| 2004 | Aristotle and the Metaphysics |
| p.62 | 11257 | The Pythagoreans were the first to offer definitions | |
| Full Idea: Aristotle praises the Pythagoreans for being the first to offer definitions. | |||
| From: report of Vassilis Politis (Aristotle and the Metaphysics [2004]) by Vassilis Politis - Aristotle and the Metaphysics 2.4 | |||
| A reaction: This sounds like a hugely important step in the development of Greek philosophy which is hardly ever mentioned. |
| 1.4 | p.14 | 11235 | 'True of' is applicable to things, while 'true' is applicable to words |
| Full Idea: It is crucial not to confuse 'true' with 'true of'. 'True of' is applicable to things, while 'true' is applicable to words. | |||
| From: Vassilis Politis (Aristotle and the Metaphysics [2004], 1.4) | |||
| A reaction: A beautifully simple distinction which had never occurred to me, and which (being a thoroughgoing realist) I really like. |
| 2.3 | p.46 | 11248 | Necessary truths can be two-way relational, where essential truths are one-way or intrinsic |
| Full Idea: An essence is true in virtue of what the thing is in itself, but a necessary truth may be relational, as the consequence of the relation between two things and their essence. The necessary relation may be two-way, but the essential relation one-way. | |||
| From: Vassilis Politis (Aristotle and the Metaphysics [2004], 2.3) | |||
| A reaction: He is writing about Aristotle, but has in mind Kit Fine 1994 (qv). Politis cites Plato's answer to the Euthyphro Question as a good example. The necessity comes from the intrinsic nature of goodness/piety, not from the desire of the gods. |
| 4.1 | p.93 | 11277 | Maybe 'What is being? is confusing because we can't ask what non-being is like |
| Full Idea: We may be unfamiliar with the question 'What is being?' because there appear to be no contrastive questions of the form: how do beings differ from things that are not beings? | |||
| From: Vassilis Politis (Aristotle and the Metaphysics [2004], 4.1) | |||
| A reaction: We can, of course, contrast actual beings with possible beings, or imaginary beings, or even logically impossible beings, but in those cases 'being' strikes me as an entirely inappropriate word. |