counter create hit On Generation and Corruption - Download Free eBook
Hot Best Seller

On Generation and Corruption

Availability: Ready to download

Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures. Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures.


Compare

Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures. Further, we are to study growth and 'alteration'. We must inquire what each of them is; and whether 'alteration' is to be identified with coming-to-be, or whether to these different names there correspond two separate processes with distinct natures.

30 review for On Generation and Corruption

  1. 4 out of 5

    Orhan Pelinkovic

    It's fascinating to notice in Aristotle's books, which are over two millennia old, that he is always properly citing his sources and quoting the preceding philosophers. In essence, he does not attempt to take any recognition for someone else's ideas and in return implements a high ethical standard of referencing his sources. In Aristotle's On the Generation and Corruption (350 BCE) (this title in English is a bit inadequate) he discusses the characteristics of matter, the "stuff" we're made of an It's fascinating to notice in Aristotle's books, which are over two millennia old, that he is always properly citing his sources and quoting the preceding philosophers. In essence, he does not attempt to take any recognition for someone else's ideas and in return implements a high ethical standard of referencing his sources. In Aristotle's On the Generation and Corruption (350 BCE) (this title in English is a bit inadequate) he discusses the characteristics of matter, the "stuff" we're made of and surrounded by. Do things come to be and pass away? Or is everything a product or a result of alteration? All this associated me with the law of conservation of energy, which states that energy is always conserved, therefore, cannot be created or destroyed or as Aristotle puts it: “the corruption of one thing is the generation of another and vice versa.” Aristotle accepts Empedocles' notion that matter is composed of the four elements: earth, being the heaviest, then water, air, and the lightest, fire. But unlike Plato's elements that have a particular shape, Aristotle's elements do not differ in shape, and there are a limited number of them, not infinity, as Democritus claims. Although, its Democritus' concept and description of matter that is more in line with today's modern science. Democritus states that matter is made of small, invisible, indivisible, uncreated, moving, and indestructible atoms and between them lies a void. Aristotle disagrees with this notion but does show admiration for Democritus and his work. In my view, this book was more insightful than Aristotle's On the Heavens but less compelling than his Physics or Metaphysics. In any case, I look forward to reading more of Aristotle in the future.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Roy Lotz

