Talk:On the Soul

Does anyone know what the original name of the work really, seeing as how it's sure as hell not "De Anima"? -- Cevlakohn

It was produced in 350 BC

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)

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)

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)

This point relates to those I have made below regarding translations and originals. I am struggling to get information on this online. LookingGlass (talk) 14:05, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

in general

i've just added a short summary of the treatise into the division of chapters section, largely because i think it's a helpful backbone for rehashing the rest of the article, which i think needs rehashing. as has been noted, there have been some obvious slants in the rest of the article, which may perhaps have been slightly altered in the last year or so; the problem now is that, e.g., the last four paragraphs are sloppy and more of a conversation than a summary of sides of interpretation. in any event, i didn't want to drastically change anything already written, assuming that the outline offered—which is entirely, i think, uncontroversial—would make it clear enough that the ensuing discussion is too rife with generalities to really match their heading. perhaps, i'd recommend, it would be better to use the content following the second paragraph of this section (beginning "Book I contains . . .") in other sections, divided according to their topic, while leaving the division of chapters section as a kind of list, showing how the treatise moves from one topic to another. probably what i've put in here could be expanded—in terms, i mean, of making sense of the various transitions from topic to topic. it would be helpful, then, to have different sections on each of the different major topics; something like this: The Definition of Soul; Nutrition and Reproduction; Sensation; Imagination; Intellect; Self-Movement. chunks from the existing chapter breakdown could be moved, for example, to the Intellect section. i think each of these sections would be substantial, not only in their own right but also given their historical importance (read: potential wealth of links). in any event, i thought i'd submit the idea to the talk page first, to see if there were any objections, etc. Mrbrown2 (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Translations and original manuscript

A great deal is lost as well as added in translation, and so I would like to see a section regarding the original manuscript and translations of De Anima. Does the original manuscript still exist, if not when was it lost, and if so where is it kept?

I understand that De Anima was translated into Arabic by Avicenna but I am unclear if he translated it from the original Greek, from a later Greek translation, or from a Latin translation. I believe it may be that Avicenna's work was itself later translated into Latin, but cannot discover if there are separate Latin translations from the Arabic and From the Greek.

Perhaps someone could clarify therefore who translated what, from what, into what, and when, as a lot can be lost as well as added in translation. Of course if the original manuscript survives this changes the significance of the translations.

It would also be great if the Greek title of the work couild be included in the article rather than only the phonetic Greek.

LookingGlass (talk) 14:02, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on On the Soul. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150615032530/http://gowerpublishing.com/default.aspx?page=637&title_id=53&edition_id=129&x=y&promotion_id=db0b0da5-324b-4985-bbd8-fdd23c2d01b5&calcTitle=1&lang=cy-GB to http://gowerpublishing.com/default.aspx?page=637&title_id=53&edition_id=129&x=y&promotion_id=db0b0da5-324b-4985-bbd8-fdd23c2d01b5&calcTitle=1&lang=cy-GB

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Merge the manuscripts

The "some manuscripts" section wikilinks to 12 separate articles on 12 separate manuscripts, none of which I believe to be independently notable. Therefore I propose that each is merged into this article, possibly in the form of a table.

@Leszek Jańczuk: Pinging as the creator of those articles. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I came here looking for someone saying this - that does seem eminently reasonable. Since none of the MS pages have been edited in 10 years, it seems to me it'd be safe to go ahead and do it. Paracelsus888 (talk) 19:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

  Y Merger complete. Klbrain (talk) 12:29, 16 October 2023 (UTC)