HTML Books

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.

PHYSICS--Aristotle addresses the "why" questions. Aetia= causes, there are 4 causes. Only 1 cause actually sounds what like we call a cause today. A better translation is "explanation." 4 ways to explanations. Arche=origins/principles, something that is 1st, or rule, or, commanding, or beginning. Thus 1st thought that leads us to understand something and how we proceed. Begin how we think and rule or govern how we think. Phusis= "nature," like physics. He understands nature differently than we do today. For Aristotle the planets orbits never change so not part of nature. Everything below the moon, "lunar," is nature. Thus everything below lunar is not perfect and goes through change. Phusis root= to grow or bloom. Thus, emerging like birth. This term has to do with movement and change. Also connected to "coming to light." Also, connected to "being."

Physics (nature) is an arche (rule) of motion and change. Concept of physics (nature) has to do with motion and change. Paramedes denies change. Aristotle takes umbrage with this. Plato says change is a deficient condition; Aristotle is against both men's notion of change.
IMPORTANT--Aristotle talks about how we talk about how we talk about change all the time. Aristotle says no such things as "being" itself. For Aristotle there is change we always talk about it.

Potentiality and actuality- 2 terms that dominate Aristotle's thinking. Change is potentiality to actuality. Potentiality is a "not yet." He criticizes premises of philosophers for denying or denigrating change. His physics is his thought to explain change. Ousia can't mean something unchanging, it is always a changing phenomena. For Aristotle and the Greeks the "world" has no beginning or end it is always here. No God or creator. Big and small are opposites, but are only conceptual. Small things become big Aristotle sees this. Our language is the guide here. The fact that there is change doesn't mean it is chaotic, you plant a seed, and it grows from small to big, this is normal change.

3 senses Aristotle uses phusis or nature. IMPORTANT- 1. "Always or for the most part." 2. Telos-end, purposes. 3. Movement is self-generated toward something. When a seed falls to the ground it grows and moves towards growing. Contrast Phusis with techne="produce something by humans." Both have to do with change and movement. 1 is self-moving, 1 is moved by us. Trees are not brought into being by themselves; beds out of trees are made by us. What is a bed? For Aristotle it has no nature or physics, it can have an essence. Everything other than Techne "things of production" are physics, nature. It is natural that humans have productive capacity and skills. Techne and physics are distinguished to understand change. Aristotle is important in philosophy and science because he uses language of science. He sees that change is internal within phusis in their own nature, not from myth or storytelling.

His phenomenology says our primary access to things is the "whole" like a dog, once we analyze them we can break them down. This is different from the premises of philosophers who believed in "inarticulate wholes." This is a dramatic difference from Platonists and atomists ideas. Atomist says all things made up of individual stuff like atoms. Aristotle is against atomist doesn't accept describing atoms as real. Like atomist the "whole" or dog is real for him. He isn't a Darwinist because the earth is always the way it was, is and will be. He talks about elements earth, fire, water, air.

IMPORTANT- For Aristotle, "being" of a thing comes 1st, knowledge 2nd. He says knowledge comes to rest in the soul. The soul is calmed by knowledge. When the soul or the mind comes to rest this is out of a natural turbulence of the mind. When he says "by nature" it is intrinsic in us we are by nature turbulent like children, this is part of us. Knowledge achieves calming it emerges out of the turbulence like "wonder."

Techne and physics are not opposites they are distinct different ways to explain movement. Both parts of our world can illuminate each other. He doesn't have idea of a creator God but understands if their were nature it would come by way of god. He says nature is self-manifesting. Techne completes nature (physics) Art doesn't quite imitate nature but talking about shapes like a bed or cave like a house. More like impersonates nature. Craft or Techne our natural capacity to make things, we are elated by being able to craft we do have to be taught to produce things. When we build houses, we are completing something nature can't do. Today, modern science rejects idea "nature" has a purpose. Thus, Aristotle doesn't see physics, nature and techne craft as that different.

Aitia=Causes better definition is "explanation."

1. Material Cause, answers question "out of what"
2. Formal Cause, answers question "into what"
3. Efficient Cause, answers question "from what"
4. Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what"

Qua= Latin for "as." We understand something by questions we ask. He uses ordinary language. This arms us with information to look at whatever phenomena by deduction. Fill in the 4 causes and categories and then you have knowledge.