    With this relatively minor work of proto-science, my voyage through Aristotle’s corpus continues. Of Generation and Corruption is a very poor name for this work; a better one would be Of Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away. Those two terms capture what Aristotle is investigating: How does matter come about in the first place? How is one type of matter transformed into another type? How do things grow and diminish? How do the elements act on one another? These questions lead Aristotle into what might With this relatively minor work of proto-science, my voyage through Aristotle’s corpus continues. Of Generation and Corruption is a very poor name for this work; a better one would be Of Coming-to-Be and Passing-Away. Those two terms capture what Aristotle is investigating: How does matter come about in the first place? How is one type of matter transformed into another type? How do things grow and diminish? How do the elements act on one another? These questions lead Aristotle into what might justly be called proto-chemistry. One thing Aristotle spends a lot of time wondering about is, from our modern point of view, unmistakably conservation laws. Can matter spring into existence from nothing? Or must it always come from something else? Aristotle (though not for the correct reasons) decides upon the latter: "every coming-to-be is a passing-away of something else and every passing-away some other thing’s coming-to-be.” In other words, out of nothing, comes nothing. While Aristotle is correct in this surmise, he is less successful in investigating what I cannot but call Newton’s Third Law. Can or cannot one thing affect another thing without it itself being affected? Here we see Aristotle’s puzzling confusion of metaphorical uses of terms with their more strict definitions: ... it is commonly supposed that ‘touching’ must be reciprocal. The reason of this belief is that ‘movers’ which belong to the same kind as the ‘moved’ impart motion by being moved. Hence if anything imparts motion without itself being moved, it may touch the ‘moved’ and yet itself be touched by nothing—for we say sometimes that the man who grieves us ‘touches’ us, but not that we ‘touch' him. In other words, since we are ‘touched’ by an emotional event, while our ‘being touched’ does not necessarily affect the event itself, Newton’s Third Law isn’t necessarily true—there was an action without a reaction. Aristotle makes a similar point when he says “if agent and patient have not the same matter, agent acts without being affected: thus the art of healing produces health without itself being acted upon in any way by that which is being healed.” When a doctor heals a patient, the art of healing acts without itself necessarily being acted upon. (Incidentely, I’m not sure if I’d agree with that.) This confusion of words when applied to social and physical situations runs through much of his proto-scientific work, leading to much confusion. In any case, Aristotle soon moves on from these preliminaries into a deeper investigation into the four elements—which are, of course, Fire, Air, Water, and Earth. What are the specific qualities that differentiate these elements from one another? Well, for one, Fire and Air rise, while Water and Earth fall. But what differentiates Fire from Air and Water from Earth, then? Says Aristotle: “Fire is hot and dry, whereas Air is hot and moist (Air being a sort of aqueous vapour); and Water is cold and moist, while Earth is cold and dry.” Now, by “moist” Aristotle doesn’t mean “damp,” but rather what us moderns would call “fluid”: “ ‘moist’ is that which, being readily adaptable in shape, is not determinable by any limit of its own: while ‘dry’ is that which is readily determinable by its own limit, but not readily adaptable in shape.” The way these elements interact is qua their contrary qualities: ... it is a law of nature that body is affected by body, flavour by flavour, colour by colour, and so in general what belongs to any kind by a member of the same kind—the reason being that ‘contraries’ are in every case within a single identical kind, and it is ‘contraries’ which reciprocally act and suffer action. Yes, they do share some qualities, which would seem to complicate this interaction via contraries idea; but though each element is described by two qualities, one quality gives each its fundamental identity: “Earth by dry rather than by cold, Water by cold rather than by moist, Air by moist rather than by hot, and Fire by hot rather than by dry.” Aristotle quickly moves on from there, thinking he has basically solved all of the pertinent problems, and then makes some more general statements about the universe as a whole. This leads him to a paragraph that I will quote in full, because it so marvelously encapsulates his way of thinking: Coming-to-be and passing-away will, as we have said, always be continuous, and will never fail owing to the cause we stated. And this continuity has a sufficient reason in our theory. For in all things, as we affirm, Nature always strives after ‘the better’. Now ‘being’ … is better than ‘not being’: but not all things can possess ‘being’, since they are too far removed from the ‘originative source’. God therefore adopted the remaining alternative, and fulfilled the perfection of the universe by making coming-to-be uninterrupted: for the greatest possible coherence would thus be secured to existence, because that ‘coming-to-be should itself come-to-be perpetually’ is the closest approximation to eternal being. Again, in this work we see the centrality of the idea of ‘potential’ to Aristotle’s worldview. The above statement is similar to one he makes in the Physics regarding infinities: Aristotle believes that there is no such thing as an actual infinity, but there are such things as potential infinities. The above paragraph seems to be just another way of saying that the cosmos is a potential infinity. This leads me to wonder: what is the ontological status of a ‘potential’ object? Aristotle treats them as if they are real—just as real as ‘actual’ objects, though in a different way. For example, for Aristotle, the statement “there is an egg on the table” and “that egg is potentially a chicken” are equally true statements, applied to two equally real objects: namely, the egg, and the potential chicken. But a year or so ago I remember reading an essay by Quine, in which he points out that absurdities result from regarding potentialities as real. For example, is my refrigerator full of an infinite amount of potential food? Are an infinite number of potential men standing in my doorway? These rhetorical questions merely point out that, unlike actualities, mutually exclusive potentialities are ‘real’ (or, at least, apparently real). Let’s take a concrete example. Say that, the day after Aristotle calls a certain egg “potentially a chicken,” I’m carrying it back to its nest, and accidentally drop and break it. Clearly, the broken egg is no longer potentially a chicken; both the actual and potential object has been destroyed. But the real question is: was the egg ever a potential chicken? Was not that specific egg doomed to being dropped?—and couldn’t a hyper-knowledgeable, hyper-intelligent physicist have predicted that I would drop it? What I mean by this is that physically determinative theories are not compatible with potentialities: either something will happen, or it won’t. (This, of course, isn’t quite true on the quantum level, but I’m not sure that’s relevant on this macro-scale thought-experiment.) Under this interpretation, it would seem that potentialities are not real, but are merely the products of human ignorance: we cannot determine what will happen, and so have to entertain multiple possibilities to compensate. This, to me, is slightly disturbing. For, to alter the chicken example a bit, we regard murder as the worst of crimes because it destroys another person’s potential; the future of potentialities is closed to that person. The murderer (like myself, the egg-dropper) is then held responsible, because the murder itself is regarded as a potentiality that might not have been actualized; in other words, the murderer might not have chosen to murder, thereby activating another, parallel, potentiality, in which the victim lived. Yet if potentialities are not real, then the event couldn’t have happened any other way. It was, in a word, inevitable. Disturbing, no? Aristotle wonders aloud about this same problem—viz., whether things necessarily turn out the way they do—in this arresting passage: Then are all the things that come-to-be of this contingent character? Or, on the contrary, is it absolutely necessary for some of them to come-to-be? Is there, in fact, a distinction in the field of ‘coming-to-be’ corresponding to the distinction, within the field of ‘being’, between things that cannot possibly ‘not-be’ and things that can ‘not-be’? For instance, is it necessary that solstices shall come-to-be, i.e. impossible that they should fail to be able to occur? I think a more careful thinker than I could do this philosophical problem justice; even Aristotle seems a little stumped.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Mahmoud Sami

