Science topic

Aristotle - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Aristotle, and find Aristotle experts.
Questions related to Aristotle
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
8 answers
If you consider evolution law "fitest survive" it means what survive is traits are labeled fitest just because it did (empirical basis, not logical). Similarly, dynamics law means
"what accelerates is forcive" i. E earth(gravity), human (muscular).
In this case, care was taken by Newton to avoid this objection. Force is action and motion was considered action in Aristotle (and Common sense). By he made it passive (inertia property) and had a descriptive field devoted to it (kinematics) so that it Will not appear as action.
Relevant answer
Answer
Can you give the information to the article that you are referencing? It is difficult to provide an answer without proper context
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
8 answers
When I search for articles and understandings around decolonizing education, I find a lot of resources related to decolonizing the curriculum in general terms, decolonizing specific areas within higher education (e.g. history, art, politics, etc.). I find articles on understanding the theories and possible practices and praxes around what decolonization can look like.
However, what I do not seem to be able to find is this: how do we undertake decolonization of the teaching of education?
More specifically, reading lists and course content on introductory education courses, such as those on Year 1 education courses at university-level courses within the UK context, often start with content that reaches back to Ancient Greece, Aristotle and so on before jumping ahead to John Dewey and others. In this sense, the curriculum of education is overtly Eurocentric and white in nature.
Is there literature that addresses this particular area? I have read literature by Anibal Quijano, Maria Lugones, Lewis Gordon, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Ramon Grosfoguel and many others... yet I'm still left wondering about this question. How do we undertake a decolonization of the very basis of education itself especially for prospective teacher-educators, those who study master's and doctorates of education who will likely be (re)introduced to Aristotle's philosophy of education (among others) that will not contextualize his role historically?
Relevant answer
Answer
The following RG link is also very useful:
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
18 answers
I propose for a discussion my study regarding some aspects of Aristotle's ontology. I am interested in all comments - apart from insults -.
The study has been published in the Revue Roumaine de Philosophie, Vol 64, Issue 1, January-June 2020, pp. 39-71.
Keywords: Aristotle, instance, Categories, Metaphysics, substance.
In my contribution, I deal with some aspects concerning the textures, which, in my opinion, represent the bearing structures of Aristotle’s ontology.
Throughout my investigation, I show that, within Aristotle’s ontology, the basic status of any individual/particular entity consists in its being an instance of a property or of a complex of properties: individual/particular entities are, constitutively, concretised properties. Neither bare entities, nor entities which could be neutral to all their properties, are admitted into Aristotle’s ontology; at least some properties represent the very framework of the individual/particular entities. Hence, essences do exist. Aristotle’s interpretation of individual/particular entities is an immediately essentialist one.
I show thereafter the presence, within Aristotle’s ontology, of features which constitutively determine the status of substance and of universal. The complex of the features related to substances and to universals implies the existence of ontological rules making up the framework of any substance as such and of any universal as such. These ontological rules precede the properties belonging to the particular concrete substances as members of a particular species or of a particular genus. Among the ontological rules which govern substances and universals, the rules stating the incompatibility between substance and universal deserve particular attention, since the transgression committed against these rules can provoke the collapse of the whole ontology.
My analysis ends with the description of some facets regarding the role of the essence within the biological field. For this purpose, the soul as essence of biological entities is described in its function as principle of development of the living entities.
I base my inquiry on passages taken from the Metaphysics Mu and Zeta, the Posterior Analytics, the De Caelo, the Categories and the De Anima.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Professor Aref Wazwaz ,
I thank you very much for your indications.
Yours sincerely,
Gianluigi Segalerba
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
10 answers
Usually, literature is analysed by means of textual methods (textual analysis). As I am about to start analysing my selected novels for PhD using a philosophical theory, this question came to my mind.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Abdelhafid Jabri , you could borrow appraoches from the social sciences (which are usually not applied to literary works but rather newspaper articles or interview data).
You could either pick methods of qualitative content analysis, where you would develop a coding sheme based on your philosophical theory and then fine-tune it inductively on your data, see, e.g.,
Software, that supports you nicely for such endevors would be MAXQDA or NVivo.
Or, if you want to treat your theory as relatively fixed, you test it in a purely deductive way and thus develop the coding scheme completely beforehand based on your theory and then apply quantitative content analysis to your novels.
This here is the go-to introduction to the quantitative approach:
Software supporting such an approach are the 'classical' statistics tools such as SPSS (or it's free dupe PSPP), STATA or R (if you want to go pro and start programming for your project).
Here's a nice example, where R was applied to analyzing not novels with philosophical theory but at least philosophical texts themselves. It might give you a good idea of what is possible with R:
Anyway, good luck with your project!
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
5 answers
What would be a good journal to submit the paper above ?
Relevant answer
Answer
History and Philosophy of Logic
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
Aristotle, in his book titled Politics, notes that one of the weak points in a democracy is that because people are considered "politically equal" they imagine they should be equal to everyone else in all other ways.
We see the same cultural movements occurring in our democracies today.
The push for equality in everything is being exploited by politicians everywhere through assorted wealth redistribution efforts, or efforts to lower education standards so that everyone can be awarded college degrees in something.
Prior to the Industrial Age, where almost limitless amounts of money have become available to governmentally empowered social tinkerers, making oneself "equal" to someone else was a personal responsibility. Now it appears "social leveling" has become the responsibility of government.
To make one citizen equal to another in as many ways as the social engineers can devise appears to be the aim of innumerable public efforts.
Is this a wise approach and do you think this will lead to a more harmonious and productive society in the future?
Relevant answer
Answer
People are different..in their capabilities and capabilities..the government can provide a decent living for citizens..but the issue of equality..is not possible..whether we are individuals or governments..if the rich give out even a small group of their money to the poor..it will be possible to achieve solidarity and eliminate the Class, albeit in a simple way...
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
Many studies have shown the strong interdependence between philosophy and language, since the book of Aristotle, Thales, until the development of matters in our era into integrated theories that affected language and its curricula ... What are the most famous of these schools?
Relevant answer
Thanks for these answers for their knowledge
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
24 answers
Scholastics have called "entia rationis" those objects, which do not and cannot exist in reality but only within the mind, such as chimaeras, privations (like blindness), negations (non-liquidity), relations of reason and the so called "second intentions" (like "genus", "species", "specific difference"). How much of this can be positively traced back to Aristotle and what would be the corresponding passages in the corpus aristotelicum?
Relevant answer
Answer
Au chapitre 2 du livre Γ de la Métaphysique, Aristote énumère tout ce qui peut être dit “être” parce qu’il est en relation avec la substance qui est “être” par excellence : les affections et qualités des substances, les générations et corruptions des substances, etc. Et même, précise-t-il, ce qui est négation d’être, comme les privations et le non-être, qu’on peut qualifier d’être puisque il “EST” non-être.
La privation est un non-être dans un sujet apte à être tel mais qui ne l’est pas, et le non-être est néant. On ne peut dire qu’ils sont êtres “dans la nature des choses”, car ils ne sont êtres que pour un esprit qui peut les connaître. Ce sont des êtres de raison, c’est-à-dire des relations entre la raison et le monde extérieur (intentions premières), ou bien entre la raison et la raison (intentions secondes).
Dans son Traité de l’Interprétation, Aristote explique qu’une négation est toujours seconde par rapport à une affirmation affirmant ce qui est, car elle affirme ce qui n’est pas. C’est une affirmation de non-être absolu ou relatif. Cela, seule une raison peut le poser. La sensibilité animale connaît une sorte de jugement positif du bien et du mal, et derrière, de l’être réel de l’objet, mais est incapable de porter un jugement de non-être. Seul l’esprit le peut, ce qui prouve que la négation est un être de raison.
Cordialement
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
4 answers
Was Aristotle actually wrong when he stated: "Objects fall at a speed that is proportional to their weight. In other words, if you took a wooden object and a metal object of the same size and dropped them both, the heavier metal object would fall at a proportionally faster speed ". Or is it that he was smart enough to combine all the physical forces and give a sum up image of what would happen?!!
