Talk:Aristotle/Archives/2009

error 'skin' vs 'veins'

by footnote 33:

"Herophilus also distinguished between ***skin*** and arteries, noting that the latter pulse while the former do not.[33]"

I believe the word "skin" should be replaced by "veins".

Ejacobson (talk) 03:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

It took me a while to track this down. User 68.239.174.74 made these edits on the 22 May 2008 which never got reverted. Which just goes to show, some of the more subtle acts of vandalism can get through on a page even as heavily watched as this one. Singinglemon (talk) 00:32, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theory

I also noticed, in passing, that this line:

Some people believe that Aristotle died because Athens thought he had something to do with Alexander the Great's death.

was added by 71.109.102.217 on 8 June 2008. It seems to have been left in the page because it got shoved before an innocent reference. I've stuck a citation needed tag onto it, since I've no idea if any credible scholars believe this or not. Singinglemon (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I added a citation and some more info about Alexander and Aristotle from Peter Green's Alexander of Macedon. Seems interesting to me. Maybe a bit too long; if others feel it needs a trimming I understand. CABlankenship (talk) 14:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment on the Topics in the beggining of the article

There is this small sentence in the beggining of the article that seems quite odd: He also achieved a "grounding" of dialectic in the Topics by allowing interlocutors to begin from commonly held beliefs (Endoxa); his goal being non-contradiction rather than Truth. First, it's false. Second, it's completelfy out of place; this is a discussion that pertains to the section about logic. Any comments? Bhvilar this was innacurate info. wasn't very good. i heard he likes to have sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.155.170.68 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Apprentice of Socrates?

Aceofspades, Refining Wikipedia one edit at a time (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Speaking of that wasn't he influenced by Socrates??? I thought aristotle and Plato were Socrates aprentices.

No, a look at the first sentence of this article and Socrates reveals that Socrates had been dead for 15 years when Aristotle was born. Wareh (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

quote

"And fire which burns on the mouths of bottles due to boiled wine and salt, and similar things with nice characteristics which are thought to be of little use, these are of great significance in these sciences.” I think this quote is from Aristotle but I cant find it . Can anyone help? J8079s (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Jabir ibn Hayyan, Kitab ikhraj ma fi al-quwwa ila al-fi`l, part of Mukhtarat rasa’il Jabir ibn Hayyan, ed. P. Kraus, Cairo, 1935, p.76.Fconaway (talk) 00:50, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Moving the Legacy section to Aristotelians

This is being proposed above. My opinion is that it definitely belongs here. Dougweller (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

In that case, it must "definitely" mention Ayn Rand Randroide (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Why? That's a matter for decision here. Dougweller (talk) 11:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

The same applies for the placement of the "Legacy" section ("definitely belongs here"). The same rules apply for you and for me, for your preferences and mine. Please read WP:OWN. Randroide (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What did I say? I said 'my opinion'. That's all. I'm not laying down ultimatums telling editors what choices they have. Dougweller (talk) 15:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have just mirrored your statements, Dougweller. I suggest you to look carefully at your reaction when you see a dialectical mirror. OTOH, could you please tell us how do you propose to follow WP:SIZE if we do not move the "Legacy" section (and maybe also the "Loss of his works" section) to another Aristotelian article?. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Mentioning Rand in the Legacy section would not, as you suggest further up, have any impact on the size of the article. The scientific method section is probably too long anyway, and I just looked at the Legacy section again and removed the Frazier trivia which I didn't think belonged in the article. How about reading WP:CIVIL and cooling it a bit? Dougweller (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Moving the "Legacy" and the "Loss of his works" section is what I propose to trim dow the article to 50kb. You did the right thing with Frazier. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 11:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Rand has no status as a Philosopher outside a small following in the US and even objectivist philosophers are dubious about her ability there even if they like her politics. Its questionable if she really understood Aristotle anyway. There seems to be a group of editors whose life is devoted to inserting the views of Rand everywhere and anywhere in Philosophy articles in order to propagate her views and it should be resisted. Keep the section here, and keep it confined to philosophers with some status in the field. --Snowded (talk) 11:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but you are wrong: She has that status (please look at the scholarly sources I provided above). And please avoid ad hominems (ad hominems are a waste of time and energy). Besides, the section about Ayn Rand is above. This is the section about moving "legacy". Thank you Randroide (talk) 11:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hi folks--I'm coming to this conversation a bit late, but here is how I see things. I'm writing with the assumption that Rand is notable as a "Philosopher". (I am not a fan of Rand, but it is hard to argue that she has no standing as a philosoher when one of sources cited by Randroide was published by PSU Press.) The sources cited above do connect Rand to Aristotle. However, not every connection or relation is significant. The sources above are primarily about Rand. What they establish is that (1) Aristotle is significant to Rand, and (2) Aristotle would deserve mention in an article about Rand. But, in order for Rand to deserve mention in the Aristotle article, we need to establish that studying Rand is significant to our understanding of Aristotle's philosophy. To do that, I submit that we would need an article by an Aristotelian scholar or classicist that is primarily about Aristotle and discusses Rand in connection to Aristotle. I think this is a fair solution. We worked out a similar guideline about about mentioning someone as a "Influence" over at the Nietzsche article.Fixer1234 (talk) 17:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This seems reasonable. Paul August ☎ 18:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is what made most sense to me, upon reading the conflict above. She has connections to Aristotle, but not vice versa, and so anything about Rand should be located in an article about Rand, rather than here. --Izno (talk) 18:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The title of the section is not "Later developments of Aristotelianism" but "Legacy". Fixer1234 well argued post should apply with the first title. It does not with the second.

I read 16 linked names in the "Legacy" section:

Bertrand Russell

Aristoxenus

Dicaearchus

Demetrius of Phalerum

Eudemos of Rhodes

Harpalus

Hephaestion

Meno

Mnason of Phocis

Nicomachus

Theophrastus

Thomas Aquinas

Chaucer

Friedrich Nietzsche

Martin Heidegger

Alasdair MacIntyre

Could you please tell us how many of these philosophers have the requisite of (I cite your words verbatim) "an article by an Aristotelian scholar or classicist that is primarily about Aristotle and discusses Philosopher X in connection to Aristotle".

Could you please tell us why precisely Ayn Rand needs an special requirement to be cited in that section?. Could you please tell us why is she so special?.

Again (and again, and again...): The title of the section is not "Philosophers who made a major impact on Aristotelian thought", but "Legacy", and it is INDISPUTABLE that Ayn Rand is part of the Aristotelian Legacy.

IMO It is not necessary at all to cite Ayn Rand in Aristotle, but if we choose to do not so, in that case in Aristotle we should only cite philosophers fitting to the requisite argued by Fixer1234 (AFAIK only Aquinas fits to that requisite. Maybe Alasdair MacIntyre also fits). In that case almost all the "Legacy" section should be moved elsewhere

For Zeus sake. Look at Karl_Marx#Marx.27s_influence or Marxism to see what is regarded as "reasonable". Look at the names TOTALLY UNRELATED to Marx himself cited there. Ayn Rand is the most influential and popular Aristotelian ever, and you are trying to have her not cited in any page about Aristotle. IMHO your position is completely untenable Randroide (talk) 19:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Russell, Chaucer and Dante and to some extent Aquinas, are not mentioned as part of the Aristotelean legacy per se, but rather as authoritative commentators on his legacy. Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Eudemos of Rhodes, Harpalus, Hephaestion, Meno, Mnason of Phocis, Nicomachus, Theophrastus and Alexander the Great are mentioned as notable students of Aristotle, and as such, surely qualify as part of his legacy. That leaves Heidegger, (for which a source is given which says of Nietzsche that he "takes nearly all of his political philosophy from Aristotle"), Heidegger and MacIntyre (for neither of which are sources given, but there can and should be). In reality surely the legacy of Aristotle includes all philosophers, logicians, biologists, physicists, ethicists, political scientists, and so — not all of whom can be mentioned in this article. Paul August ☎ 21:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aristoxenus, Dicaearchus, Demetrius of Phalerum, Eudemos of Rhodes, Harpalus, Hephaestion, Meno, Mnason of Phocis, Nicomachus, Theophrastus and Alexander the Great are mentioned as notable students of Aristotle, and as such, surely qualify as part of his legacy

As Ayn Rand, sir, just as Ayn Rand, as I sourced above: A notable aristotelian, according to scholar sources (see Talk:Aristotle#Ayn_Rand). In fact a very notable aristotelian, as I showed in my previous post.

