TOPIC(S) and/or EVENT(S)
1. As we have discussed in class, a book is said to be nonfiction if its content is based on facts or events. What is your book about? [a]. Try writing a paragraph first to capture your thoughts. [b]. Then see if you can boil it down to one clear statement. (Even if you feel like you can just skip to [b], please do both; remember that your reader doesn’t know what you know.)
[a]. It is difficult to say exactly "what my book is about", as
The Metaphysics doesn't have any sort of plot, and in it Aristotle covered a multitude of different topics. I suppose I'll just start from the top and give a brief overview: Aristotle began by discussing the nature of knowledge and wisdom, as well as man's pursuit of them. From there, he transitioned into a review of the work of many early philosophers (Hesiod, Empedocles, the Pythagoreans, Parmenides, Melissus, Xenophanes, and especially Plato), then offered his critique on their various teachings. He affirmed some of their arguments and swiftly refuted others, taking careful lesson from each of them all the while. This marked the end of the first book, Book A (a book is roughly equivalent to a chapter). The next book, Book α, is one of the briefest in
The Metaphysics, and also one of the most important. Especially important is Part 3, "On lectures and their audiences", where Aristotle described how each reader or listener's habits (i.e. the type of language the reader or listener is accustomed to) shape the effect of the lecture on that reader or listener. One key line stood out to me: "Hence one must already be trained to know how take take each sort of argument, since it is absurd to seek at the same time knowledge and the way of attaining knowledge; and it is not easy to get even one of the two." A warning that I should have heeded... There are also some great ideas in Part 1, but I will wait to touch on those until later--there is a particular simile that I plan on citing as an example of a "tool from fiction writing" for the first question of the 'style' section of the prompt, so I will discuss the ideas there. Immediately after Book α Part 3 comes Book B Part 1, another critical bit. Here, Aristotle laid out some the problems to be undertaken in the rest of
The Metaphysics because, as he puts it (quite beautifully I might add), "for those who wish to get clear of difficulties it is advantageous to discuss the difficulties well; for the subsequent free play of thought implies the solution of the previous difficulties, and it is not possible to untie a knot of which one does not know". Everything I have mentioned thus far belongs to what I ascertain to be the introduction of the
The Metaphysics; it was not until this point that Aristotle got into the "meat" of this revolutionary philosophical work. Unfortunately, as anyone who has ever read Aristotle can attest to, there is really no reasonable way for me to summarize his arguments. They are far too great in both number and complexity for me to even begin to paraphrase. In fact, I seriously doubt that there has ever lived a person capable of interpreting Aristotle's work and reiterating it without losing any of its essence in the process; if there is such a person, then his/her level of aptitude vastly exceeds mine, because I wouldn't dream of attempting such a feat. What I can do, however, is provide some general information on the types of topics that he covered in this piece. I would say that the basis of
The Metaphysics is, as one may be able to put together based on the branch of philosophy known as metaphysics that this work established, the study of being. This may sound a bit broad and unspecific... That's because it is. This book deals directly with forms, substances, causes, principles, elements, etc. all the way down to being in virtue of itself, and "the One"--pretty abstract stuff.
[b]. Widely recognized as the archetype of modern philosophy,
The Metaphysics is Aristotle's study of being itself; i.e. the forms and substances from which all of the sensible thing we observe arise.
2. Why did your author choose to write about this topic, person or event?
I assume that this question is merely asking for my supposition since there is no way I could possibly possess that information. Knowing very little about Aristotle himself beyond the numerous contributions he has made to science and society, I would say that it must have been in his very to nature to think in such terms and produce work accordingly. The quantity, diversity, and magnitude of his work are far beyond normal standards, and I imagine the causes of them are as well.
3. Why did you choose this book? What about the book appealed to you the first time it came to your attention (and how did it come to your attention)? What about the book made you want to keep reading once you began?