Relevant answer
Answer
Thankyou everyone for replying!
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
16 answers
I have encountered people who, when confronted with a counterexample to a general claim, will respond with another example that is consistent with the general claim, as if this somehow refutes the counterexample. Is there a name for this fallacy?
Relevant answer
Answer
Denis Korneev Well, there's "modus morons" 🤔, but that's just another name for affirming the consequent.
Cheers. 🤡
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
15 answers
Aristotle was perhaps the first scientist, yet his writings traverse a gamut ranging from literature (literary theory and criticism) to politics and physics. What we now know as "science" was at some time in the recent past referred to as "natural philosophy." In our contemporary world, "science" is sometimes used interchangeably with "technology." During the European Renaissance, Leonardo da Vinci was an artist, yet he also designed models for airplanes, so was he a "scientist"? Is technology the offspring of science? Aristotle Renaissance Philosophy Designer
Relevant answer
Answer
In 1920, Max Weber, famous author of The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, wrote two pamphlets, called The Vocation Lectures, which included "Science as a Vocation" and "Politics as a Vocation," in which he criticized bothe as constitutionally incapable of addressing ethical issues and values, i.e., the meaning of human existence. Hume, in his way pointed out that the Is and the Ought, that Fact and Value, that Science and Morality are antithetical. And so did Kant on a different principle.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
48 answers
Ancient Greek civilization gave the world a lot of excellent philosophers, whose concepts interwoven with invaluable thoughts about education.
(384-322 BC) raised the mentor to the highest level in society: He created the Likey educational institution in Athens, which he supervised over twelve years. The writings written by him during these years were summaries of conversations that the philosopher conducted with his students in Likey. A. believed that man possesses both a vegetable soul (it needs nutrition and is doomed to decomposition), an animal soul (feelings, sensations) and a rational soul - pure, ethereal, universal and immortal. Therefore, in matters of upbringing, he did not prioritize concern for the afterlife immortal being and insisted on taking equal care of all three types of the human soul.
The most systematic views of Aristotle on upbringing and education are set forth in the treatise Politics.
Considering the eternal problem of the relationship between social and biological determinants in education, Aristotle took a flexible position. He believed that on the one hand, "only good offspring can come from good parents," and on the other, "nature often strives for this, but cannot achieve this."
So nowadays is it actual ? or we must up bring students in high education system ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, it has to be
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
5 answers
At first Aristotle tried to name and classify organisms based on structural similarities, and described ~520 species of animals. He believed that a name should reflect hidden reality or essence, and used phrases or single words.
Carolus Linnaeus developed and published the first comprehensive and consistent classification system for both plants and animals. He classified ~10,000 animals of which 2100 insect species in his book 'Systema Naturae (1758)'.
Relevant answer
Answer
M. Cooper
Yes indeed. Although insects can be pests and parasites, in an overpopulated world they may also become an important source of protein.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
10 answers
Western Philosophy has its foundation in the Greek world and Greek philosophers such as Aristotle, Plato and Aristotle were its founders and it deals with idea's such as epistemology (knowledge), empiricism, rationalism, metaphysics, realism, logic, language, mind and body, morality, ethics, aesthetics, politics and science. What is the basis of Islamic Philosophy? Where did it start, who are its founders and what are the major issues it deals with. If the issues are the same as in Western Philosophy, how do they differ from the Western approach or the Eastern approach?
Relevant answer
Answer
What is Islamic Philosophy about? Islamic philosophy is a development in philosophy that is characterised by coming from an Islamic tradition. Two terms traditionally used in the Islamic world are sometimes translated as philosophy—falsafa (literally: "philosophy"), which refers to philosophy as well as logic, mathematics, and physics; and Kalam (literally "speech"), which refers to a rationalist form of Islamic theology.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
26 answers
Franz Brentano's book On the Several Senses of Being in Aristotle describes the different modalities of being. How are these related to Syllogistics and finally to modern logics and category theory?
Relevant answer
Answer
Ask a scientist where he got his original idea from.
Some will say a dream, others struck when walking across a park,
none knows.
So thing just seem to descend from metaphysics into the concrete. As if knowledge were there, but it is just beyond reach...something like the irrational mind, 10 times the rational.
Again, deductive logic only plays a minor role for us. You dont find something new through deduction, or only very rarely. Analogy and induction mostly apply.
Firstly you draw out something very sketchy, then you start completing it.
When you are finally done it sounds more like you deduced it, but not so.
H.G.
Sounds like philosophers converted into science writers for the general public,
your description. It may be true.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
4 answers
Laozi is a famous philosopher in ancient Chinese, around 571BC/around 471BC. Aristotle, the famous philosopher of ancient Greek, the founder of Three logic laws, 384BC/322BC. Both of them had some properties of dialectical logic, then which of them is the real founder of dialectical logic?
Relevant answer
Answer
to attribute it to either is surely a meaningless concept unless sufficient contact can be attributed to their respective cultures to suggest that one was influenced by the other. Aristotle, let alone Socrates, is a little too early for a convincing case to be made for this. Therefore I would suggest that if you think both could be the founder to credit both as independently inventing the concept within their own cultures. Archaeologists do this all the time where direct links cannot be established.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
222 answers
Aristotle wrote in Politics III the following sentences:
"But there are difficulties about these forms of government, and it will therefore be necessary to state a little more at length the nature of each of them. For he who would make a philosophical study of the various sciences, and does not regard practice only, ought not to overlook or omit anything, but to set forth the truth in every particular. Tyranny, as I was saying, is monarchy exercising the rule of a master over the political society; oligarchy is when men of property have the government in their hands; democracy, the opposite, when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers. And here arises the first of our difficulties, and it relates to the distinction drawn. For democracy is said to be the government of the many. But what if the many are men of property and have the power in their hands? In like manner oligarchy is said to be the government of the few; but what if the poor are fewer than the rich, and have the power intheir hands because they are stronger? In these cases the distinction which we have drawn between these different forms of government would no longer hold good."
Do you think these three forms always apply to current governments? Are not some of these governments uncorrectly called democracy, for example, as they are really oligarchies? Are there new forms of government which Aristotle omitted?
Relevant answer
Answer
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Mendez-Esteban & readers,
This distinction between corporatism and neo-corporatism has some importance in contemporary political analysis, especially in international comparisons. I have argued that corporatist or neo-corporatist forms may work better in smaller more homogeneous societies, but that they are less suited to larger more heterogeneous societies. Its implausible to transfer social and political models between societies of different sizes and degrees of internal social complexity; and the attempt often rests on comparatively superficial resemblances.
The basic problem is that corporatist forms tend to become excessively rigid, because they emphasize grouping people together and (official or quasi-official) representation on the basis of economic interests. This contrasts with traditional geographical representation which crosses diverse economic interests within a given geographic area of electoral district. In deciding on representation, the people within a geographic district are able to debate and sort out economic issues locally. The representatives they select locally are more likely to reflect the range of economic interests within the area.
We have been discussing a certain suggestive analogy:
Aristotelian aristocracy is to oligarchy
as
contemporary political elitism is to X.
I think it simply short-circuits the comparison and the examination of the analogy to immediately substitute "oligarchy" for X. The allegation or accusation of "oligarchy" is easy enough--it appears in many varieties of conspiracy theory. The proof is, of course, somewhat more difficult. But we need to ask, for instance, how ancient aristocracy differs from contemporary political elitism. One aspect of this is the important contemporary role of institutions --as contrasted with great families.
The idea of corporatism certainly suggests high-level coordination among economic interests. But even here, the coordination may or may not be dominated by special interests. That is a danger of which we should be aware. In consequence, I have posed the question of the prevalence of "oligarchic structures," --those that may contribute to establishing or maintaining --let us say--"economic elite domination." In this connection, I have also suggested the examination of the traditional theme of the "Iron law of oligarchy." But the theme is yet to be taken up on this thread. In fact, there are important counter-examples to the so-called "Iron law," and by examining the exceptions one may gain some insight into the social and political factors which contribute to the plausibility of the "Iron law." Though "oligarchy" is not inevitable, it is important to understand and avoid those "oligarchic structures" which make it more likely.