...the legacy of Aristotle includes all philosophers, logicians, biologists, physicists, ethicists, political scientists

Do you have a source for that assertion?. It would be a nice addition to "Legacy", but seems that no one here is capable of sourcing that so often repeated claim Randroide (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

"Students" as in taught personally. Paul August ☎ 21:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You have not established that she is a notable aristotelian, let alone the nonsense that she is the most "influential and popular". Your reference just went to Ayn Rand --Snowded (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I did not because that is not my job as Wikipedia editor. I provided (vide supra) sources (sources stablish notability, not editor´s whims) that show that Ayn Rand is a notable aristotelian, and therefore stablish her citability on par -at least- with Russell, Chaucer, Dante, Heidegger, Nietzsche and MacIntyre.

The "nonsense" (sic) about Ayn Rand being the most popular aristotelian is (IMO) a hard as nails sourced fact, if you follow the references cited in Ayn_Rand#Popular_interest_and_influence. If I am wrong, I beg you to correct my error with references about a more popular/inluential aristotelian. I am always open to learn new things. Anyway, it is not my intention (of course) to cite her as such. I was only citing this fact to make my case stronger.

Thank you for the solid argument for the "Students". You are completely right: There is a special reason to cite them here.

And now, lets go with Russell, Chaucer, Dante, Heidegger, Nietzsche and MacIntyre. Please tell me why they should be cited and not Ayn Rand, when scholarly sources name Ayn Rand as an Aristotelian or Neo Aristotelian. See, for instance [1][2][3]. Thank youRandroide (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion your sources are not satisfactory, given Rand's controversial status within philosophy. Thus far you have only provided Objectivist sources for your claims. Furthermore, the Uyl source and page to which you link does not back up your assertions. If Rand were as important as you claim, then she would not be ignored or dismissed by the major philosophy encyclopedias. I do not believe that you have made a convincing case for placing her name in this article. Rand's admiration for Aristotle is better placed in her own article. CABlankenship (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

given Rand's controversial status within philosophy

Philosophy is about controversy. OTOH, could you please source that "controversial" status of Ayn Rand within philosophy?. Or maybe is it just your say so?.

Thus far you have only provided Objectivist sources for your claims

Erroneus claim. The International Journal of Social Economics article I linked is not an objectivist source. Neither it is the University of Illinois book.

Furthermore, the Uyl source and page to which you link does not back up your assertions.

New erroneus claim. The Uyl source states:

She (Rand) is clearly, nevertheless, advocating a view consistent with certain contemporary interpretations of Aristotle"

...or...

Rand stands doubly guilty on this count, since a presumably serious Aristotelian... (Page 45)

...or...

The ethical theory...articulated throughout Rand´s philosophical works and displayed in her fiction, returns to a view advanced by Aristotle... (Page 210)

If Rand were as important as you claim, then she would not be ignored or dismissed by the major philosophy encyclopedias

Do you have a source for that statement or it is just your say so?.

BTW, could you please cite me how many philosophy encyclopedias cite Chaucer or Dante (both mentioned in the "Legacy" section)?. Are you going to remove them?. Why?. Randroide (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• BTW, Ayn Rand appears in the Academic American Encyclopedia [4]. So much for her "controversial" scholarly status

• Ayn Rand cited in two Encyclopedias of Philosophy [5][6] Randroide (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the Academic American Encyclopedia reference. Perhaps my wording was vague. Rand is "controversial" in the sense that she is considered a very bad philosopher, and unworthy of attention by serious philosophers. I didn't mean "controversial" in the sense that she would be left out of a general encyclopedia (the person listed before her is Ramses III). Also, interestingly enough, the short section on Rand in the Biographical dictionary of twentieth-century philosophers (which you cite) does not mention Aristotle in conjunction with her, but the very next person listed (John Herman Randall) IS called an Aristotelian. Should he be in the legacy section? That source actually seems to harm your case, in the sense that it didn't see it as important to mention her as an Aristotelian. CABlankenship (talk) 15:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Rand is "controversial" in the sense that she is considered a very bad philosopher, and unworthy of attention by serious philosophers

Where is your source for this assertion?. Where can I find the list of "serious philosophers"?. Randroide (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

the very next person listed (John Herman Randall) IS called an Aristotelian. Should he be in the legacy section?

Yes, of course. Thank you for calling our attention towards this fact. Randroide (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, take your second sourced encyclopedia, Routledge (which is the one I had in mind with the word "dismissive"). It says that Rand has "attracted little attention from academic philosophers", that she has been "kept...out of the intellectual mainstream", and refers to her philosophy as "of little interest", "ill-thought out and unsystematic", and notes that her fiction is of "more enduring interest" than her philosophy. CABlankenship (talk) 15:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing to sourced facts. But sorry: My answer must be, So what?. Other philosophers disagree with Routledge´s POV, as I prove with sources below. For instance, the 80 years old Enciclopedia Espasa I "enjoyed" in High School (what we call "instituto" in Spain) told me that Nietzsche was a dangerous pseudo-philosopher that would damn to the eternal flames of hell our little souls if we dared to read him. Is Nietzsche a iota less philosopher because an old Encyclopedia talks about him on those terms?. No!.

OTOH, to integrate that Routledge Encyclopedia assertions you cited, we can call Ayn Rand "controversial philosopher". That would include her (now sourced) controversial status within scholar philosophy.

Also, interestingly enough, the short section on Rand in the Biographical dictionary of twentieth-century philosophers (which you cite) does not mention Aristotle in conjunction with her

Absence of proof is not proof of absence. Randroide (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

True, but absence of evidence can certainly be evidence of absence. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Please look at new evidence at the section below.

Now it is an evidently evident evidence that absence is absolutely absent Randroide (talk) 16:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Material Cause

The definition of material cause in this article is incorrect. The main article on the four causes has the correct definition. Also the explanation or definition of the formal cause is not comprehensible. Ti-30X (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Earlier, I corrected the example on the material cause and someone did a reversion. Now it is incorrect. I also did a small summation on Aritstotle's intent regarding the four causes and that has been removed. I will probably revert the article to my corrections - just letting you know. I also had citations to back up my corrections and additions. Both the material cause and the formal cause are based in causation.

In addition, I don't see any in line citations.

Anyway, I corrected the material cause and added some to the formal cause. Causation of the existence of a thing in other words, is the lense through which these are viewed.

Ti-30X (talk) 22:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC) Ti-30X (talk) 01:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit (which I reversed) did not correct the definition of material cause but talked about a flow or sequence of understanding the causes which is why I reversed it. You also made the natural object restriction. However I think this set of edits is much better. However we are missing a key aspect of the explanation, namely that Aristotle is explaining why something is what it is, and is using cause in a different way from its common use in day to day English. As Juarerro & others have pointed out these days we only focus on efficient cause to the detriment of knowledge as a whole. In an article on complexity theory (where the four causes are much discussed) I summarised it as ": the material (what makes you up, your muscles and organs), the efficient (how you came to be, the fact that your parents gave birth to you), the formal (your type, your species), and the final (your function, your life itself, your place in the universe)' I think that is simpler than the present version and more likely to be comprehended. The summary in Stanford summary is even simpler and there could be an argument to bring it across intact. Rather than edit directly I suggest a quick discussion. --Snowded ^TALK 06:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, I'd be more comfortable with a quotation from the Stanford Encyclopedia (which is a reliable source) than the passage you quote. There are problems with what we have, but maybe they can be addressed better by tinkering with the details than attempting a grand synthesis. If we were starting from scratch, I'd certainly agree the passage would be a starting point. But since this article is narrowly on Aristotle (as opposed to the application of similar ideas in modern fields), I'd want to avoid sweeping formulations like "place in the universe" (which would be hard to parallel from Aristotle's discussions of causation), and I'd hesitate over some of the other examples (muscles and organs are already organized according to an organism's formal principles, so we should really be speaking of the matter that makes up the organs, for example). Wareh (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm more happy with the Stanford quote too, I have my example above to show the way its now being used in a wider context. I'd be inclined to take the Stanford version intact, the rest of the material would be no great loss. --Snowded ^TALK 18:16, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, anyway, the whole thing looks like a good article and you seem to know more about philosophy than I do. Ti-30X (talk) 01:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

A qucik side note: I went to the main page for the four causes in wikipedia and discovered, on the talk page, that there is discussion to merge this entry - but there is no place it is being merged to.

