Book · -350
Metaphysics
by Aristotle
Aristotle's argument that everything has a final end — and that this teleological claim is load-bearing for all his ethics and natural science.
What does Reddit think of Metaphysics?
No crossover into other tracked subs. The sentiment scores neutral, which here means contested in a productive way rather than simply ignored. The highest-upvoted discussion (↑50) uses the book to explain Aristotelian teleology, opening with a warning: readers almost certainly bring the wrong meaning to Aristotle's terms before they finish the first argument. That entry-point problem comes up again in the ↑37 thread, which argues that ethics and metaphysics can't be cleanly separated in Aristotle's system — the essence-and-nature framework runs through everything. The ↑13 comment is the clearest pitch for why anyone should still read it: Aristotle's Metaphysics exposes bad forms of argument present in many modern theories, and you're better positioned to judge those criticisms if you've read the original. The ↑12 commenter offers the blunt defense — something doesn't dominate intellectual culture for two millennia while being non-serious. Slow going. Genuinely difficult.
Community feedback & reader fit
Themes
- · Teleology and final causes
- · Substance, essence, and form
- · Ethics grounded in metaphysics
- · Causation and chance
- · Ancient philosophy versus modern materialism
Common praise
- + The teleological framework makes Aristotle's ethics click in ways that reading the Nicomachean Ethics alone doesn't.
- + r/askphilosophy regulars argue it trains readers to spot bad metaphysical arguments that still circulate in contemporary philosophy (↑13).
- + The section on chance and causation (198b3, discussed in the ↑16 thread) holds up as a specific, followable argument rather than hand-waving.
- + Two millennia of dominance is cited as evidence that the text rewards serious engagement even where it's wrong (↑12).
Common criticism
- − The terminology mismatch is real — the ↑50 thread opens by warning that readers misread Aristotle's arguments before they've started because they've pre-loaded modern meanings.
- − The text only appears in r/askphilosophy; it generates no practical or cross-disciplinary discussion in the other tracked subs.
Who it's for
If you're already reading Aristotle's ethics and finding it unmoored, this is what grounds it. r/askphilosophy treats it as background infrastructure rather than a standalone read — you come to it because the Nicomachean Ethics keeps gesturing at essence and final ends and you want to know what those actually mean. Not a starting point for ancient philosophy generally. For someone already inside Aristotle's system who needs to understand the load-bearing walls, the 10 tracked mentions all point the same direction: read it with secondary sources on Aristotelian terminology, not cold.
Mentions over time
Top subreddits
Which Reddit comments matter for Metaphysics?
Top-upvoted quotes across the subreddits where this book is mentioned. Click through to read the full thread.
“The problem is that you probably think something different when you hear "acting for your own good" than what Aristotle meant. There are two points we must understand to see this clearly. The first is that Aristotle's metaphysics are teleological. Everything has a final end, or goal, and, ethically…
“I think many suggestions here are in line with your demand for bluntness and a sort of pragmatic realism boiling down to materialism, but I would like to offer you a plea for something else, essentially a plea to not stop asking why, one person to another. I would like you to read [an essay on Ari…
“I'm not sure how one's ethics could be separated from metaphysics, but, that said, I think the connection is especially robust in Aristotle's thought. Aristotle's metaphysics involves different kinds of things having a distinctive nature or essence that makes them the particular kinds of things that…
“I interpreted the original poster's comment to mean "go read a book" (as stated), as opposed to "go read a specific book" (e.g. "go read Aristotle's Metaphysics")
“> Why are so many mathematicians also philosophers? They aren't, generally speaking. It's probably safe to say that 99.x% of working mathematicians have never written a philosophy paper. What you actually seem to ask is why it was more common for mathematicians to also be philosophers 80-400 years …
“His argument against this idea comes after a discussion about luck and chance, where he says that strictly speaking, events in nature do not occur by chance. We \*think\* things happen randomly, but this is only the case because we lack knowledge of the causes of any event (The argument is at 198b3…
“You can separate (or at least defenders claim you can) the fundamental parts of Aristotle's metaphysics from his physics, so that the former may still be true even if the latter largely isn't. And this probably makes sense, given that we are dealing with two very different fields. The same cannot be…
“>It is not the philosophical equivalent of defending phlogiston in chemistry This is a legitimate question. If we consider Aristotle's metaphysics to be strange and off due to the epistemic gaps he was working with, isn't that the same as with phlogiston being a faulty explanation from an epistemi…
Convinced? Pick up Metaphysics
What else does r/askphilosophy read?
Other books mentioned in the same sub, ranked. Shared-sub overlap with this title breaks ties.
Critique of Pure Reason
Immanuel Kant
Kant's 1781 attempt to settle the limits of human knowledge — the book that split philosophy in two and still hasn't been fully digested.
The Myth of Sisyphus
Albert Camus
A 1942 essay that opens with the question of whether life is worth living and ends by insisting Sisyphus is happy.
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus
Ludwig Wittgenstein
Wittgenstein built a numbered ladder from logical atomism to the inexpressible, then said the ladder had to be discarded once you climbed it.
Being and Time
Martin Heidegger
Heidegger's argument that human existence only gets its meaning from death — 162 Reddit mentions, mostly from people explaining why it's so hard to read.
Nicomachean Ethics
Aristotle
Aristotle's 2,400-year-old argument that living well depends on virtue, leisure, and the company you keep — still the canonical text for the field.
Beyond Good and Evil
Friedrich Nietzsche
Nietzsche dismantles the moral framework Western civilization built on, then refuses to tell you what to replace it with.
Metaphysics — frequently asked
What does Reddit actually say about Aristotle's Metaphysics?+
All 10 mentions are in r/askphilosophy, and the tone is serious without being reverent. The ↑50 comment uses it to explain Aristotelian teleology and immediately warns about terminology pitfalls. The ↑12 commenter defends it against the idea that it's no longer taken seriously. Nobody calls it easy. The sub treats it as a text you eventually have to reckon with if you're going deep on ancient philosophy or Aristotelian ethics.
Is Aristotle's Metaphysics worth reading if I'm coming from ethics rather than metaphysics?+
Yes, and r/askphilosophy's ↑37 thread makes this case explicitly — the connection between Aristotle's metaphysics and his ethics is tighter than in most ancient philosophers. The teleology argument (↑50) is the specific bridge. Read it as the operating system for the Nicomachean Ethics and it pays off.
How hard is Aristotle's Metaphysics compared to his other works?+
Hard. The ↑50 thread opens with a warning that readers misunderstand Aristotle's terms before they've finished the first argument. r/askphilosophy doesn't recommend it as an entry point anywhere in the 10 tracked mentions. The ↑13 comment suggests it rewards readers who already know what bad metaphysical arguments look like — which implies meaningful prior reading.
Should I read Aristotle's Metaphysics without a secondary source?+
No, implicitly. The r/askphilosophy threads work through specific passages — 198b3 comes up explicitly in a ↑16 discussion — which suggests the text is tractable with guidance but not cold. None of the 10 tracked commenters recommend reading it unaccompanied. A companion text on Aristotelian terminology is the consistent implicit assumption across all the threads.