Indiana Books

I read this book for a graduate seminar on Aristotle.
Topic of Metaphysics is Ousia=substance and being. What is the meaning of being? With respect to matter and form, it is primarily about form. Analytically both can be separate and distinct, but not in reality. One can analyze matter by potentiality and actuality. Matter can't answer the question of being without form. Some natural things are always a composite of matter and form, it is the answer to the question of what is ousia or being in nature. Matter by itself can't give us the answer to what a thing is.

Ousia=substance and being. Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. We can talk of the "being" as quality as "not white." Being spoken of in many ways but only of one thing, i.e., "the focal being." Word being has flexibility. Other flexible words is essence. (the what it is to be). In Greek for Aristotle, a bed is not an Ousia because it is from techne=craft it can have an essence. Ousia is reserved for material things self manufactured in nature. All things are derived from a primary ousia.
This has to do with focal being, health is such a word. When we talk about different aspects of health, it is not a universal definition like Socrates looks for. Aristotle says you can't find it. Thus, the word "being" is just a word in a sense a focal point like the word health, i.e. healthy skin, healthy food, then there is health, for Socrates what is health. Aristotle says no, health is unity by analogy. Aristotle is OK with using examples. Math is not independent knowledge, it is dependent on things math is not a primary existence. Being is neither a universal nor a genus, (genus is animal in hierarchy). It is as though Aristotle wants to say that the primary meaning of being is the "this" the subject, i.e. Socrates not human all by itself, not animal all by itself.

Ousia= Being is the "this" spoken of in primary ousia. This is contrary to Plato. Categories vs. Metaphysics. "This" is ontologically primary. Ontological= the most general branch of metaphysics, concerned with the nature of being.

In the categories discussion, he doesn't talk about the distinction between matter and form, it comes later on in the Physics and then the Metaphysics. The "this" is ontologically primary in terms of what the "being" something, what something is. Why would it be wrong to say that primary ousia can't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge, it can't be the distinction between ontological and epistemological? Why would it be wrong to say that the "this" the perceptible encounter wouldn't be primary from the standpoint of knowledge? Because, whatever the categories are whatever the notions of say "horse" the "this" is a horse, the "this" is ontologically primary, but it can't be epistemologically primary because a "this" by itself is just a "this" the question "What is this" called a horse is to involve the categories of knowledge. Therefore, from a knowledge standpoint, secondary ousia, which is things like categories and context, they have primacy in knowledge. However, from the standpoint of "being" the perceptible "this" has primacy. This is just a technical way of distancing him from Plato. In the Metaphysics, the question of form is primary Ousia. Ousia =form in Metaphysics. In Metaphysics, the "this" is simply matter. Aristotle did not give up on Ousia as form. This matter and form is never separated for Aristotle, thus a composite of matter and form is in the Metaphysics. In realm of nature, form and matter can't be separated for Aristotle. If you only talk about matter, you have nothing definable. You never come across things without their form. God is only exception to form and matter together.

Ousia as form and essence. The essence of a thing is "what" it is, it gives us knowledge. Definition= essence. Bronze can't be essence of circle, the form is important, not the matter.
Can't use abstract math to explain a human. When it comes to knowledge, we must emphasize the ousia as form. It isn't that first you have material things, and then the mind adds form to it, whatever the particular thing is, it always was that form. Then when we learn about it, we actually just discover what the thing is. Therefore, it is a process of coming to understand the universal, the essence, but that was always there in the thing, it just needed to be done. So what he is emphasizing in the Metaphysics is the idea of ousia as form, as some kind of essence, but never separated from matter!

Ousia --1. Grammatically basic. 2. Ousia As Ontologically basic, something that exists in its own right. The 1st example is how humans speak, the 2nd example is how things really are, both are both side of the same coin.

Principle of Noncontradiction
Arche= principle, beginning and rule. Aristotle thought that this was the firmest of all principles. It is impossible for the same thing to both belong and not to belong to the same thing at the same time to the same thing in the same respect. An important governing thought in Western philosophy. A thing is what it is, it can't be equal to its opposite. Aristotle thought reality was organized this way. It has to do with both knowledge and being. Aristotle states that if this principle is true then it is the firmest of all principles both for knowledge and reality. In the same respect, what does it mean? It shifts depending on circumstances. From standpoint of knowledge and reality principle of noncontradiction is stable. The three factors of the principle are: the same thing, in the same time, in the same respect, is what Aristotle is calling the principle of noncontradiction. In order for knowledge to be reliable, these factors are in play. Can't be going up and down a hill at the same time. 1 of 3 factors has changed, time. A "hill" is both up and down but meaningless unless you think in relation of motion. Aristotle believes when it comes to knowledge and reality the principle of noncontradiction is most basic and most fundamental and evident principle, because without it we can't communicate or think about things. Aristotle explains well how we lead our life by the principle a very pragmatic explanation. This is a principle we live by as humans thus, no one can deny it!
If you talk about change as a potentiality, you have a way of solving the puzzle. This actually serves as a slap at Renee Descartes in the future wondering if he is conscious or in a dream state. All philosophy stems from wonder and puzzlement. Aristotle makes distinction between worthy puzzles or useless ones.