Ok you're example of the formal cause (above) "the formal (your type, your species)".
I agree with that (For myself, I simply think of formal cause as related to the form of "the thing". I agree with your definition and examples of the efficient and material cause that you have above "the material (what makes you up, your muscles and organs), the efficient (how you came to be, the fact that your parents gave birth to you)". I agree with your example and definition of final cause - these are good simple examples. The Standford Philosophy web page (that you left a link for) does a good job with simple examples and definitions as well. So I would say go ahead and use that. In addition, why not use both your examples above along with the definitions and examples from the Standford Philosophy web page. And, the Standford page would give you easily accessible citatioins, if you want to use them.

However, I agree that this article does not need a sweeping overhaul and it does not need to go beyond the range of the article's original intent. I am interpreting "place in the universe" and birth from parents, and muscles and organs in a very narrow range - for example, as one person might see or comprehend these things. I don't see any need to discuss the philosophical implications of such examples. I see your examples as simple examples that we might observe or think about in an ordinary life (with a job, watch TV, read the newspaper etc., etc...)

Another quick side note: From the Standford page - "But can an explanation of this type be given without a reference to the final outcome of the production, the statue? The answer is emphatically 'no'" - This is what I was trying to say in my first edit into the article yesterday. I think this is an important point and should somehow be paraphrased or quoted and added to the article. In other words, from my perspective, when contmplating or elucidating the four causes, the final outcome should be kept in mind. Of course, you may already have it in the article and I missed it.

Oh yeah, one more thing. In the "States" we call an ordinary person an "ordinary joe" and even sometimes use the term "joe six pack". What do you call an "ordinary joe" in the United Kingdom? (Maybe this is an important philosophical point LOL). Ti-30X (talk) 01:52, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got a degree in the subject but there are far better scholars active on the Wikipedia. I am hoping one of them will pick this up otherwise maybe the simplest thing is to put in the Stanford quote. Most in the UK would understand "ordinary Joe" but would be more likely to use "Man in the street" or "Man on the Clapham Omnibus" --Snowded ^TALK 03:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

(still more) Sources claiming that Ayn Rand was an Aristotelian

• Published by Penn State Press: Rand was also a passionate disciple of Aristotle... (page 93 [7])...."Rand´s Aristotelianism" (page 348[8])

• Published by California State University: The Pursuit of Happiness Through a Virtuous Life: Ayn Rand and Aristotle [9]

• Published by Brill Publishers: "...twentieth century Aristotelian, Ayn Rand" [10]

• Published by Springer Science+Business Media: Ayn Rand was an original thinker whose early philosophical views were heavily influenced both by her responses to Aristotle... [11]

• An Ayn Rand letter extensively quoted in a book titled "Aristotle's criticism of Plato's Republic" [12]

• The author of the book cited above is an Aristotelian scholar (Robert Mayhew) [13] who also has an strong interest in Ayn Rand [14].

BTW, I discovered the existence of the Aristotelian Society. I think it should be cited also in "Legacy". Ditto for John Herman Randall(mentioned by User:CABlankenship)

Randroide (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

So far as I can tell, no one is disputing that Rand is an Aristotelian. The question is, is she an important enough Aristotelian to be included in the present section? Paul August ☎ 16:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

She is an important (as a novelist), and she is an Aristotelian (or at least claimed to be). I don't think she is an important Aristotelian. What would count as a reliable source that she was, I wonder? Paulatim (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it is generally acknowledged that, however bad Rand was as a philosopher - certainly I think she did not understand Aristotle's metaphysics or logic very well - doesn't she pass the test in that she has influenced many people, and has indeed brought many people to Aristotle who otherwise wouldn't have come? Perhaps she deserves a place. Paulatim (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I don;t see any evidence that she brought many people to Aristotle and her influence is really US specific (certainly as a philosopher less so as a novelist). If anything the list needs culling not additions --Snowded (talk) 18:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you are right, I have a bit of a soft spot for Rand, but there is no evidence I can see that her many fans have been 'brought to Aristotle'. I think they would find him very tedious and boring. The list actually does need culling - mea culpa I added Scotus, but there are many more who belong there. Paulatim (talk) 18:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Scotus was a good addition I thought, the discovery of Aristotles work in that period had a profound and major effect and its right to list it. On the other hand a claim to have been influenced which is not really referenced outside the immediate circle of someone who is a novelist who happened to stimulate the creation of a minor philosophical movement is very different. Rand her self as far as I can see had no soft spots .... --Snowded (talk) 19:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't actually mean that John Hermann Randall should be listed in the legacy section. I was merely pointing out that your source does not mention Rand as an Aristotelian, but the very next entry is of an Aristotelian. If we listed every Aristotelian, we would have thousands of names in the legacy section. As one person said: "the worst kind of trivia". CABlankenship (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is, is she an important enough Aristotelian to be included in the present section?

We are not -as Wikipedia editors- in the position of being able to answer that question about what is "important" and what is not. That´s not our task.

We are not the ones to decide if the stability of the Chevrolet Corvair is "important" enough to be mentioned in Wikipedia or not. The very existence of Unsafe at any Speed proves the matter is important enough to mention, no matter if a particular Wikipedia Editor thinks that the issue is "not important". Sources stablished the importance of this matter.

I provided above the "Unsafe at any Speed" (i.e., the external reliable sources) for the matter of Ayn rand being considered by some scholars as an Aristotelian. It is an Important (according to some sources) Sourced Fact.

The same for the Aristotelian Society and John Herman Randall, IMO it is obvious that both articles should be summarized and linked in "Legacy". Could the "trimmers" for this section please present their case?. I do not get it, and I would like to consider their reasons.

If we listed every Aristotelian, we would have thousands of names in the legacy section. As one person said: "the worst kind of trivia"

Thousands?. I guess that we would never reach the one hundred mark.

OTOH, that person is free to apply his/her particular standards about this matter in his/her own website. He/she could even consider Aristotle as "trivia" (after all, Aristotle is "a white dead man", the worst kind of "trivia" to some people)

But here, at Wikipedia, we must apply Wikipedia standards. And which are the standards in Wikipedia?

There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap [15].

And now, please tell me: What is more Encyclopedic?.The Aristotelian Society, John Herman Randall and the Aristotelianism of Ayn Rand or every episode of "The Simpsons"???. Randroide (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

So 100 names would be all right with you? We'd still have to believe that there are not reliable sources on whose basis we could whittle the list down to the more important names? If someone added the 55 names in Category:Commentators on Aristotle (including its subcat), the correct response would be to keep them all (since their place in the Aristotelian tradition has been studied by historians of philosophy)?

To be consistent, Randroide has to answer these two questions "yes." And yet it is evident that to accept the consequences of those "yes" answers would be to create a mess that would have to be cleaned up on the basis of considerations of relative importance for the subject of Aristotle.

The Chevrolet example is of little help here. The difference is that I can visit any university library and find a very small number of books (and films) on the Corvair, whereas any decent library has at least a couple hundred of shelf-feet of books on Aristotle and Aristotelian philosophers. They all should be treated on their own pages, but they cannot all be named on this page.

I am only defending the integrity of this article, which can't accommodate a list of the dozens upon dozens of names that meet the "Rand criterion." My friendly and sincere suggestion to Randroide is to create a List of writers influenced by Aristotle, to populate it with the 55 names I've mentioned, and any others. Such a list could aspire to be all-inclusive; there's just not room for that here.

