Needed a better editor - a bit TOO much detail.

A book that taught me so much about Aristotle that I thought I already knew . . .

I felt challenged by this book's subtitle - "How Aristotle Invented Science" - feeling I knew enough about Aristotle to know THAT isn't true. But the author makes a compelling case that, in a way, Aristotle DID invent science . . . and how his detractors over the years have obscured that fact and misrepresented Aristotle. This read can be dense and somewhat technical at times, but I HIGHLY recommend it!

Leroi, an evolutionary biologist, reconstructs the political (Alexander the Great was collecting biological samples on his campaigns) and natural world in which Aristotle wrote his elegant zoological texts, with interjections of current Aegean environmental situations (fishermen and dolphins, pollution, climate change).

A lengthy, detailed, and fascinating examination of the life and works of Aristotle with the position that Aristotle was the first scientist, and that since his proposed mechanisms (see the brilliant appendices) haven't aged well, his thoughts and techniques have been unjustly ignored or belittled.
This alone would be sufficient for me, but there are many interesting associated ideas here including the detective work necessary to locate Aristotle's workplace in Lesbos and to determine which animals he is referring to, the discussions of Aristotle's relationship to Darwin, the history and philosophy of biological taxonomy, some comparative anatomy to explain the source of Aristotle's classifications, some embryology, and some animal physiology and evolutionary biology to explain Aristotle's discussion of the relationship among animal size, longevity, and fecundity. As a seeming bonus we also read the author's comments on Aristotle's theory of the structure of the universe and his views on human society – including whether all modern battles over inequality ultimately turn on the question of whether "natural slaves" exist and, if so, how to distinguish them from "legal slaves".
------------------------------------------------
Words of interest include apophthegm (an aphorism, and Grammarly recommends spelling it apothegm), and although I knew that chorion and cotyledon came from the Greek, I did not know that they came so directly from the Greek.
Interesting quotes include Bertrand Russell Aristotle was the first man to write like a professor,
and Borges It has been said that all men are born either Aristotelians or Platonists.
I also liked the author's That the physical theory is wrong is irrelevant; in the long run, all physical theories are. and to be reminded of the expressions Natura non facit saltum (that Darwin liked), and the origin of virtus dormitiva.

I have yet to finish this book, I admit, but I will at some point. I have read most of it though, and am fairly impressed. It's a somewhat difficult and fact-rich read, but that's only because there's so much to learn from it! I'm happy to say that I know far more about Aristotle than I did prior to reading this.

I skipped a bunch of chapters in the middle of this book. Leroi has some amazing moments early on, and it's enjoyable to watch him wax poetical about just how much he loves Aristotle. But it's also clear that he doesn't really 'get' Aristotle, and constantly judges those doctrines of his with a properly metaphysical basis simply on the grounds of "we don't believe that sort of thing anymore". Disappointing by the end after a strong and promising beginning.

Honestly, this book only started to get good around halfway through. Until then, it was pretentious and, in my opinion anyway, devoid of anything meaningful. It was basically an over exaggerated shrine to Aristotle - one that did a terrible job at explaining just why it put him on a pedestal. At some point, it started to feel less like "Aristotle invented science all by himself but none of my claims explain that" and more like "Aristotle contributed to science, and we should recognize that more" and only then did it actually start to be enjoyable. It did have some interesting things to say, but over all, I wasn't too big a fan. I didn't particularly like the writing style, which seemed to put more of an emphasis on being fancy and prose-like, while sacrificing sense and structure. And there were chapters that felt out of place or pointless. However, if you strip all that away, it is, at its core, an interesting book. I'm giving it three stars because I didn't hate it, but I didn't exactly like it. I probably wouldn't read it again - though, if you are fascinated by science and happen to know a lot of biology jargon, I would recommend this book. It's a matter of personal taste, i believe.

In places a little too biologically technical but I still enjoyed reading about the scientific side of Aristotle, having previously only known his philosophical works.