Customer Reviews

Aristotle for Everybody: Difficult Thought Made Easy (Library Edition)

5 star:		(16)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

This is an absolutely great book. This is the type of book that justifies all of the fluff in the publishing world. This book is written in a way that anyone can not only understand but also enjoy.

This book is 190 pages (Bantam 1978). There are no dull chapters or useless ramblings. All of the chapters and portions build upon each other and grant a continuing greater understanding of Aristotle and philosophy as a whole.

The book can be read in its entirety, as I have done many times, or in pieces and morsels, as I have also done many times for papers and brainstorming.

A very worthwhile read and definite necessity for any balanced library.

I am a firm believer that reading interpretations of philosophical writings is never a substitute for the actual writings. I read this book and gave it to my wife who did not have the benefit of studying Aristotle in a scholastic environment. I highly recommend this book to anyone who wants to understand what Aristotle is all about, but doesn't have the time to study all of his works.

In addition, the author has many reference notes that the reader can use to find the original writings to which the book refers. In many ways, the book acts like a good philosophy teacher. Much can be learned by reading the book, and the corresponding works of Aristotle as referenced in the notes.

Please disregard the previous remork by "a reader" in San Jose. This books is NOT a "Christian spin" on Aristotle. Adler wrote this book a decade before his conversion to Christianity.

This book makes Aristotle's teachings simple to comprehend and allows the reader to truly understand what the Greek thinker really thought. It was interesting to read Aristotle's ideas on how one should live life and that life should not be difficult if you live by his beliefs. I recommend this book to you.

"No idea in this book is less than 2,400 years old." So says the back cover.

Aristotle was a Greek philosopher, and one of the greatest thinkers and scientific investigators and organizers the world has ever seen. He was born in 384 B.C., and died 62 years later. His father, Nicomachus, was the court physician and a friend of the king. He studied under Plato for twenty years, until the latter's death. Although he criticized Plato's doctrines in later years, he always spoke of his master with greatest reverence.

Many of his popular writings were written in dialogue form, and were modeled in both subject matter and style, after Plato's. The writings which are traditionally attributed to him seem to have come primarily from the works prepared and arranged by Andronicus of Rhodes in about the first century.<P.

He wrote The Treatises on Logic; The Rhetoric and the Poetics; The Work on the first Philosophy (also called The Metaphysics); The Works on Natural Science; and The Ethics and Politics.

Mortimer Adler, the author of this book, says that his sons, Douglas and Philip, 13 and 12 respectively, read his manuscript enthusiastically, and so you may assume that the book is easy to assimilate. Which it is.

Why philosophy? Adler says, I think correctly, that philosophy is everyone's business, to help us understand things we already know better than we now understand them.

And, it is humbling to know, when you finally think you understand something, to find that someone--Aristotle, for example--understood it more than three hundred years before the birth of Christ, and without the benefit of television documentaries.

This book should probably be in your library.

Joseph Pierre,
Author of THE ROAD TO DAMASCUS: Our Journey Through Eternity

For a first introductrion to philosophy, this book provides the reader with an interesting approach to artistotelian modes of thought, through intersting examples and clear defenitions

This is the best introduction to Aristotle I have seen. Reading Aristotle, especially the primary sources, is not easy. This book is a place where anyone can begin in Aristotle's thought.

There isn't very much I can add to what has already been said by other reviewers. This is an absolutely excellent and accessible introduction to Aristotle and his thinking. As one reviewer says, the chapters are very logical and straightforward, each building up on previous chapters. Upon reading this brief book, the reader will have a much better understanding of Aristotle's thought, as well as an expanded perspective on God, our existence, family, work, and contemplation. While the subject matter is profound, Adler is far from erudite, and this book (as with many of his others that I have read) should prove to be accessible by junior high school students, high school students, college students, and so on. A definite "must read" for everybody.

For anyone having difficulty reading the greatest philosopher in Western history-"The master of all who know"-or for the expert who wants a review of Aristotle, this book is a must. Adler is a great philosopher in his own right, and here he presents his knowledge in full, representing Aristotle's thought as well as Aristotle himself could explain it. A must read for all philosophers, beginners and scholars.

Review of Adler, _Aristotle for Everybody_

For Adler philosophy is informed by the concept of "uncommon common sense" (p xiv) which is "the refinement of common sense by philosophical reflection" (p 167). This notion grounds philosophy firmly in the everyday experience of the world.

I will not summarize Adler's book; it is itself a summary of Aristotle's major thoughts (and in an Epilogue, references to Aristotle's works are given for each chapter). I will instead concentrate on some major issues which arise.

Aristotle provides an explanation/description of the world by means of two fundamental pairs of concepts: matter and form, potentiality and actuality. Matter in itself is pure potentiality and does not exist in actuality (while God is pure actuality and has no potentiality). Forms are the aspects of things which allow us to perceive new instances; they become ideas in our minds. (Ideas, immaterial entities which result from the apprehension of the forms of things by the human mind, simply ARE the "concepts" which writers on meaning so often refer to. This is dealt with in detail in Adler's _Some Questions About Language_)

Aristotle objected to the atomism of Leucippus and Democritus (atoms are the smallest units of matter, infinite in number, and indivisible) on two grounds: (a) that nothing can both be an ultimate unit of matter and be indivisible. Either it has a void, some empty space, inside it (in which case it is not an ultimate unit of matter) or it does not and the matter is continuous (in which case it is divisible, for whatever is continuous is infinitely divisible); (b) an infinite number of things cannot actually co-exist at any moment of time. This looks like inconsistency: he speaks of an infinite number of cuts, yet says an infinity is impossible. The difficulty is resolved by the distinction between the potential and the actual: for Aristotle there are two potential infinities, neither one of them actual: a potential infinite number of divisions, and a potential infinity of addition. Take addition: you cannot say there is a last integer, BUT you cannot actually carry out the infinite addition.

Aristotle did believe in the infinity of time (in fact, in an eternal universe). But for him it did not exist all at the same moment. No two moments of time co-exist. Time can be infinite because its moments do not co-exist. When a given moment arrives, the last one no longer exists. Aristotle recognized two kinds of eternity: (a) timelessness (a state outside of time) (b) unending and unbeginning time. The universe was eternal in sense (b); God was eternal in sense (a).

The distinction rests on his notion that time is a measure of motion or change. It follows that time has no beginning or end if motion/change has no beginning or end. But why did he believe that motion/change has no beginning or end? A hard question, deferred to the final chapter; but Adler does not in fact come back to it.

The universe, being eternal, does not need a _First_ Mover, but it needs a (necessarily existing) _Prime_ Mover. While the question of why Aristotle believed that motion/change has no beginning or end remains unanswered, we can see fairly clearly why he believed no beginning or end was needed: _potential_ infinities are OK. After all, we need potential infinities for the lowly number series anyway.

Material things have an immaterial aspect, namely, form. Form is not shape; it is idea.

The mind is the form of forms. It must itself be immaterial in order to keep or hold forms separate from matter. Unlike sensing and perceiving, knowing does not involve any material organ, not even the brain. But the mind may be related to the brain.

The Prime Mover did not create the universe (since the universe is eternal) but rather keeps all things in eternal motion/change. The question Aristotle did not raise is: since the universe does not exist necessarily, what keeps it in _existence_ (let alone motion/change)?

I heartily recommend the book; and following upon it one might well read something on St. Thomas Aquinas, who dealt with some of the matters which were problematic for Aristotle.

Ken Miner