    في بداية هذا الكتاب الممتع قد تشعر بأنك قد ذهبت بعيدا عن الفلسفة في مقدمة بارتلمي سانتهلير و قد استفاض في شرح اصل الاغريق و ظروف نشأتهم و حروبهم مدنهم و صدهم للفرس و مجد أثينا ثم الحروب البلوبونسية فيما بينهم و ذكره للمدارس الفلسفية كإيليا و فيثاغورس و اصراره علي اظهار الاغريق بالرواد و المبتكرين لعلوم الفلسفة و ان كان هناك دور للشرق فهو اقل من ان يُحسب كإسهام في تشكل هذه الفلسفة الرائده. عند انتهاء هذا التقديم الذي يمتد ل 88 صفحة يبدأ الكتاب بجزئيه الكون و الفساد و يختص الجزء الأول في نقض نظريات في بداية هذا الكتاب الممتع قد تشعر بأنك قد ذهبت بعيدا عن الفلسفة في مقدمة بارتلمي سانتهلير و قد استفاض في شرح اصل الاغريق و ظروف نشأتهم و حروبهم مدنهم و صدهم للفرس و مجد أثينا ثم الحروب البلوبونسية فيما بينهم و ذكره للمدارس الفلسفية كإيليا و فيثاغورس و اصراره علي اظهار الاغريق بالرواد و المبتكرين لعلوم الفلسفة و ان كان هناك دور للشرق فهو اقل من ان يُحسب كإسهام في تشكل هذه الفلسفة الرائده. عند انتهاء هذا التقديم الذي يمتد ل 88 صفحة يبدأ الكتاب بجزئيه الكون و الفساد و يختص الجزء الأول في نقض نظريات انكساجوراس و ثوكيبس وديمقريطس و امبيدقل علي وجه الخصوص . مثل الكون المطلق و الإستحالة، و التنافر و الإندماج و هو يعتبر البذرة الأولي لما سيكمله هيجل من بعد أرسطو و تفصيله لمبدأ الديالكتيك و نظرية الإرتقاء. و في الجزء الثاني من الكتاب تحديدا في الفصل التاسع يتفرغ أرسطو لعرض مذهبه الخاص و نقضه لسقراط في علة الأشياء الكائنة التي تحدث عنها و دونها افلاطون في محاورة أفيدون. و في الفصل العاشر يسرد أرسطو نظريته في الزمان و الحركة و النقلة الدائرية و توالد الوجود و هو من أمتع الفصول في الكتاب. لا أريد الإستطالة في التعليق علي الكتاب لكنه بمثابة الجوهرة للمهتمين بالفلسفة القديمة و أنصح بالإطلاع علي أعمال من وردت أسمائهم في المقدمة قبل قرائته لتحقيقي أعلي قدر من الفهم والإستمتاع بهذه الفلسفة التي كانت السبب في تنوير العالم و نشأة العلوم الطبيعية

  4. 4 out of 5

    Illiterate

    There’s a reason why many modern philosophers distinguish their analytic/conceptual claims from empirical/scientific ones.

  5. 4 out of 5

    مريم عكاشة

    أنهيتُه أخيرًا .. كانَ الأمرٌُُ صعبًا للغاية ..قراءة كتابًا لواحِدٍ من آباء الفلسفة في كُل الأزمنة.. يتحدث الكِتاب عن الجدل الفلسفي فيما يخُص كون الأشياء ..استحالتها و فسادها و آراء الفلاسفة و نقد أرسطو أو اتفاقه معهم .. هُناك من الفلاسفة من كانَ يرى أن الكون من العدم هو الأصل و هناك من يرى أن الأصل واحد و الأشياء تستحيل ..و هناك من يرى أن الجزيئات المكونة للأشياء هي الأصل و التي قد يصل حجمُها إلى العدم !! برغم أنني مُلمة بالأمور العلمية ...و على دراية كافية بها و برغم أن الكثير من التأويلات الأر أنهيتُه أخيرًا .. كانَ الأمرٌُُ صعبًا للغاية ..قراءة كتابًا لواحِدٍ من آباء الفلسفة في كُل الأزمنة.. يتحدث الكِتاب عن الجدل الفلسفي فيما يخُص كون الأشياء ..استحالتها و فسادها و آراء الفلاسفة و نقد أرسطو أو اتفاقه معهم .. هُناك من الفلاسفة من كانَ يرى أن الكون من العدم هو الأصل و هناك من يرى أن الأصل واحد و الأشياء تستحيل ..و هناك من يرى أن الجزيئات المكونة للأشياء هي الأصل و التي قد يصل حجمُها إلى العدم !! برغم أنني مُلمة بالأمور العلمية ...و على دراية كافية بها و برغم أن الكثير من التأويلات الأرسطية بدت سخيفة ..إلا أنني كُنت مستمتعة للغاية بالقراءة و الاستنباط و محاولة العيش في تلك العصور حيثُ العقل هو المرجع العلمي الأول لا المادة

  6. 5 out of 5

    Jacob Aitken

    Summarizes many of his earlier claims relating to cause, infinity, and coming to be. He identifies the material substratum as the cause of a thing's coming-to-be. Notes (and rejects) the idea that Plato's indivisibles are geometric planes. I actually side with Plato on this one. Imagine an undifferentiated “No-Thing.” This isn’t “nothing” in the sense of non-existence. It’s rather like an empty hyper-set. Designate it with Φ. Imagine an empty rectangle: Strictly speaking, this rectangle, or empty Summarizes many of his earlier claims relating to cause, infinity, and coming to be. He identifies the material substratum as the cause of a thing's coming-to-be. Notes (and rejects) the idea that Plato's indivisibles are geometric planes. I actually side with Plato on this one. Imagine an undifferentiated “No-Thing.” This isn’t “nothing” in the sense of non-existence. It’s rather like an empty hyper-set. Designate it with Φ. Imagine an empty rectangle: Strictly speaking, this rectangle, or empty set, doesn’t have any edges. It is an infinitely extended no-thing. Now, we cleave this space: So now we have two spaces, “all that inside the circle, and all outside it”. All of the space outside the circle will be the interior of space 1, designated as a topological “o” superscript above the Φ. But since the rectangle goes on forever, what we really have is this: (1) Φ⁰ The space inside the circle is another interior, (2) Φ⁰. And the common surface between the two, designated with an alpha ɑΦ₁₂ Now let’s look at what just happened. Remember we still have our empty hyperset (Φ). We now have three derivatives: the space outside the circle, the space inside the circle, and the common surface between the two. Thus, Φ = (1) Φ⁰, (2) Φ⁰, and ɑΦ₁₂ Therefore, 1 = 3.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Truls Ljungström

