A. E. Taylor (1869–1945)

Taylor was an early 20th c. Platonist with a couple weird takes on Plato: he believed that no development took place in the ideas of this great thinker during his half century of writing; and he believed Plato never put an idea in his character Socrates’ mouth that didn’t belong to the historical Socrates. It’s hard to imagine how anyone familiar with the Platonic corpus and its context could hold these views. So Taylor was an intelligent, well-educated guy with weird judgment. In this book we find in numerous places that Taylor had something a lot like contempt for Aristotle. Let’s assume his weird views on Plato were considered plausible a century ago; why would he be asked to write a brief introduction to the thought of someone he disliked so much?

But he was and he did. And if you’re unfamiliar with Aristotle, this little book might seem like a serviceable survey of his thought. The bullet points are there – formal logic, the four causes, etc. But it’s written by someone with no real appreciation for Aristotle’s thought, who apparently never gave it careful consideration. Consequently it provides a simplistically inaccurate and overly negative picture of that thought. It’s true that Aristotle sometimes seems pedestrian or conservative in an unreflective way. But right when you’re starting to wonder where his reputation comes from, he bowls you over with something you really have to chew on. For years. At least that’s been my experience. Why not get an introduction from someone who’s done that rather than burning the book after passing the exam?

Adler’s Aristotle for Everyone is a decent, short introduction by someone who took Aristotle seriously. Lear’s Aristotle: The Desire to Understand is superb, but requires more time and effort (which are well worth it). Surely there are others. It’s a mystery why this book is still in print.
… (plus d'informations)

A serviceable introduction to the dialogues and synopsis of each, but Taylor maintains strenuously that the theory of forms, etc., were Socrates’ and that Plato never put anything into Socrates’ mouth that didn’t come from Socrates. So caveat emptor – this is a novel theory outside the mainstream of Platonic scholarship, which considers the early dialogues essentially Socratic, with transitional, mid and late ones becoming increasingly Platonic. It’s hard to take this theory seriously considering the picture of Socrates we get from Plato’s early dialogues combined with those of other Socratic dialogue writers, including Xenophon. If Plato’s epistemology, ontology and metaphysics came from Socrates, why don’t the other writers indicate anything about them? Oddly, this hardly mars the analysis and commentary. But if anyone (i.e., Pete) has a suggestion for another good overview of the dialogues, I’m all ears.… (plus d'informations)