Talk:Physics (Aristotle)

message: The quote from Heidegger is ponderous and goes beyond what needs to be said in an intro paragraph. I suggest shortening it to the quote about how there would be no Galileo without Aristotle.131.96.30.60 (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: How is the Heidegger quote helpful, exactly?

message: This article reads very poorly. The English is nigh nonsensical. It is in definite need of clean-up. 205.157.110.11 (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Copy-editing needed

message: Section claims:
:Contrary to popular belief and many so-called disciples of Aristotle, what he calls void is not the same as an absence of air or other sensible body.
Says who? As far as I can understand, he uses it both as "a nothing" – which nobody believe exists – and then as an empty space – which most people believe exist today – as a means to prove that matter is not atomic, because if it were, then vacuums, i.e. nothingnesses, can exist, and that is inherently a contradiction. So Aristotle "disproves" vacuum and atoms by using what we today call an obscurantism. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Or more specifically an Equivocation, one of the classical fallacies in Aristotles Organon, not his only one. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Book IV

message: Might need a new section on recensions of the (original) text. Would include Bekker, Ross. Maybe this one as well: Carl Prantl, Publisher: Lipsiae : in aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1879.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.66.88 (talk) 18:13, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recensions Section? 

message: I'm just getting here after reading the article of Aristotelian Physics, so it is clearer to me why it is as it is. A distinction is being made between Physics and Aristotelian Physics, which is why the Heidegger. He's the one making the distinction. I'm impressed by this article, not by the Aristotelian Physics one. Heidegger is notable so if he makes the distinction it is fair game. I think this is a good article. It has been worked on obviously. I don't know what I can do here beyond polishing it a bit. It is certainly way beyond a start class.Botteville (talk) 07:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: How can we go about removing the Start-Class deisgnation? JKeck (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think we should yet, there's more to an article's rating than just how long it is. As it is, there aren't many inline citations and very few cited references so this article would need a lot of work to be more than start class, it's basically just a mostly uncited summary of the text with a few blockquotes. I think if the existing content was actually cited and worked more into prose, we'd probably have a C-class article, but it's pretty far from B-class without a lot more comprehensive content.  - car chasm (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Though to be clear, there's no reason it *has* to be more than a start class article. Assuming the content is all verifiable and there's no original research there's nothing wrong with it as it stands now. Adding inline citations and a bit more on the influence/background of the work would probably be the next logical step in that direction though.  - car chasm (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah, I changed my mind/I was wrong, B-class is fine. The inline citations aren't as necessary for summaries of a work.  - car chasm (talk) 00:09, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comment 

message: OK, I'm "up" in it. I still like it, great article. I don't find the language difficult or non-sensical from a philosophic or scholarly point of view. The difficulty reported above is undoubtedly caused by the that fact that this is Aristotle's "esoterica", the material he revealed only to the inner circle because of its difficulty. The answer to us I believe is blue-linking and care to make sure everything is explained. There is what I see as an organizational problem. There are something like a half-dozen bibliographies, many repeating the same work. They are mainly above the numbered references. I believe the custom is to put them below the references. I don't say there should not be an extensive bibliography for such an important philosopher. I do say we should bring them all below the references and make better sense of them, which I will start to do next session. If you use harvnb, you can automatically reference a work below the references. Only see also should be above them. Also, the biblio is for the most part not in proper format, hindering auto references to the items. So, I'll be making organizational and formatting changes there. But the language, no, nothing wrong with that. We just need the blue links and the explanatory phrases and sentences.Botteville (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: "* Oresme, Nicole, Oresme's Commentary on Aristotle's Physics. Edition of the Quaestiones on Book 3 and 4 of Aristotle's Physics and of the Quaestiones 6 - 9 on book 5. Edited by Stefan Kirschner. (Stuttgart: Steiner, 1997)."
This is not what it seems to be. The book is in German, and only in German. I did find it on the Internet. The publication place of Stuttgart gives it away. The editor or the work from which he copied it has done the translation. That makes it an imaginary book. That is why it is so important to use the cite book and other formats. If there were a real translation, the translator would be listed and the date and edition would be different. Of course I considered whether to cite the German book. In this topic there is no lack of top-notch books in German by excellent German-speaking scholars. We pick the English books here because this is the English Wikipedia. Of course German books are sometimes cited on WP. That is in the case of indispensible German works. I do not think this is one of those. So, my disposition is to drop it from the list. Now, about that list. This is a terribly difficult list just because it is not formatted correctly. Each item is its own big problem. The English-speaking audience could never use this list without a big research project on each item. It might as well never have been done. I do find some gold beneath the scrapings however. You might have to put up with some Greek and Latin but there is a lot of good English also. So, I have done the research, or am going to do it, and have properly formatted the items with very useful urls in many cases. Most of the others are previewable if you care to look it up. Most of the article so far is bibliography but you know such a famous work of such a famous man is owing some sort of book list.Botteville (talk) 23:51, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed biblio item 