    Denna bok är tudelad - halva är en kritik och förklaring av elementsläran, och eftersom denna inte direkt är använd numera, så är denna del poänglös. Den mer intressanta halvan handlar om hur man inom logiken bör hantera potentialiteter, och saker som kan följa men inte är nödvändiga. Denna del kan jag definitivt rekommendera filosofistudenter och logiker att läsa. Tyvärr är de sammanblandade; dess bättre är boken kort, så det är inte en enormt ansträngande process att ta sig igenom den. Det som Denna bok är tudelad - halva är en kritik och förklaring av elementsläran, och eftersom denna inte direkt är använd numera, så är denna del poänglös. Den mer intressanta halvan handlar om hur man inom logiken bör hantera potentialiteter, och saker som kan följa men inte är nödvändiga. Denna del kan jag definitivt rekommendera filosofistudenter och logiker att läsa. Tyvärr är de sammanblandade; dess bättre är boken kort, så det är inte en enormt ansträngande process att ta sig igenom den. Det som gör att jag bara ger boken 3 stjärnor är att den helt enkelt är tråkigt skriven.

  8. 5 out of 5

    Marts (Thinker)

    Aristotle analyses how things come into being and go out of existence...

  9. 4 out of 5

    Brian Schiebout

    On Generation and Corruption written by Aristotle and translated into English by H. H. Joachim is the elemental chemistry book for the ancient world. In many ways I expected a different book based on the title maybe more on whether things come to be or merely alter from one sense to another but what it dealt with instead was how the four elements which the ancients believed all things were composed of worked and how they interacted with each other. While I realize that the system which Aristotle On Generation and Corruption written by Aristotle and translated into English by H. H. Joachim is the elemental chemistry book for the ancient world. In many ways I expected a different book based on the title maybe more on whether things come to be or merely alter from one sense to another but what it dealt with instead was how the four elements which the ancients believed all things were composed of worked and how they interacted with each other. While I realize that the system which Aristotle based this book on is completely inaccurate the book is interesting because many fantasy novels which I enjoy reading base their science and magic on these very same elements. The first of the elements is earth which is composed of the contraries of dry and cold. Maybe I should start with the idea of contraries on which this whole theory rests. According to Aristotle all things could be determined by opposite properties which contradicted each other . The primary contraries were hot and cold, and wet and dry and each of the four elements was composed of a pair of these contraries. Although completely inaccurate it worked to describe things in a method that worked to describe most things until microscopes finally were able to discover the true elements which compose matter. I found this book an enlightening although flawed study of this topic which explains how the false theory came to dominate in the minds of many wise men throughout history. I would recommend this book if you really want a logical way to put a four element system into a fantasy setting.

  10. 5 out of 5

    د.ريمة

    الكتاب الذي بين يدي(463 صفحة) 2018، صادر عن دار التنوع الثقافي، من أين أتت تلك الدار التي تترك كتبها الجديدة تباع على الأرصفة بدمشق؟. هذا أولا.ثانيا قرأت لها كتابات : اعترافات تولستوي، والكون والفساد، وظهر لي رقم مختلف للباركود بين مانشر هنا ومالدي. فضلا عن عدم موثوقية الكتاب، وعدم توثيق المعلومات التي فيه،حتى أن ماورد من بعض مراجع بسيطة لايفي بالغرض، ولاتعتبر مرجعا معتمدا، خاصة أن في بعضها للمترجم ذاته.وماذا عن أصل النسخة قبل الترجمة؟.لانعرف. ومافيها من مغالطات واضحة مثال: الصفحة 114 من ذكر حضارة الكتاب الذي بين يدي(463 صفحة) 2018، صادر عن دار التنوع الثقافي، من أين أتت تلك الدار التي تترك كتبها الجديدة تباع على الأرصفة بدمشق؟. هذا أولا.ثانيا قرأت لها كتابات : اعترافات تولستوي، والكون والفساد، وظهر لي رقم مختلف للباركود بين مانشر هنا ومالدي. فضلا عن عدم موثوقية الكتاب، وعدم توثيق المعلومات التي فيه،حتى أن ماورد من بعض مراجع بسيطة لايفي بالغرض، ولاتعتبر مرجعا معتمدا، خاصة أن في بعضها للمترجم ذاته.وماذا عن أصل النسخة قبل الترجمة؟.لانعرف. ومافيها من مغالطات واضحة مثال: الصفحة 114 من ذكر حضارة فينيقيا ويهوده، متى كان ليهودا حضارة أصلا؟ كل ماتعلموه في مملكتيهم الشمالية والجنوبية في أرض الكنعانيين في فلسطين، الرعي والزراعة من الكنعانيين أنفسهم،و الكنعانيون هم من سبقوهم في السكنى وكانوا أكثر منهم عددا، وأعرقهم حضارة. فضلا عن مصطلحات لحضارات لاوجود لها، أو ربما هو إخفاق في الترجمة وفشل. انظر الصفحة 121، و 122. لاأدري عن النسخة المعروضة هنا، ماأصلها، بكل الأحوال. علينا القراءة بدقة، ووعي. الترجمة ل أحمد لطفي السيد.. وهذا لمن لايعرف من هو: https://www.goodreads.com/review/show...

