Abstract

‘I enjoy reading Aristotle’ said the don, ‘he’s so dull’ One recalls this anecdote half as a compliment to Professor Sparshott, half as a criticism of his book. The consciously Aristotelian method certainly produces some valuable conceptual analyses, but there is a dryness about the work, and particularly about the first nine sections of it, which might lead the reader whose interests are chiefly literary to doubt whether there is anything at all for him in this stone garden of precise, bare, conceptual analysis. This is a pity, since it is critics and those whose business is to some extent with criticism, rather than mere philosophers, who might benefit from Professor Sparshott’s clarifications.