Aristotle, it seems, really has some rather strong opinions.

Apparently, he holds a deep-seated hatred towards women. This view of his is quite controversial and has been a topic of much debate over the years.

Not only that, but he also despises plays and anything that he deems as being ridiculous. It's quite interesting to note these aspects of his character.

He is indeed a rather complex and somewhat humorous figure. His beliefs and attitudes set him apart and make him a subject of great fascination.

Whether we agree with his views or not, Aristotle's ideas have had a significant impact on various fields of study.

His thoughts continue to be analyzed and discussed, adding to the rich tapestry of human knowledge and understanding.

Tragedy, a text containing pure thoughts on the art of epic and poetry... The way of looking at art with plain thinking...

"Since childhood, people are inclined to imitate (human beings are distinguished from other animals by their propensity for imitation and acquire their first knowledge through imitation), and they also like imitation very much."

"This imitation is not done by the narrator, but by the characters in the action; it achieves the catharsis of such emotions through the pity and fear it arouses."

"Poetry is closer to philosophy than history and more valuable; because poetry speaks more of the general; history speaks of the particular."

"The poet should be more of a storyteller than a composer of verses; because to the extent that he imitates, he is a poet; and what he imitates are actions."

"The quality sought in narration is to be clear without falling into commonness."

"The only thing that cannot be borrowed from others is the ability to teach well. This is the proof of this natural talent. To be able to teach well means to see similarities."

"The poet should speak as little as possible in his own name; when he does the opposite, he ceases to imitate."

"The impossible but probable should be preferred to the possible but unconvincing, and the plots should not consist of irrational parts, and every effort should be made to ensure that there are no absurdities in them."

I have been reading this again. Aristotle's view on woman, as expressed in the statement "Even a woman may be good, and also a slave; though the woman may be said to be an inferior being, and the slave quite worthless," has really caught my attention. It strangely reminds me of something similar that Krishna said in the Bhagwadgita. This parallel is quite thought-provoking. I find myself inclined to reduce the rating here. However, I will probably do that after writing a full review. I need to carefully analyze and consider all the aspects before making a final decision. There are many factors to take into account, such as the context in which these statements were made, the cultural and historical background, and the implications they have. I don't want to rush into reducing the rating without a thorough understanding of the whole situation.

What I am thinking about is what Aristotle came up with 2,200 years ago. It's really amazing!

Aristotle was a great philosopher in ancient Greece. His thoughts and ideas had a profound impact on Western philosophy and culture. We can only imagine how much effort and wisdom he put into his work.

Maybe he spent countless hours thinking, researching, and discussing with his students. His words have endured through the ages and are still relevant today. It makes us wonder what other great insights and discoveries are waiting to be uncovered.

Studying Aristotle's works can give us a better understanding of the human mind and the world we live in. It can also inspire us to think more deeply and critically about our own beliefs and values.

In conclusion, Aristotle's ideas are a treasure trove of knowledge and inspiration. We should continue to explore and learn from them to gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

I have this intense desire that I just can't wait to meet Aristotle in hell. The thought of it makes my blood boil with anticipation. I have so many bones to pick with him. His ideas and philosophies have had such a profound impact on the world, but there are certain aspects that I completely disagree with. I want to have a face-to-face confrontation with him and challenge his beliefs. I want to show him that my views are just as valid, if not more so. I'm not afraid of the consequences. I'm ready to take on this intellectual giant and prove myself. I'm sure it will be a battle for the ages, and I can't wait to see who comes out on top.

Maybe in hell, we'll have a chance to truly understand each other's perspectives and come to a new understanding. Or maybe it will just be a brutal fight to the death. Either way, I'm ready for it.

**A Review of "Poetics (Dover Thrift Editions Philosophy) by Aristotle"**

Aristotle's "Poetics" is a significant work in the realm of dramatic theory and philosophy. It was originally published around 335 BCE and is divided into two books, with the second book unfortunately missing. This English translation, published by Dover Publications Inc., offers a pure, concise, and accurate rendition of Aristotle's thoughts.

The book covers a wide range of topics, including the definition of tragedy, the theory of imitation (mimesis), the tragic hero, the function of tragedy (catharsis), the plot-structure, and the three unities. Aristotle's use of the term "mimesis" was borrowed from his master teacher Plato, but he赋予 it a new meaning and significance. In chapter VI, he defines tragedy as an imitation of a complete action of a certain magnitude.
The translation is well-designed, with an attractive cover page and neat, clean printing. The paper is of good quality, and the font size is appropriate. The book also includes essential words and their definitions, which is helpful for readers who are new to the subject.
Overall, this translation of "Poetics" is an outstanding book that is a must-read for anyone interested in philosophical and dramatically theoretical works. It provides a valuable insight into Aristotle's thoughts and is a great addition to any bookshelf.

PoeticsAristotle

Aristotle's analysis of the structure of narration is truly remarkable.

He explores the origin of this structure from the perspective of poetic art, which in his time encompassed epic, comedy, and tragedy.

He discovers that the system governing this art is one of imitation, but an imitation that strives to go beyond reality, enhancing and cohering it.

