Intended as an introduction to Aristotle's philosophy, this book succeeds in presenting and defending a unified conception of Aristotle's philosophy while at the same time making the discussion accessible to the student approaching the Aristotelian corpus for the first time. Taking Aristotle's mention of a distinctively human desire to understand as the starting point, Lear tackles the analysis of this desire from two perspectives--that of the object of understanding and that of the subject. The first perspective leads to the study (...) of Aristotle's physics and metaphysics, the latter to the study of his psychology and ethics. The discussion of each area centers on three or four topics; for instance, the topics for physics are change, infinity of space and time, and motion. From Zeno's arrow to incontinence, Lear manages to cover many of the questions that have exercised recent commentators on Aristotle's philosophy. Ultimately, both perspectives are seen to be different ways of looking at a single reality, namely, the actualization of essences in the mind reflecting on them. The final chapter with a mighty crescendo brings nature, man, and God together. As Lear explains, "'human mind contemplating form,' 'substantial form,' 'primary substance,' and 'God thinking himself' may be various ways of describing the same thing--form at the highest level of actuality". In the end, nature achieves its highest form in making itself intelligible and the human mind, its highest form in apprehending essences. (shrink)

This essay is a response to Myles Burnyeat’s paper that attacks an interpretation of the credibility and acceptability of Aristotle’s views of the body and soul. It begins with a discussion of Aristotle’s motivating problems. An interpretation is defended against Burnyeat, which distinguishes Aristotle from both materialist reductionism, and from the Burnyeat interpretation that perceiving etc. does not require concomitant material change, and that awareness is primitive. Aristotle’s position is then defended as tenable, even in the context of a modern (...) theory of matter. (shrink)

Aristotle did not view perception as a rudimentary reaction with little content as suggested by Plato, nor as the work of reason and thought as claimed by Strato. Perception is a half-way house between the two. This essay explores Aristotle’s redrawing of the map in which perception is located, and the formal and material causes of perception.