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Corporatism is a political ideology which advocates the organization of society by corporate groups, such as agricultural, labour, military, scientific, or guild associations on the basis of their common interests. The idea is that when each group performs its designated function, society will function harmoniously — like a human body (corpus) from which its name derives.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
17 answers
Looking to figure out the meaning of these words, and their frame of reference, both in a systematic and/or historical consideration (from Plato onwards). Bibliography suggestions are very welcome, as welll as both strictly academic (formal) and non-scientific (informal) explanations.
Relevant answer
Answer
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Pavlos,
I would suggest studying the actual usage of "term," "technical term," "notion," "concept," and "definition." You might also want to consult a dictionary. The usage will likely differ somewhat from field to field, say, in physics or chemistry as against mathematics.
A "term" I would suggest is a word with some particular and distinguished meaning, which distinguishes the particular term from common or less regulated usage. A phrase of interest is "term of art," (which has little to do with art) but which suggest a particular usage in some organized field of study or approach to the subject-matter of such a field.
"Technical term," is fairly similar, except that there is likely to be reference to a more technical field --further removed form common concerns, say, in electronics, vs. something like culinary arts.
"Notion" is usually something like "idea," --as in "the idea just occurred to me." In contrast to "idea" or "first thought," it carries a slightly negative connotation, as suggested by something like: "Its a mere notion, he hasn't thought it out yet."
"Concept" is much like "term" or sometimes "technical term." Though it has some technical developments, as in Frege's philosophy of mathematics, say, it usually or typically just functions as a place holder without much detail being supplied. Something more substantial than a word is suggested. This is often related to developments of theory. Two physics, say, might have somewhat different concepts (or conceptions) of spacetime. If someone thinks, e.g., that biological evolution has a purpose or end toward which it works, then the reply might be, "That is not Darwin's concept of evolution."
A definition is a statement explaining the meaning of a word. It is important to recognize that dictionary definitions are arrived at on the basis of empirical study of actual usage.
H.G. Callaway
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
2 answers
Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, says virtue is the middle ground of two vices!
But if it is, then there must be twice the virtues, vices
Relevant answer
Answer
Philadelphia, PA
Dear Davar,
Apparently you mean that according to Aristotle, there must be two vices we could name for any given virtue?
Is that about right? If so, I see no problem or "challenge." There are many ways to lack the virtues. Right?
H.G. Callaway
---you wrote---
Aristotle, the great Greek philosopher, says virtue is the middle ground of two vices!
But if it is, then there must be twice the virtues, vices
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
1 answer
there is no agreement among scholars on defining revolution in its political and socioeconomic context, however, the political movements including revolutions faced several changes due to the developments on the structures and functions of states since Aristotle tell today. the post Washington censuses redefined the functions of governments and states, which influenced on the response of people and civil society. also, the social media became platform an tool for political protest. but tell now, scholars still rely on the traditional theorizing for revolutions. what do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Ibrahim s.i Rabaia
I see no reason to propose a concept of revolution other than the one that has existed for a long time. Whe@ther it is appropriate to call a certain event a revolution is ultimately decided by history.
Hein Retter
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
575 answers
I quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica,
Aristotle used the term oligarchia to designate the rule of the few when it was exercised not by the best but by bad men unjustly. In this sense, oligarchy is a debased form of aristocracy, which denotes government by the few in which power is vested in the best individuals. Most classic oligarchies have resulted when governing elites were recruited exclusively from a ruling caste a hereditary social grouping that is set apart from the rest of society by religion, kinship, economic status, prestige, or even language. Such elites tend to exercise power in the interests of their own class.
--pause quotation
The authors are correct here to emphasize “rule by the few,” rule “not by the best men” and the claim that oligarchy is a “debased” or corrupt form of aristocracy, in Aristotle's Politics. As we will see, the usage of the term “oligarchy” has in recent times been often replaced by talk of “elites” --which essentially leaves open the question of whether these elites are good or bad, whether their rule is corrupt, or –importantly—whether they rule in the interest of the common good. For Aristotle, the aristocratic decline into oligarchy consists in "the few" ruling in their own narrow self interest.
Britannica continues:
It is a recurrent idea that all forms of government are in the final analysis reducible to the rule of a few. Oligarchs will secure effective control whether the formal authority is vested in the people, a monarch, the proletariat, or a dictator. Thus, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels insisted that, throughout capitalism, the key capitalists had controlled the government; they coined the dictum, the state is the executive committee of the exploiting class. The Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca likewise insisted that a ruling class always constituted the effective oligarchic control. Vilfredo Pareto elaborated the idea in his doctrine of the “elite.” The modern tendency to analyze social patterns in terms of an “elite,” although greatly reinforced by Pareto's theory, goes further back than Marx and Engels, who employed the term “elite” to describe the class-conscious communists, the leading group within the proletariat.
---pause quotation
Here we begin to come to the idea of the “Iron law of oligarchy,” or the “inevitability of oligarchy,” though this becomes more explicit in the passage below. The Marxist description of the elite communists as an oligarchy is interesting and ironic partly because oligarchy became the charge raised against the Communist system by Djilas, the Yugoslav dissident and critic in his classic book, The New Class. If oligarchy could survive even the socialist abolition of private ownership of the means of production, then, of course, this makes the claims for the “iron law” all the stronger.
Britannica continues:
One of the most famous modern uses of the term occurs in “iron law of oligarchy,” a concept devised by the German sociologist Robert Michels to refer to the alleged inevitable tendency of political parties and trade unions to become bureaucratized, centralized, and conservative. His reasoning was that, no matter how egalitarian or even radical the original ideology and goals of a party or union may be, there must emerge a limited group of leaders at the centre who can direct power efficiently, get things done through an administrative staff, and evolve some kind of rigorous order and ideology to ensure the survival of the organization when faced by internal division and external opposition. Subsequent writers of various persuasions have attempted either to expand on Michels' thesis, extending it to legislatures, religious orders, and other organizations, or to restrict or criticize the thesis, charging that the iron law of oligarchy is not universal and that some unions and parties do maintain a viable system of democratic expression and governance.
---pause quotation
If the “iron law” fails, then it must be the case that oligarchy is not inevitable under just any conditions, or in all situations. What then are the facilitating conditions and what kinds of conditions tend to defeat the rule or control of oligarchy?
Britannica continues:
Political science and sociology are beginning to differentiate more carefully between various types of control and power. The type of power held by a democratic party boss, while overwhelming in relation to any single member of the party, is very different from that wielded by the boss of the single party in a totalitarian and authoritarian pattern. Likewise, the control group within an organization does not occupy the same position under democratic conditions (which provide for the group's being effectively challenged by outsiders at any time) as it does under an authoritarian plan. If effective control changes hands as rapidly as it does in a city of the United States or a British trade union, it is doubtful that those exercising it should be spoken of as a “class” or an “elite.” The expression “the few” is too abstract to convey much information. Like the other purely numerical concepts of government inherited from Greek philosophy, oligarchy is an outmoded term, because it fails to direct attention to the substantive features of a government.
---End quotation
Well, if the term “oligarchy” is outmoded, it is somewhat surprising that the political scientists have begun to use near synonyms, such as “biased pluralism” --with the bias typically favoring the upper incomes. Again, there is “economic elite domination,” also quite current, which suggests in turn the theme of “policy capture,” and the domination of economic and tax policy by large-scale institutions and great wealth. No doubt, we want to distinguish between political control, kinds and conditions of political control --and with special attention to the reasonable prospect of a given ruling-set being turned out. The term, ”rule by the few” is indeed too abstract to capture even the concept of oligarchy. It is more a matter of “rule by the few”-- in their own self-interest, and ignoring the common good. Oligarchy is not merely numerical, it is also a moral and political concept –which can't be reduced to numbers alone.