I knew that I wanted two things from my next literature analysis book: a great philosophical work, and a challenge. I got both. I had, of course, heard of Aristotle before and I knew that he was renowned as one of the greatest thinkers of all time, but I had never actually seen any of his work. I decided that I finally wanted check him out, and began contemplating which of his books I was to read first. I had originally planned on reading
Nicomachean Ethics but, while researching it prior to purchasing it, I was introduced to
The Metaphysics somewhere on the web and it instantly jumped out at me. I ended up picking it up instead. I'll be honest, once I started the book, it was difficult for me to motivate myself to keep reading. Aristotle is somewhat notorious for his intentionally difficult writing style, and, after reading
The Metaphysics, I understand why. The content of the book is excellent and the overall quality is superb, but the already challenging subject matter paired with the cryptic, unorthodox writing style did make the book pretty mentally taxing to read. With only a couple of weeks before this assignment was due, I would've had to read for an excessive amount of time per night in order to give this book the careful attention that it requires and deserves. Unfortunately, I was not willing to put in the time to read such an exhausting book when I already had a million other things on my to-do list each day. I almost never give up like that, and I'm definitely not proud that I did, but I'm not going to hide it. I could have bullshitted this assignment without reading and had it in on time, but that's not how I do things. I avoided making this another item to check off my to-do list and instead completed it on my terms. It may be two weeks past the due date, but at least I read the whole book and am completing the assignment with integrity.
4. Did you find the book realistic? Did you make any connections between people/events you read about and people/events in your own life? Why or (if you didn’t) why not?
This question doesn't apply so much to my book; philosophy is the study/pursuit of the truth so, naturally, with such an unattainable goal as making known the overwhelmingly complex "truth" of all that is, things are going to get messy. Most ideas that are proposed will be incorrect if any progress is to be made. That is the way it is, the way it always has been, and the way it always will be when dealing with any entity short of a superbeing. For how are we to make known what is unknown without first veering away from what is known? Making new discoveries, especially in the field of philosophy where no other tools are available besides the faculty of the mind, requires taking a shot in the dark and going where no other ideas have. Missing the target occasionally is an inevitable outcome when shooting blind. So, while I do find many of the ideas in
The Metaphysics realistic, almost any of them
could be incorrect and, if they are, it would be perfectly understandable. With that, the book was executed flawlessly and any critics will have a tough time disputing any of Aristotle's arguments.
PEOPLE
There are NO characters in this book whatsoever.
STYLE
1. Did the author use any tools from fiction writing (such as foreshadowing or symbolism), or did the author use a journalistic style? Example(s)?
This book is quite interesting in that it is filled with almost nothing but intense philosophical arguments, and yet somehow still retains a style that is almost poetic. The text is rich with figurative language, and has an element to it that I can only describe as graceful. One of my personal favorite examples of a "tool from fiction writing" is the following line from Book α Part 1: "Therefore, since the the truth seems to be be like the proverbial door, which no one can fail to hit, in this respect it must be easy, but the fact that we can have a whole truth and not the particular part we aim at shows the difficulty of it." For contextual purposes, this is just after Aristotle had been discussing the challenges and nonproblems associated with the pursuit of the truth; he basically stated in that section that seeking such an elusive and incredibly complicated thing as "the whole truth" is impossibly difficult in its very nature, especially for the individual, but that it is made infinitely easier by the fact that, with enough people working towards a common goal, the smallest triumphs rise to the top while even the largest failures slip out of the picture, leaving behind a surprising amount of progress. Back to the question: yes, "tools from fiction writing" were utilized, but Aristotle's writing has other, less identifiable elements that make his style very difficult to pin down.
2. Does the author use lengthy descriptions of places and people,or does s/he focus more on action or dialogue? What overall effect do these choices have on the book?
This is another question that doesn't really apply to my book. There are no places, people, action, or dialog of any sort, only arguments and abstractions, so I'm not sure how to hack the question such that I can answer it.