The claim that Wikipedia articles can't assess what is more and less important has just enough truth in it to be speciously seductive. If it meets basic notability and verifiability tests, yes, it can go somewhere in the encyclopedia. But if everything relevant to Aristotle had to receive even a token gesture here on this page, the logical consequence would be to have the entire contents of those hundreds of shelf-feet squeezed into this article, and that simply isn't how this or any encyclopedia works. Cross-references cannot be infinite, and we have no choice but to look for neutral criteria to assess their relative importance. (I am not closing off the possibility, as I said before, that Randroide and others can offer an appropriate argument for Rand's inclusion. What I am saying is that it would have to take the form: [A] It is reasonable to list n philosophers influenced by Aristotle, [B] Rand is one of the n names most important to include on a list of philosophers influenced by Aristotle.) Wareh (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

That sounds a good idea. I agree totally about the Corvair argument. Dougweller (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent reasoning there. Generally: perhaps I am being stupid, I don't understand the two user boxes on the top right. They both seem to be about Aristotle, and both have a list of 'influenced'. But the two lists are different. One oddly has 'Alasdair Macintyre' next to Aquinas. Not that MacIntyre is not a very good philosopher, but it looks odd, especially given that there are about 40 philosophers of equal greatness to Macintyre who haven't been listed. And why Alexander the Great? I read somewhere that Alexander didn't give a fig about anything Aristotle taught him (I will try and find the reference). Aristotle’s vision of small city-states governing themselves did not seem to have gone down with a man who was keen on world domination. So too is the choice of Copernicus, whose main contribution to scientific progress was to reject Aristotle geocentric model in favour of a heliocentric one. Hence 'Copernican revolution'. On the argument above that hard discs are cheap, hard discs is not the same as knowledge, which is about balance, and summarisation of key points of Western intellectual history. It is vastly harder to give a list of the 10 most important people influenced by Aristotle, than it is to give a list of all the 1,000 and more less important people. Part of the information given by a good reference work is precisely that. (I will try and come up with that list some time). Regards Paulatim (talk) 20:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

PS linking to that article by Wales, he says that 'Wikipedia is not paper'. Yes but then Wikipedia is not Google (or shouldn't be anyway). Paulatim (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Unless the user box is blank then it involves some judgement about who are the ten most influenced. There are some very obvious ones such as Acquinas. Macintyre is interesting because of his links to the Thomist/Marxist McCabe OP which foes back into that same tradition so we can see a thread there. Having a very long list somewhere is fine and Rand's name can go on that. However I think you need to be in a position where people with standing in the field, other than your own followers publish work that link you with Aristotle, the claim to have been influenced does not really count. I suggest we get this down to a small list of people whose debt to Aristotle is uncontroversial. --Snowded (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I asked a question at the end of my previous intervention. It is not just a rethorical question. It is an important question. Could you please answer me?. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 18:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It sounded like a rhetorical flourish, something about the Simpsons? Sorry I can't see how the question is relevant. --Snowded (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll answer the rhetorical question. Ayn Rand's Aristotelianism is more encyclopedic than any Simpsons episode. Therefore (and this is the only consequence), it should be treated in Wikipedia. What is not the consequence is that it should be treated on this page, any more than every Simpsons episode needs to be linked from animated cartoon or satire. There now seems to be a consensus of several editors that, beyond a manageable number of the persons most notably influenced in the sidebar, further names should be indirectly linked by (A) "See also: List of writers influenced by Aristotle"; (B) including Rand and others on that list. Wareh (talk) 01:49, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for answering my question. I just want to see which common ground do we have regarding this issue. I see that the debate is not IF Ayn Rand should be mentioned as an Aristotelian, but WHERE.

A new question: Who is more notable, Ayn Rand or Alasdair MacIntyre?. My point is that if we take the acceptable option of NOT mentioning Ayn Rand in Aristotle, then we can mention only those authors more notable and better referenced than her as Aristotelians. I appreciate your suggestion about List of writers influenced by Aristotle, Wareh. Randroide (talk) 09:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I think if we look at MacIntyre's place in the very active tradition of Virtue ethics, we'd have to say that he occupies a more notable place in Aristotle's legacy. For whatever reason, while Rand's thought has been influential, it has not produced such a school of writers trumpeting their connection to Aristotle.

But I don't want to distract from what I hope is a more useful development, which is that (whatever happens elsewhere) my List of writers influenced by Aristotle suggestion may be an acceptable venue to all parties for a comprehensive list of notable figures (of whom Ayn Rand is certainly one) who have declared themselves (or been analyzed by others) as bearing Aristotle's influence. The way I think, if such an article is fairly prominently placed in the "See also" section of this article, it is just one step shy (though a very appropriate step, given the constraints of space) of including a comprehensive list here.

By way of comparison, look at how the entire subject of the listing & discussion of the structure of the Corpus Aristotelicum has been off-loaded to that article. In that case, it's even more obvious that every sentence there could be placed here, but there's simply not the space for such a comprehensive listing.

If we now have a solution to at least half of this dispute (the answer to the question: Where is a place to record all the notable figures whose thinking points back to Aristotle), now we just need someone who can crank out such a list in some preliminary form. I'd just say, again, don't neglect the names that have already been gathered up into Category:Commentators on Aristotle. Wareh (talk) 18:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I must disagree.

Mr. [McIntyre returns 117000 hits at Google http://www.google.es/search?hl=en&q=%22Alasdair+MacIntyre%22&btnG=Search]. [Ayn Rand 2400000 http://www.google.es/search?hl=en&q=%22Ayn+Rand%22&btnG=Search].

Highest book authored by Mr. McIntyre ranks at #26000 at Amazon. "Atlas Shrugged" ranks at #67. BTW, Ayn Rand wrote about "Atlas Shrugged"

The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy—but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison. You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of ATLAS SHRUGGED.

AFAIK "Atlas Shrugged" is the best selling (allegedly, by the author) inspired by Aristotle book in History. Please present contradicting evidence if I am wrong.

Ayn Rand is much more notable that Mr. McIntyre. I also presented scholar sources naming miss Rand as an Aristotelian, and even a book written by an Aristotelian scholar about the matter of Ayn Rand and Aristotelian ethics.

I see no reason to write complete lines about Mr. McIntyre (and of course he must be cited) and fail to cite, just cite (in a NPOV), Ayn Rand.

Uh, and thank you very much for your excellent work at Category:Commentators on Aristotle. Randroide (talk) 22:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

According to Google, 24% of the pages containing "Alasdair MacIntyre" also mention Aristotle, whereas only 2% of the pages containing "Ayn Rand" also mention Aristotle. Ayn Rand may be correctly quoted as making that sweeping generalization, and you may regard it is an essentially true fact about her thought. But that doesn't change the fact that people who write about Ayn Rand do not tend to write about her as an Aristotelian or as someone who derived all of her characteristic and notable thoughts from Aristotelian inspiration. They do write about Alasdair MacIntyre that way, in comparison.

More importantly, you are confusing the question of who is more notable with who constitutes a more notable chapter in the history of Aristotelian reception. There are any number of philosophers more notable than MacIntyre as persons or as philosophers, but who are less notable in the history of the reception of Aristotelian philosophy (despite claiming some place in that history).

By the way, Google is not a simple index of notability for encyclopedic purposes. Google Book Search shows that Rand is "ahead" only by 1430 to 959. But Google Scholar (more relevant still) has MacIntyre ahead by 8950 to 6550.

I hope you will take comfort in the fact that I am not claiming MacIntyre is more notable than Rand, and that you will be able to concede that Rand (as described in a census of reliable published sources, not necessarily in the view of Truth or God) is a less notable topic in the study of Aristotle's influence. You may wish for that to change, but such a wish really depends on more writers of reliable sources taking the Rand-Aristotle connection more seriously, not on anything in our power. Google Scholar finds 3.1 times as many articles discussing MacIntyre/Aristotle as discussing Rand/Aristotle -- to make a crude oversimplification, that gives MacIntyre 3.1 times the right to appear on the list. Wareh (talk) 23:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, Wareh!! I'm wondering now who was the most influential Aristotalean? Surely it is one of these thinkers: Averroes, Avicenna, Maimonides, or Aquinas. I wonder if it might be too fantastic to research whether the prophet Muhammad was influenced by Aristotle, as Arabia was the center for the study of Aristotle from perhaps the 5th century to somewhere between the 10th-15th century, sometime wherein Aristotaleanism was recentered in Muslim Cordoba. If it turns out Muhammad was influenced by Aristotle, then we could call Ayn Rand's influence meagre -surely there is someone more ethical and more influential than Ayn Rand who has helped carry the banner of Aristotle? Teetotaler 23 June, 2009

Scratch that idea for now, but figured out a much "bigger" and more influential Aristotalean than Rand- Shaquille O'Neal. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Thanks folks, be sure to tip your wait-person. Teetotaler 24 June, 2009

Ayn Rand

The Influenced list of the information template gives a list of classical, medieval and early modern thinkers followed by a general mention to "Islamic philosophy, Jewish philosophy, Christian philosophy, Western philosophy, and science in general". But, in between these two big blocks, guess who appears? Ayn Rand! Sounds like POV, the list is evidently over-exaggerating her importance and using an inadequate way of exposing her name. Hope it can be solved without need of further polemics. --Galio (talk) 19:12, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You're quite right, as the list stood she was given undue emphasis, and her name should not appear unless in the company of a long list of equally or more notable examples of Aristotle's influence on modern thought. I've removed it. Wareh (talk) 19:53, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

IMHO it is clear that Miss Rand should be cited in the article, because

a) She was (is) a notable writer and...

b) She declared to be influenced strongly by Aristotle. I suggest a neutral and concise wording like "Writer Ayn Rand acknowledged Aristotle as a great influence in her work and manifested to be an Aristotelian", or something like that. Randroide (talk) 14:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A list of all notable people who have said they are influenced by Aristotle would be unencyclopedic, so this argument is not to the point; Aristotle's relevance to Rand does not show Rand's relevance to Aristotle.