  11. 5 out of 5

    Faisal AlGhazali

    نبذة: عبارة عن كتابين (الكون والفساد). في الكتاب الأول يُناقش مسألة كَوْن الأشياء واستحالتها، والأشياء هي العناصر التي تتكوّن منها المواد تحديدًا، وكيفية نمو الأجسام وتطوّر المواد مابين الكون والإستحالة. الكتاب الثاني يناقش فساد العناصر والمواد وتحوّلها من الكون والفساد، وأنّهما متضادان. يوضّح كيفيك تكوّن المواد من العناصر الأربعة: الماء، الهواء، النار والأرض، أنا المواد تتكوّن من خليط من هذه العناصر الأربعة. رأيي: الكتاب يعطي منظور جديد ومختلف بالنسبة لي من ناحية تركيب وفناء المواد بأجزائها الد نبذة: عبارة عن كتابين (الكون والفساد). في الكتاب الأول يُناقش مسألة كَوْن الأشياء واستحالتها، والأشياء هي العناصر التي تتكوّن منها المواد تحديدًا، وكيفية نمو الأجسام وتطوّر المواد مابين الكون والإستحالة. الكتاب الثاني يناقش فساد العناصر والمواد وتحوّلها من الكون والفساد، وأنّهما متضادان. يوضّح كيفيك تكوّن المواد من العناصر الأربعة: الماء، الهواء، النار والأرض، أنا المواد تتكوّن من خليط من هذه العناصر الأربعة. رأيي: الكتاب يعطي منظور جديد ومختلف بالنسبة لي من ناحية تركيب وفناء المواد بأجزائها الدقيقة، والفلسفة وراءها، كمّا يقدّم مفاهيم الفعل والإنفعال وكيف تُكوّن خواص العناصر. الكتاب جدًا معقّد ويجب قراءته بعقل يعي الأحداث التي يقرأها ١٠٠٪‏.

  12. 4 out of 5

    JP

    Here we see the full consideration of whether things come-to-be and pass-away or are altered from some other state. He refutes the previous assertion by Empodocles that the 4 elements are equal yet not combined. He claims and subsequent support that substance is made of real elements which at some point cannot be further divided, that these elements are combined, and that they are necessary for existence and cyclical in process.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Mohamed Abdel Maksoud