IMPORTANT- Most important is #2 the Formal cause. Efficient and Final cause fall under it. Usually he uses artifacts crafted by man to explain this. Example of a house:

1.Material Cause, answers question "out of what" Wood
2.Formal Cause, answers question "into what" A certain shape of house
3.Efficient Cause, answers question "from what" the builder
4.Final Cause, answers question "for what, or toward what" to provide shelter

Things of phusis can be explained by 4 causes a little tricky. Form isn't just shape for Aristotle.
He uses different works for form, like logos = ordering, or pattern, or structure, in this case, organization in living things it is richer our bodies are our being cause. A corpse is no longer organized for a functioning body. Same with material cause. Aristotle distinguishes between wood or real matter and less tangible, he uses idea of material cause thus doesn't just mean stuff like matter. Thus, in his book Politics, what is the material of the polis? The citizens. Material is just a way to explain it. The word matter works like "What subject matter are you taking"? Thus, Aristotle uses matter in the rich and varied linguistic way. Thus, he provides guides and 4 categories and causes to gain knowledge. He thinks his approach is an improvement over Plato and pre-Socratics like materialists.

IMPORTANT- Everything is what it is in combination of matter and form in the world except God. There is a difference between dogs and beds, thus he is against the atomists. If you don't know what a cake is ahead of time you don't ever get to the molecular structure to get you there. To talk about matter without form is to miss something. Any 4 causes alone doesn't work, all together give an apt account of how things are. Modern science breaks with him on #4 the Final cause; scientists say this doesn't exist in nature.

For Aristotle, if it is evident and real in nature it must be real. The Telos shouldn't be understood as "push pull." Understanding can shift based on different issues and topics so Aristotle is a "pluralist." Never think of telos, or end, or purpose as "design." Not all forms of telos are "conscious design" for Aristotle. There is no intelligent design of nature for Aristotle. (No God). He rejects it, no beginning, or end of nature. However, he believes nature has purposeful elements to it, so it is mind like. Therefore, when we think purposefully we are not violating nature. We are rational animals. There is no mind before or behind nature. For Aristotle idea of telos is built into nature. Aristotle's idea of an unmoved, mover is archaic. He believes that movement in nature must ultimately come to stop, can't go to infinity, thus unmoved mover. This is his idea of God. Doesn't mean first cause or creator but more a "draw" not a "push" like draw of a lover. Thus, he doesn't believe in universal laws of motion. This is a limitation in his philosophy.

IMPORTANT-Basic distinction between matter and form, form has efficient and final cause as subsets. Matter and form are separable in analysis but not in reality. Two sides of the same coin, always present together. You can't have a sculpture without matter like clay. Aristotle criticizes Plato and others for delinking form and matter. Form isn't just shape, form is structure and organization. Corpse has same shape as a human but Aristotle says, "The form is gone in the corpse" so form is more than shape. Matter is unknowable; form gives us something that we can gain knowledge with, example a hunk of clay vs. a bowl.

Bottom line of modern physics and science is math, Newton, Kant, etc. said this. Thus, H2O is proportions of elements. A "towards which" is not a phenomena to examine. Here he is saying math is legitimate form of knowledge but it is not primary way or status of understanding how things are. Natural motion has nothing to do with line and math, etc. for Aristotle. One can't explain natural motion with math. We never come across geometric shapes in nature. Form is natural phenomena but different from mathematical form. Thus, you can't understand nature by math, as primary knowledge only secondary. For Plato, math is real for Aristotle they only help explain nature.

I recommend Aristotle's works to anyone interested in obtaining a classical education, and those interested in philosophy. Aristotle is one of the most important philosophers and the standard that all others must be judged by.

This is a fine review of an excellent book, "The Oslo Syndrome," by Kenneth Levin. In that book, Levin said that the Oslo disaster was in part due to the fact that some Jews thought they could achieve peace through a policy of appeasement, including false confessions to the accusations of their enemies.

As Edward Alexander explains, Levin shows the viewpoints of an array of Israeli leaders, many of whom seriously believed that Arafat and his thugs would display some unprecedented moderation. And Alexander points out that while in the United States, those who would be prepared to engage in such ill-advised appeasement "are confined to universities and a few other institutions," in Israel, they have great power in the government. That's why Israel had to learn the hard way that given what looks like a choice between appeasement and war, one can easily get both.

I recommend this review. Interested readers may want to look at my own Amazon review of Levin's book as well.

i have read the article, i am interested in the article,so i want to download it ,thanks!

This article gives a good insight into why wines are hard to buy, and what wineries should and could to improve the way we choose. I wonder why this kind of "this is why it matters" research is not done into more product categories.

This is a good review, by Fern Sidman, of an atrocious book by former American President Jimmy Carter, a man I am ashamed to admit that I voted for.

Sidman accurately calls Carter's book "a one-sided, totally skewed and highly subjective piece of Arab propaganda." And she makes a good point when she reminds us that Carter devotes quite a bit of time to complaining about Israel's security barrier. After all, I think it does not take much wisdom to realize that this barrier serves two useful purposes. First, it saves lives, by reducing the number of suicide bombing attacks directed against Israelis. And second, when someone does manage to get past that barrier, it is unlikely that they can claim to have crossed it unintentionally!