See: the Britannica article, here: https://www.britannica.com/topic/oligarchy
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear @Callaway, there are some answers posted under quorra.
The following story The World's 5 Most Powerful Oligarchies is good reading.
"The term oligarchy is fitting as it describes the type of government where all power is vested in a dominant class or group of individuals i.e. the top one-percent. The following list may surprise you as it appears as if most legitimate forms of government on this earth eventually succumb to oligarchical control..."
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
Aristotle has spoken that living well and faring well is connected with happiness. This is called an eudaimonia (εὐδαιμονία). According to Aristotle, there is also an another component of happiness, hedonia, which means seeking and sensing pleasure (ήδονή means pleasure). The neuroscience of pleasure has recently gained large progress by connecting hedonic experience with particular structures of the brain and by coupling them to the interplay of phases of pleasure behavior cycle. But what about eudaimonia? It is accessible to valid and reliable measurement, if it is very complex and unique human experinece, without available animal models?
How can we assess it, with the exception of questionnaire methods?
Relevant answer
Answer
Euthemonia is a generalized state of well being in the presence of Arete and appropriate circumstances . Is not a particular opioid like euphoria . It is akin to the generalized humming of a well tuned car.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
29 answers
Cognitive theories are of great importance to knowledge resources and learning strategies (attention, understanding, memory, reception, processing and processing of information). The learner's awareness of the acquired knowledge and the way in which he acquired it increases his mathematical activity. This activity, experience or training in the individual, changes his behavior. Cognitive theories are concerned with cognitive structure through the following characteristics: differentiation, organization, coherence, integration, quantity, quality and relative stability.
Structural theory has gained popularity in recent years, although its idea is not modern. Trends in structural theory can be observed through the works of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle (320-470 BC), who all spoke about "knowledge formation "He said.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello:
 The difference between them is big!
  The role of teacher and student is different in both ways!
The role of the teacher in behavior: is to create a learning environment to encourage students to learn the desired behavior.
The Role of the Teacher in Constructivity: Creating the learning environment to make the student build his own knowledge.
The behavioral and structural theory is based on the objectives of education, experiences, and teaching methods in different ways:
The behavioral theory is concerned with the apparent behavior of the learner, while structural theory is concerned with the internal cognitive processes of the learner.
The reality of these gaps is illustrated by the development of objectives:
The teacher in construction sets his educational goals within a general framework through social negotiation between the teacher and students and the student feels that he is a partner in the goal.
While the teacher resorted to the behavior of behavioral fragmentation educational goals to specific behavioral goals are observable and measurable at the end of the lesson and not the end of the chapter or the year and thus formulated according to a famous equation is:
"That + behavioral act + pupil + educational content (small) and sometimes a condition and standard of performance"
So that attention to the apparent behavior desired by the learner as a response only to the educational situation that passes through
This is what the student loses thinking and leads to conservation so that he can take out the information as it was introduced into his mind.
While structuralism focuses on the internal mental processes that occur in the mind of the learner so as to link the prior and subsequent knowledge to construct meaningful learning. The constructivist theory says that real learning will not be based on what the learner has heard, even if memorized and repeated before the teacher. Rather, the learner builds his knowledge internally, influenced by the environment surrounding him, society and language, and that each learner has a method and privacy in understanding the information. the teacher
... Therefore, the teacher in sending information to the learner and confirmation and replication will not be useful in building the information as he wants in the mind of the learner
The teacher is then asked to focus on (creating the learning environment) and (helping to access learning resources) and often depends on confronting students with a real problem situation, trying to find solutions through research and exploration and through social negotiation of solutions.
Learning is what happens after the information arrives at the learner who creates the subjective self-meaning of the knowledge, not just the information. The evaluation here is characterized by continuity, realism and selectivity, and the use of performance assessment files to document the development of growth in the abilities, behaviors, skills and attitudes of learners during the semester or years of study.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
5 answers
I am researching on character formation and its role in aiding terrorism. i am looking at it from a literary perspective.
I will be grateful on assistance for materials that talk about character formation in literary studies.
for instance the arguments of aristotle on character formation.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi,
The following journals are publishing on this subject:
Source Titles
PHILOLOGICAL CLASS ,SCIENCE AND EDUCATION ,ADAPTATION THE JOURNAL OF LITERATURE ON SCREEN STUDIES ,ANNALES HISTOIRE SCIENCES SOCIALES ,BRITISH JOURNAL OF SOCIOLOGY .)
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
17 answers
I recently stumbled upon an alleged Aristotle's quote: "if something doesn't exist there is no word for it, and if there is no word for something, that something doesn't exist". I would be grateful if you, dear scholarly colleagues, could help me find its origin and/or fact-checked its existence.
Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
I suspect it's a paraphrase. Check out the article on Aristotle in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which may help you understand the ideas not so clearly captured in the paraphrase.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
5 answers
Although philosophically analytics without reasoning seems wrong, in machine learning solutions it is commonly found. Recently DataScienceCentral had a related webinar regarding this issue -  http://www.datasciencecentral.com/video/the-myth-of-the-machine-learning-black-box
Without disputing the deep learning model, I'd like to mention again the Occam's razor principle (leaner is better) regarding very complex matters. 
Relevant answer
Answer
Mainz, Germany
Dear Ohri,
One way to look at the matter of machine learning and, as you put it, "analysis without reasoning," is that machine learning is mining the results of reasoning already embedded in the big data. If so, then it cannot reasonably be viewed as a substitute for reasoning such as informs the data.
One might entertain the hypothesis that there is a kind of "connection machine" architecture involved in lower cognition, but this ultimately functions to support the reasoning, rational faculties--which regularizes its results. In any case, the lesson would be that machine learning is no substitute for human reasoning, evaluation and formulation of theory, testing, definitions, etc.
H.G.Callaway
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
11 answers
As indicated, I'm interested in when and where the Politics may have been written?  I suspect that it was begun in Athens when Aristotle was at the Lyceum.  Hopefully someone will be aware of internal or external clues as to just when.  Also, how long did Aristotle live after he was forced to flee Athens?  Could he still have been working on the work up to his death?  And how close do scholars think the work was to being finished?
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
3 answers
Currently this project is postponed for some time. This ambitious project will suggest a comprehensive and durable architecture of South Asian politics, diplomacy, peace and development on the basis of visionary ideas of some prominent scholars from the East such as Chanakya (Kautilya), Vidur, J. Krishnamurti, Spivak and some contexts from the Mahabharat and the prophetic ideas by Plato, Aristotle and Machiavelli that could present the best road map for the long-term peace and stability in this region critically reading major developments (earlier if needed) and from 2000 to 2014 in terms of politics, diplomacy, so as to reflect on the peace and development in the region. I am seeking suggestion from anyone in relation to best approaches and methods to complete this research.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for sharing your ideas.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
11 answers
Doing preliminary research into Charles Dickens and the method he used to write his stories.
Relevant answer
Answer
Aristotle, an admirer of the tight narrative structure of "Oedipus Rex" and of a clear beginning, middle, and end of a mythos (plot), would have been quite puzzled by the rambling, episodic structure of a Dickens novel such as "The Pickwick Papers" or "Martin Chuzzlewit." Dickens's plotting became much tighter in the later novels such as "A Tale of Two Cities" and "Great Expectations," but he was consistently much more interested in such "non-mythos" matters as character, atmosphere, and setting. However, despite the picaresque structure that Dickens favoured in the first half of his career, he did organise his narrative material in the cause-and-effect relationship that Aristotle advocates in "The Poetics." Because he deployed multiple plot lines in the bigger novels, he had to take considerable pains with the opening and closing (denouement), but the complication often seems a bit of a muddle rather than a middle.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
20 answers
Historical Development of logic from Aristotle to George Bool.
