I just finished my Plato phase. Now I want to move onto Aristotle.

I just finished my Plato phase. Now I want to move onto Aristotle. If I were to read only 2-3 of his dialogues which would you rec? I may read all of him if I like what he says like with Plato but if I’m not enjoying what I’m reading I think it would be dumb to waste my time on him. Mainly I’m interested in Aristotle to try and counterbalance I guess some of my reverence for Plato since I’ve heard they’re like foils.

  1. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    You shouldn't because he's obsolete. This isn't a troll post, it's simply a fact.

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/PSReKhp.jpg

      I just finished my Plato phase. Now I want to move onto Aristotle. If I were to read only 2-3 of his dialogues which would you rec? I may read all of him if I like what he says like with Plato but if I’m not enjoying what I’m reading I think it would be dumb to waste my time on him. Mainly I’m interested in Aristotle to try and counterbalance I guess some of my reverence for Plato since I’ve heard they’re like foils.

      Adding to what I just wrote, if you're a historian of philosophy you should read all his works. If you're interested in actually doing philosophy then you should learn about syllogistic logic and then promptly ignore it or laugh at anyone who uses it.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        I just told you to read >Aristotle: The Desire to Understand then start and finish with Metaphysics. You will do what I say.

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          I didn't know jannies were allowed to post while logged in.

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            I'm a fed, not a janny. i just don't get paid enough to give you bad advice.

            Sometimes when one of my students is unruly and doesnt read I force them to break in a new pair of my boots in detention. Can get quiet painful.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              Cearly a tranny.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                I'm The Authoritarian Personality Adorno tried to warn you about you stupid nagger.

              • 7 days ago
                Anonymous

                So, a tranny

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        I'm reading Organon -> De Anima -> Metaphysics because I'm interested in metaphysics
        If the Organon is too dry for you I would at least read the Stanford pages on his Categories, Prior Analytics, and Posterior Analytics.
        I'm on De Anima now and unlike Plato his work is pretty dry generally but very important. His work on logic and form is incredibly important for understanding later philosophers like Kant and even Heidegger. His Metaphysics is pretty important too.
        And that's not to mention the Scholastics, Muslims, and medieval philosophy in general.
        Don't listen to homosexual pseuds like

        • 6 days ago
          Anonymous

          Nicomachean Ethics is good too. Seconding what

          sorry you get shit answers op, but aristotle also didn't write dialogues

          anyway, you should read nicomachean ethics, de anima, and metaphysics in that order, or long as you read metaphysics last

          said.

          • 6 days ago
            Anonymous

            tbh i don't recommend nicomachean ethics because it will help you understand aristotle or because it has important ideas, but only because you need something to prepare you for metaphysics in terms of stomaching the style of these lecture notes, it's to develop the mental resiliency... in fact, nothing can prepare you for understanding the actual concepts of metaphysics, except learning ancient greek and reading plato 20 times

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        >proceed to laugh at everyone who uses logic

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      yeah you dont need to read him. Read this summary
      >Aristotle: The Desire to Understand, Leir
      then decide what you want to do.
      I only recommend Metaphysics.

      [...]
      Adding to what I just wrote, if you're a historian of philosophy you should read all his works. If you're interested in actually doing philosophy then you should learn about syllogistic logic and then promptly ignore it or laugh at anyone who uses it.

      At least give me one dialogue. I just want some direct exposure to him for myself.

      • 7 days ago
        Anonymous

        I just told you what to do, you absolutely retard. Are you a historian or are you looking to do actual philosophy?

        • 7 days ago
          Anonymous

          Neither I just want to read and be exposed to ideas :/

          • 7 days ago
            Anonymous

            Then read and expose yourself to ideas.

            Go and read Bertrand Russells introduction to western philosophy. Anyone who may have any valuable information to give you will be too busy reading and exposing themselves to ideas to give a shit about you.

            • 7 days ago
              Anonymous

              Bertrand Russel is gay lol

      • 6 days ago
        Anonymous

        very odd seeing this post as I am in the exact same boat as you
        it seems we are in sync anon

        Seconding Nicomachean Ethics, but my personal favorite is Politics especially if you're coming off of Plato

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      There's only a partially intact dialogue of Aristotle's (Protrepticus) so your question is invalid, but I'll try to answer it anyway: I don't recommend starting with the Practical works like Rhetoric, Poetics like I did. In retrospect I would recommend:
      Start with the Categories, it's very short but also extremely foundational. Then as much of the Organon as you can stomach. Then move on to the Nicomachean Ethics. Then finally you will be well disposed to get the most the practical works Rhetoric, Poetics, and Politics.

