Customer Reviews

Aristotle: The Desire to Understand

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

A simply excellent book introducing the philosophy of Aristotle by Jonathan Lear. Lear accesses the original ancient Greek and as such avoids some of the errors which creep into accounts of ancient philosophy using a contemporary mind-set. A very clear account of Aristotle's many works, excerpts from the metaphysics, ethics and others explaining the somewhat difficult concepts in a fresh way that is free of extraneous interpretation and captures Aristotle's own way of understanding, or at least as close as seems possible given the intervening time. Just when you thought a concept had been understood along comes a new and invigorating idea to surprise you as you proceed through the book. This is not a simple book, neither is it intended to be. I would think it is just about Aristotelian thought and its authentic meaning. Not only does it show the depth of his ideas but gives you an insight into Aristotle's astonishing talents, his thought spanning topics from ethics and politics to biology, it gives the impression that the word polymath was created to describe Aristotle and that any coming after him would try to approach his intellect and insight into the world. The book demonstrates some of Aristotle's greatest solutions to the challenges proposed by Plato's thought as well as Zeno. All in all an exceptional book in the practise of Aristotle's philosophy. It is a pity that the older book by Lear on Aristotelian Logic is now out of print, hopefully this situation is only temporary.

As the author notes, there is a common tendency to describe 'old' philosophies such as Aristotles in an historical manner: to treat his ideas as tacitly dead and gone, with the value of the works deriving from either locating Aristotle's ideas in the context of the history of philosophy, or via some rather facile 'compare and contrast with modern views' approach.

Instead, Lear is "...primarily concerned with the truth about Aristotle, not the truth of Aristotle's views per se...". This frees him up to spend most of his ink on explicating and clarifying the views of Aristotle. Where contrasts do appear, they are intended to "...bring to light how different Aristotle's world is from the modern, not to show how Aristotle's beliefs fall short of what we now take to be the truth."

The organization is by concepts, so within one section there are often references to various books on Aristotle. This is much more helpful than simply attempting to narrate, or move in lockstep, with Aristotle's sequence of writings.

The references are generally sufficient, footnoted at the bottom of the pages. Occasionally, the original Greek words or phrases are also footnoted. (I would have preferred more of the latter, but that is a quibble.)

The author is neither pretentious nor superficial. His writing is that of a patient tutor who is willing to explain, but also not willing to oversimplify. In so doing, the book comes across as being ardently respectful of Aristotle, and it is an excellent companion to reading Aristotle's works.

Jonathan Lear gives us a truthful and insightful look at Aristotle's thoughts. As opposed to many so-called commentators and experts on Aristotle's theories (including W.D.Ross and J.L.Ackrill) Lear attempts at explaining what Aristotle was saying, not an elaborate re-interpretation and argumentation. Questions and certain problems are not, however, ignored. And Lear's approach to Hume's problem of cause/effect when discussing Aristotle's four causes is to be much admired (as is his whole understanding of the causes.) Kant is as well not ignored when his ideas are relevent (or contradictory.) But Lear has a knack for explaining each philosopher in itself and this explaining as to what it was that Aristotle said (in contradistinction to Kant's ideas), but not in a judgmental sort of manner.

After looking at many (if not almost all) books on Aristotle's theories, I was suprised to find a book with clear,lucid, and straightforward ideas. This is most probably the best book on this subject.

Absolutely outstanding. I read Philosophy over thirty years ago at the University of Wales, making a detailed study of Aristotle's concept of matter. Since then I have read many books on Aristotle and have only just got around to reading this one. It has to be about the best single study available of Aristotle's thought (of course I have not read them all!) Jonathan Lear never wavers from expressing very carefully the exact and subtle points that Aristotle made, never papers over any cracks, never says anything that Aristotle did not say. This should have a position of importance in any philosopher's library.

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Jonathan Lear's "Aristotle: The Desire To Understand," is the best companion work "illuminating" Aristotle's philosophy. We only have lecture notes of Aristotle's works, so no finished texts survive, which is one of the reasons we need books like Lear's to "polish" Aristotle's arguments.

Aristotle wrote treatises, he wrote to find results and doesn't leave questions unanswered. Aristotle is the first biologist. His way of thinking is scientific. He doesn't use story telling or myth like Plato. Aristotle is a realist, a naturalist, an empiricist. Plato was more of a rational intuitionist. Aristotle believed we were born into a fully real world. We are natural beings. There is no "higher" realm for him, unlike Socrates and Plato. This is also counter to the major religions. Thus, natural life is not a "fallen" condition he is more Greek than Plato is in this regard. The Egyptians influenced Plato and Socrates. Everything Aristotle does begins with what we normally encounter in the world. Thus, our body, and human passions are natural.