Emphasis between primary and secondary being, Ousia.
For Aristotle Ousia or being is not just a thing, many ways being can be understood. Primary Ousia is things perceptible in nature. Secondary Ousia or being is sometimes being is how we understand things, i.e., big or small, etc, this is how we talk about things. He stretches the way Ousia in many ways. Matter can't be primary being like atomists, nor form alone like Platonists. However, when we analyze beings, we can use secondary being. Idea of "is" or "being" will shift depending on what you are talking about. The term "being" has plurality to it, depending on how we regard it (like using a hammer as a paperweight). Even though Metaphysics emphasizes form, it is "this form." Primary thing is the "this."

He wants to move away from Plato's idea that we can separate matter from form. A things essence is going to be the ultimate answer to the question of what is being. However, a things essence can't be separated from its statement of thing, it is almost as though that this essence is going to mean the definition of a thing, "what it is." Then in some respects, it has the characteristics of a secondary being. If you want to know what is the big deal about the perceptible "this," the primary ousia? Again, and again, the best way you can get a handle on that is he is critiquing Plato! He wants to move away from Plato's idea that it is possible to understand beings apart from the material world. Aristotle does make certain commitments; he makes certain commitments to the idea that the primary sense of being must be used in nature that are evident to us.

The Platonist in Aristotle says if the mind desires and is naturally inclined to pursue knowledge and he gives us a map how does it acquire knowledge. The Platonist in Aristotle says in the Metaphysics that if all there is, is matter and form then there is always an element of elusiveness in things because matter cannot fully deliver how we know things. When he gets to the question of the Divine, he does so because he believes that the natural desire of the mind can know that it will not have a final resting place with respect to just composite things. Especially since these composite things are always changing because nature is the realm of movement and change and the idea of form will at least give us access to how we can know changing things and actuality and potentiality. Changing things will always have this element of excess, beyond the minds capacity to grasp.

His talk of the Divine is the idea that there is something in reality that will satisfy the minds' desire for the ultimate stable resting point. If change were the last word, the mind could never come to rest. This is what Heraclitus argued for, Aristotle didn't like it. He wants to grasp the final. For him the Divine is satisfaction for the mind to grasp reality.
Uber Ousia. Aristotle here is talking about 2 senses of eternity.

1. Endless time.
2. Timelessness. 1st is never begins, never ends this is eternity or infinity. 2nd is in order to understand whole world there has to be something, the unmoved mover.

Ideas of potentiality and actuality criticizes Platonic idea. Potentiality has idea of negation in it. Thus, a thing in nature always has actuality; we are always on the move. Divine is pure form and actuality without matter and potentiality. Ontology now moves to theology. This is his theological science. (Theology in the Metaphysics is speaking about God for Aristotle). In reality, composite of form and matter is always in motion until it ends. Any actualization has potentiality it is prior. Actuality is prior to potentiality; this is his ultimate metaphysical statement. Two ways Aristotle proves this idea. 1st is human reproduction brings us into being. Our parents actually reproduced us. 2nd is God the ultimate sense of actuality prior to potentiality.

Talking about other philosopher's ideas. Hesiod question of the Gods in poetry, night comes before day, thus we don't have access in the "dark" symbolic of precedence of something unknowable, and Aristotle doesn't like it. Thus, for him he has the unmoved mover.
The pure actuality of the Divine is Aristotle's nominee for the principal that explains why there is this movement in the first place. Limitation in nature is matter which is unstable but all things in nature strive to their potential. Thus, you have pure actuality of Divine. God is Prime mover or final cause not efficient cause for Aristotle.

Rational and non-rational potentiality. This is how Aristotle recognizes the phenomenology of human thought. What rational means here is human drama of seeking what might or not work out. Now rational is stable when you heat water it boils no other potentiality. Thus, non-rational movement is very regular. Human reason is precarious we may not use potentiality to reach actuality. When we practice medicine, it might not work out.