That said, to my taste, the paragraph mentioning Nietzsche, Heidegger & Macintyre are too hand-wavy about what modern Aristotelianism to be worth including in the article. I could imagine that a survey of the impact of Aristotle on the modern world could introduce Rand's Aristotelianism in a worthwhile way. I don't see how such a treatment could be kind to Rand, however. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A list of all notable people who have said they are influenced by Aristotle would be unencyclopedic

I must disagree.

That people precisely must be cited into the pertinent section, i.e. Aristotle#Legacy.

Before claiming that citing something is "unencyclopedic" I suggest you to read encyclopedia:

An encyclopedia (or encyclopaedia) is a comprehensive written compendium that holds information

It is a piece of information that a notable writer claimed to be strongly influenced by Aristotle, and erasing that piece of information from the "Legacy" section it is precisely what it is "unencyclopedic".

Please suggest your wording to (just) cite Ayn Rand (in a NPOV way) in the "legacy" section or IMHO it would be much more productive for both of us to move to a mediation process. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

My proposal is either to write a section along the lines of "Aristotle's impact on modern thought", possibly in summary style (i.e., most of the content is in a separate article), or omit people like Rand, who's relevance to "Aristotelianism" is unclear, and maybe also Heidegger & Macintyre also on the same grounds.

I don't see why being notable means that any connection one has with another topic needs to be mentioned in that topic's article: if we applied that criteria, this article would become very, very long.

This is a normal talk-page argument, talk of mediation seems premature to me. — Charles Stewart (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Macintyre seems to be referenced, I see no reason to delete him. Ditto for Nietzsche. Heidegger is not, he must go.

Regarding Ayn Rand, Aristotle was not simply a "connection" to her. Rand stated she was an Aristotelian, arguably the most famous self-proclaimed aristotelian of the 20th century. Frankly, I fail to see a reason to do not cite briefly and NPOVishly her in the "Legacy" section in this page.

I also fail to understand why to cite Ayn Rand first requires a summary of other 20th century aristotelians. Is like arguing that to tell something about an issue first you need to tell everything about that issue. Do you have plans to write that summary you mentioned?. Thank you. Randroide (talk) 23:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It would not matter if John Lennon and Pol Pot said they were Aristotelians, that reason alone would not earn them a mention in this article. Everything in the article should inform the reader about Aristotle; the mere fact that so-and-so was Aristotelian is the worst kind of trivia, the kind that can be endlessly augmented.

For me to count a mention of Ayn Rand as worth including in the article, it would need to say something about the kind of Aristotelian she was, and how her Aristotelianism related that of contemporariesThe trouble with Rand is that, while she said many flattering things about Aristotle in general and the Organon in particular, the Organon is well absorbed into modern culture, it is Aristotle's other works that make one distinctively an Aristotelian. And as far as I can see, Aristotle's account of practical reason is anathema to Rand's.

Heidegger's relevance to the modern reception of Aristotle is clear: he is important as a thinker who tried to be systematic in rejecting Aristotle. It's just that the article doesn't say that.

I hadn't planned on writing up such a summary, but you have been making it clear to me why such a text would be worthwhile, so ... — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

An hypothetical sourced claim of Pol-pot claiming himself an Aristotelian would be kosher for this article. There is not an Aristotelian "Pope" certificating this or that guy or gal as a "real" aristotelian or a fake.

Everything in the article should inform the reader about Aristotle

No, no and no. The section we are talking about is "Legacy". We are talking about what happened with Aristotelianism once he died. I am not (of course) proposing to add an Ayn Rand reference at the lead of the article.

For me to count a mention of Ayn Rand as worth including in the article, it would need to say something about the kind of Aristotelian she was, and how her Aristotelianism related that of contemporaries

Fact A: "Ayn Rand claimed to be an Aristotelian" is a fact. Fact B: "Authors X and Y said this and that about Ayn Rand´s claim of being an Aristotelian" is a different fact. Fact C: "Notable individuals Alpha, Beta, Gamma and Delta claimed also to be 20th century aristotelians" is another different fact.

Please explain me why you can not add fact A to the article unless you add facts B and C. In my view what you are proposing is like claiming that an article about a controversial issue must be entirely deleted because is not (still) "balanced" with a "criticism" section. The answer to this preposterous claim is -of course-, Go ahead write and add the criticism section or whatever text you think it is necessary to "balance" or "contextualize" the sourced facts in the article. Facts are facts, and facts are what Wikipedia is about, and that a famous 20th century writer claimed to be an Aristotelian is a fact that belongs in the "Legacy" section. If you want to add more facts about what others said about her Aristotelianism (or lack of it) or about other persons claiming to be aristotelians, that´s fine.

Please note that I not proposing to write "Ayn Rand was an Aristotelian" in the lead section, but "Ayn Ran claimed to be strongly influenced by Aristotle" in the "Legacy" section.

the Organon is well absorbed into modern culture

If sources really state that the Organon is absorbed into modern culture, that would be an excellent addition to the Legacy section. In fact it would be the most important piece of information in that section.

but you have been making it clear to me why such a text would be worthwhile,

I am very glad of spurring you to improve the article. I could not write that section. Thank you Randroide (talk) 09:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Far above, I justified my removal by saying Ayn Rand does not belong on such a short list but would only belong on "a long list of equally or more notable examples of Aristotle's influence on modern thought." Randroide has not really addressed the point that such a list, as part of the encyclopedic treatment of Aristotle, should give the most notable examples of Aristotle's influence on later thinkers: in other words, if there are n thinkers listed, Ayn Rand should be one of the n most notable examples of Aristotle's philosophical influence. (A separate conversation is what number n is reasonable for this purpose.) Even the Ayn Rand article does not mention how any notable idea of Rand's has any connection to Aristotle; it only mentions her study of Aristotle, and that she liked to single out Aristotle as a great philosopher and an influence.

There is a longstanding acknowledgment at Wikipedia: if person B is notable, and person B has gotten involved in the preexisting & greater importance of person A, there is a lower bar for deciding that the connection should be treated in the article on B than that it's part of the encyclopedic interest of topic A. It seems these disputes arise especially when person B is living or followers of person B are editing other articles mainly to promote person B (I want to assume good faith, but Randroide's user name does suggest such a focus, and it is reasonable to say that Randroide's position should attract clear support from editors known not to be, well, Randroids, before being taken up). "An hypothetical sourced claim of Pol-pot claiming himself an Aristotelian would be kosher for this article." This is simply not true, as unearthing a source for this claim would in no way make it notable for the encyclopedic treatment of Aristotle, which is the standard on this page (the article on Aristotle).

Right now, the article Ayn Rand can't even be bothered to make any notable intellectual connection between the two thinkers, not to mention give evidence that the Rand-Aristotle intellectual connection is so notable it has been studied as directly by philosophers as, say, the MacIntyre-Aristotle connection (not to mention the connections still listed in the sidebar: Maimonides, Aquinas, et al.). Such a treatment at Rand's own article would be, at least, the proper forum for introducing reliable sources commenting on the depth and significance of the connection. A sidebar is only meant to summarize the highlights of such major topics. Even if we had more elsewhere on the Rand-Aristotle connection, it would be better to expand the ancillary article Aristotelianism first to give a proportionate overview of Aristotle's 20th-century intellectual legacy; then it can be further condensed and summarized here (in what is already an article that has to struggle to achieve the necessary concision to survey such a vast topic as Aristotle). Wareh (talk) 14:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Far above, I justified my removal by saying Ayn Rand does not belong on such a short list but would only belong on "a long list of equally or more notable examples of Aristotle's influence on modern thought

Sorry but IMHO you justified nothing. In my view, If a fact belongs here in a long list it also belongs in a short one. If you do not like the short list or you think it is "unbalanced", you are kindly invited to expand it.

