Philosophy

The Metaphysics

The Metaphysics

  • Downloads：6209
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-06-16 09:56:17
  • Update Date：2025-09-06
  • Status：finish
  • Author：Aristotle
  • ISBN：0140446192
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Aristotle’s probing inquiry into some of the fundamental problems of philosophy， The Metaphysics is one of the classical Greek foundation-stones of western thought

The Metaphysics presents Aristotle’s mature rejection of both the Platonic theory that what we perceive is just a pale reflection of reality and the hard-headed view that all processes are ultimately material。 He argued instead that the reality or substance of things lies in their concrete forms， and in so doing he probed some of the deepest questions of philosophy: What is existence？ How is change possible？ And are there certain things that must exist for anything else to exist at all？ The seminal notions discussed in The Metaphysics – of ‘substance’ and associated concepts of matter and form， essence and accident， potentiality and actuality – have had a profound and enduring influence， and laid the foundations for one of the central branches of Western philosophy。

In this edition Hugh Lawson-Tancred’s lucid translation is accompanied by a stimulating introduction in which he highlights the central themes of one of philosophy’s supreme masterpieces。

Download

Reviews

J。R。 González ，

Un clásico si es que quieres introducirte en la filosofía。

Bennett W。 ，

Metaphysics is easily one of the most - if not the most - difficult books I’ve ever read。 However， it is essential to understanding the classical philosophical tradition， which is essential to understanding patristic and medieval theology。 I’ve been consistently disappointed with the Hackett volumes。 The translations are good and there are copious notes （1644 in this one）， but the introductions are terrible and tend to be far less lucid than the text itself。 Oxford World Classics are much better Metaphysics is easily one of the most - if not the most - difficult books I’ve ever read。 However， it is essential to understanding the classical philosophical tradition， which is essential to understanding patristic and medieval theology。 I’ve been consistently disappointed with the Hackett volumes。 The translations are good and there are copious notes （1644 in this one）， but the introductions are terrible and tend to be far less lucid than the text itself。 Oxford World Classics are much better in this respect。 。。。more

Cesar Alexander Lara ，

Un título sin duda muy nutritivo！

Maya Joelle ，

Read book 1 ch。 1-3 and all of book 12 for Roman Roads。

Anthi Kanta ，

Το βιβλίο Α’ των «Μετά τα φυσικά» θέτει έναν διπλό στόχο: αναζητά τον ορισμό της φιλοσοφίας και επιχειρεί να διαγράψει την ιστορική της εξέλιξη。 Ο Αριστοτέλης ανασυνθέτει με μαεστρία τον προβληματισμό του μέσου ανθρώπου， ενός ανθρώπου που «επιζητεί εκ φύσεως τη γνώση»， στην προσπάθειά του να απαντήσει στο παραδοσιακό ερώτημα «τι είναι σοφία»。

Andy Bintoro ，

An interesting book consider the age of this book written。 This is a book about all things we can't see， an abstraction of ideas and philosophy。 An interesting book consider the age of this book written。 This is a book about all things we can't see， an abstraction of ideas and philosophy。 。。。more

Larry Norton ，

Were it not for the guidance provided by the translator， Hugh Lawson-Tancred， Aristotle's Metaphysics would have been all but impenetrable to me。 However， with the benefit of his guidance， I have at least introduced myself to this work。 There is a surprising （to me） amount of the history of philosophy in this book， as Aristotle reviews the positions of past philosophers， especially Plato， pointing out their weaknesses and inconsistencies， as well as their contributions。 Quite interesting！Meanwhi Were it not for the guidance provided by the translator， Hugh Lawson-Tancred， Aristotle's Metaphysics would have been all but impenetrable to me。 However， with the benefit of his guidance， I have at least introduced myself to this work。 There is a surprising （to me） amount of the history of philosophy in this book， as Aristotle reviews the positions of past philosophers， especially Plato， pointing out their weaknesses and inconsistencies， as well as their contributions。 Quite interesting！Meanwhile， the "hero" of the book， as Lawson-Tancred likes to deem it， is substance。 And into the depths we go as we explore what substance is （substance is essence， which is what-is per se， which is its definition， which is its account， etc。， etc。）。 The uncanny feeling I came away with is that all of this talk about substance feels like circular reasoning。 But that is probably due to my own superficial reading。There is a parenthetical passage at the end of Chapter 3 of Book Zeta that I think is apt to my own experience of reading the Metaphysics （which I condense here）:"It makes sense to sneak up on the more intelligible things， after all。 This is always the way with understanding - it moves from things less intelligible by nature to things more so。。。。things initially intelligible are often only capable of being understood to a slight degree。。。But all the same we have to start with things only indifferently understood。。。 and try to grasp of things。。。 progressing in the manner described from our humble starting points。"Perhaps down the road I'll take on this big daddy again。 We'll see！ 。。。more