Relevant answer
Answer
W. Kneale, M. Kneale, The Development of Logic, J. Lear, Aristotle and Logical Theory,, P. Thom, Syllogism, chapter on logic in the Cambridge Companion to Aristotle, J. Łukasiewicz, Aristtotle's Syllogistic, J. Corcoran, Ancient Logic and its Modern Interpretations
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
13 answers
One one looks at Polybius's treatment of revolutions in Book 8 of his History, it looks as if he never read Aristotle's Politics book 5.  In fact Polybius's account of the cycle of politeia looks more indebted to Plato and to Plutarch than to Aristotle.  What evidence is that Polybius knew of Aristotle's Politics, or like most Roman authors, Aristotle's Politics was unknown to him?
Relevant answer
Answer
Mainz, Germany
Dear Ward & readers,
The readings you suggest might certainly be helpful to the present question and thread, but if it were a matter of explicit references to Aristotle in Polybius, then I suspect they would have already turned up.
Lacking explicit references, it remains to look for similarities of content. Does Polybius make use of recognizable Aristotelian arguments in relation to his doubts on the persistence of Roman rule? What grounds does he give for this view? Looking again at the summary Bates initially supplied, what strikes me as interesting are the Aristotelian arguments concerning revolution and neglect of "small matters" and arguments concerned with lack of cultural homogeneity in the polity.
Generally, I'm inclined to suppose that a major defect of empires generally, is that the central, cosmopolitan authority becomes incapable to keeping track of relevant detail in the expanded provinces. The sheer extent of the empire becomes problematic along with the variation of constitutive political and social detail in the provinces.  Imposed uniformity of policy may facilitate central administration, but at the danger or cost of disrupting local life and relations. The provinces may thus become more like subservient dependencies, ever in need of support from centralized administration, instead of offering support to the empire.
H.G. Callaway
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
40 answers
As we know Heidegger in "Sein und Zeit" and in "The Basic Problems of Phenomenology" deploys a new program of human essence which is based on the mode of existence. In "Sein und Zeit" Heidegger repeats that the essence of Dasein is located in its existence, due to that fact he criticizes an understanding of essence as quidditas. I can understand why Heidegger didn't accept the Aristotelian and Thomistic reducing human essence to quidditas, but I can't understand why he thinks that both of them didn't have a strong philosophy of what he calls Dasein. Especially in case of Aquinas who had a powerful epistemology which influenced the subsequent tradition. I'll be grateful to get your opinions or links for books and articles connected with my question.
Relevant answer
Answer
Here's another perspective... I think the attached paper goes a long way in answering the question posed by Dmytriy.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
355 answers
More precisely, "what is the origin of the regularities in nature which are represented (or purported to be represented) in our various recognized or accepted laws and principles regarding nature and natural events?" (this is H.G. Callaway's formulation of the original question). Such a philosophical question should be of interest to all scientists. 
In classical philosophy, there are two ways of answering it:
a) Looking for an explanation outside nature. The concept of a transcendent God, the creator of nature and its order, explicitly appeared in Thomas Aquinae (the world comes from God and returns to God), Modern philosophers and scientists. It reappeared in the Contemporary epoch as a refusal of Darwinism, and/or related to some interpretations of Quantum Theory;
b) Looking for an explanation inside nature. Nature itself, being composed of both Form and Matter (Aristotle´s Hylomorphism) produces its order, in a process that has been currently called "self-organizing". In this view, God is not the creator of Nature, but - as in Aristotle´s concept of a First Mover - an ideal of perfection projected by natural beings.
It is clear that in spite of Aquinae´s affiliation with Aristotle, their philosophies are in opposite position in regard to the question about the origin of nature´s order. 
Spinoza tried to conciliate both approaches, by equating God and Nature. In this case, God is not conceived as a transcendent being who creates Nature from nothingness, but as a being who is somehow immanent to Nature.
Plato, before Aristotle, presented a combined solution, assuming both the autonomy of natural principles (Ideas) and a Demiurge who prompts the manifestation of the principles into the world of appearances.
There is a possible third alternative, advanced by Kant in his cognitive approach to philosophical issues: to assume that laws and principles of nature are 'a priori' forms that the human mind imposes to sensory "matter". However, this alternative is actually reducible to the others. Cognitive forms should be natural or created by God (both possibilities are compatible in Spinoza's approach). For instance, the Piagetian version of Kantism assumes that these forms are biological, deriving from processes of interaction with the physical and social environment - therefore, he was committed to the self-organizing view.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dejenie, I hope that I am wrong, but if we continue to be unable to make an attractive picture of our intuitions about the truths of Nature, most people will continue attached to religious explanations and fighting for apparently different Gods. My hope is that if scientists adhere to the self-organizing view and to the concept of an immanent God (a God that emerges from collective consciousness), then it would make no sense to fight for different transcendent Gods. 
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
23 answers
Any suggestions on the distinction between teleological and ethical conduct? The first dates back to Aristotle, the second to Kant. Is it plausible that the two converge?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Stefan,
 quite a remarkable synthesis of the ‘structure’ of the Socratic way of dialoguing!
 As known, Socrates dialogued with short questions and answers - the so-called ‘Socratic brachilogia’ (literally "short talk") - just to give a chance to intervene and object to a party that he respected for his views.
Another feature of the Socratic dialogue, which set him apart from the torrential discourse of the sophists, was his constant demand of what was saying the other party; it seemed that he went looking for a precise definition of the dialogue. "Ti esti", "what" [what you're talking about]?
To these questions, for example, the question "what is it cowardice?", the other party would always reply with a list of cases: coward is one who harms others, who behaves in a dishonorable mode... Socrates, however, not content of this sterile catalog, rather sought the definition of cowardice in itself and not merely in a series of examples.
This is the irony of Socrates that, not to demotivate the other person and to do so without impositions that he convinces himself, pretended not to know what will be the end of the dialogue, accepts the arguments of the interlocutor and takes into account, then bringing it to the limits of absurdity so that the speaker himself realizes that his thesis is incorrect. Those who dialogued with Socrates would attempt several times to give a precise answer but eventually gave up and admitted their ignorance. Socrates just knew that from the beginning: his was not annoying pedantry but need to show that the alleged wisdom of the interlocutor was actually ignorance.
The ongoing dialogue of Socrates, surrounded by young people fascinated by his doctrine and by important people in the streets and squares of the city meant that he was taken erroneously for a sophist addicted to attack recklessly and directly politicians. The philosopher, in fact, communicating with them proved as their vaunted wisdom did not really exist. Socrates was then considered a dangerous political enemy who challenged the traditional values of citizens.
For that, Socrates, who had crossed safe previous political regimes, who had always remained in Athens and that had never accepted political office, was indicted and put on trial, from which then would follow his death sentence.
Material cause of the process were two significant representatives of the democratic regime, Anito and Licone, who, using a nominee,  an ambitious young man, failed writer, accused the philosopher to:
corrupt the youth by teaching doctrines that advocated social disorder; do not believe in the gods of the city and groped to introduce new ones.
The accusation of "atheism", which falls into that of "impiety", condemned by a decree of Diopeithes in about 430 BC, was evidently a legal pretext for a political process,
Lysias volunteered to defend Socrates, but he refused, probably because he did not want to be confused with the Sophists and chose to represent himself. Described by Plato in his famous Apology, the process highlighted two elements:
that for those who did not know him, Socrates was confused with the Sophists considered corrupting morals of youth and that he was hated by politicians.
On the charge of corrupting the youth it is explained by the fact that Socrates had been a master of Alcibiades and Critias, two characters who in the democratic re-establishment enjoyed bad reputation. Were the relations that he had  as an educator of these two characters to lay the foundations of the charge of corrupting the youth.
Today the most careful criticism showed that the trial and death of Socrates were not an incomprehensible event directed against a man apparently negligible and not dangerous for the democratic regime.
As told by Plato in the dialogue of Crito, Socrates, knowing that he had been unjustly condemned, once in prison he refused the proposals of escaping  made by his disciples, who had organized his fugue by bribing prison guards. But Socrates did not escape his sentence because "it is better to suffer injustice than to make it." He will accept death that on the other hand is not bad because it is either a dreamless sleep, or gives the opportunity to visit a better world where, Socrates says, will meet the best interlocutors with whom to dialogue. Then, he will continue even in the next world to profess the principle to which it has complied in all his life: the dialogue.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
The categories are the attribution of a predicate to a subject. They are specifically supreme classes of every possible predicate, with which it is possible to order the whole reality.