    This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. # الكون والفساد كتاب يقدم فيه أرسطو أطروحته عن الممر من عدم الوجود إلى الوجود، ويناقش فرضية أن هناك مواد خام تقوم عليها التغيرات بين العناصر الأربعة(الأرض والماء والهواء والنار) كان أرسطو رائعًا في مناقشة كيفية ظهور المادة، وتغيير حالتها، وإيقافها. في حين أن الموارد العلمية المتاحة للكيميائي أو الفيزيائي اليوم أفضل بكثير مما كان متاحًا في أثينا الكلاسيكية خلال القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد، لا تزال أطروحة أرسطو حول الكون والفساد تشكل تحقيقًا مثيرًا للإعجاب في اللبنات الأساسية للوجود. اكتشفت، بعد أن بد # الكون والفساد كتاب يقدم فيه أرسطو أطروحته عن الممر من عدم الوجود إلى الوجود، ويناقش فرضية أن هناك مواد خام تقوم عليها التغيرات بين العناصر الأربعة(الأرض والماء والهواء والنار) كان أرسطو رائعًا في مناقشة كيفية ظهور المادة، وتغيير حالتها، وإيقافها. في حين أن الموارد العلمية المتاحة للكيميائي أو الفيزيائي اليوم أفضل بكثير مما كان متاحًا في أثينا الكلاسيكية خلال القرن الرابع قبل الميلاد، لا تزال أطروحة أرسطو حول الكون والفساد تشكل تحقيقًا مثيرًا للإعجاب في اللبنات الأساسية للوجود. اكتشفت، بعد أن بدأت في "الكون والفساد"، أن هذا العمل هو متابعة لأطروحة أرسطو السابقة "الفيزياء" . لذلك كان يجب أن أقرأ الفيزياءأولاً:لكنني شعرت أن أفضل ما يمكنني فعله، بعد أن بدأت، هو مجرد المشاركة في العمل؛ وأثناء قيامي بذلك، وجدت رؤى أرسطو دقيقة ومفيدة بشكل مميز. المهمة التي وضعها أرسطو لنفسه هنا هي "انتقاء أسباب وتعريفات التوالد والفساد المشترك بين كل تلك الأشياء التي تحدث وتهلك في سياق الطبيعة". بعبارة أخرى، عندما يأتي شيء ما، هل هو ظهور جديد حقًا، لشيء لم يكن له وجود من قبل؛ أم هو تحوير أو تحوّل من شيء آخر؟ أحد الأمثلة التي ذكرها أرسطو في هذا الصدد هو الأكل والتغذية. نأخذ الخبز أو اللحم أو الجبن أو الفاكهة أو الخضار أو الماء، وتخضع هذه الأشياء لنوع من التغيير، وتتوقف عن كونها ما كانت عليه وتصبح جزءًا مما نحن عليه. الشاب الذي يأكل الكثير من الطعام الصحي قد يزيد كتلة العضلات نتيجة لذلك، وبالتالي يصبح شخصًا أقوى. ومع ذلك، ما الذي يحدث بالضبط؟ هل هي عملية تولد أم فساد أم تغيير؟ وعندما ينمو شيء ما، يسأل أرسطو، "كيف يختلف [النمو] عن التوليد والتعديل، وكيف يصغر كل شيء من الأشياء التي تنمو وتنمو وكل شيء يصغر؟" مع الأخذ في الاعتبار، كما يفعل غالبًا، مع المفكرين الأوائل مثل فيلسوف ما قبل سقراط إمبيدوكليس، يشير أرسطو إلى أن هناك ظروفًا "نرى فيها نفس الجسد، ويبقى مستمرًا، وفي وقت ما سائلاً وفي وقت آخر صلب، وهذا يحدث إليها دون حدوث انقسام أو تكوين. الاستنتاج النهائي لأرسطو، فيما يتعلق بمسألة ما إذا كانت الأشياء تتغير في العدد أو الشكل، هو أن الأمر كله يعتمد على ما إذا كانت طبيعة ما يجب تغييره قابلة للتلف أم لا. هكذا تحدث أرسطو، منذ حوالي 350 قبل الميلاد بالنسبة لاستمرارية المادة، ينص قانون حفظ المادة (أو حفظ الكتلة) على أنه في نظام مغلق، يجب أن تظل كمية الكتلة أو المادة ثابتة؛ قد يتم إعادة ترتيب المادة في الفضاء، أو تغيير شكلها، لكنها ستظل موجودة. وفيما يتعلق بمسألة "التوقف عن الوجود" ، فإن الظرف الوحيد الذي يبدو أن ذلك ممكنًا في ظل قيود قانون حفظ المادة، هو عندما تدخل المادة في انهيار أو "ثقب أسود" وتتوقف عن أن تكون جزءًا من الكون المعروف. من خلال هذا المنطق، تقترب المادة من التفرد، وهي نقطة المادة ذات الكثافة اللانهائية والصغيرة للغاية في مركز الثقب الأسود، ويتوقف تطبيق قوانين الفيزياء المعروفة. لكن بعد ذلك، يعتقد فيزيائيون آخرون، مثل ستيفن هوكينج، أنه ربما لا تزال هذه المادة موجودة، في مكان ما، ولا تستطيع أدواتنا قياسها بعد. مفاهيم صعبة، أليس كذلك؟ لا يزال عقلي يترنح من قراءة هذه الأطروحة المعقدة والصعبة من أرسطو. لكن من الممتع جدًا التفكير في مدى تمتع أرسطو بالوصول إلى المعدات الحديثة التي يستخدمها الفيزيائيون لاستكشاف الكون. تخيل أن أرسطو ينظر إلى الفضاء السحيق من خلال تلسكوب هابل الفضائي، أو يراجع نتائج مصادم الهادرونات الكبير في سويسرا، أو مجرد الدردشة مع ستيفن هوكينج.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Tyson Adams

    I'm not going to review this book. It's a few thousand years old, I don't really have anything to add. What I found interesting about this book was what it got wrong. Obviously Aristotle is one of the most influential thinkers of all time, he was one of the earlier people to grapple with determinism (Democritis and Leucippus got there first). But in Aristotle's arguments on the Four Causes and the Four Elements, it was interesting that he rejected Leucippus' and Democritus' Atomism, a theory that I'm not going to review this book. It's a few thousand years old, I don't really have anything to add. What I found interesting about this book was what it got wrong. Obviously Aristotle is one of the most influential thinkers of all time, he was one of the earlier people to grapple with determinism (Democritis and Leucippus got there first). But in Aristotle's arguments on the Four Causes and the Four Elements, it was interesting that he rejected Leucippus' and Democritus' Atomism, a theory that was ultimately proven correct. Which got me to thinking. How would anyone describe fire - one of the four elements - without our modern knowledge? How would we explain or seek to understand (rationalise) the workings of fire without chemistry, physics, and all of that other knowledge we take for granted? Reading the arguments melding the four causes and elements into an understanding of change and decay in the modern age, it is easy to point and laugh. Stupid philosophers can't science! But as I was reading I realised I could counter the arguments only based upon the accumulated knowledge of the natural world. If I was to remove that knowledge and just go by observation, could I do better. The answer is clearly no. At best I could come up with different, but probably not better. This realisation then had me thinking about how we don't value our modern age and modern knowledge as much as we should. As Douglas Adams noted, we are surrounded by wonders of technology and science, but could we explain it and rebuild it, or would we have to settle for being a sandwich maker from the stars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_wi...