Theoria=contemplation. There are three kinds of ousia, all are a study of secondary ousia in some way.

1. Physics-study of material and moveable.
2. Mathematical-study of ousia that is non-moving, (1+1=2 always), but is derived from matter.
3. Theology is study of ousia that is non-moving and non-material.

This is scheme of understanding the nature of understanding something. 3rd level is big for Aristotle. 1st two levels have limitations to them. We begin from wonder (ignorance) philosophy is to illuminate wonder with answers. He doesn't deny Greek deities but the way poets depict them is deficient.

Movement is a way of understanding change we see this in the Physics. Movement is actualization of potential. Psuche=soul which is the word he uses for life. Things in nature that are alive. Soma=body. Plato separates soul from body, Aristotle doesn't. Aristotle's text De Anima is on "The Soul" is a philosophical biological treatise. We have three-part soul, plant, animal and human all are part of this.

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.

After reading this book I would highly recommend it. Its very well written and easy for a 'lay' person to understand without having much or any formal philisophical training. Under the guidance of Professor Veatch - surely on of the most lucid and learned mentors in ancient philosophy - Aristotle stands forth again as the philosopher who, above all, speaks simply and directly to the common sense of all mankind. Today, Professor Veatch believes, the time may be ripe for a belated recognition that Aristotle is "a truly lived option in philosophy".

Henry Veatch is Professor of Philosophy and Chairman of the Department of Philosophy at Georgetown University.

I learned about this book by reading James Schall's "Another Sort of Learning" which is another book I would recommend looking at as well.

An Army in Skirts: The World War II Letters of Frances Debra collects the letters Frances DeBra Brown sent to her family, while she served in the Women's Army Corps in World War II as a draftsman at American headquarters in London and Paris. Chronicling her WW II service from her training at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia to her assignment at an army air field in Florida to surviving buzz bomb and V-2 rocket attacks in London and witnessing the devastation of Paris a scant two weeks after the city's liberation, An Army in Skirts is the candid testimony of a woman's perspective - thoughtfully discussing the connections Brown made with individual people and the simple day-to-day matters of survival as well as larger issues of war and peace. Highly recommended.

As this year (2007) is Buxtehude's 300th anniversary, this book is a wonderful overview of the sound world in which Buxtehude (and his contemporaries) found themselves with the organbuilding of Schnitger. Lots of photos and specifications really help those of us performing this music on our modern day instruments.

Hector Berlioz is remembered mainly as the composer of Symphony Fantastique, but he was also a gifted music critic and writer. This collection of essays is entertaining and witty; Berlioz's satirical and biting humor is liberally spread throughout. This book is accessible to amateurs and professionals alike, filled with anecdotes and insight into the mind of a creative genius.

Letter to Paula Girshick Ben-Amos, author of "Art, Innovation, and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Benin." Your book, "Art Innovation, and Politics in Eighteenth-Century Benin", is superb. I'm not a reviewer so the much I can see is that you lead us, the reader, easy and firmly across the ancient history of a Kingdom with her obas, uzamas, ezomos, iyases, chiefs -- and give us a handy list of the obas from Ehengbuda to Akengbuda, and teach us how they were, through the art they left behind. You make ease to understand the Civil War and different behave of various obas and chiefs. As well their relation with the spiritual world. When you refer to Father Monteleone, and the cloths "made in five or, at the most, six months" on pg. 41, using Ryder, you touch in a subject that has connection with Brazil. In the book "A enxada e a lança", (The Hoe and the Spear), the Brazilian writer Alberto da Costa e Silva depicts a panel of Africa, before the Portuguese's arrival (he starts his book on Africa's prehistory), and refers (pg. 526)to Pano da Costa (Cloth from the Coast - Ijebu), largely exported from Benin to Brazil on the first half of Eighteenth Century. It seems, later on, when the slave traffic has ended, and commerce between Bahia (Brazil) and West Coast was very strong, industrialized Pano da Costa, produced in Brazil has turned itself into a largely disputed merchandise all over the Coast, including in Benin . And moreover, in your book you teach us how to see and comprehend the bronzes, plaques, heads, in metal, ivory, clay and wood. Is all absolutely perfect. If one want to have a spotless ideas, in 177 pages, about the Kingdom of Benin, in your book one will find it. So, I indeed have enjoyed your book.

