Aristoteles|Jonathan Barnes 9056372777

||boek: Aristoteles|vertaling: Willemien de Leeuw|Johannes M. van Ophuijsen|Lemniscaat-Kopstukken Filosofie

||door: Jonathan Barnes

||taal: nl
||jaar: 2000
||druk: ?
||pag.: 160p
||opm.: softcover|zo goed als nieuw

||isbn: 90-5637-277-7
||code: 1:000807

--- Over het boek (foto 1): Aristoteles ---

The influence of Aristotle, the prince of philosophers, on the intellectual history of the West is second to none. In this book Jonathan Barnes examines Aristotle's scientific researches, his discoveries in logic and his metaphysical theories, his work in psychology and in ethics and politics, and his ideas about art and poetry, placing his teachings in their historical context.

[source: https--www.amazon.com]

"A short, sweet, and selective commentary and analysis of Aristotle's works and ideas. A fine adjunct to the reading of the translated texts. A highly recommended aid to the student meeting Aristotle ab initio. Boy, what a book!" --Steven C. Fleishman, University of Maryland

"No other work on Aristotle accomplishes so much in such brief compass; its author's care for and knowledge of Aristotle's achievements are evident on every page." --Tom Cunningham, Grand Valley State College

"One of the finest critical introductions to Aristotle ever written. Clear, concise, and intelligible." --Religious Studies Review

"As an introduction to Aristotle, I find Barnes' book ideal....his book presents the basics in an understandable manner for beginners." --Rose Maries Surwilo, College of St. Francis

"There is something here for everyone with a nose for philosophy and its history...Barnes has provided a description which does justice to the grandeur and breadth of its subject." --Sarah Waterlow, Times Literary Supplement

In zijn korte hoofdstukken beschrijft Jonathan Barnes het leven en de tijdsgeest van Aristoteles in 300v.Chr. Hij beschrijft hoe Aristoteles ontwikkeling van denken vernieuwend was voor zijn tijd. Hij beschrijft zijn wetenschappelijke onderzoeken, zijn ontdekkingen in de logica en zijn metafysische theorieën, zijn werk in de psychologie, de ethiek en politiek en zijn ideeën over kunst. De heer Barnes wijst je ook op een paar van Aristoteles fouten (een die ik wel grappig vond: Aristoteles dacht dat vuur een element van de maan was), maar ondanks deze moet hij een genie geweest zijn om zo een diepe kennis te beschikken over zoveel verschillende onderwerpen, alles van bijv. zoölogie tot literatuur.

Deze informatieve inleiding tot Aristoteles barst van de interessante feiten en geeft een mooi overzicht van de werken van Aristoteles met een zeer goede beschrijving van Aristoteles' nadruk op teleologie (de zoektocht naar het doeleinde achter dingen). Dit werk is uiterst geschikt voor iemand die zich voor de eerste keer verdiept in de filosofische leer van Aristoteles.

[bron: https--www.bol.com]

[2014-05-04]

On Approaching Aristotle

I enjoyed this VSI. What was most valuable was that it gave me a good frame of reference to tackle Aristotle - by letting me prepare for Aristotle in relation to Plato. Of course, Jonathan Barnes mostly assumes that the the reader has already taken the trouble to read Plato. That is the trouble with inviting such a distinguished scholar to write a basic introduction.

This was just what I needed as I prepare to take my first tentative steps towards a fuller reading of Aristotle (having a dabbled a bit with Rhetoric before). Putting Aristotle's works in perspective by relating them to their points of departure from Plato, makes a whole corpus suddenly much more familiar and in tune with things I have been reading and thinking about for months on end now. The VSI only hints at this and does not do this exhaustively, but that is enough and the reader can do the heavy slugging on their own.

The Popularity Contest

Besides directing the studies in the Academy, Plato himself gave lectures and his hearers took notes. It is important to notice that these lectures were not published, and that they stand in contrast to the dialogues, which were published works meant for "popular" reading.

If we realize this fact, then some of the sharp differences that we naturally tend to discern between Plato and Aristotle disappear, at least in part:

We possess Plato's popular works, his dialogues, but not his lectures. The situation is the exact opposite in regard to Aristotle, for while the works of Aristotle that are in our hands represent his lectures, his popular works or dialogues have not come down to us-only fragments remain. We do not possess a record of the lectures that he delivered in the Academy (though we have more or less cryptic references in Aristotle), and this would be all the more to be regretted if those are right who would see in the dialogues popular work designed for the educated laymen, to be distinguished from the lectures delivered to professional students of philosophy.