  15. 4 out of 5

    Josiah Richardson

    Aristotle was right about a lot of things, given the day in which he lived. It's hard to keep in mind that in order to get to where we are today, we had to come up from where Aristotle was in his own time. It's easy to criticize a man who was a recognized genius for all the blunders that we have corrected him over in our world. We are our generations Aristotle, and is out beliefs and understandings evolve, one day someone will look at me and this review and wonder how such a blunderous generatio Aristotle was right about a lot of things, given the day in which he lived. It's hard to keep in mind that in order to get to where we are today, we had to come up from where Aristotle was in his own time. It's easy to criticize a man who was a recognized genius for all the blunders that we have corrected him over in our world. We are our generations Aristotle, and is out beliefs and understandings evolve, one day someone will look at me and this review and wonder how such a blunderous generation could have gotten anything accomplished; sometimes I wonder that my self. Aristotle focused on where things came from and how they devolve. The generation part was mostly correct. We don't get something out of nothing. There had to be a first cause for all additional causes. And honestly, he wasn't too far off in where things end up over time, writing that all things are made up of previously existing things. This reincarnation, if you will, of material things even crosses over to physical beings such as our self. If you can overlook the eerily similar transcendentalist overtones, this is mostly true and it is a philosophical way of expounding on Newton's second law of physics if you look carefully enough. Aristotle was a great mind trapped in his limited generation. As are we.

  16. 4 out of 5

    Paul Haspel

    On the whole, Aristotle did quite well at the task of discussing how matter comes to be, changes its state of being, and ceases to be. While the scientific resources available to a chemist or physicist today are much better than what was available in classical Athens during the 4th century B.C., Aristotle’s treatise On Generation and Corruption still constitutes an impressive investigation of the basic building blocks of existence. I found out, after beginning On Generation and Corruption, that t On the whole, Aristotle did quite well at the task of discussing how matter comes to be, changes its state of being, and ceases to be. While the scientific resources available to a chemist or physicist today are much better than what was available in classical Athens during the 4th century B.C., Aristotle’s treatise On Generation and Corruption still constitutes an impressive investigation of the basic building blocks of existence. I found out, after beginning On Generation and Corruption, that this work is a follow-up to Aristotle’s earlier treatise The Physics. Yeah, okay, so I should have read The Physics first: my bad. But I felt that the best thing I could do, having begun, was simply to soldier on with the work; and as I did so, I found Aristotle’s insights characteristically thorough and helpful. The task that Aristotle sets for himself here is “to pick out the causes and definitions of generation and corruption common to all those things which come to be and perish in the course of nature” (p. 1). In other words, when something comes to be, is it a truly new coming-into-existence, of something that had no existence before; or is it an alteration or transformation from something else? One of the examples that Aristotle brings up in that regard is that of eating and nutrition. We take in bread, meat or cheese, fruits or vegetables, water or wine, and those things undergo some sort of change, ceasing to be what they were and becoming part of who we are. A young person who eats plenty of healthy food may increase muscle mass as a result, thereby becoming a stronger person. Yet what exactly is going on there? Is it a process of generation (coming-to-be), or of corruption (ceasing-to-be), or of alteration? And when something grows, Aristotle asks, “how does [growth] differ from generation and alteration, and…how does each of the things that grow, grow, and everything that gets smaller, get smaller?” (p. 15) Taking issue, as he often does, with earlier thinkers like the pre-Socratic philosopher Empedocles, Aristotle points out that there are circumstances under which “we see the same body, remaining continuous, at one time liquid and at another solid, and this happens to it without division or composition taking place…for it has become solid from being liquid without any change of order or position in its nature, nor does it have within it the hard and solid bodies, indivisible in their bulk, but it is at one time liquid in the same way throughout, and at another time hard or solid” (p. 32). In other words, there is alteration, but not any discernible generation or corruption. If you have bad memories of a high school or college chemistry class where you had to memorize the entire Periodic Table of the Elements – all 118 of them, by the latest count – then you might find it comforting to know that in Aristotle’s time, “the elements are four in number”, and their properties can be summed up as follows: “[F]ire is hot and dry, air hot and wet (for air is something like steam), water cold and wet, and earth cold and dry” (p. 40). So much for having to memorize all those atomic weights and whatnot, right? Aristotle’s ultimate conclusion, with regard to the question of whether things change in number or in form, is that it all depends upon whether the nature of what is to be changed is perishable or not. Accordingly, “water and air, for instance, come to be in a circle, and if there is a cloud it is bound to rain and if it rains there is bound also to be a cloud. Men and animals, on the other hand, do not return on themselves in such a way that the same one comes to be again…and it seems that this generation is in a straight line” (p. 59). Thus spake Aristotle, back around 350 B.C. But what about now, in 2019 A.D.? What do people say about matter coming to be, and changing, and ceasing to be? Well, physicists nowadays believe that at the Big Bang, the very beginning of the universe, there was no matter – only light, in the form of photons. (“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.”) The decay of those photons into particles and anti-particles eventually resulted in the generation of matter. Most particles and anti-particles cancelled one another out, destroyed each other, but enough particles survived to form all the matter in the universe. Getting more specific than that would involve talking about concepts like electroweak baryogenesis that, for now, are above my pay grade. As for the continuance of matter, the Law of Conservation of Matter (or Conservation of Mass) holds that, in a closed system, the amount of mass or matter must remain constant; matter may be rearranged in space, or changed in form, but it will still be there. And in terms of matter “ceasing-to-be,” the only circumstance under which that seems possible, under the constraints of the Law of Conservation of Matter, is when matter enters a collapsar or “black hole” and ceases to be part of the known universe. By this logic, matter approaches the singularity, the infinitely small and infinitely dense point of matter at the center of a black hole, and the known laws of physics cease to apply. But then other physicists, like Stephen Hawking, hold that perhaps that matter is still there, somewhere, and our instruments just can’t measure it yet. Heady concepts, aren’t they? My mind is still reeling from reading this complex and challenging treatise from Aristotle. But it is great fun to think about how much Aristotle would have enjoyed accessing the modern equipment that physicists utilize to explore the universe. Imagine Aristotle looking at deep space through the Hubble Space Telescope, or reviewing results from the Large Hadron Collider in Switzerland, or just chatting with Stephen Hawking. How inspiring it is to see the conversation that Aristotle began continuing in this manner.