The claim is not that Ayn Rand was an aristotelian, but that she claimed to be one.

My username is totally irrelevant in this dispute, as any ad hominem.

I requested an editor assistance:Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Talk:Aristotle.23Ayn_Rand. We will see what happens now. Randroide (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Randroid, unless you have a respectable source which explains why Rand has been important to the study of Aristotle, I see no reason at all why she should be included. It seems that Rand simply said a lot of nice things about Aristotle, but she is not considered an expert on his work. Unless you can show that she is an important expert on Aristotle, or that she has had a large influence in academic treatment of Aristotle, this would seem to be a frivolous addition. CABlankenship (talk) 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

IMO it is obvious that scholar sources citing her as an Aristotelian are more than enough to cite Ayn Rand in the "Legacy" section of this article.

Why do I think this?. Because the section we are talking about is "Legacy", and "Legacy" in this context means "something coming from the past". It does NOT mean "Important Aristotelian experts" nor "Fellas with a large influence in the academic treatment of Aristotle".

Here you have (just) some scholarly references citing Ayn Rand as an aristotelian, and therefore as a part of the aristotelian Legacy:

• Chris Matthew Sciabarra wrote: "Ayn Rand is one of the more widely read philosophers of the twentieth century" (page 1) "If Aristotle was the father of dialectical inquiry...then Rand was profoundly correct to view her own system as the heir to Aristotelianism. Ultimately, it might be said that her debt to Aristotle concerns both the form and the content of her thought" ([16], page 19)

• "What sets Rand apart from other critics of Marx is that she is a philosophical/ethical/ political individualist who rejects the claim by Marx that “The human essence is the true collectivity of man” and advances, instead, a neo-Aristotelian theory to the effect that" [17].

• "She (Rand) is clearly, nevertheless, advocating a view consistent with certain contemporary interpretations of Aristotle" (page 7, [18])

• Professor Edward W. Younkins wrote: "Ayn Rand, the best-selling novelist and world-renowned philosopher, has developed a unique philosophical system called Objectivism. Rand bases her metaphysics on the Aristotelian idea that reality is objective and absolute." ([19],page 4)

Randroide (talk) 08:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

People use Aristotelian ideas all the time. I don't see why Rand in particular should be mentioned over the mountains of others who make use of his philosophy. At least find a respectable and authoritative source on Aristotle (such as a major philosophy dictionary or encyclopedia) which mentions Rand's importance to Aristotle's legacy. CABlankenship (talk) 09:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

People use Aristotelian ideas all the time

So what?. What´s the relevance of that assertion to this issue?. Can you source that assertion?. Please source that assertion, because it is an interesting assertion for the "Legacy" section.

I don't see why Rand in particular should be mentioned over the mountains of others who make use of his philosophy

I do not want to mention her "over" no one. I just thik that she should be mentioned.

If you want to add those "mountains of others", please go ahead, because those "mountains" are the right stuff for the "Legacy" section.

"At least find a respectable and authoritative source on Aristotle (such as a major philosophy dictionary or encyclopedia) which mentions Rand's importance to Aristotle's legacy".

Why that requirement?. I cited you 4 scholar sources citing Ayn Rand as an aristotelian, and therefore as part of the Aristotelian Legacy.

"Legacy: ...something coming from the past...a beautiful ~ from the age of Enlightenment"

(Webster´s Third New International Dictionary)

Please read WP:SOURCES. According to that policy the 4 sources I provided are more than enough to cite Ayn Rand. Just read (from WP:SOURCES): In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses

Randroide (talk) 10:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone read my proposal at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Talk:Aristotle.23Ayn Rand? Does anyone have any thoughts about it?

With respect to Randroide's comments, Chris Matthew Sciabarra is a subtle and rigorous thinker, and if he says that Rand has made a contribution to Aristotelian dialectic, then I don't think that we should ignore it. I think that it is absurd to say that Rand advanced an Aristotelian ethical/political viewpoint, and Aristotle clearly was not an individualist, and so I think that the writer that Randroide cited claiming does appear to be very sloppy (though although I have not checked the context Randroide linked to). Jan Łukasiewicz has argued, I believe correctly, that Aristotle's metaphysics is not bivalent, and so not absolutist, and so it follows Younkins is wrong in claiming that Rand's metaphysics is Aristotelian in this regard (Sciabarra, I think, appreciates this point). I think that "advocating a view consistent with certain contemporary interpretations of Aristotle" is a claim so weaselly worded as to not be a claim at all. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

(I take the liberty of pasting here Chalst comments for the sake of continuity and the convenience of having the debate in one page. Please feel free to paste my text at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Talk:Aristotle.23Ayn Rand if there is reason I ignore to have the debate pasted there) Randroide (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The key issue is person A has an interest in topic B: should person A be mentioned in the article that deals with B, where here A is Ayn Rand, and B is Aristotle/Aristoelianism/Aristotle's legacy. I say: no, never, unless there is something about A's interest that helps readers understand the subject matter of B. If I understand them correctly, Wareh says: maybe a few such As are good to include, but we need to have clear limits; and Randroide says: if A is notable, the such inclusions benefit the article on B, regardless of how many such inclusions there are. I think Wareh's position is the top of a slippery slope whose end is Randroide's position, which in turn I believe would, if generally accepted as good policy, have a deeply pernicious effect of wikipedia. I do think there is a way out in this case, without a battle over policy: if editing will can be found, an article perhaps titled Aristotle's impact on modern thought could be started, organised into three sections: pure reason, dealing with the impact of the Organon, the metaphysics and the rhetoric, practical reason, dealing with ethics, politics, &c, and science, dealing with what happened to the Aristotelian scientific tradition. I understand that Rand says that her philosophy of rationality was founded on Aristotle's Organon: this I think would make her relevant to the section on pure reason. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

"Has an interest" is not -by far- an accurate description of the situation, Chalst. Ayn Rand stated that her philosophy was based on Aristotle, she claimed herself and Aristotelian and she is recognized as such by scholarly sources. Therefore, she is citable as part of the Aristotelian legacy.

Chalst wrote: "and so I think that the writer that Randroide cited claiming does appear to be very sloppy ...it follows Younkins is wrong in claiming that Rand's metaphysics is Aristotelian in this regard ...I think that "advocating a view consistent with certain contemporary interpretations of Aristotle" is a claim so weaselly worded as to not be a claim at all"

Thank you for your detailed critique, but I must answer that arguing about sources being right or wrong is entirely pointless: Wikipedia is about what sources say, not about how things really are. If you have or can found sources claiming that Ayn Rand was NOT an aristotelian it would be a welcome addition to add those sources and their claims to the sourced claim that she was.

Charlst wrote: "I think Wareh's position is the top of a slippery slope whose end is Randroide's position".

Plase take a look at the third point of Marxism to see that my (purported) "sloppery slope" is not such, but simply the very encyclopedic policy of citing the influences of one thinker on another thinker.

Regarding Aristotle's impact on modern thought, I think it would be a good idea to create that article and to move here the complete "legacy" section. Current Aristotle is 71kb long, and therefore too long. I suggest also to change "modern thought" for the more inclusive "modern Culture", where we coul maintain the rather interesting piece of trivia about Cheers and even cite the Aristotelian influence on Mr. A and G*d knows what else. Another idea would be to add the "legacy" section (with the Ayn Rand reference) to Aristotelianism. Randroide (talk) 14:38, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

In the last 2300 years there have been a lot of philosophers heavily influenced by Aristotle. I don't think Rand belongs in this article. Dougweller (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

List them. Those philosophers should be referenced somewhere (we are discussing the issue) in Wikipedia. Maybe Aristotle is not the best place, I agree on that (but then all the "Lgacy" section should me moved) Randroide (talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

List them? Anyone doing that would be doing original research - not our role. That would need good sources. Dougweller (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I showed (vide supra) how 30 minutes at google scholar can turn out 4 references claiming that Ayn Rand was an aristotelian. If you have no sources for your claim of other philosophers being influenced by Aristotle, your claim is irrelevant at this venue. Randroide (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be a reply to what I wrote? Because I didn't say I had no sources. I said compiling a list would be OR. It's easy to find sources, 660 on Google Books for "influenced by Aristotle" 962 on Scholar, and much larger numbers for Aristotelian. I'm not saying Rand isn't influenced by Aristotle, I'm saying it isn't important enough for this particular article. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

"Original research" is (among other things) drawing your own conclussion from primary sources. Compiling a list of secondary sources supporting a point is NOT original research. Please read WP:OR.