This concept of imitation is what I find most fascinating about "The Poetics."

Aristotle argues that reality often contains disjointed facts lacking verisimilitude, and it is the poet or dramatist's task to赋予 these narrated facts with that quality.

Even though the concept of fiction as such did not exist in his time, Aristotle lays the foundation for it by stating that the imitation and the sequence of narrated events must be created in a way that they sound coherent and plausible, even if they do not correspond to reality.

He also emphasizes the importance of style and poetic and linguistic artifice in赋予 coherence to the fiction/imitation.

Today, we still debate many of the issues Aristotle addressed centuries ago, such as the balance between content and form, the primacy of style over story, and the role of language in literature.

He even discusses the commonly held criticism that Greek tragedy was an inferior art, arguing that it can be as transcendent as epic.

To better understand this text, it is beneficial to have some knowledge of Sophocles, Euripides, and Homer, as most of Aristotle's examples come from these three.

Regarding the three famous acts of drama (which he does not actually name as acts), they are literally the beginning, the middle, and the end.

From this comes everything we know today as narrative structure, as even the most revolutionary or avant-garde works have always sought to颠覆 this structure while still emerging from it.

Aristotle goes even further and establishes some concepts, including what I would interpret as ellipsis, that which is not told in the narration but is assumed to have occurred outside of it.

He also discusses the characters in a tragedy, stating that they should not be either too virtuous and fall into misfortune (which would cause indignation rather than pity) or too wicked and have good fortune, as this would not meet the requirements of tragedy, which should be human, pitiful, or terrible.

The perfect protagonist would be one who is not advantaged in virtue or vice but falls into disgrace due to a pardonable error.

He also establishes anagnorisis (the recognition between characters) as the basis of tragedy.

Furthermore, Aristotle makes several connections based on the logic of the poetic narrative of the time, such as that a tragedy cannot be based on an enemy killing or harming another enemy, as this does not cause pity, nor can it be based on a neutral person harming a similar one.

Rather, tragedy arises when atrocities are committed between friends (such as family members), either consciously or unconsciously.

He also interestingly states that the art of imitation (poetics) is not what it is but what it should be, meaning that fiction is an improved and coherent reality.

Regarding representation (theatrical), which he names as "perspective," he notes that it is one of the parts of tragedy, along with melody and diction.

He calls the action, which is structured in the order of events, "fable," which is "a remedy for the action."

This may be another concept analogous to fiction.

Finally, regarding comedy, he says that it is a portrait of the worst, not because of their vices but because of something shameful and laughable.

In summary, the main elements according to Aristotle are the fable, which is a portrait of the action (but not the action itself); within the fable, the peripeteia (change in the action due to unforeseen events) and the anagnorisis (recognition between characters); then, the customs that determine the character of the characters; and finally, the dictamen, which is "the expression of thought through words," which could be understood in relation to dialogues or internal monologues.

And finally, the melody, which relates to the rhythm and cadence of the words.

Regarding perspective (in tragedy), which is the staging, he remarks that it is less proper to poetics and "rather the art of the mechanic, not of the poets."

And indeed, the Greek theater was full of machines that moved the scenery and characters, as evidenced by the famous "Deus ex machina" (god descends from the machine), which, although he does not name it as such in this treatise, he does speak indirectly about it, as he says that it is justifiable for the deities to intervene in the tragedy, although he does criticize the gratuitousness of using it to resolve the plot.

For Aristotle, everything should already be resolved by the coherence and verisimilitude of the text (thanks to the genius of the poet) rather than by the artifice of the representation.

[Abridged in The Norton Anthology of World Literature, Volume A]

I've also read this in a complete format in the Basic Writings of Aristotle a few years back.

From 335 BCE, it is the first earliest extant treatise on literary theory. It was also lost to the Western World for some time and then found in an Arabic version.

It covers tragedy, epic poetry, and comedy. (The in-depth comedy parts have been lost. "The lost second book of Aristotle's Poetics is a core plot element in Umberto Eco's novel The Name of the Rose.")

Tragedy needs catharsis, producing fear or pity in the audience. The character must be good, appropriate, realistic, and consistent. The plot requires complication and resolution. Aristotle believes tragedy is better than epic poetry. It is more concentrated and less imitative. An epic covers material that could make several tragedies. It makes me think Aristotle would pick movies over novels.

There is a tripartite division of characters. Characters are either superior, inferior, or on the same level as the audience.

Tragedy does not use a narrator; the actors speak the lines.

Tragedy represents serious and complete action in embellished (rhythm and melody - song) speech.

The plot is the organization of incidents. It can be bad towards good or good towards bad. Complex plots have reversals and recognitions. The most tragic is when a good character is pushed towards an undeserved misfortune because of a mistake. Actions should follow logically from the situation.

Character, in order to excite pity and fear, is revealed through the moral character - actions and choices. Personal motivations and traits connect the parts of the chain of actions.

This is the finest commentary I was able to locate regarding The Poetics. Bywater's translation is far superior and highly readable, save for those instances where he utilizes the Greek without providing transliteration. A prudent strategy might be to rely on Bywater for an initial reading and then make use of Whalley's idiosyncratic and 'deliberately clumsy' translation while perusing his notes. We could even augment it with the Lucas notes.