Oscar Gonzalez ，

Como sucedió cuando leí a Kant， me quedé con la impresión de no haber entendido gran cosa。 Me quedan claros los conceptos que deben considerarse para definir la realidad， la cual está integrada por seres， que a su vez se pueden agrupar en especies， y cuales atributos deben considerarse para delimitar a la especie como un conjunto de individuos con características en común que， sin embargo， poseen algunas cualidades que causan diferencias entre ellos pero estas no impiden que sean conespecíficos。 Como sucedió cuando leí a Kant， me quedé con la impresión de no haber entendido gran cosa。 Me quedan claros los conceptos que deben considerarse para definir la realidad， la cual está integrada por seres， que a su vez se pueden agrupar en especies， y cuales atributos deben considerarse para delimitar a la especie como un conjunto de individuos con características en común que， sin embargo， poseen algunas cualidades que causan diferencias entre ellos pero estas no impiden que sean conespecíficos。Usando el ejemplo de Aristóteles， para que cierto objeto sea una esfera de bronce， además de estar hecho de bronce， debe tener la forma de una esfera。 También me quedó muy claro que Corisco era músico y Calias chato。Todo esto debería parecer muy razonable， sencillamente por que así es como pensamos， y pensamos así porque Aristóteles tuvo el tiempo para divagar en estos conceptos， los puso por escrito， estos documentos sobrevivieron casi milagrosamente hasta nuestros días y hoy los asumimos como poco alterados y suficientemente completos。Filósofos y pensadores han puntualizado en algunos detalles， otros han profundizado o se han extendido en algunos de estos temas metafísicos， pero el pensamiento fundamental sobre la realidad en el cual desarrollamos actividades tan importantes como la investigación científica， tienen su origen en algunas de estas páginas。 Salvo conceptos que parecen absurdos en relación a los números -que se estudian， puesto que son seres creados por nuestro intelecto-， todo parece razonable para el pensamiento occidental veintitrés siglos después。Parece sorprendente que tan temprano en la historia los filósofos se hayan percatado que， si bien utilizando el Panteón podían explicar cualquier fenómeno， en la práctica no lo conocían con certeza y por lo tanto no podían avanzar en el saber y， en última instancia， no podían aprovechar conocimientos sólidos para crear tecnología。De esto último quizás no estaba muy consciente Aristóteles， pero sí que se dio el tiempo para criticar a sus antecesores y da cuenta de lo absurdo e inútil de sus sofismas。 Aristóteles mismo evoluciona， pues el libro reúne obras sueltas que fueron redactadas en distintas épocas de su vida。 No están en orden cronológico y a veces son repetitivas。 Aunque sinceramente no me percaté， el editor del texto afirma que se contradice en algunas ocasiones。En al menos un pasaje， según se menciona en la cita al pie， Aristóteles se refiere a documentos perdidos。 ¿Cómo saber si dijo más， si falta el libro XV， y si este cambiaría la manera en la que analizamos seres y fenómenos？ 。。。more

Einar Jóhann ，

Mörg ár síðan ég las Frumspekina sem gerir einkunnargjöfinni erfitt um vik。 Mig minnir að kaflarnir hafi verið mjög misgóðir; sumir bragðdaufir og aðrir stórgóðir。 Ég man að ég kláraði lesturinn í baði。

Toti ，

Skemmtilegt ágrip um forvera Aristótelesar。 Það er synd að restin af Frumspekinni hafi ekki verið þýdd á íslensku。