We cannot, therefore, by a comparison of Plato's dialogues with Aristotle's lectures, draw conclusions, without further evidence, as to a strong opposition between the two philosophers in point of literary ability, for instance, or emotional, aesthetic and "mystical" outlook.

We are told that Aristotle used to relate how those who came to hear Plato's lecture on the Good, were often astonished to hear of nothing but arithmetic and astronomy, and of the limit and the One. So we can assume that if we had only his lecture notes, even the supremely inventive Plato might be able to bore us!

An Unfair Contrast

Thus we have a queer situation here. What has come down to us from Plato were exactly the material he had designed to be read by the public, while most of the surviving writings of Aristotle were perhaps never intended to be read; for it seems likely that the treatises which we possess were almost wholly put together later from Aristotle's lecture notes.

The notes were made for his own use and not for public dissemination. They were no doubt tinkered with over a period of years. Moreover, although some of the treatises owe their structure to Aristotle himself, others were plainly put together by later editors - the Nicomachean Ethics is evidently not a unitary work, the Metaphysics is plainly a set of essays rather than a continuous treatise. In the light of this, it will hardly be a surprise to find that the style of Aristotle's works is often rugged.

Plato's dialogues are finished literary artefacts, the subtleties of their thought matched by the tricks of their language. Aristotle's writings for the most part are terse. His arguments are concise. There are abrupt transitions, inelegant repetitions, obscure allusions. Paragraphs of continuous exposition are set among staccato jottings. The language is spare and sinewy. If the treatises are unpolished, that is in part because Aristotle had felt no need and no urge to take down the beeswax. But only in part; for Aristotle had reflected on the appropriate style for scientific writing and he favoured simplicity.

Aristotle could write finely - his style was praised by ancient critics who read works of his which we cannot - and some parts of the surviving items are done with power and even with panache. But he probably did not feel the need for it in his lectures, where the premium was on packing maximum information into limited time available, much like today.

The Best Approach to Aristotle

All this is not to suggest that reading the treatises is a dull slog. Aristotle has a vigour which is the more attractive the better it is known; and the treatises, which have none of the camouflage of Plato's dialogues, reveal their author's thoughts - or at least appear to do so - in a direct and stark fashion.

Above all, Aristotle is tough. A good way of reading him is this: Take up a treatise, think of it as a set of lecture notes, and imagine that you now have to lecture from them. You must expand and illustrate the argument, and you must make the transitions clear; you will probably decide to relegate certain paragraphs to footnotes, or reserve them for another time and another lecture; and if you have any talent at all as a lecturer, you will find that the jokes add themselves.

Let it be admitted that Aristotle can be not only tough but also vexing. Whatever does he mean here? How on earth is this conclusion supposed to follow from those premises? Why this sudden barrage of technical terms? One ancient critic claimed that 'he surrounds the difficulty of his subject with the obscurity of his language, and thus avoids refutation - producing darkness, like a squid, in order to make himself hard to capture'. Every reader will, from time to time, think of Aristotle as a squid. But the moments of vexation are outnumbered by the moments of elation. Aristotle's treatises offer a peculiar challenge to their readers; and once you have taken up the challenge, you would not have the treatises in any other form.

It is easy to imagine that you can overhear Aristotle talking to himself.

Riku Sayuj [source: https--www.goodreads.com]

[2021-06-28]

Jonathan Barnes's book demonstrates the breadth of Aristotle's thought. However, his primary focus is on Aristotle's contribution to the sciences. As a result, he devotes just seven pages to his practical philosophy of ethics and politics. Ironically, in his final chapter, Barnes states that many of Aristotle's scientific ideas have become outdated and remain of interest only to historians of science. In contrast, contemporary philosophers still debate many of his ideas on ethics today. I would have liked the book more if he had gone into greater depth into Aristotle's views on ethics, especially his theory of virtue.

Linda [source: https--www.goodreads.com]

[2016-06-07]

Aristotle has proven to be one of the most difficult philosophers for me to come to grips with. For lack of a better phrase, I just don't get it.

His writings are some of the most dry, disorganized, and tedious works that I've made myself read. This, of course, is due to their being lecture notes, not finished works. Even so, I'm usually at a loss to understand how these lecture notes could have played such a decisive role in the history of Western thought. Much of his works consist of sterile catalogues of data-data, moreover, that often seems quite obvious and not worth cataloguing. Other sections are often impenetrable or irrelevant, like he couldn't stick to the task at hand.

On top of the writing style, I have often found his ideas unappealing and, at times, idiotic. Consider his reply to Plato's advocacy that women should be educated like men: Aristotle essentially responds, "well, if women were doing the tasks of men, who would do the cooking?" Also consider Aristotle's idea that some men are naturally slaves, and that enslaving them was merely to treat them as they should be treated. Did it not occur to Aristotle that some men act servile because they were born into slavery?