      Who is the least obsolete and why?

  2. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    yeah you dont need to read him. Read this summary
    >Aristotle: The Desire to Understand, Leir
    then decide what you want to do.
    I only recommend Metaphysics.

  3. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    read the nicomachean ethics. there's no great place to start with aristotle but that's one of the better ones

  4. 7 days ago
    Anonymous

    very odd seeing this post as I am in the exact same boat as you
    it seems we are in sync anon

    • 7 days ago
      Anonymous

      Start with Aristotle: The Desire to Understand
      then finish with Metaphysics, or follow other reading advice given in the book. Dont waste your time picking random Aristotle stuff in an unstructured study approach.

      A few years ago, after reading many of Plato’s dialogues, I decided to try tackling Aristotle and got the Modern Library Basic Works. But where to start? With Plato it’s fairly easy – early, then middle, then late dialogues, and beginning with those centered on Socrates’ death. And Plato’s a literary great – his art draws you into his philosophy. Aristotle’s a far harder case: his extant works are probably lecture notes, famously dry. And there’s no obvious point of entry or sequence of study. But concepts that are spread throughout his work are integral to an understanding of the parts and the whole.
      Book starts with Aristotle’s view of man as a rational animal, having a desire to understand - the product (and reflection, more or less) of an intelligible cosmos. So this desire is integral to the nature of the cosmos. Lear very clearly explains Aristotle’s complex and nuanced causality – something pretty foreign to the modern mind . Lear takes us through fundamental Aristotelian concepts from his Physics – the nature and structure of the physical cosmos and of time and change (critical issues in Pre-Socratic philosophy), of life (from the biological works) and the soul and mind. Then ethics and the good life (primarily from the Nicomachean Ethics and Politics), leading through the logical works (a great achievement) to the heart of the Metaphysics.
      It gets dense here, but Lear’s paved the way brilliantly. This last part revolves around substance and essence; Aristotle’s God, his activity and relationship to the cosmos; the concept that all things “desire” God, however unconsciously, and are most fully actualized in pursuing this desire; and that man is most fully actualized, paradoxically, by transcending his nature (as a political and social, i.e. ethical, animal) and becoming the most God-like he can be through the contemplative life.

      Dont fuck casually around with Aristotle. It will get you nowhere. (yes, its because you are stupid)

  5. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    sorry you get shit answers op, but aristotle also didn't write dialogues

    anyway, you should read nicomachean ethics, de anima, and metaphysics in that order, or long as you read metaphysics last

    • 6 days ago
      Anonymous

      >sorry you get shit answers op, but aristotle also didn't write dialogues
      He did, but only the Protrepticus survives at any length, everything's in fragments.

  6. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Ethics->politics->Rhetoric
    Is what I have read and I enjoyed them quite a bit. Understanding his underlying metaphysics would help to understand him (things like telos which he has in mind for everything.) There is maybe some merit in reading his metaphysics if you don't have any experience with Aristotle. He was the foundation for Western philosophy and catholic thought up until Descartes so knowing him is kinda important. Anyone anon saying he is not, is lying to u or themselves

  7. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Skip everyone and jump right to Marx and Marcuse

  8. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    >Aristotle
    >Dialogues

    I wish, aparantly his dialogues were even more beautifully written than Plato's, but they are lost to time. As everybody and their grandmother knows: we only have Aristotles' 'lesson preparations' or something of that kind.

    If you're going to read Aristotle, know that it's very different from Plato's dialogues: it's a lot more 'dry', and every sentence can be unpacked and is very dense. You can litterally spend an entire three hour college class and focus mostly on a couple of sentences in a single alinea. Howevery he writes very clearly and plainly, and it's usually structured clearly as well so you know what he's doing. He set the medieval scholastic trend of checking out and evaluating different contradictory opinions on a topic, and then drawing his conclusion.

    Definately read the ethics and politics, those are reasonably 'complete', accessible, and very very important and valuable. Then move on to something less finished and more obscure if you still have an appetite, like his unfinished work on the soul.

  9. 6 days ago
    Anonymous

    Not sure why no one here has recommended Posterior Analytics apart from vaguely hinting at the Organon. That book is really useful as the basic epistemological ground of everything he has written in the other works, namely the three books that keep popping up, Ethics, De Anima and Metaphysics. Don't bother with the Prior though because it is mainly an exposition of syllogisms and the complete array of them.

Your email address will not be published.