message: The professor, scholar, and translator Catherine Osborne is the same as the professor, scholar and translator Catherine Rowett. She doen't seem to want to say that anywhere, but it is none of our business. Apparently her married name is Osborne. At some point she reverts to the maiden name of Rowett. Apparently this has to do with running for office on the Green Peace ticket. We should not jump to any conclusions, as she mentions a husband and two children at home. Nevertheless the change is an Internet confusion. Therefore I want to use Catherine Rowett Osborne following the American custom of making the middle name of a married woman the same as the maiden name, if that is all right with all concerned. I think it will save the usual Internet periphrasis.Botteville (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rowett-Osborne 

message: Joe Sachs is currently touted as the poor man's guide to Aristotle. I don't think he is. For example, he thinks the etymologies of Aristotle's vocabulary are guides to their meanings. But, those words evolved in the theory of matter and form. The connections are not always obvious. Incidentally he does not mention that noted theory. I think he is trying to work out his own concepts of Aristotle. I don't think he is up to people like Ross. For example, energeia is always "form." The "energy" twist is entirely modern. Well. I appreciate that he is a published author and is at St. John's, even though I don't think he is of much help to us. Sorry, Joe. He is only mentioned a few times. I'm leaving those references in if thy fit as intended, but if you don't mind I think we can dispense with the glowing reports of his utility to us. Specifically, the etymologies don't tell us much. The peripatetics were just twisting the words to their own purposes. It's a specialized theory, and you can't present Aristotle without presenting the theory. That is the Theory of Matter and form. I happen to be a Protestant, but the Jesuits do the best job of presenting Aristotle I know of. St. Thomas of course uses Aristotle extensively. Now, I don't want to get into this, but Joe has to do better if he wants to be a better source for us.Botteville (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Sachs and Aristotle's Motion 

message: * Schindler, David L., "The Problem of Mechanism," Beyond Mechanism: The Universe in Recent Physics and Catholic Thought, ed. David L. Schindler (University Press of America, 1986).
This is a bad specification. The link is dead, so it is no good for a link. There is one sentence using it as a ref. As that, it should be explaining the theory of matter and form. We don't need it for that, as just about all the content is linkable to WP articles. But, let's say that we tried to use it. It isn't what it seems. It is actually a collection of essays by different authors. Which one is not specified, or any page numbers. I did notice a certain problem with phony refs that had been copied out of books you can preview on the Internet. It is no good as a ref and it is not needed anyway, so I'm taking it out. At some point this content material will have to be gone over by someone cognizant of the theory of matter and form.Botteville (talk) 15:52, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schindler ref 

message: I think all this material relates to the topic but it may be getting extensive, especially when you consider the history of the corpus. I have noticed however that there are quite a few articles, some in the beginning state, where this material could go. Some of them need some heavy edits. I would say, if you notice some of the material getting so extensive as to suggest a split might do better, don't hesitate to suggest it or do it. Right now I am trying to plug through to the end otherwise I would want to take on these other articles. But, if someone notices specific material would do better elsewhere, and does not want to fix it, I can make some temporary jumps to the other articles.Botteville (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree, the prolix stuff on the Academy should at the very least be moved to the bottom, and as you say preferably to an on-topic page, leaving a concise summary here. 98.4.124.117 (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely most of the fascinating material on the history of the Corpus Aristotelicum is not peculiar to the Physics, and should be moved to Corpus Aristotelicum or made into a separate article. --Sir Myles na Gopaleen (the da) (talk) 11:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agreed. It is fascinating material (though I'm not sure all of it avoids being "original research"). By all means, it should definitely be moved elsewhere. JKeck (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  Corpus Aristotelicum is most likely the best target article for this material, since that is what the material is about. Is there a special procedure for moving material from one article to another? JKeck (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

text:  If there are no objections, I'm going to move that material (The authorship paradox, Research at the Lyceum, The question of the library) to Corpus Aristotelicum. JKeck (talk) 23:31, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible splits

message: "...they do match any line counts." -> should be ? -> "...they do NOT match any line counts." 172.58.197.70 (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "...they do match any line counts." -> should be ? -> "...they do NOT match any line counts."