OTOH I recognize that the placement of the reference to Ayn Rand´s Aristotelianism is open to debate. In which Aristotle-related article do you think that we should cite Ayn Rand as an aristotelian?. Maybe at Aristotelianism?. Randroide (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

A list with a set of objective criteria wouldn't be OR. But I don't see how you would compile such a list without being subjective. Obviously you'd have to have RS saying the subject as influenced by A, but then you would have to decide which subjects were significant/important enough to be on the list. That's where the OR would come in. In answer to your question, if anywhere, she could be mentioned at Aristotelianism. What I don't know is how important Ayn Rand is as an Aristotelian philosopher. Dougweller (talk) 05:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I shall tell you: Important enough as to be mentioned by RS. Sources, not editors, determine what is relevant and what is not.

For instance: 99.999% of the editors at Wikipedia could regard the stability of the Chevrolet Corvair "not important enough to be mentioned". The 0.001% of the editors in the know of the existence of Unsafe at any speed would prove them wrong: A RS decided in the 1960s that the issue was important, and that´s the end of the discussion.

I provided (vide supra) 4 "Unsafe at Any Speed" for Ayn Rand being an Aristotelian. An issue important enough to be mentioned in scholarly sources.

As I see the discussion now, the complete "Legacy" section PLUS the Ayn Rand references should be moved to Aristotelianism. I shall wait to see if there is any further input before making that change. Randroide (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources won't say 'this is relevant to a Wikipedia article' for us that easily. Now, if you have a source that says 'Rand was one of the most important Aristotelians in the 20th century, that would probably work. Your Corvair comparison isn't comparable. And the Legacy section should certainly stay here. But I'll start a new section about that. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

And the Legacy section should certainly stay here

In that case, Ayn Rand should "certainly" be mentioned here. According to relevant sources she is certainly part of the Aristotelian legacy.

Sorry but you can not maintain here a "Legacy" section mentioning Cheers, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Russell, an obscure British philosopher but not Ayn Rand, "one of the more widely read philosophers of the twentieth century" (Chris Matthew Sciabarra dixit, vide supra).

I provided the sources I was asked for. If you want to maintain the "Legacy" section here, it must be including Ayn Rand Randroide (talk) 11:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Rand isn't an important philosopher, but she is certainly a "widely read" novelist. Just to take one example, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy hasn't one single article dedicated to Rand. You mention Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Russell, but it is sheer folly to confuse Rand as being in that class of philosophers. She is virtually ignored in nearly every authoritative work on philosophy. CABlankenship (talk) 12:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to enter into an sterile discussion about what do we consider as "authoritative" or not or about if a particular editor´s favorite Encyclopedia of Philosophy cites Ayn Rand or not. I provided Relevant Scholarly Sources citing Ayn Rand as an Aristotelian. If some editors think that´s not enough to cite her in the "Legacy" section we should move to a Mediation process. Randroide (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

You have given no reason why she should be cited there other than saying she's been cited as an Aristotelian. That doesn't give a mention of her some authoritative right to be in the article. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

More than enough reason to cite her, IMO. For instance, I linked [20] above a book about Ayn Rand´s philosophical thinking edited by the University of Illinois press. But of course you could allegue that the University of Illinois is not "authoritative" enough for your personal tastes. Sorry but seems we have an irreducible disagreement here. I will open a Mediation process if we can not reach some consensus. You could explain there why you think those references are not valid references according to WP:SOURCES. Sorry for the inconvenience.

I offer you three options:

1. Mentioning Ayn Rand in the "Legacy" section. (Out of question. I have just reviewed WP:SIZE)

2. Moving the legacy section with the Ayn Rand reference to other Aristotelian page

3. Mediation.

Please pick one option, or make your own alternative proposals. Randroide (talk) 12:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Just responding to the bit about sources. No where have I denied that Rand is an Aristotelian. There are a lot of 20th century Aristotelians. I don't think you could possibly be suggesting that we mention every 20th century Aristotelian in any of our articles. Now, if you have a good source saying she made a major impact on Aristotelian thought, that would certainly be worth considering. Dougweller (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I read 16 linked names in the "Legacy" section:

Bertrand Russell

Aristoxenus

Dicaearchus

Demetrius of Phalerum

Eudemos of Rhodes

Harpalus

Hephaestion

Meno

Mnason of Phocis

Nicomachus

Theophrastus

Thomas Aquinas

Chaucer

Friedrich Nietzsche

Martin Heidegger

Alasdair MacIntyre

Could you please tell us how many of them have the requisite of "a good source saying they a major impact on Aristotelian thought"?. Could you please tell us why precisely Ayn Rand needs an special requirement to be cited in that section?. Frankly, I do not get it.

Again: The title of the section is not "Philosophers who made a major impact on Aristotelian thought" (your requirement would be fair for that section), but "Legacy", and it is INDISPUTABLE that Ayn Rand is part of the Aristotelian Legacy. Randroide (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Aristotle's impact on modern thought proposal

Randroide finds my proposal acceptable, which ws:

if editing will can be found, an article perhaps titled Aristotle's impact on modern thought could be started, organised into three sections: pure reason, dealing with the impact of the Organon, the metaphysics and the rhetoric, practical reason, dealing with ethics, politics, &c, and science, dealing with what happened to the Aristotelian scientific tradition. I understand that Rand says that her philosophy of rationality was founded on Aristotle's Organon: this I think would make her relevant to the section on pure reason.

What are the objections, if any, to it? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Chalst, could you please explain me (I am ignorant about this issue) if there is an objective criteria for what is "modern". Ayn Rand is modern, Bertrand Russell is modern. Aquinas is not. But, is Nietzsche "modern"?. In the year 2100 (lets assume Wikipedia will exist then), will Ayn Rand still be "modern"?.

Another issue with "Modern": The "Legacy" section should be moved to another article. No question about it. Please read WP:SIZE. The maximun for a readable article is 50kb, Aristotle is 71kb long. Could we just move the "Legacy" section to Aristotelianism?. Seems the better "natural" stopgap option to me, but maybe you have a better idea. The "modern" article could be created in the future. Randroide (talk) 10:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep a legacy section in this article that treats classical, Islamic, and medieval Aristotelianism. I think the most natural division is over Descartes, who is often described as the founder of modern philosophy, although Kant's association with the Enlightenment marls an alternative. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a great article. Personally, I am interested to see what Aristotle's impact on modern thought is, because truthfully, I don't know. I know that our society has moved away from Aristotealean thought since the 19th century, at least in science, or so it seems, or so I have read. Yes, this could be interesting - I say go for it.

I personlly define modern thought as anchored in the centuries. I define modern thought as beginning in the mid 19th century, through the twentieth century, and the new 21st century. This is because of technology, and because, by this time, (the mid-19th century) our cultures, as a whole, have "walked" away from superstious and archaic beliefs. Our cultures have become defined by discoveries of astronomy (distance of stars, spectroscopy}, discoveries of the earth sciences (age of the earth, plate tetonics), discoveries of biology(Darwin's "On the Origin of Species"), disoveries of chemistry (periodic table), and Physics (see Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell}.
Ti-30X (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

There is no living Aristotelian scientific tradition today, but the story of its overthrow should make good reading, and most of the action begins in Descartes time. There's a big overlap with History of scientific method, though - I'd see the science part of the article as just summarising the rise of the scientific method, emphasising the Aristotelian principles, such as hylomorphism that were challenged. And there are places where the tables are turned: the Aristotelian William Harvey advances essentially the modern account of the heart and blood circulation, based on observation, whilst Descartes gets it wrong by prefering abstract principle over evidence. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:53, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On women