My own feeling is that those who strongly oppose the security barrier probably are unhappy about the fact that it is saving lives. Sidman is more than justified in saying that "Carter displays no understanding or sympathy for Israelis whose lives have been snuffed out" by the terrorists.

Sidman concludes that Carter's book is an egregious attack on Israel and the Jewish people. I agree. And I recommend this review of Carter's book.

We've heard plenty about a right of Arab refugees to "return" to Israel. But does it have anything to do with international law? If not, then I wonder just what "right" people have to destroy a nation? If it is a right under international law, then in my opinion we all need to vastly improve international law so that it is consistent with the continued existence of civilization.

The first topic that Robbie Sabel discusses in this article is the responsibility for the refugee problem. And while many Arabs want Israel to accept that responsibility, Sabel indicates that the Arab refugee problem would not have existed had there been no Arab attack on Israel. I think that's debateable, given that many Arabs fled the area before there was much fighting, but I agree that we ought not blame the refugee problem on Israel.

Next we see the issue of just who is considered to be a Levantine Arab refugee. At least 90% of those who are granted that status by the UNRWA have never lived in territory that is now Israel!

Do these people have a right to "return" to Israel? Sabel explains that if they do, it has to be either by some sort of treaty obligation of Israel's or a rule of customary international law. But the only treaty obligation of Israel that is relevant requires it to honor the right of return of Israeli nationals. The Levantine Arabs clearly do not qualify. In addition, that right applies only to individuals, not to populations en masse. And the individual Levantine Arabs (with very few exceptions) have no desire to become loyal Israeli citizens!

Some people mention UN resolution 194, but as the author explains, UN General Assembly resolutions cannot create international law. States are in no way obliged to comply with resolutions such as 194.

On the other hand, if all states tended to accept the idea of a return of hostile people who fled in the past, there would be a "right of return" in customary international law. And states clearly do no such thing. As Sabel reminds us, Muslims who fled India for Pakistan have no right to return to India, and Sudeten Germans have no right of return to the Czech Republic.

The article concludes with some recommendations, none of which I agree with. Still, I am awarding five stars to Sabel, just for coming up with an honest, sincere, and scholarly work.

Cole begins his article by telling of a Jew who returned to his old house in Germany, four decades after escaping from it in the 1930s. He and his daughter asked if they could go inside, but were roughly told no. Yet a bunch of Arabs think that they can't be told no, and that they have a right to not only visit but reclaim their old homes!

I find this demand to go back to these old homes absurd. Maybe those who actually owned the homes have some legal claim, but even then, I think we ought to be talking about monetary compensation through the present court system. But to me it is ludicrous for people who merely lived in a house to simply steal it from the present occupants. After all, the present occupants are the legal owners. They've paid all the property taxes and made all the improvements. Those who claim to be heirs of the ones who fled were never the owners. Why ought they have any claim?

I think the reason some folks say that these Arabs have a genuine claim is because the present owners are Jews, and some people think it would be fun to cheat some Jews, even if they need to toss truth, justice, and human rights out the window to do so.

Cole explains that Arab demands for Israel to honor such claims will sink any negotiations. Well, he was writing in 2001, and he was right.

The author also points out that Arabs are citing UN Resolution 194 as a basis for this absurd claim. But even this resolution merely says that refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors ought to be permitted to do so when practicable. That resolution was never agreed to by Israel, was never practicable, and it is ancient history by now. Besides, asks Cole, when have these refugees ever agreed to live at peace with their neighbors?

If Arabs are supposed to be able to displace Jews like this, what principle is being followed? There have been millions of refugees from the 1940s, and none of them have ever obtained any such rights. Certainly not the Jews of Europe or of Arab lands. Nor the Germans of Europe. Cole carefully explains that Germany has unambiguously rejected any notion of a right of return for the over 12 million German refugees and their 60 million descendants.

There are some organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the National Council of Churches who seem to sympathize with the idea of a "return" of Levantine Arabs to Israel. Cole thinks these groups are profoundly naive. I think that's an understatement. I think the demand for a return is an insult to our species, and if implemented, it would set a terrible precedent. It would simply be a bald-faced way to get rid of Jewish rights in the Levant, and that would be followed by getting rid of human rights elsewhere. Human Rights Watch would be out of business, and the National Council of Churches would become an active opponent of human rights in general.

This is an excellent article, and I think those interested in this topic ought to read it.

As with all Congressional Research Service reports, this one is available for free by writing to your senator or representative.

Since I wrote the article, I think it is quite good! :-)
Is best read in conjunction with my article from "Small Wars & Insurgencies" journal, "Pushtuns, Leadership, Tribalism, Islam..."

S/F, Vern

Too bad it's not translated in English (I hope it will be).
I find it the most important book I've ever read. Mr. Patapievici has done an excellent job of dissecting and digesting all relevant political philosophy writings of the past 300 years and comes up with a refreshing, original and crystal clear diagnostic of the modern era ailments.