Even his more respectable theories have left me cold. The main idea that ties the Nicomachean Ethics together is the notion of the 'golden mean' (which is not Aristotle's phrase); essentially, everything in moderation. This sounds reasonable; but consider that some of the most admired and successful individuals in history have been distinguished precisely for their lack of moderation. Aristotle's own life was a case in point; he certainly didn't moderate his philosophizing.

Aristotle was also capable of tremendous oversight. For all of the interesting insights in his Politics, the relevance of his ideas is hampered by Aristotle's certainty that the Greek city-state was ideal. This is particularly egregious, since he was alive in the time of Phillip of Macedon and Alexander the Great, who were establishing vast empires. What's more, he has hardly anything to say about foreign policy-which, it would seem, was crucial, considering how many times Athens was taken over. This oversight, combined with the various anecdotes and misinformation he includes in his more scientific works, gives the impression of a man lacking in perspicacity and basic common sense.

In fact, Aristotle reminds me of nothing so much as a self-satisfied Oxford don, who bustled from lecture to lecture, pontificating about everything under the sun, while overlooking most of what actually lay there; a man who neither excelled at logical argument or empirical observation, and whose main virtue was his industriousness.

This is a very uncharitable view of the man, which is why I wanted to read somebody else's perspective. For I strongly suspected that my negative opinion was due to a defect in myself, rather than Aristotle.

Interestingly enough, I could hardly have picked a better book to redeem Aristotle in my eyes; for Barnes's VSI is as much an apology as an introduction. Barnes comes across as a loyal Aristotelian, intent on defending his master. And the defense is a good one. Barnes ably brings out what is best in Aristotle, while deemphasizing what is worst. For Barnes, Aristotle is the quintessential philosopher-scientist, both an assiduous collector of facts, and an ingenious constructor of theories.

Barnes cites many passages in Aristotle to support this view; and he covers many of Aristotle's less-read scientific works. There is much of interest and value in those works, to be sure; but Barnes does a disservice to Aristotle by chiefly emphasizing the scientific work, for it is that work which is now obsolete; and it is Aristotle's works on ethics, politics, rhetoric, and aesthetics which remain quite alive.

What's more, Barnes didn't quite convince me that Aristotle was a consummate scientist. Carl Sagan, in Cosmos, cites several ancient authors who, through ingenious observations and careful mathematics, managed to predict eclipses, as well as to estimate the curvature and size of the earth. Next to such thinkers, Aristotle's empiricism is that of a stamp-collector, a mere collection of facts, without any real explanatory or predictive power. What's more, when Aristotle does create theories to account for data, they seem almost childish-much like the golden mean-relying on bizarre assumptions about Nature and Goodness.

Again, I think my criticisms of Aristotle are most likely due to my own shortcomings rather than his. But I cannot help holding these opinions, and every passage quoted in this book reinforced them. But Barnes did do one very important thing-he convinced me to read more Aristotle; much more.

Roy Lotz [source: https--www.goodreads.com]

[2019-10-06]

Readers may explore the volumes in Oxford University Press' "Very Short Introduction" series for a variety of reasons. The books are valuable to readers new to a subject. Such readers may want to expand their basic knowledge of a subject without delving into it in detail. Readers with knowledge of a subject may still want to read a well-informed introduction both to learn and also as a summary or refresher of their own understanding.

I am far from an expert on Aristotle, but I have studied some of his books in graduate-level philosophy seminars. Thus, I came to Jonathan Barnes' "Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction" (2000) reasonably informed. (In fact, Barnes' book is an edited version of an introduction to Aristotle he published in 1982, which I vaguely remember reading.) Barnes, Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Geneva, is a master of his subject. He edited the Revised Oxford Translation of Aristotle and has published many books on the "Master of those who know" as well as other Greek philosophers. Readers can approach this introduction with confidence in the knowledge and background of the author.

The book shows its mastery by giving the reader the gist of Aristotle in a short space. A sign of knowledge, for Aristotle and many others, is the ability to separate the trivial from the essential and to explain in the circumstances or space made available. Aristotle's works are massive, wide-ranging, and complex. Most of the time, he is not a particularly graceful writer as is, for example, Plato. For readers of varying backgrounds in Aristotle, it is valuable to have the writings sorted out and organized, an effort which is itself Aristotelian.