Tbel ，

It is a wonderful exercise for one's mind to tackle this book。 Though Joe Sachs' translation makes it harder to comprehend what the author is saying。 Still a grate book。 It is a wonderful exercise for one's mind to tackle this book。 Though Joe Sachs' translation makes it harder to comprehend what the author is saying。 Still a grate book。 。。。more

Eva Ule ，

Uvodno besedilo， 4。 in 5。 knjiga。 （140/437）

Orhan Pelinkovic ，

Aristotle's Physics that I have recently read discussed things that change within space and time。 Whereas， Aristotle's Metaphysics discusses things that do not change relative to space and time。Metaphysics is Aristotle's principles and causes of being。 Aristotle believed that everything around us consists of a substance， or the essence of a thing， where this substance is a mixture of actual form and potential matter。 In these discussions of being， Aristotle， states that matter is only found in t Aristotle's Physics that I have recently read discussed things that change within space and time。 Whereas， Aristotle's Metaphysics discusses things that do not change relative to space and time。Metaphysics is Aristotle's principles and causes of being。 Aristotle believed that everything around us consists of a substance， or the essence of a thing， where this substance is a mixture of actual form and potential matter。 In these discussions of being， Aristotle， states that matter is only found in that what is being created， changing， and is perishable such as the things of the observable world and the celestial bodies and eternal sky。 Whereas， that， what has no matter and just actual form is the embodiment of perfection which is stationary， indivisible and unobservable; the immovable mover of all （God）。Aristotle does not use the term metaphysics in book。 There is this notion that the book was given the title Metaphysics by the ancient compilers of Aristotle's writings simply because these works came after his Physics book; where 'meta' means 'after' in Greek。Aristotle presents his philosophical ideas and conclusions superior to those of the Pythagoreans， Empedocles， Anaxagoras， Parmenides， and even his teacher Plato。 He does give them partial recognition， but more often is critical （at times unjustifiably） of their philosophy。 For instance， Aristotle is not content with Plato's mathematization of philosophy。 So instead of using numbers and shapes to express a thing for what it precisely is， Aristotle， uses the semantic power of words to express a thing or being by giving it a precise name that would distinguish it from other things。 Therefore， Aristotle， wants to detach and create a clear distinction between philosophy， on the one hand， and mathematics and physics， on the other。 Consequently， Aristotle names the philosophy of this book， which he often refers to as theology and the study of being （ontology）， as a first philosophy and physics and mathematics as a second philosophy。Perhaps with all the scientific discoveries of the last couple of centuries metaphysics ‘elbow room’ has considerably narrowed， although， it was Aristotle and his emphasis on employing observation using our senses， not just reasoning， the backbone for gathering data in all of the sciences today。 On the whole， the book is very readable， even though， the term being is used in many ways and the interpretation at times can be tricky or ambiguous。 But some chapters （books） were truly amazing， and the content of the book withstood the test of time better than that of his Physics book。 （4。5/5。0） 。。。more

Amin ，

برای کسانی که می خواهند فلسفه رو شروع کنن کتاب جمهوری افلاطون و مابعدالطبیعه ارسطو خیلی مناسب هستند。نکته ای که هست ارسطو در بعضی جاها اول مطلب رو لیست کرده و بعد در فصل ها و کتاب های بعدی توضیح داده و بعضی وقتها اول مطلب رو توضیح داده و بعد لیست کرده。 به نظرم برای شروع این کتاب، بهتر هست که از کتاب پنجم که کلمات و عناوین اصلی رو توضیح می ده شروع کرد و بعد به سراغ اول کتاب رفت و بعد کتاب های بعد از کتاب هفتم رو مطالعه کرد。

http_rain ，

« rien n’est antérieur à ce qui est toujours。 »

Justin Barger ，

pretty clear cut explanation of realism before William Of Ockham decided to bring in nominalism to the table。