For Aristotle, the categories are groups or primary genres which collect all the properties that may be the explanation of ‘being’. They are the predicaments of ‘being’, which refer to primary qualities (the immutable essences of objects), or secondary (the mishaps that may change).
The categories of Aristotle have an objective value, because they refer to concrete entities. Our judgments use them not only according to a relationship purely logical, typical of syllogism, but assembling them owing to the intuitive capacity to effectively grasp the relationship between the real objects. But beyond that, to each of the categories it relates a part of those semantic constructs of the discourse that have to do with the real world: for example, a name or a noun refers to the category of substance; the adjectives to quality, those indefinite to quantity, or to the relationship etc. It is therefore assumed that for Aristotle categories are a classification of the components which make a discourse.
Starting from the distinction between the objective level and the semantic one, that was not missed in Aristotle, who, however, would not know what to attribute to one and what to the other, Immanuel Kant admits that to judge, source of all objective discourse, is a 'multifaceted activity, which arises from the application of different categories or pure concepts, through which the intellect unifies multiple data from sensitive intuition.
These concepts, however, are transcendental, namely that they need starting data in order to activate, without which they would be empty: it's because of the sense organs that an object is "given,"  to us becoming a phenomenon; with categories then it is "thought".
Then, unlike Aristotle, for whom categories belonged to the ontological reality of ‘being’, the Kantian categories fit in to the intellect; that is, they become the ‘a priori’ functions, or  means of working of our thought that frame reality according to its own preconceived scheme. They do not apply to reality in itself, but only to the phenomenon.
As in Aristotle the categories needed judgment to be used, then in Kant they require a supreme activity, of a thought in the process of being created, to exercise their unifying function of the manifold. The categories are the multiple facets of a prism which is called thought; they are unifying acts, but not yet active, only potentially activated.
This opens the question of the deduction of the categories, that is, how to justify the use we make of them: for example, is it legitimate to assign different categories to the same object?
This is the problem faced by Kant in the Transcendental Deduction of Critique of Pure Reason, to unify categories, finding a principle from which they can all derive. This principle will be found in the ‘I think’ or transcendental apperception.
Kant will be accused of having locked himself up in a subjectivism with no way out, given that his categories do not serve to know the reality as it is in itself, but only as it appears to us.
With Fichte they assume a different role: while Kant had intended to unify the multiple, for Fichte they assume the inverse aim of multiplying the uniqueness of the ‘I’, bringing it to divide and produce unconsciously the ‘non-I’. Thus the categories of the intellect have also a real or ontological value, albeit unconscious. The ‘thinking’ is to create, but only at the level of intellectual intuition.
In Hegel, instead, it is the same logic that becomes creative. The cognitive categories of Kant, which were merely "formal", become together "form and content": they are logical-ontological categories, determinations of the Idea as it proceeds dialectically. An object exists to the extent that it is rational, that is, only if it falls within a logical category.
For Nietzsche, finally, categories become the result of the evolution of the breed: their effectiveness would be given not by the ability to reflect what is true, but by the utility in aiding survival. Concepts taken and endorsed by ethological-philosophical studies of Konrad Lorenz, who defined the categories the 'apparatus image of the world. "
Relevant answer
Principles of justice and fairness are also central to procedural, retributive, and restorative justice. Such principles are supposed to ensure procedures that generate unbiased, consistent, and reliable decisions. Here the focus is on carrying out set rules in a fair manner so that a just outcome might be reached. Fair procedures are central to the legitimacy of decisions reached and individuals' acceptance of those decisions.
To ensure fair procedures, both in the context of legal proceedings, as well as in negotiation and mediation, the third party carrying out those procedures must be impartial. This means they must make an honest, unbiased decision based on appropriate information. For example, judges should be impartial, and facilitators should not exhibit any prejudice that gives one party unfair advantages. The rules themselves should also be impartial so that they do not favor some people over others from the outset. 
An unbiased, universally applied procedure, whether it serves to distribute wealth or deliver decisions, can ensure impartiality as well as consistency. The principle of consistency proposes that "the distinction of some versus others should reflect genuine aspects of personal identity rather than extraneous features of the differentiating mechanism itself." In other words, the institutional mechanism in question should treat like cases alike and ensure a level playing field for all parties.
The principle of standing suggests that people value their membership in a group and that societal institutions and decision-making procedures should affirm their status as members. For example, it might follow from this principle that all stakeholders should have a voice in the decision-making process. In particular, disadvantaged members of a group or society should be empowered and given an opportunity to be heard. When decision-making procedures treat people with respect and dignity, they feel affirmed. A central premise of restorative justice, for example, is that those directly affected by the offense should have a voice and representation in the decision-making process regarding the aftermath of the offense--be it punishment and/or restitution.
Related to issues of respect and dignity is the principle of trust. One measure of fairness is whether society members believe that authorities are concerned with their well being and needs. People's judgments of procedural fairness result from perceptions that they have been treated "honestly, openly, and with consideration." If they believe that the authority took their viewpoints into account and tried to treat them fairly, they are more likely to support and engage in the broader social system.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
10 answers
How does this relate to causation in his work?
Relevant answer
Answer
The target of your question is somewhat unclear, as is indicated by the rather diverse reactions of other respondents. Are you asking for a "simple definition" of dynamis (δύναμις),: the term that Aristotle uses for potency, potentiality, capacity, power, where the translation (into English, say) depends upon the context? As you list your topic as "metaphysics", dynamis would be the most likely candidate for the thing for which you hope to find a simple definition. If so, then there is no one simple definition to be found, but there are several definitions, as is so often the case for Aristotle's key systematic terms, since these are, according to him, typically polysemous. The normal place to start looking is in Metaphysics V — Aristotle's own "dictionary" of key terms. That doesn't always provide what you want, since the dictionary is not always in accord with what Aristotle says elsewhere. Moreover, the definitions provided may be difficult to fathom without reference to the larger discussions where the terms in question are deployed. But, if you are in fact interested in "power" in the sense of dynamis, then you will find Aristotle's own definitions in Metaphysics V, beginning at 1019a15. What he says there, in Tredennick's translation, is this:
- - -
[1019a] [15] "Potency" [δύναμις] means: (a) the source of motion or change which is in something other than the thing changed, or in it qua other. E.g., the science of building is a potency which is not present in the thing built; but the science of medicine, which is a potency, may be present in the patient, although not qua patient. Thus "potency" means the source in general of change or motion in another thing, or in the same thing qua other; [20] or the source of a thing's being moved or changed by another thing, or by itself qua other (for in virtue of that principle by which the passive thing is affected in any way we call it capable of being affected; sometimes if it is affected at all, and sometimes not in respect of every affection, but only if it is changed for the better). (b) The power of performing this well or according to intention; because sometimes we say that those who can merely take a walk, or speak, without doing it as well as they intended, cannot speak or walk. And similarly in the case of passivity. (c) All states in virtue of which things are unaffected generally, or are unchangeable, or cannot readily deteriorate, are called "potencies." For things are broken and worn out and bent and in general destroyed not through potency but through impotence and deficiency of some sort; and things are unaffected by such processes which are scarcely or slightly affected because they have a potency and are potent and are in a definite state.
Since "potency" has all these meanings, "potent" (or "capable") will mean (a) that which contains a source of motion or change (for even what is static is "potent" in a sense) which takes place in another thing, or in itself qua other.
- - -
And there is more of interest in the immediately following text. However, if you seek really to understand Aristotle's idea of a dynamis in the sense of a power to affect (or, for that matter, to be affected ) then you will want to look at his insightful discussion in Metaphysics IX, starting at 1046a1.