Barnes views Aristotle as a scientist-philosopher. After a quick discussion of Aristotle's life, Barnes begins with Aristotle's biological investigations which are broader, more sophisticated, and more empirically based, than some would give him credit for. Barnes argues that Aristotle used his love for fact and for knowledge as the basis for philosophical conceptualization and organization rather than the other way round. Thus, Barnes views Aristotle's great contributions to logic as a way of schematizing and organizing empirically gathered information rather than a way of making facts fit preconceptions. He passes from biological science and logic to a consideration of Aristotle's physical theories and to his more recognizably philosophical work on the nature of knowledge and explanation, substance and metaphysics, and theology. Barnes passes quickly over Aristotle's large contributions to "practical" philosophy - ethics and politics - and to poetics.

Barnes explains Aristotle with a great deal of sympathy. He shows the reader that much may be learned from Aristotle's empiricism, from his love of knowledge, and from his understanding of the good life. His discussion of the teleological character of Aristotle's thought and its relationship to contemporary functionalism is particularly insightful. For all his admiration of Aristotle, Barnes states unequivocally that "Aristotle's account of the world is wholly exploded". Readers no longer turn to Aristotle to learn biology, physics, or logic even though his influence remains pervasive. Aristotle's metaphysics and ethics continue to be discussed and assessed among students of philosophy.

Barnes has written a valuable "very short introduction" to Aristotle. Readers without the inclination to pursue Aristotle further will get a good solid overview of his science and philosophy and of his importance. Students will be able to use this book to focus their reading. Those familiar with Aristotle will find this book a valuable quick summation. This book all told is an inspiring brief summary of the love of knowledge and wisdom, and of the life of the mind.

Robin Friedman [source: https--www.goodreads.com]

Aristoteles (Aristotéles) (Stageira, 384 v.Chr. - Chalkis, 322 v.Chr.) was een Griekse filosoof en wetenschapper die met Socrates en Plato wordt beschouwd als een van de invloedrijkste klassieke filosofen in de westerse traditie. Hij was lid van Plato's filosofische Akademeia en diens invloed is dan ook aanwezig in Aristoteles' werk, hoewel Aristoteles een duidelijk van Plato afwijkende filosofische stroming vertegenwoordigt.

Aristoteles was een zoon van de befaamde arts Nicomachus, lijfarts van koning Amyntas III van Macedonië (de grootvader van Alexander de Grote). Aristoteles is vroeg wees geworden. Hij werd opgevoed door zijn oom Proxenus. Op zeventienjarige leeftijd vertrok hij naar Athene en werd als leerling opgenomen in Plato's academie, die hij pas twintig jaar later, na Plato's dood in 347 v.Chr., weer verliet.

Aristoteles mag gezien worden als de eerste homo universalis, omdat hij bekwaam was in de totaliteit van de toenmaals bekende wetenschappen (filosofie, psychologie, politieke en sociale wetenschappen, wiskunde en natuurwetenschappen, taal- en letterkunde, theater...), die hij systematisch en methodisch tot een in zichzelf gesloten systeem uitwerkte. Aristoteles kan zo worden beschouwd als systeemfilosoof. Hij voerde bovendien de logica en de methodologie in als manier om wetenschap en filosofie te bedrijven.

Na op enkele plaatsen als docent werkzaam geweest te zijn, werd hij in ca. 342 v.Chr. door koning Philippus II naar Macedonië ontboden om als privéleraar de opvoeding te verzorgen van diens dertienjarige zoon Alexander, later Alexander de Grote genaamd (tot ca. 340 v.Chr.).

Hij keerde in 335 v.Chr. naar Athene terug, waar hij dertien jaar lang in de Peripatos (wandelgang) van het Lyceum (Grieks Lykeion) heeft gedoceerd. Daarom wordt hij gezien als de stichter van de Peripatetische School.

Als gevolg van een anti-Macedonische reactie na het plotse overlijden van Alexander de Grote (in 323 v.Chr.) werd hij als collaborateur beschouwd en aangeklaagd wegens goddeloosheid. Anders dan Socrates verliet hij de stad, met als motivering dat hij de Atheners een tweede vergrijp tegen de filosofie wilde besparen, verwijzend naar Socrates. Hij week uit naar Chalkis, naar het landgoed van zijn moeder. Daar stierf hij een jaar later aan de gevolgen van een maagkwaal op eenenzestigjarige leeftijd. Uit zijn testament blijkt dat Aristoteles een zorgzaam huisvader en een humaan meester voor zijn slaven was. Enkele van zijn vrienden hebben hem zijn leven lang trouw gevolgd.