Samuel ，

huge fucking slog but pretty important ig

Samuel Bierig ，

Just wow

Anthia D。 ，

Aristotle is the father of science and philosophy。 You do not read Aristotle's work， you study his work。 I was introduced to his philosophy， when I was in school。 I wrote a research paper， while in college， based on his teachings。 It's been years。 It takes commitment， dedication。 You need to be serious， to focus， look into his Book， crawl into his thought process。 Metaphysics is The Bible， the dawn of reason， the Alpha and the Omega。 Aristotle is the father of science and philosophy。 You do not read Aristotle's work， you study his work。 I was introduced to his philosophy， when I was in school。 I wrote a research paper， while in college， based on his teachings。 It's been years。 It takes commitment， dedication。 You need to be serious， to focus， look into his Book， crawl into his thought process。 Metaphysics is The Bible， the dawn of reason， the Alpha and the Omega。 。。。more

Faride Amero ，

- Libro 1 -

Vasco ，

Concordo com aqueles que não acreditam na unidade da Metafísica enquanto obra e colocam em causa a autoria de Aristóteles da mesma。 Ao ler a obra fiquei com a impressão clara de se tratar de uma composição de textos separados em torno do mesmo tema e não de uma obra una， pensada como tal e faz muito sentido aquela teoria de que a Metafísica teria sido um conjunto de apontamentos das sessões peripatéticas do Liceu recolhidas e editadas posteriormente， em catorze livros， com esse título absolutame Concordo com aqueles que não acreditam na unidade da Metafísica enquanto obra e colocam em causa a autoria de Aristóteles da mesma。 Ao ler a obra fiquei com a impressão clara de se tratar de uma composição de textos separados em torno do mesmo tema e não de uma obra una， pensada como tal e faz muito sentido aquela teoria de que a Metafísica teria sido um conjunto de apontamentos das sessões peripatéticas do Liceu recolhidas e editadas posteriormente， em catorze livros， com esse título absolutamente marcante。 A Metafísica resulta， assim， num texto difícil de seguir， complexo， em que um mesmo conceito aparece definido e interpretado de diferentes modos ao longo dos seus diferentes livros e esses modos não são， frequentemente， concordantes。 Várias leituras são， pois， necessárias e， adicionalmente， é fundamental sermos capazes de produzir uma apreciação crítica e contextual das várias passagens de forma a ser possível extrair conclusões razoáveis sobre o pensamento do autor acerca da sua Filosofia Primeira。 Deste modo， não é de estranhar que esta obra se constitua como objeto de estudo quase exclusivo de carreiras inteiras de estudiosos em Filosofia。 。。。more

Jorge Schellman ，

It's nice， but having read the Physics previously， there's like 30%-40% of its contents here。 It's not as intellectually challenging as people make it out to be after studying the preceding book， which is the course I'd recommend following。 It's nice， but having read the Physics previously， there's like 30%-40% of its contents here。 It's not as intellectually challenging as people make it out to be after studying the preceding book， which is the course I'd recommend following。 。。。more

Carl Hindsgaul ，

Wow， what a work。 Took very long for me to finish it。 For anyone interested in Aristotle， it is a must read， and many books/chapters are incredibly interesting， although some are long-winded and most are very dense and formulaic。 Furthermore， much of the book discusses Plato's Ideas rather than Aristotle's own theory （these disputations can get quite repetitive）。 Also， Aristotle constantly discusses and reasons with the reader， instead of presenting a finished theory - that can be very confusing Wow， what a work。 Took very long for me to finish it。 For anyone interested in Aristotle， it is a must read， and many books/chapters are incredibly interesting， although some are long-winded and most are very dense and formulaic。 Furthermore， much of the book discusses Plato's Ideas rather than Aristotle's own theory （these disputations can get quite repetitive）。 Also， Aristotle constantly discusses and reasons with the reader， instead of presenting a finished theory - that can be very confusing because it sometimes seems he contradicts himself。 But just lay the books aside and look at it with fresh eyes the next day， and maybe skim through the parts you've already read， and it should make sense。 Especially if you read secondary sources （and accept som ambiguities）。 Hold three questions in the back of your mind throughout the read: what is substance， what is form， what is metaphysics （first science） and what are the different types of causes。 Good luck！ 。。。more