The most exemplary essay-length critiques can be obtained from Lucas and Else, both of whom are frequently referenced by Whalley. I am presently planning to read at least one of them in the near future.

Whalley's comparisons with Coleridge prove to be particularly beneficial if the reader has an interest in learning to contemplate how Aristotle's precepts can be made to适配 modern literary works.

Moreover, his approach is not to regard every word that Aristotle employs as a technical term, which is an unfortunate inclination of the majority of academic works. Consequently, we often end up discussing terms in an overly specific manner, when Aristotle likely intended to赋予 them a broader scope. This is precisely when it becomes facile to fall into the trap of thinking that Aristotle is overly formalistic and thereby dismissing him. That would be an unseemly approach for a student.

Aristotle’s Poetics exerted a remarkable influence on 16th and 17th century poetry and drama. His views gradually developed into a rigid framework centered around his “unities.” This framework, in turn, imposed restrictive elements on the tragedies of Louis XIV’s court. It is highly probable that it also had an impact on Dante, leading him to call his work a “comedy.”

If you have delved into Nicomachean Ethics, you will encounter no difficulties with the Poetics. I firmly believe that the perceived complexity of the work stems from the numerous Greek phrases that lack a direct modern equivalent, thereby posing challenges to the translator. Anthony Kenny’s translation (Oxford world classics 2013) is both easy to follow and clearly structured. It includes additional excerpts from Plato’s Republic, Sidney’s Apology for Poetry, and Shelley’s Defence of Poetry, which assist in situating Aristotle’s opinions within a broader framework. This not only enriches the reader’s understanding of Aristotle’s Poetics but also provides valuable context from other significant works in the field of literary theory.

Overall, Aristotle’s Poetics remains a crucial and influential work, and Kenny’s translation offers a valuable resource for those seeking to explore and understand its ideas.

Dear friends, this ancient book consists of 26 diverse sections. In each section, Aristotle has dedicated himself to explaining and elaborating on the various types of poetry and epic tales in that era.

Here are some selected sections from this book that I am writing for you, dear friends of literature.

There is no doubt that the poet does not talk about what has happened. Instead, he speaks of what could happen according to necessity or probability. That is, the difference between the poet and the historian is not that the former's speech is in verse and the latter's is in prose. Rather, the main difference is that the historian talks about what has happened, while the poet speaks of what could have happened. Poetry always deals with universals, and history with particulars. The universal is what anyone can say or do according to the characteristics of their soul and according to necessity or probability. Poetry gives a specific name to this field. And the particular state of that thing is what, for example, Alcibiades has done or what has been done to him.

The difference among people lies in their good and bad deeds. But those whom the poets describe, either in terms of character, they describe them as superior to what they are, or inferior to what they are, or they describe them as mediocre. And in this regard, the poets are like painters, and these are the things that, for example, distinguish tragedy from comedy.

The unity of the subject does not come into being by choosing one person as the hero of the story, because in the life of a person, many different events may occur. On the other hand, a myth should only describe one complete event and subject. All the parts of this subject must be so closely connected and form such a unity that the smallest part cannot be changed or deleted, because what can be both introduced into a text and deleted from it without harming the text does not belong to that text.

Tragedy consists of the imitation of a serious and complete action of a certain magnitude, with beautiful language, the beauty of which is the same in all parts, in a presentational form, not in the form of a story or narrative, and it purifies the emotions of the people through fear and pity.

Tragedy tries to confine itself, as much as possible, to one day and night, or at least not to exceed these limits.

The hero of a tragedy should not be a criminal. However, he does not have to be very cautious and upright. He should have fallen from happiness to misfortune, not as a result of a crime, but as a result of a mistake, which should create fear and pity. The hero of a tragedy should have a family or emotional relationship with the people who form the opposite pole of him in the tragedy.

The style of comedy is the imitation of bad speech and behavior. It is not the description and imitation of the worst qualities of a person, but only the imitation and description of shameful actions and ethics that cause others to laugh. What causes laughter is something that contains a defect and ugliness, but the harm and pain from that defect and ugliness do not reach anyone.

I hope this review has been sufficient and useful in understanding this book.

Be victorious and be Iranian.

Nerdrum jr makes a point when he calls Aristoteles autistic.

Aristoteles is a renowned philosopher in history. His works and ideas have had a profound impact on various fields. However, Nerdrum jr's claim might seem bold and perhaps even controversial at first glance.

But upon closer examination, one can see that there could be some aspects of Aristoteles' character or behavior that might lead to such a description. Maybe he had a unique way of thinking and approaching things that was different from the norm.

It could be that his intense focus on his studies and philosophical pursuits made him appear somewhat isolated or detached.

While it's important to note that using the term "autistic" in this context might not be a literal diagnosis, it does raise interesting questions about how we perceive and understand historical figures.

It also challenges us to look beyond the traditional view of Aristoteles and consider other possible interpretations of his personality and actions.

In conclusion, Nerdrum jr's statement about Aristoteles being autistic offers a fresh perspective and encourages further exploration and discussion.