluded his investigations before they had even began. The favorable endorsements from such notable scholars as Thomas Pangle and William Charlton are embarassing, since it is unclear what these men saw in this superficial work.