Richard Clay ，

It's astounding that someone attempted a comprehensive theory of the nature of everything， twenty two centuries before there was anything like enough scientific data around for it to begin to be possible。 The scale of his ambitions， the complexity of his reasoning， all impress， though I suspect a lifetime of reaearch into the Greek society would be necessary in order to have a proper grasp of what his purposes and his ideas are。 Very very challenging。 It's astounding that someone attempted a comprehensive theory of the nature of everything， twenty two centuries before there was anything like enough scientific data around for it to begin to be possible。 The scale of his ambitions， the complexity of his reasoning， all impress， though I suspect a lifetime of reaearch into the Greek society would be necessary in order to have a proper grasp of what his purposes and his ideas are。 Very very challenging。 。。。more

Andrés Romero ，

Clásico， pilar fundamental de la filosofía occidental， en él se inauguran muchas ramas de la filosofía， bonito leer su versión trilingüe para tener en mente las interpretaciones clásicas， escolásticas y modernas。

Paul Haspel ，

“Meta-，” or μετὰ-， is a Greek prefix meaning "beyond"; “metaphysics，” therefore， literally means that one is going “beyond physics。” Really？ Really？ When I start reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics， I’m committing to go beyond physics？ And I thought that reading Aristotle’s Physics was difficult。 But for all that is difficult or even self-contradictory about the Metaphysics， it turns out to be one of the richest and most rewarding reading experiences in all of classical philosophy。As Hugh Lawson-Tan “Meta-，” or μετὰ-， is a Greek prefix meaning "beyond"; “metaphysics，” therefore， literally means that one is going “beyond physics。” Really？ Really？ When I start reading Aristotle’s Metaphysics， I’m committing to go beyond physics？ And I thought that reading Aristotle’s Physics was difficult。 But for all that is difficult or even self-contradictory about the Metaphysics， it turns out to be one of the richest and most rewarding reading experiences in all of classical philosophy。As Hugh Lawson-Tancred of the University of London points out in a helpful foreword to this Penguin Books edition of Aristotle’s Metaphysics， the text of The Metaphysics is itself problematic。 While Aristotle speaks of the ideas gathered here as a follow-up to ideas previously discussed in The Physics and Categories， Lawson-Tancred suggests that The Metaphysics may actually be something of a scattershot gathering of texts that cannot always be reconciled with one another。Whatever the case may actually be regarding The Metaphysics and the process by which these Aristotelian texts came to be brought together as they are today， we can all agree that Aristotle is interested here in the most fundamental philosophical questions of what it means to be – “being qua being，” as one key term is repeatedly translated here， even though qua is a Latin preposition rather than a Greek one。Aristotle begins The Metaphysics by writing that “By nature， all men long to know” （p。 4）。 Update it to say， “all people，” and I am fully in agreement。 Throughout The Metaphysics， as with The Physics and Categories， Aristotle follows that longing-to-know， proceeding in accordance with a rigorous logic of predication: can one thing follow upon another， with complete logical consistency， as a predicate follows its subject in a sentence that expresses an agreed-upon truth？ Characteristic in this regard are the passages in which Aristotle states， as a principle， that “It is impossible for the same thing at the same time both to be-in and not to be-in the same thing in the same respect” （p。 88）， and when he subsequently writes that “there can be nothing intermediate to an assertion and a denial。 We must either assert or deny any single predicate of any single subject” （p。 106）。With his interest in the idea of “essence as substance” as a core element of “being qua being，” Aristotle suggests to the reader， “[L]et us make the further suppositions that we have three things on our hands – matter， form， and the composite – and that matter， form， and the composite are each a substance。 Then， （i） in a way even the matter will be said to be a part of something， but （ii） in another way the matter will not be taken as a part， the parts of the thing being only those comprised by the account of the form” （p。 201; emphasis in original）。Readers of Aristotle’s work will recall his setting forth， in The Nicomachean Ethics， the idea that every virtue is a desirable mean between two opposite and equally undesirable extremes。 That interest in setting up an all-encompassing and all-inclusive system of categorization similarly in forms Aristotle’s claim， in The Metaphysics， that contraries always come in pairs:“On the assumption that a single thing has a single contrary， a possible question might be in what way unity and plurality are opposites， and in what way equality is opposite to greatness and smallness。 A clue is the use of the interrogative ‘whether。’ It is， after all， only in cases of opposition that we use this term。 We ask ‘whether’ something is white or black and ‘whether’ it is white or not white， but not ‘whether’ something is a man or white” （p。 300）。Scholars of religion and theology may take particular interest in Aristotle’s positing the existence of a “first mover” that comes before everything else and is not moved by anything else， as when Aristotle suggests that “there must be a kind of eternal unmoved substance” （p。 368）。 Aristotle subsequently explores this idea in greater detail， writing that “there exists a kind of eternal， unmoved substance that is separate from sensible things…。[I]t is without parts， and indivisible。 The reason is that it is a source of movement for infinite time…。[I]t is without affection or alteration， since all the other motions are posterior to those in space” （p。 375）。One immediately senses how this line of reasoning might have influenced theologians and church leaders at the time of Christianity’s beginnings， centuries after Aristotle’s death。 To have the support of Aristotelian logic， in any contest of ideas， is always a thing to be desired。 Or， to paraphrase one of the songs from Lin-Manuel Miranda's musical Hamilton （2015）: It must be nice， it must be nice， to have Aristotle on your side…Subsequent parts of The Metaphysics， I must admit， were not as interesting to me。 Here， one sees the problems inherent in a book that basically contains a great mass of lecture notes， assembled by students and put together as they saw fit。 It can get a bit tiring hearing yet more of Aristotle’s speculations （and attacks） on Platonist assertions of a link between mathematical concepts and Platonic Forms， as when Aristotle writes that “In any case， all methods employed by [Platonists] to demonstrate the Forms fail。 There are some which can be given no logical form。 Others produce Forms even for those things for which they do not suppose there to be Forms。 Take the Argument from the Sciences。 It will yield a Form for every possible object of a science！” （p。 402） And the extensive numerological reflections toward the end are likely to be of interest only to students of numerology。And yet I am very glad to have read The Metaphysics。 Aristotle， after all， stands at the beginning of so many scholarly conversations – about ethics， logic， physics， politics， rhetoric， natural science。 So it is with metaphysics。 That whole grand conversation that goes beyond physics， to the most fundamental questions of being and reality – that conversation that now includes the work of Leibniz， Descartes， Spinoza， Mill， Locke， Kant， Schopenhauer， Hegel， Russell – started with Aristotle。 The Metaphysics takes us back to where that conversation began。 。。。more