Hello. Someone removed the subject of women from the lead, which is fine except that Mr. Aristotle has a couple thousand years head start. I think that reducing his error to one sentence ("passive, lumpen female element") is a mistake. -22:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. A new section in biology expands this a little bit so I have re-added it to the lead as prose. I do not want to get into a revert war but at least the lede is now a summary of the article. How this could have been missed since 2003 in a Wikipedia vital article I don't know. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that the content addition (on coldness) is a good one. I also agree with the sentiments of the edit, namely that Aristotle's attitude to women and the way it was used in the middle ages is hardly desirable. However it is a very minor part of his work (whatever the consequences) so I don;t think it can justify a whole section in the main body (maybe some expansion of the "consequences" section). I can't see how it justifies inclusion in the lede. Can I suggest you make the case here and allow other editors to get involved if you think this is important? --Snowded ^TALK 17:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but it is not a small part of his work. He goofed big--half of all people who ever lived. I am not comfortable with you being the gatekeeper of this article, sorry. Nice to meet you though. I can imagine that Artistotle fans would rather not discuss this. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

"Aristotle fans" seems unnecessarily dismissive. Let's assume we're all in this to provide an accurate and balanced presentation, within the limits of a single article, of Aristotle. "Half of all people who ever lived" is rhetorical: the importance of women in human society does not prove the important place of women within the philosophy and biology of Aristotle. I'm not arguing for elimination -- neither is Snowded -- but the sentence in the lead (Aristotle's influence was so strong that his belief that men are higher beings than women lasted into the sixteenth century) does not pass muster as a carefully crafted part of the lead's overview (Tuana may not be the best source we can find). First of all, the belief referred, stated at this incredible level of generality, began long before Aristotle and long outlived the 16th century. Snowded has rightly made the point that the influence of Aristotle's Medieval authority is out of proportion to the significance the claims have within Aristotle's work. I have no objection to a section on women (though logically it should be a subsection of "Classification of living things" and better integrated with that section; compare the somewhat relevant guideline WP:CRITS), but the legacy material should be removed from the biology section (it has precisely nothing to do with Aristotle's biological theory) and incorporated in "Legacy" at the end of the article. Wareh (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I am happy with this article if a section stays with the word "women" in it (or "female"). I understand the three revert rule is a problem, sorry about that. I don't mind it being removed from the lead if it stays in the table of contents, and I would guess in biology. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Firstly I'm not a gatekeeper, we all have equal status here. However you are proposing changes so the onus, if there is an objection, is for you to bring the issue here for discussion. For the record, I am not a fan of Aristotle, neither do I agree with his view of women, or many things. The point is that this is an encyclopaedia and we need to represent what he said. Otherwise I agree with Wareh. --Snowded ^TALK 19:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. I removed this from the lead. I see no problem at all with the section staying in biology. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I left the material, but I don't think the sub-heading is appropriate here. I think Wareh's idea is a good one. Take out the sentence and the paragraph on women, and create a new expanded sub-section in legacy. How about that? --Snowded ^TALK 20:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sure. I prefer to keep it at the source of the error (Generation of Animals and the Great Chain of Being is his biology I guess). -SusanLesch (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Where is the section titled "Women"? I restored it. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Susan its not agreed, you need to get consensus here before changing the article where there is disagreement. Please make the case here rather than simply reverting your personal preference. --Snowded ^TALK 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me, I thought that is what this thread was for. I reject it (and what you posted on my talk page) because it is not a fair deal. For a B class article, a sourced addition doesn't need approval. -SusanLesch (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

All articles no matter what their class require consensus for any change. You can't simply decide to make a change if other editors disagree. --Snowded ^TALK 21:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Anybody else? I am tired and not willing to argue. Six years since 2003 without this is too long. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you added (which was cited) is still there. The sub-title "Women" is however inappropriate as its not the only topic there. --Snowded ^TALK 22:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Added more. This is so high level that it says very little but I hope deserves a section as discussed above. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I really wish you would discuss things here first. --Snowded ^TALK 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For some reason that I am missing, you don't want this section in biology. Then why don't you move it to legacy? -SusanLesch (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

What I would really like is for you to discuss changes on the talk page first! At the moment two sentences does not justify a sub-heading. Given that those sentences both (legitimately) comment on modern day implications I have moved it to the legacy section per clear consensus here. --Snowded ^TALK 06:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Other opinions

Can we have some other editors comment on the above? At the moment we have an editor who's response to requests to discuss things on the talk page is simply to edit the main article with the odd extra sentence and reference. To my mind, while cited this is in the wrong place and should be moved to the Legacy section. It does not justify a subheading in Biology. I'm sorely tempted to revert the whole thing back to the last stable version to be honest. --Snowded ^TALK 00:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Might be better placed in the Legacy section. CABlankenship (talk) 01:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

criticism section

most other philosophers have this section, while here it doesn't exist. is there a particular reason for that? 79.101.174.192 (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

See the guideline WP:CRIT. Many consider (though there is disagreement) that it is better to have various views of a subject integrated into the various topical subdivisions of the article. This article does have a "Legacy" section, which certainly does and should include positive and negative views of Aristotle's thought and influence. Wareh (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section

a. “... many of Aristotle's errors held back science considerably.” Philosophy, Science, and human knowledge in general, can't be held back without the means of external executive force. If this was possible, any former theory (regardless of its value) would present an obstacle for any later. Newton would have been accused of holding back physics in the same way. Regarding Russell’s quote, reacting against ones tradition, or rejecting (attacking) a doctrine of his, is a build off of him. If a new way of thinking hasn’t emerged since a given time, it’s because mankind was unable to produce it – simple as that.

b. “... it is on these grounds that Aristotle is considered by some feminist critics to have been a misogynist” In a logical article concerning the founder of logic, this statement is irrelevant. Aristotle’s perception of women couldn’t have been different – it would have been impossible for him to think of this matter as we now do, in the 21th century. We should always consider the time-frame and social structure of any given historical period, when we try to categorize like that. Aristotle also has stated that taller men are idiots, comparative to shorter men, since blood loses its way to the head. Would we also consider him to be a fascist, promoting a society of shorter human beings, casting away taller humans? Aristotle also didn’t have a clue regarding existence of Z0-boson. How sad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thaalis (talk • contribs) 11:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

On b, isn't there a standard comparison made between A's and Plato's attitudes? I don't think that it is that easy to be deterministic about misogynist attitudes within the context. DionysosProteus (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Eleatic principle?"

In the section on Aristotle's metaphysics, in the course of discussing his theory of universals, we come across this sentence: "One way for contemporary philosophers to justify this position is by asserting the eleatic principle." I'm afraid I'm having some trouble making sense of this. I've been a student of philosophy (especially Greek philosophy) for some time now, but I'm not sure what is meant by this "eleatic principle." I'm guessing it has something to do with Parmenidean monism, but I fail to see how it's relevant to the question transcendent vs immanent realism, or how a contemporary philosopher might make use of it. I'm removing this quote unless someone can give good reason for it. T of Locri (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Scientific Method Section

I removed the picture of the Perseid meteor. Someone put it in originally so I guess there was a sense that it was of value, but I don't see its relevance. There is a nearby discussion mentioning stars in the Milky Way, but nothing about meteors. Besides, merely mentioning the Milky Way doesn't seem to warrant a picture of it, unless the picture shows something about the ideas being presented...which this did not. Leave a note here if you disagree with me. Taquito1 (talk) 03:06, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Atoms

When did Aristole have his effect on the atom ==  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.3.25.1 (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC) 

Better IN TEXT Citations Please and Who Copied Who?

This article has paragraphs and paragraphs of allegedly accurate information that does not refer to any sources. I am sure much of this information can be found in the list of references at the bottom, but it is important that the paragraphs be properly linked with superscript numbers to their respective sources.

Also, was it users of Wikipedia who wrote this article first? Or was this article ripped directly (word for word) from many other online sites? It is hard to trace the timestamps, if someone could verify this, that would be great. As you know, information cannot be copied word for word from other sources unless explicitly quoted. Adding to the confusion, sources and references are inconsistent between websites that contain this exact information word for word. Onixz100 (talk) 08:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Then why not find and put in some of those references or do the investigation --Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Eastern Orthodox?

This entry states that Aristotle had an especially strong influence on Eastern Orthodox theology. That line is not footnoted and has no source. Many Roman Catholic Church doctrines, especially the filioque, Purgatory, etc. developed out of Aristotelian reason, but this movement met considerable resistance in the Eastern Orthodox Church and contributed greatly to the split in 1054. This line should be explained, footnoted, or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdouglasj (talk • contribs) 15:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

logic for creating human generation on earth

What is the logic for creating human generation on earth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.220.67 (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really the place to ask questions about Aristotle that don't pertain to his wikipedia article. The Humanities reference desk may be able to help you though. Pollinosisss (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)