Talk:On the Soul
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Does anyone know what the original name of the work really, seeing as how it's sure as hell not "De Anima"? -- Cevlakohn
The original title was De Anima. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. This issue with "the psyche" for me is that really he did not mean only the psyche but all that makes us animate, which to Aristotle, was the soul. Just think of the soul as a physical entity. That should reconcile the problem. --jenlight (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
JA: Peri Psyche. Jon Awbrey 02:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about? De Anima means 'on the soul' in acient greek
-
-
- De anima is Latin for "Of the (lifegiving) soul." Peri Psyche is the Greek equivalent.Lestrade 15:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)Lestrade
-
I believe the original Greek versions of Aristotle's esoteric works (such as this) are thought not to have had titles. The titles were added later by Roman editors (and hence are Latin). Treharne (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Article name
In my university it is always called 'De Anima'. If this is the general rule, the article's name should be altered - and the name on the Aristotle page Anarchia 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Real Aristotle scholars usually call it De Anima, but that is really just affectation. The English version of the title will make more sense to most people. If you search for De Anima it redirects here, so that is OK. Treharne (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] POV
It seems to me there is a serious lack of neutral POV here, at least in the part about Book III Chapter 5. This is a notoriously obscure (and probably textually corrupt) passage, and probably the most argued over passage in all Aristotle's works. The article seems to take the attitude that Aquinas' interpretation is the exclusively correct one, and refers to other readings as "misunderstandings". Although Aquinas and some other religiously motivated scholars have interpreted this (very brief - about half a page in a modern translation) chapter as containing an argument for the immortality of the soul, this is very far from being an obvious or universally accepted interpretation of the text (especially as Aristotle seems quite clearly to hold elsewhere that souls are not immortal). Treharne (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
