"The first five chapters of the second book of Aristotle's Politics contain a series of criticisms leveled against Plato's Republic. ... Mayhoew demonstrates that within this criticism Aristotle presents his views on an extremely fundamental issue: the unity of the city and the proper relationship between the individual and the city."--Cover.
The purpose of this study is to determine Aristotle's attitude toward the content and method of Plato's natural science. Plato and Aristotle have often been regarded as on opposite sides of a philosophic 'Great Divide'. On the other hand, those who have found that the two men were in agreement have sometimes mentioned only scattered instances of that agreement. There is need for a new comparison of the two philosopher- one which is limited in scope, based on the primary texts, and which is systematic and thorough in method. If successful, such a comparison would bring into sharp focus one phase of Aristotle's comments on Plato. Our attempt to meet this need is Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's TIMAEUS. In pursuing this study, it has been necessary to reject a number of uncritically-accepted interpre tations of the Timaeus. Contrary to the view of many, we have concluded that Aristotle largely agreed with Plato, both in the principles and presuppositions of his natural science. A number of implications stem from this study. There is, for example, the oft-questioned manner in which Aristotle treated Plato's philosophy. In the great majority of instances, Aristotle stands forth as a reliable reporter and a skilled critic. Moreover, the study sheds light on that ancient riddle: whether Plato and Aristotle are basically akin or at odds in their general philosophies.
The Peri ideon (On Ideas) is the only work in which Aristotle systematically sets out and criticizes arguments for the existence of Platonic forms. Gail Fine presents the first full-length treatment in English of this important but neglected work . She asks how, and how well, and why and with what justification he favours an alternative metaphysical scheme. She also examines the significance of the Peri ideon for some central questions about Plato's theory of forms - whether, for example, there are forms corresponding to every property or only to some, then to which ones; whether forms are universals, particulars, or both; and whether they are meanings, properties, or both. In addition to discussing the Peri ideon and its sources in Plato's dialogues, Fine also provides a general discussion of Plato's theory of forms, and of our evidence about the date, scope, and aims of the Peri ideon. While she pays careful attention to the details of the text, she also relates the issues to current philosophical concerns. The book will be valuable for anyone interested in metaphysics ancient or modern.
The first five chapters of the second book of Aristotle's Politics contain a series of criticisms levelled against Plato's Republic. Despite the abundance of studies that have been done on Aristotle's Politics, these chapters have for the most part been neglected; there has been no book-length study of them this century. In this important new book, Robert Mayhew fills this unfortunate gap in Aristotelian scholarship, analyzing these chapters in order to discover what they tell us about Aristotle's political philosophy. Mayhew demonstrates that in Politics II 1-5, Aristotle is presenting his views on an extremely fundamental issue: the unity of the city. Indeed, he states, almost all of Aristotle's criticisms of the Republic center on this important subject in one way or another. Only by understanding Aristotle's views on the proper unity of the city, Mayhew explains, can we adequately discover his views on the proper relationship between the individual and the city. Students and scholars of classical political philosophy will be greatly interested in this innovative book.
The purpose of this study is to determine Aristotle's attitude toward the content and method of Plato's natural science. Plato and Aristotle have often been regarded as on opposite sides of a philosophic 'Great Divide'. On the other hand, those who have found that the two men were in agreement have sometimes mentioned only scattered instances of that agreement. There is need for a new comparison of the two philosopher- one which is limited in scope, based on the primary texts, and which is systematic and thorough in method. If successful, such a comparison would bring into sharp focus one phase of Aristotle's comments on Plato. Our attempt to meet this need is Aristotle's Criticism of Plato's TIMAEUS. In pursuing this study, it has been necessary to reject a number of uncritically-accepted interpre tations of the Timaeus. Contrary to the view of many, we have concluded that Aristotle largely agreed with Plato, both in the principles and presuppositions of his natural science. A number of implications stem from this study. There is, for example, the oft-questioned manner in which Aristotle treated Plato's philosophy. In the great majority of instances, Aristotle stands forth as a reliable reporter and a skilled critic. Moreover, the study sheds light on that ancient riddle: whether Plato and Aristotle are basically akin or at odds in their general philosophies.
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work. This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
In this book, Kevin M. Cherry compares the views of Plato and Aristotle about the practice, study and, above all, the purpose of politics. The first scholar to place Aristotle's Politics in sustained dialogue with Plato's Statesman, Cherry argues that Aristotle rejects the view of politics advanced by Plato's Eleatic Stranger, contrasting them on topics such as the proper categorization of regimes, the usefulness and limitations of the rule of law, and the proper understanding of phronēsis. The various differences between their respective political philosophies, however, reflect a more fundamental difference in how they view the relationship of human beings to the natural world around them. Reading the Politics in light of the Statesman sheds new light on Aristotle's political theory and provides a better understanding of Aristotle's criticism of Socrates. Most importantly, it highlights an enduring and important question: should politics have as its primary purpose the preservation of life, or should it pursue the higher good of living well?
Excerpt from Aristotle's Criticisms of Plato The tentative tone of both of these passages would be quite unintelligible had Aristotle believed in the identity of 'the unlimited' in sensibles with 'the unlimited in Ideas. Consequently when in Phys. Iii. We read that Plato's dweipov 'existed both in the world of sense and in the Ideas', there is no reason to conclude that this c'tvmpov is for both numerically the same. In Met. A. 6. 988 a 10, Aristotle states that the Ideas result from two causes: formal 2v, material - the Great and the Small. Pheno mena also arise from two causes: formal - the Ideas, material - the Great and the Small. Now, were the material cause identical for both Idea and phenomenon, this passage would mean that the Ideas, which determine the great-and-small, are yet themselves partly the result of that great-and-small, a contradiction which there is as little reason for attributing to Aristotle as to Plato. About the Publisher Forgotten Books publishes hundreds of thousands of rare and classic books. Find more at www.forgottenbooks.com This book is a reproduction of an important historical work. Forgotten Books uses state-of-the-art technology to digitally reconstruct the work, preserving the original format whilst repairing imperfections present in the aged copy. In rare cases, an imperfection in the original, such as a blemish or missing page, may be replicated in our edition. We do, however, repair the vast majority of imperfections successfully; any imperfections that remain are intentionally left to preserve the state of such historical works.