strategian ，

Comprehension for thee， and not for me！

Joe Cloyd ，

This is the first attempt at reading Aristotle。 If I’m going to make another attempt at this book， I’ll need a guide。 It’s super tough。 I’ll probably read Politics or Ethics before I pick up Metapysics again。

Christopher Tate ，

I forgot to update this in a while but the idea of God being there and isn’t， while matter and form come into play， this book is the reasoning of God existing but explaining everything through science。 Truly is remarkable。

Miguel ，

The problem I have with Aristotle is how hard it is to dialectically relate Aristotle's empirical description to the universal intellect， which has to be individualized since it lives in a body。 One cannot comprehend the role attributed to the individual soul， which is that of a progressive update。 Clearly， the problem with Aristotle's argument is metaphysical。 How to explain the origin of man's rational thinking when considering it as a result of the sensitive experience？ I think it's a problem The problem I have with Aristotle is how hard it is to dialectically relate Aristotle's empirical description to the universal intellect， which has to be individualized since it lives in a body。 One cannot comprehend the role attributed to the individual soul， which is that of a progressive update。 Clearly， the problem with Aristotle's argument is metaphysical。 How to explain the origin of man's rational thinking when considering it as a result of the sensitive experience？ I think it's a problem that's not solved。 Finally， some of Aristotle's observations on the purpose of the perception of the ensembles are found in the current conceptions of Gestalt Psychology （Mueller， 2019）。Despite his rebuttals against Democritus and Heraclitus， Aristotle is a philosopher with which I disagree。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=The Metaphysics

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=The Metaphysics&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,The Metaphysics&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0