Timeline for Why is Russell so critical of Aristotle?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 9, 2023 at 18:05 | answer | added | Angjelin Hila | timeline score: 0 | |
| Dec 1, 2021 at 10:49 | comment | added | Jencel | Wouldn't call it critical, I think that he just means that his ideas were superseded by those of more recent philosophers (which is normal, given their age). | |
| Jun 30, 2021 at 17:37 | answer | added | Speakpigeon | timeline score: -3 | |
| Jul 30, 2019 at 20:11 | answer | added | Patrick | timeline score: 2 | |
| Apr 18, 2015 at 6:08 | answer | added | virmaior | timeline score: 17 | |
| Apr 17, 2015 at 6:17 | comment | added | Geremia | I don't understand how he can blow off "the formal theory of the syllogism, which is unimportant". That, along with hylemorphism, would seem to be the most perennial aspects of Aristotelianism. Of course Aristotelianism itself is immensely variegated, not monolithic, both in time and space. | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 19:43 | answer | added | Urs Schreiber | timeline score: 9 | |
| Apr 16, 2015 at 2:50 | comment | added | Chris Sunami | @JamesKingsbery While he mentions other disciplines, perhaps illegitimately, I think it's clear that he's mainly thinking about logic. According to Wikipedia In Europe, logic was first developed by Aristotle. Aristotelian logic became widely accepted in science and mathematics and remained in wide use in the West until the early 19th century. Given that, Russell's critique is arguably valid for at least that one discipline. | |
| Apr 15, 2015 at 11:52 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/#!/StackPhilosophy/status/588308809174614016 | ||
| Apr 14, 2015 at 21:05 | comment | added | James Kingsbery | There's also an issue on the otherside of the timeline: Russell makes the claim that Aristotle was the tail end of creative Greek thought, but Greek philosophy continued in the years after Aristotle, and Aristotle hardly dominated this period. One example of an important tradition other than Aristotle at this time was Stoicism, which was arguably much more important in the Latin west. There was also a very strong Platonism tradition in the years after the Aristotle in the east. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 20:59 | comment | added | James Kingsbery | Well, if that were true, Russell exagerates by a factor of 4. But given Aristotle was "rediscoverd" in about the mid 13th century, that leaves on the order of 250 years or so between that rediscovery and the Renaissance, at which point lots of other things were rediscovered and Aristotelianism hardly seems dominant. | |
| S Apr 14, 2015 at 19:58 | history | suggested | John Kugelman | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Improved formatting and grammar
|
| Apr 14, 2015 at 19:47 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 14, 2015 at 19:58 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2015 at 18:59 | comment | added | Chris Sunami | @JamesKingsbery A good point, but that math still leaves 500 years of post-Renaissance Aristotle prior to Russell. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 17:27 | comment | added | James Kingsbery | Also worth noting that in Western Europe, Aristotle actually did not have the pride of place that Russell seems to say that he does, see eg: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_of_Aristotle. About 1500 years took place between Aristotle and when Aristotle again became prominent in the West. | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 17:23 | comment | added | James Kingsbery | I seem to remember this coming up in a recent episode of the History of Philosophy podcast, can't remember which one... maybe this one? historyofphilosophy.net/abelard-marenbon | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 17:22 | answer | added | Chris Sunami | timeline score: 12 | |
| Apr 14, 2015 at 16:46 | review | First posts | |||
| Apr 14, 2015 at 16:56 | |||||
| Apr 14, 2015 at 16:44 | history | asked | amphibient | CC BY-SA 3.0 |