If you want to connect up the notion of a "power" with larger issues of causation and agency, you might like to read (among other things) my article, "Agency and Patiency — Back to Nature?" (Philosophical Explorations 5:1 (2002) pp. 59-81). At any rate, a "simple definition" of dynamis will not, by itself, get you all that far.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
Plato, especially  in the dialectic  dialogues (f.i. Sofists), moving from the eleatic opposition of ‘Being’ and not ‘Being’ or, more exactly, of «what it is» to «what it is not », recognizes that, in this second term of the antithesys, the «not Being» is resolved in Being something else. "It is thus solved the mere negativity of each idea than the other, recognizes that, in this second term of the antithesis, the "not" will be resolved in '' be more. "It is thus explained the mere negativity of each idea than the other”.
Aristotle distinguishes alterity (understood generically as diversity, whereby all things are usually different) from the difference which is the dissimilarity between things of the same kind.
For the philosopher of idealism, ‘the something’, being characterized qualitatively, is in a negative logic contrast with'"other" than himself; he is not the other and then suffers the limit but, at the same time, this limitations kicks off a progressive alteration of its quality indefinitely (such as it happens in chemistry).
The term ‘alterity’ is often used in existentialism understood as alienation, division of the individual from himself.
On the contrary, for philosophers like Emmanuel Levinas (1905-1995) alterity not only is not a negative value, but it is the highest ethical one.
In particular, for Levinas, the first principle of ethics that, in this context, becomes metaphysical: If I do not violate my overarching categories, the mystery of the other, that is, if I do not bring it to a pre-determined and pre-judged essence, I get to a kind of knowledge that is real because it is a track of infinity.
Alterity is totally alien to the ego (split between self and the other) and, therefore, my experience will never be comparable to that of another person. I can not live the pain, joy and other limit experiences of another individual. For the Lithuanian philosopher ethics is the capacity of exit from the understanding as comprehension of the ‘other’ who is generally assimilated to himself and dispossessed of his alterity and diversity.
For many scholars, the reflection of Levinas on the ‘Other’ is one of the theoretical foundations of contemporary multiculturalism; that is it suggests a new and different vision of the relations between individuals and between cultures: as relations between diverse individuals, that - as such - should be recognized and valued. Only through this recognition it is possible to turn on an authentic communication between cultures, without hegemonic claims on each other. This is a fruitful perspective, through which, for example, it is possible to look in a new way the problems of relations between cultures that are caused by the migration processes taking place on a global scale.
The thought of Emmanuel Levinas developed, then, on two privileged sides: the 'phenomenological exercise of which he was among the first representatives in France and the Talmudic readings, inspired by Biblical and Hebrew themes. Starting from Heidegger, Levinas calls into question the primacy of the problem of Being, dominated by the principle of totality, to look in the appeal of alterity for the foundation of an authentic subjectivity.
Conducive to positively evaluate the alterity is the philosopher Salvatore Natoli (1942) who, reworking the Aristotelian concept of magnanimity, judges considering the good of the ‘other’ the best of all virtues: "The magnanimous person does not look down on others not because he underestimates them, but because he finds in the task he has set his measure "and" in this kind of self-control he becomes, paradoxically, more accessible to others; he becomes indirectly generous.
From Hegel on the problem of alterity and its relationship with the denial remained between the capital issues of dialectics. Different is the problem of alterity as a matter of the '' other person ', i.e. of the multiplicity of consciences.
Relevant answer
Answer
@Braun, I am convinced that - as said- "Alterity is totally alien to the ego (split between self and the other) and, therefore, my experience will never be comparable to that of another person. I can not live the pain, joy and other limit experiences of another individual"
Thank you four contribution. Anyway I'll keep your reasoning in mind. Gianrocco Tucci
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
7 answers
In Hannah Arendt's concepts of liberty and responsability can you say that the influeence of Aristoteles is relevant and why? can you give examples? 
Relevant answer
It's very relevant, specially in "Human Condition", because Arendt analyzes the contrast between Aristotelian concepts of polis (city) and oikos-oikeia (family-home). In her view, the Ancient world caractherized in these categories of the social sphere is model of a society that means politics and freedom in the dimension of polis, not oikeia. It's informative because she traces this model for compare with our model of society, in which there are no boundaries between polis and oikeia (the dimension of city and the dimension of family).
I hope this help a little.
Mariane
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
22 answers
Like Rowe, in his paper "The meaning of φρόνησις in EE", argues that Aristotle uses the term φρόνησις in the passages 1215b2, 1216a11 and 1216a37 as wisdom, without making it clear whether it is practical or theoretical wisdom. This would reveal a non-technical use by Aristotle in EE and would have several implications in the Aristotelian conception of ethics at this time, thus leading to the possibility of ethics still be seen as a theoretical science, approaching the EE of Platonic influence on Aristotle. 
I don't "buy" the complete Rowe's interpretation, but I have to admit that the meaning of φρόνησις in those passages is very ambiguous.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Ferenc Hörcher:
"On the whole I think Aristotle's practical philosophy makes sense only if distinguishable from his mater's one. However, I go with Gadamer, who claims that there are strong Platonic building blocks in this theory"
Of course, as soon as one wishes to determine the relationship between Aristotelian thought and Platonic philosophy, one runs immediately into two fundamental problems. The first is that each author seems to have left us diametrically opposed, or at least opposite, literature. For Aristotle, we have something akin to his lecture notes: material intended for the Academy and students. We lack the more formal composition that was "literature" vs. letters, mandates, court scripts (Antiphon's likely fictional oratory I'd count as literature, but in general prepared defenses that come down to us I wouldn't as they were not meant to be and were not considered to be).  For Plato, all we have is his literary works (and maybe a couple of letters admit the pseudepigrapha. Aristotle himself was one of the first to demarcate writings into genre and analyze the importance and nature of each category (περὶ ποιητικῆς αὐτῆς τε καὶ τῶν εἰδῶν αὐτῆς/”concerning literature both itself and the many forms it has…” Poetics 1447a). Plato not only dealt with genre but with the dangerous power literature and/or oral history/tradition had. I think that their recognition of genre as in some sense a medium both fixing and dictating the content of composition renders the distinctions between the 'kind of writing left to us by each all the more important when it comes to interpretation.
Then there's the Socratic problem. Whatever influences Plato had on Aristotle, Aristotle's works were his own. On the most superficial and inaccurate interpretation, Plato just repeated the teachings of Socrates. This is, I think, clearly wrong, but it is quite likely that Plato didn't just use Socrates as a mouthpiece, especially in his earlier works.
So we have Aristotle writing a different kind of literature for a different kind of audience, and the works of Plato which are not only literary (Aristotle was first tell us of τούς Σωκρατικούς λόγους as a genre of sorts), but also tied quite directly to what Socrates taught in ways that are impossible to wholly separate.
In short, I guess I would just agree that such a broad view of both philosophers' thought can't be of much help here. It is within the text and secondarily the corpus that we have our best chance of understanding the usage here. The problem then becomes partly a matter of the Greek language (not that Greek was or is alone here). In the Romance languages (even Latin itself to some extent) and English that we find (like the use of a numerical "alphabet" which differs from the written) a large influx and coining of technical terms using classical languages. One need look no further than German to see what a difference this can make. Greek is harder, as technically there weren't any technical words. Just technical contexts. 
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
5 answers
The term appears in the first sentence of Topics VIII 5: "are evident now which should be (στοχαστέον) the goals / objectives of the respondent." And then Aristotle introduces a disjunction: every proposition put by the questioner must be either generally accepted (and that "generally" seems to appeal to the justification / rationale of the respondent) or generally rejected. After that follow the consequences of accepting or rejecting a proposition, namely that if the respondent accepts or rejects, must also assume that there is a total acceptance or total rejection, ie, it must stand as a kind of "universal respondent". After Aristotle also discusses the relationship between acceptance, rejection and relevance of propositions. My question is about the beginning of discussion to establish some normative way of thinking about the goals of the respondent.