Lear astutely explains that Aristotle finds that the desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings it is in our nature. Philosophy is the ultimate consequence of desire. Our desires have many aspects; such as, food, sex, etc. Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and curiosity comes from within us. Aristotle argues that philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder. Aristotle points out that wonder is an actual disposition. Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer. Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known. Aristotle always begins his inquiries with observing the familiar. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato's dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions; Aristotle argues that if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Lear helps to explain Aristotle's answers to these questions in his book, which does a superb job of explaining all of Aristotle's extant works

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, politics, or anyone who wants to have a basis of a "classical" education. For me, Aristotle is the smartest human that walked the planet!

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Jonathan Lear's "Aristotle: The Desire To Understand," is the best companion work "illuminating" Aristotle's philosophy. We only have lecture notes of Aristotle's works, so no finished texts survive, which is one of the reasons we need books like Lear's to "polish" Aristotle's arguments.

Aristotle wrote treatises, he wrote to find results and doesn't leave questions unanswered. Aristotle is the first biologist. His way of thinking is scientific. He doesn't use story telling or myth like Plato. Aristotle is a realist, a naturalist, an empiricist. Plato was more of a rational intuitionist. Aristotle believed we were born into a fully real world. We are natural beings. There is no "higher" realm for him, unlike Socrates and Plato. This is also counter to the major religions. Thus, natural life is not a "fallen" condition he is more Greek than Plato is in this regard. The Egyptians influenced Plato and Socrates. Everything Aristotle does begins with what we normally encounter in the world. Thus, our body, and human passions are natural.

Lear astutely explains that Aristotle finds that the desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings it is in our nature. Philosophy is the ultimate consequence of desire. Our desires have many aspects; such as, food, sex, etc. Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and curiosity comes from within us. Aristotle argues that philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder. Aristotle points out that wonder is an actual disposition. Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer. Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known. Aristotle always begins his inquiries with observing the familiar. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato's dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions; Aristotle argues that if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Lear helps to explain Aristotle's answers to these questions in his book, which does a superb job of explaining all of Aristotle's extant works

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, politics, or anyone who wants to have a basis of a "classical" education. For me, Aristotle is the smartest human that walked the planet!

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle. Jonathan Lear's "Aristotle: The Desire To Understand," is the best companion work "illuminating" Aristotle's philosophy. We only have lecture notes of Aristotle's works, so no finished texts survive, which is one of the reasons we need books like Lear's to "polish" Aristotle's arguments.

Aristotle wrote treatises, he wrote to find results and doesn't leave questions unanswered. Aristotle is the first biologist. His way of thinking is scientific. He doesn't use story telling or myth like Plato. Aristotle is a realist, a naturalist, an empiricist. Plato was more of a rational intuitionist. Aristotle believed we were born into a fully real world. We are natural beings. There is no "higher" realm for him, unlike Socrates and Plato. This is also counter to the major religions. Thus, natural life is not a "fallen" condition he is more Greek than Plato is in this regard. The Egyptians influenced Plato and Socrates. Everything Aristotle does begins with what we normally encounter in the world. Thus, our body, and human passions are natural.

Lear astutely explains that Aristotle finds that the desire to understand is intrinsic in human beings it is in our nature. Philosophy is the ultimate consequence of desire. Our desires have many aspects; such as, food, sex, etc. Curiosity is natural in humans, we see it especially in small kids, and curiosity comes from within us. Aristotle argues that philosophy caps off curiosity and wonder. Aristotle points out that wonder is an actual disposition. Aporia = "blocking," something is blocking our wondering as a disturbance and then we struggle to break through with wonder to find the answer. Breaking through aporia can't just be forced but must come from things known. Aristotle always begins his inquiries with observing the familiar. The difference between Plato and Aristotle is that Plato's dialogues use aporia but leave unanswered questions; Aristotle argues that if you try hard you can break thru aporia and get at an answer.

Lear helps to explain Aristotle's answers to these questions in his book, which does a superb job of explaining all of Aristotle's extant works

I recommend that this work is a must for anyone interested in philosophy, ethics, politics, or anyone who wants to have a basis of a "classical" education. For me, Aristotle is the smartest human that walked the planet!

Jonathon Lear explains and describes Aristotle's point of view and concepts. The book is easy to read and clearly presents the material. I thoroughly enjoyed it.