3. What tools does the author use to demonstrate tone and create a mood?
The difficult and unusual nature of Aristotle's writing style undoubtedly makes for a very exhausting, didactic tone. This is offset a bit by the elements that I described in the first question of this section, however, but not enough to change the aforementioned tone that I perceived. I did not notice any sort of mood to the text.
4. What do you think the author’s attitude was toward the subject, or the characters, or the audience (i.e., you)? Why?
As I said in my last literature analysis, it takes an amazing amount of effort and dedication to both actually create a philosophical work of this caliber, and also to amass the knowledge and skills required to be in a position to do so. Because of this, I must say that Aristotle's attitude was beyond passionate towards his work--it there's no way it could not have been. Towards his future audience, however I cannot say the same. He has been compared to a squid because he "coated his work with dark ink" to make it as difficult to understand as possible for his readers. While I wouldn't go as far as to say that this was out of malice or spite, I do think that Aristotle's work was primarily intended for himself, his colleagues, and his students; and definitely not the general public.
5. What resources (newspaper articles, interviews, historical documents, e.g.) does the author offer? Did it matter in your thinking? Why/why not?
No external resources were cited, or really used at all in
The Metaphysics. Aristotle did, however, discuss the ideas of some early philosophers (as I mentioned in the first question of this analysis), but he spoke more of these ideas than about them. Viz., he laid out the teachings of other philosophers in his own words as opposed to using their ideas directly. Nothing unnecessary or vain was included in the text;
The Metaphysics was put together such that each piece fits perfectly into place and necessarily matters in any reader's thinking.
ENDURING MEMORY
Write a paragraph in which you describe the one or two ideas from this book that you expect to remember for a long time. Explain your choices and their importance. Share a passage or two that give your reader a taste of the same effect.
It is not so much the ideas that I expect to remember for a long time, but rather the experience. Chewing on such a challenging piece was something fairly new to me, and I learned a lot from it. With that, there are a few ideas that do stand out. Namely, the ones that I already shared (from Book α Part 3 and Book B Part 1). These two segments differ from much of the other content in that they provide practical advice, and in that they are far more straightforward and less challenging. Here are the two passages that I referenced in their entirety:
Book α Part 3, Paragraph 1: "The effect which lectures produce on a hearer depends on his habits; for we demand the language we are accustomed to, and that which is different from this seems not in keeping but somewhat unintelligible and foreign because of its unwontedness. For it is the customary that is intelligible. The force of habit is shown by the laws, in which legendary and childish elements prevail over our knowledge about them, owing to habit. Thus, some people do not listen to a speaker unless he speaks mathematically, others unless he gives instances, while others expect him to cite a poet as a witness. And some want everything done accurately, while others are annoyed by accuracy, either because they cannot follow the connexion of thought or because they regard it as pettifoggery. For accuracy has something of this character, so that as in trade so in argument some people think it mean. Hence one must already be trained to know how to take each sort of argument, since it is absurd to seek at the same time knowledge and the way of attaining knowledge; and it is not easy to get even one of the two"
Book B Part 1, Paragraph 1: "We must, with a view to the science which we are seeking, first recount the subjects that should be first discussed. These include both the other opinions that some have held on the first principles, and any points besides these that happens to have been overlooked. For those who wish to get clear of difficulties it is advantageous to discuss the difficulties well; for the subsequent free play of thought implies the solution of the previous difficulties, and it is not possible to untie a know of which one does not know. But the difficulty of of our thinking points to a 'knot' in the object; for in so far as our thought is in difficulties, it is in like case with those who are bound; for in either case it is impossible to go forward. Hence one should have surveyed all the difficulties before hand, both for the purposes we have stated and because people who inquire without first stating the difficulties are like those who do not know where they have to go; besides, a man does not otherwise know even whether he has at any time found what he is looking for or not; for the end is not clear to such a man, while to him who has first discussed the difficulties it is clear. Further, he who has heard all the contending arguments, as if they were the parties to a case, must be in a better position for judging."