Relevant answer
Answer
Either I desperately need to brush up on my Greek or I am getting something else confused here. The line Φανερὸν οὖν τίνων στοχαστέον τῷ ἀποκρινομένῳ, εἴτε ἁπλῶς ἔνδοξον εἴτε τινὶ τὸ κείμενόν ἐστιν begins part 6 (159b 36).
More interestingly, we have in this line two important and scarcely analyzed aspects of Greek grammar in this one line. Pheneron, the lexeme beginning the line, is one of several words commonly used in Greek in impersonal constructions ("it appears...","it seems", etc.). Impersonal constructions have, alas, received too little attention in General, let alone in analyses of classical Greek. An exception (of sorts) is Bauer's Archaic Syntax in Indo-European: The Spread of Transitivity in Latin and French, which aims to demonstrate that PIE was a language of the active type. One piece of evidence proffered concern the relative ubiquity of impersonal constructions in IE language (Es gibt, c'est, il est, there is, etc.) compared to their absence, at least in any readily comparable way, in non-IE languages. In Classical Greek, impersonal constructions are tied into a sort of fledgling modal system and show tell-tale signs of grammaticalization. For example, some common impersonal verbs appear only as such or almost always do: δεῖ, χρή, and ἔξεστι.
Both –τέος/  τέον are modal inflectional affixes which “experiment la modalité de l’obligatif, où l’exécution de l’action verbale est présentée comme obligatoire" (Duhoux's Le Verbe Grec Ancien). They two are part of a Greek modal system and in particular one that I have come to refer to as prepontic modality (indicating/denoting suitability, propriety, and frequently blending with modal domains concerning obligation or necessity).
It should be understood, then, that στοχαστέον cannot be adequately treated as a lexeme, as it is far more schematized and appears as an impersonal construction within another impersonal construction, both creating epistemic distance (profiling he statement as true/fact independent of the author). I would argue that the line is better translated as something close to "it is clear how the answerer should reply", treating στοχαστέον as semantically bleached. Perhaps this is taking it too far, but the important point is that the double impersonal modal constructions must be interpreted via the modal domains they construe. The force of the opening clause is not simply what is evident or apparent but what is clearly required or obviously necessary.
The rest is fairly straightforward, as we have a list of rules concerning when a premise should be responded to as such. The first rule ("ἢ ἔνδοξον εἶναι ἢ ἄδοξον ἢ μηδέτερον") is not general acceptance vs. non-acceptance, but a tautology. Either the statement is accepted, or it isn't, or neither. Non tertium datur doesn't even hold here, as Aristotle is concerned with covering all possibilities. This is not true of the next condition which necessarily holds: relevancy. Either the premise is or isn't relevant and now there is no third way. And so on.
But the opening line uses grammatical (or highly schematic/schematized and at least partially grammaticized) means to convey the necessary/obligatory and obvious state of affairs the answerer finds herself or himself in give any premise.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
4 answers
"True" and "false" syllogisms in Aristotle's ANALYTICS. In Aristotle's ANALYTICS, what does Aristotle mean by saying that a syllogism is true or that it is false? For example, see POSTERIOR ANALYTICS, Book I, Chapter 32. More generally, where in the corpus is 'true' or 'false' applied to syllogisms, or to anything other than a proposition, and in each case what is meant?
Relevant answer
Answer
Scholars are still scratching on the surface concerning this issue. There are at least two ways in which Aristotle uses those expressions: on the one hand, “false syllogism” is used for an argument that is not valid (but Aristotle does not use “true syllogism”, but only “syllogism”, for the contrast case of valid arguments… although this does not mean that he could never have used “true syllogism” in this way, maybe there is one occurrence in the corpus to which no one has paid attention so far); on the other hand, “true syllogism” is used for a valid argument in which all the propositions are (or at least the conclusion is) true. The question is a very good one, since it is also a disaster to assume from the start that Aristotle’s expressions do not change their meaning according to context. Topics VIII.12 is very helpful: the word there is not “syllogismos”, but “logos”; Aristotle says that a logos is called false in four different situations: when the conclusion does not follow; when the conclusion follows but is not what should have been proved; when the conclusion follows and prove what should have been proved but not according to the “proper method”; when the conclusion follows but the premises are false. There are still distinctions inside those four heading. For instance, Aristotle add “be the conclusion itself true or false” for both the third and the four heading. This shows how complex the subject is.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
11 answers
Is this epideictic discourse rather than deliberative one? Or are the two types mixted according to Aristotle's harmony of rhetorical genres?
Relevant answer
Answer
There is a genre continuum in film reviews between clearly deliberative ones and clearly epideictic ones. Ordinary moviegoers tend to treat reviews as a tool for deliberation. Thus most user created reviews you find online have a quite explicit deliberative slant.
At the other extreme professional film critics, film theory scholars, aspiring film philosophers and general film-nerds-with-way-too-much-time-on-their-hands will be on the epideictic side.
Audience design plays an important role in deciding whether the discourse is epideictic or deliberative. The film theory scholar or dilettante largely speaks to people who share her/his enthusiasm for cinema and are supposed to have watched the movie (and the countless other obscure movies that are cited in the review). The run-of-the-mill online review addresses people who have to decide whether the movie is worth watching. Explicit preoccupation with "spoilers" is a clear sign of this audience design and of a deliberative function.
Professional reviewers writing for newspapers and non-specialist magazines fall somewhere in between. They know that their readers will use their review as a deliberative tool. However, also in order to maintain their ethos of experts, they will dress their review more as an epideictic exercise that as an explicit advice. They will carefully avoid spoilers, but they will not mention the issue of spoilers explicitly.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
30 answers
Would you say that there is an implicit logic in the Ethic or that the purpose of good in a way means truth? 
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
25 answers
I am trying to develop an understanding of Aristotle's categories and I wondered how his concept of powers relates to his categories? Are powers needed to fully appreciate his categories?
Relevant answer
Answer
Good that you got some of the answers you were looking for, Paul. It was a pleasure for me to find Bobzein's article on the web and to be able to make some good use of it in relation to your questions--its a very learned piece, by the way, and you may find more along the lines you were looking, concerning the relationship of "power" and the Categories. Teaching Aristotle, last year, I found that his physics was one area of interest and his ethics another. The physics is chiefly of historical interest, while the ethics seemed to have, often enough, a quite contemporary character. Our knowledge of nature has changed much more than human nature--in spite of all cultural differences and developments. Aristotle still make sense to us as ethical thought. The logic seems to fall in between. Aristotelian logic is still taught, and it is a very rich tradition.
  • asked a question related to Aristotle
Question
6 answers
We post-moderns are living through a time of questioning of "categories."
How did Aristotle handle examples "on the margins", "in the boundary," "in between"?
Relevant answer
Answer
You've been given an excellent answer from the Physics, which I don't mean to contradict; but I'd like to expand on the question a bit more.
If you're talking about death, the relevant question for Aristotle is whether the thing you are examining is going through a "substantial change." "Substances" for Aristotle are things that, among other qualities, reproduce themselves. Thus, a human cell may continue to belong to a human being even though it is in some sense 'dead'; but if it continues to be ordered and used by the human substance, it is still essentially human. Alternatively, if it were (say) eaten by a grizzly bear, it would undergo a substantial change: a new substantial form would be ordering the matter into the substance of a bear.
Of course you understand that Aristotle has a system built around "form" and "matter." Both terms mean different things than they do in modern science, but there is actually a very close analog to form in living beings: things like DNA do take kinds of matter and order and structure them so that a human being can be formed and supported. A lot of the question of where the cell is thus falls under the heading of what form is ordering it: if it is still the human form, then it is still essentially human. (The form of a living creature is its anima, as discussed e.g. in De Anima).
By the way, there are certain qualities that don't fit in the Aristotelian catagories. One of them is "being," so if you are talking not about a cell that is living or dead, but one that "is" or "is not," you're talking about the question of being. Things like being -- along with "good" and a few others -- are called transcendentals. Particularly later Aristotelian thinkers use the transcendentals to deal with certain kinds of questions that apply across categories. That doesn't seem to be the issue here, but it's another way that 'in between' things can be handled by the system.