José Luiz Pereira da Costa Brazil e-mail: dacostaq@cpovo.net

This book is a thoroughgoing, well-rounded study of the artists of Nathadwara town in Rajasthan, India, and of their various art productions and practices: a rigorous and innovative ethnography of living and deceased painters and painting in the Pushtimarg tradition of Vaisnavism. The book design is a delight, with its miniature drawings from Nathadwara art motifs placed on the pages and also at the end of each chapter, plus the beautifully printed color (and B&W) illustrations-a true feast for the eyes.
In her Introduction the author situates the art in relation to previous scholarship, then briefly surveys the history of Pushtimarg and how it became settled in Rajasthan, the role of the picchavai in this tradition, the question of whether it is art or folk art, and the scope of the study.
The next nine chapters intensively discuss the following topics: Mural paintings by Nathadwara artists; artists' workshops at turn-of-the-century; a glimpse of the temple in old Bombay based on an artist's sketchbook; artist families as frameworks for the evolution of style; an artist's eye to the future as exemplified in a sketchbook; the influence of British stylistics on an England-returned master artist; the women artists of Nathadwara; artists' histories and myths of caste and kin and location, and the genealogists who maintain and also invent them to please their patrons; and a conclusion that surveys issues of religion in relation to art and life in Nathadwara, artist views on aesthetic excellence, and younger artists' experimentation with other kinds of painting.
Throughout her in-depth examination of art and art making based on interviews, photographing art on location, studying rare artist sketchbooks, and extensive travels to important sites in and away from Nathadwara, the author reveals the many ways in which the artists of Nathadwara experience and fulfill their religious devotion in their works.
I highly recommend this beautiful as well as impressive book as a resource for Vaisnava studies as well as for historians of traditional arts on the Indian sub-continent.

These 20 opinions from music giants make this the perfect book for the serious jazz lover.

...Author David Korn reveals a compelling tale of how Arafat and his PLO organization kidnapped and assasinated two American diplomats. In the minutes before 7 p.m. on March 1, 1973, a routine diplomatic reception was breaking up at the Saudi embassy in Khartoum, the capital of Sudan. But as the ambassadors left the party and disbursed to find their drivers, a volley of machine-gun bullets suddenly interrupted the quiet scene. Eight masked gunmen of "Black September", a covert Palestinian organization, burst into the embassy's main reception room. There, the diplomats were forced to sit on the floor and identify themselves by nationality. The masked men then proceeded to release most of the reception attendeed, keeping just five: two Americans (Ambassador Cleo Allen Noel, Jr. and Chargé d'Affaires George Curtis Moore), a Belgian, a Jordanian, and a Saudi. The gunmen then sent out a list of their demands, which included the freeing of jailed Palestinian terrorists, including Abu Daoud, a leader of the "Black September" organization; the freeing of Sirhan Sirhan, Robert Kennedy's killer, from jail in California; and the freeing of "Palestinian women in prison in Israel."

Twenty-six hours of feverish negotiations then went by. On the evening of the 2nd, the Beirut headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) sent an order of execution to the terrorists via radio broadcast: "Why are you waiting? The people's blood in the Cold River cries for vengeance" ("Cold River" was the code word for executing the captives). Yasir Arafat, chairman of the PLO then as now, personally delivered this order to murder. Soon after he did, the two Americans and the Belgian were bound, lined up against a basement wall, and executed in gangland fashion -- all eight gunmen simultaneously pulling on their triggers.

A decade earlier, the author David Korn, had worked Moore, one of the two dead Americans. During the siege at the Khartoum embassy, Korn worked at the Department of State's Operations Center, doing what little he could to save the lives of his two colleagues. Unsuccessful in that effort, he kept the story in mind and now, twenty years later, has published a study which suitably remembers the victims and honors their memory.

But Assassination in Khartoum does more: it has a current significance the author could not possibly have anticipated. Korn's meticulous inquiry into the killings at Khartoum raises important questions about the PLO as an institution, the character of its chairman Arafat, and American policy towards them.

Bringing the murder of Noel and Moore back to public attention highlights the unpleasant fact that the PLO has on a number of occasions attacked American citizens. Probably the best-known of these attacks took place in October 1985 when Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly invalid, was shot in the chest, and the other passengers were forced to throw his body and wheelchair over the side of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. In contrast, the most costly incident in terms of American lives is also one of the most completely forgotten: the bombing of TWA flight 707 in September 1974 en route from Tel Aviv to New York. A high-explosive bomb went off in a rear cargo compartment, sending the plane into the Ionian Sea and killing all eighty-eight persons aboard.

Korn's work clearly reveals that Americans have their own, serious problem with the PLO quite independent of Israel's.