  17. 4 out of 5

    Jairo Fraga

    Insuportável, pelo menos pro meu nível de maturidade nesse tipo de assunto. O primeiro dos 2 livros é muito difícil de ler, com uma escrita também deplorável, as coisas melhoram ligeiramente no segundo, quando Aristóteles se concentra mais nos quatro elementos, que embora errado seja mais agradável de se ler. Pega aqui uma continuidade do livro da Física e as quatro causas. Confronta ideias de geração e corrupção vindas de outros filósofos que tenho pouco conhecimento à respeito.

  18. 4 out of 5

    Andy Bintoro

    This is a rather hard material to read and understand, especially if you are not reading the previous books. I read this book hope i understand the logic, but this book more about the philosophy and science at that time. More precisely, its not science, but a thinking how to explained the process of growth.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Mohamed Helal

    أنا مش عارف أحدد هل المشكلة في ترجمة النص أم النص ذاته لأن في تعليقات المترجم توضيحات لبعض الإضافات والتعديلات على النص حتى تناسب اللغة العربية واللي من الممكن أن تكون أثرت على معاني الجمل وتأويلاتها بنسبة كبيرة. الكتاب تجربة شيقة لمعرفة التفكير الفلسفي القديم بشكل أعمق لكن الترجمة أفسدتها.

  20. 4 out of 5

    كريمة راضي

    نشأة الكون في البداية كانت من عنصري العدم والوجود، فأي منهم كان العلة في الارتقاء والتغير، استحالة العدم إلى وجود ام استحالة الوجود إلى عدم، وحين تتغير العناصر فكيف يكون مصيرها؟ وإلى أين تذهب في النهاية؟ عند الظلام السرمدي؟ ام تتشكل لتكون كون جديد وعناصر جديدة متطورة!!،

  21. 5 out of 5

    Shayma Ahmed

    مو جوي 🙂 وطريقه السرد تثير الملل

  22. 4 out of 5

    Labeba Salameh

    كتاب يعلمك التواضع 😑 مراجعة قصيرة قريبا .. وربما على ستوري الانستغرام

  23. 5 out of 5

    Frankie Rod

    This book is very hard to understand, and Aristoteles is not a relevant person. Many people both before and after him have written works way better and more thoughtful than this.

  24. 5 out of 5

    سلمى العاقل

    أنـهـــيـــــــتـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــهـ كان تحدياً المقدمة عن الأوضاع السياسية في أرض الإغريق وأسيا، كانت طويلة جدا ومملة ثم الترجمة من الاغريقي للفرنسية، ثم العربية، لم تكن جيدة فكرة واحدة وصلتني، أو استطعت فهمها، عندما كان الكون زال الفساد " أو العدم "، وبزوال الكون يسود الفساد، ولا حرف أبعد من من هذا الكلام في الكتاب مفككـ وغير مفهوم أنـهـــيـــــــتـــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــهـ كان تحدياً المقدمة عن الأوضاع السياسية في أرض الإغريق وأسيا، كانت طويلة جدا ومملة ثم الترجمة من الاغريقي للفرنسية، ثم العربية، لم تكن جيدة فكرة واحدة وصلتني، أو استطعت فهمها، عندما كان الكون زال الفساد " أو العدم "، وبزوال الكون يسود الفساد، ولا حرف أبعد من من هذا الكلام في الكتاب مفككـ وغير مفهوم

  25. 5 out of 5

    HassanAli2011 Tunsi

    يناقش في أساس المادة و تكور العلوم والفلسفة لدى الاغريق قبل غبرهم من الامم إضافة الى عدد من الرسائل لم يروقني الكتاب ولا حتى الطبعة

  26. 5 out of 5

    Mannora Elghandour

    متعمق مفصل بغوص في كل شيئ فالكون مجموعه من الظواهر اامجمعه ....

  27. 5 out of 5

    Emil

  28. 4 out of 5

    Joshua

  29. 5 out of 5

    Matthew

  30. 5 out of 5

    Giselle

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.