I have been studying Avicenna's Metaphysics, and it would be a lot easier if I had a clearer understanding of Aristotle and the Aristotelian Curriculum. It would be especially helpful to have a better understanding of his concepts of accidents forms and causes.

When it came to understanding Heidegger, the book that really opened him up to me was Lee Braver's Heidegger: Thinking of Being. I am looking for an equivalent book on Aristotle. Can anyone recommend one, a book that really clarified Aristotle's thinking for you?

Is anyone interested in discussing the politics of aristotle, maybe in a discord server?

For my EPQ i am writing an essay on whether Aristotle's ideas of tragedy apply to modern media. Game of Thrones is one of my favourite shows and it happens to be a tragedy. I was wondering who, in Aristotle's ideas, would be the tragic hero, tragic villain and tragic victim(s). Aristotle said a Tragic hero can't be totally good or purely evil but instead is a character 'between the two extremes', in my eyes daenerys starts the series as a totally good character, so does this mean she is not the Tragic hero, but someone more like Tyrion would be? as Tyrion is consistently a morally grey character. And then the tragic villain, would it be cersei or the night king? in most tragedies the villain prevails, i've seen speculation from before s8 that bran is the night king and that would work well with this idea of the tragic villain, but i don't know. Similarly, i have no idea who the tragic victims would be, they are characters bought down by the hamartia of the hero, i initially thought ned stark to be a tragic victim but he is bought down by his own flaws. so in the tragdey of game of thrones, who is the tragic hero, the tragic villain and the victims? or does game of thrones not comply to these rules? and if you have any suggestions of other modern tragedies that conform the aristotle's ideas that would be very helpful!!

I'm really interested in the different commentaries of Aristotle, but I dont really know where and how to start, since there are so many, and most of them are fragmentary, especially since I can't read latin or ancient greek. So, my guestion in more general terms is the following: How can I navigate among the vast tradition of Aristotle commentaries? I choose the Organon specifically because I feel like it might be the best place to start, as is usually advised when it comes to reading Aristotle by himself.

I just read Aristotle's Politics I, and aside from the really horrifying points about slavery being natural, one thing that intrigued me was his classification of household-> village -> city-state. Seeing as Aristotle lived within a context where the city-state was the largest perceivable unit, do you think he would have included the nation-state as the largest part of his hierarchy if he lived in a modern context? What would he have thought of globalization, considering that the Polis was supposed to be self-sufficient?

Hello all, I would just like to make sure I have the proper understanding of happiness through an Aristotelian paradigm. I've recently started reading Nicomachean Ethics, and I've recieved this much from book one:

My understanding is that, everything is ordained to its final end, like how a charger is ordained to charging. But these ends are still not the most final end. The most final end is happiness, which has a supremacy over other things like pleasure and wealth. This is because the human seeks happiness for itself and nothing else, whereas things like pleasure and wealth are seeked as a means for happiness, but not vice versa.

Is that the proper understanding for Aristotle's view of happiness?

Please tell me if this is right or wrong. I seriously don't know and need help.

States of Character (External Observable)

1. virtue, vice
2. continence, incontinence
3. heroic, brutality

Excellence or Virtue (Internal States)

1. Courage
2. Generosity
3. Justice

When I read Nicomachean ethics, I felt like there was some naivety that the golden mean is the correct choice.

I can idealize this person, and they are not ready for a rare event like Hitler invading Czechoslovakia.

I suppose this is my criticism of Nicomachean ethics, it prioritizes happiness over pain/risk avoidance. I think there are choices in life where you need to decide between the two, potentially bordering on paranoia for security.

When I choose my virtues I like that added security.

I’m working my way through the Nicomachean Ethics for the first time. I’m reading the Ross translation. I’m almost at the end of book one, and I must say that I find it hard going. I feel like I am only picking up bits and pieces, but am struggling to really grasp what Aristotle is saying. I certainly cannot explain or summarize his ethical system or most of his arguments at the moment.

Part of me wonders if I am not as smart as I thought I was.

Another part of me thinks that I’m just undisciplined and impatient due to having far superior reading abilities as a child for my age and mostly coasting all the way to a college degree, and this is probably a text that is inherently difficult and requires multiple readings and slow chewing on the text to grasp.

Yet another part of me wonders if the difficulty is in the translation I am reading.

Yesterday I was discussing Genesis with my wife and we thought we should look at it through the lens of man discovering logos. We also mentioned a Promethean comparison and arrived at the same conclusions

I wanna hear some

This is something new I'm working on and relates to the idea of The Word (The Logos) being associated with creation and with Christ.
https://substack.com/@geminizadkiel/p-149112477
If you have any thoughts or feedback, things I may have missed in terms of philosophy or anything I might want to cite relating to the Logos, please let me know!

Although I enjoy political philsophy, is politics necessary for political philosophy or does its ideas hold up today?

*Word*

I was reading Nicomachean Ethics, and when Aristotle was talking about virtues of the soul, he said that wisdom is a combination of 'scientific knowledge' and practical thinking. 'scientific knowledge' which is about things that cannot be different, and practical thinking which is of things that can be different.

In the world "Reasonable", the 'reason' seems to be the thing that is constant, that cannot be different, and -able the part that can be different. Something cannot be more or less reason, but something can be more or less -able.

I just found that interesting.

Edit:

Don't know how the 'L' got there. It is on the other side of the keyboard than 'r' and 'd', maybe muscle memory.

Any expert in Aristotle interested in an interview for a little puppet show?

I’m a college student for Audiovisual Direction and am doing a pilot for a show about Love, Puppets and philosophy and am looking for different outlooks on the topic, would any expert be interested?

Hello, I am looking to purchase second-hand copies of any of the Clarendon Aristotle Series or any of the Oxford Aristotle Studies. Please PM if you are interested in selling your copies of either series. Thank you!

I recently came across an paper defending/affirming this claim. I want to read more on this, see some replies, but there were none as far as i can tell. for the aristotelians and to anyone who is familiar with aristotle ideas and his followers/disciples/tradition, what do you say?

Anyone else that living by the Nicomachean Ethics and all things Aristotle also secretly(or not so secretly) into Nietzsche. Is this like a yin-yang thing or is there a good reason for this?

So I have taught US Govt and Texas Govt in high schools and college. And I try to instill a seed to Aristotelean thinking whenever I teach. I recently took a position in Middle School (to give me a robust academic foundation to prepare for moving into Administration).

Does anyone know of good resources that allow putting Aristotle into digestible mediums suitable for middle schoolers?

TIA. (FWIW, I will be teaching Texas History primarily this year.)