Veel van het oorspronkelijke werk van Aristoteles is reeds in de eerste eeuwen na zijn dood verloren gegaan. Onder de verloren werken behoren ook zijn dialogen, de enige teksten die door Aristoteles zelf uitgegeven waren. Vermoedelijk is slechts ongeveer een vijfde van het totale werk bewaard gebleven en bekend. De - nog steeds erg talrijke - bewaarde werken van Aristoteles zijn meestal cursusnotities en lesvoorbereidingen voor eigen gebruik, en waren oorspronkelijk niet voor publicatie bestemd. Dit is een verklaring voor de voor sommige lezers onsystematische of schetsmatige structuur van enkele van de ons bekende teksten. Boeken als de Ethica en de Politica zijn echter voorbeelden van het tegendeel: zelden zijn er boeken verschenen die zo'n heldere structuur en duidelijk logische rode lijn bevatten. Wat opvalt aan de filosofie van Aristoteles in een boek als de Ethica is de voortdurende drang de waarheid te beschrijven in plaats van ingewikkelde of gekunsteld aandoende theorieën. Met een boek als de Ethica toont Aristoteles feilloos aan dat zijn filosofie enkele honderden jaren voor Christus reeds de meest vooruitstrevende inzichten bezat. Inzichten die niet alleen van toepassing zijn op de huidige tijd, maar, net als zijn karakter, universeel (en tijdloos) zijn. Aristoteles' werken worden traditiegetrouw in het Latijn getiteld: gedurende de Middeleeuwen waren ze in het Westen enkel bekend in een Latijnse vertaling van een Arabische vertaling uit het Grieks. Veel van zijn werken zijn door de Arabische geleerde Averroes vertaald.

...

[bron: wikipedia]

--- Over (foto 2): Jonathan Barnes ---

Jonathan Barnes, FBA (born 26 December 1942 in Wenlock, Shropshire) is an English scholar of Aristotelian and ancient philosophy.

He was educated at the City of London School and Balliol College, Oxford University.

He taught for 25 years at Oxford University before moving to the University of Geneva. He was a Fellow of Oriel College, Oxford, 1968-78; a Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford, 1978-94, and has been Emeritus Fellow of Balliol College since 1994.

He was Professor of Ancient Philosophy, Oxford University, 1989-94.

He was Professor of Ancient Philosophy at the University of Geneva 1994-2002.

He taught at the University of Paris-Sorbonne in France, and took his éméritat in 2006.

He was elected a Fellow of the British Academy in 1987.

He is an expert on ancient Greek philosophy, and has edited the two-volume collection of Aristotle's works as well as a number of commentaries on Aristotle, the pre-Socratics and other areas of Greek thought.

He was elected a Foreign Honorary Member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1999.

He was awarded an honorary doctorate by the Humboldt University of Berlin in 2012.

He married in 1965 and has two daughters.

He is the brother of the novelist Julian Barnes, and he and his family feature in the latter's memoir Nothing to be Frightened Of (2008).

Barnes holds that our modern notion of the scientific method is "thoroughly Aristotelian." He emphasizes the point in order to refute empiricists Francis Bacon and John Locke, who thought they were breaking with the Aristotelian tradition. He claims that the "outrageous" charges against Aristotle were brought by men who did not read Aristotle's own works with sufficient attention and who criticized him for the faults of his successors.

Writings

• The Complete Works of Aristotle, 2 vols, 1984; reprinted with corrections, 1995 (General Editor)
• Posterior Analytics (translation and commentary on Aristotle), (1975) (revised edition, 1994)
• The Ontological Argument (1972)
• Presocratic Philosophers 2 Vols., 1979; 1 vol. revised edition, 1982
• Aristotle (1982)
• The Modes of Scepticism (1985), with Julia Annas
• Early Greek Philosophy (1987)
• The Toils of Scepticism (1990)
• The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (1995)
• Logic and the Imperial Stoa (1997)
• Barnes, Jonathan (2000). Aristotle: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-285408-7.
• Porphyry: introduction (2003)
• Truth, etc. (2007)
• Coffee with Aristotle (2008)
• Methods and Metaphysics: Essays in Ancient Philosophy I (2011)
• Logical Matters: Essays in Ancient Philosophy II (2012)
• Proof, Knowledge, and Scepticism: Essays in Ancient Philosophy III (2014)
• Mantissa: Essays in Ancient Philosophy IV (2015)

[source: wikipedia]

Jonathan Barnes, who taught philosophy in Oxford, Geneva and Paris, lives in retirement in the middle of France. He has written several books about ancient philosophy, the most recent of which, Coffee with Aristotle, has a preface by his brother.

[source: https--www.lrb.co.uk/contributors/jonathan-barnes]