Can any anon suggest a worthy contemporary English translation of the works of Aristotle? Please and thank you. I'm struggling with a very dry and wooden translation right now that simply is not enjoyable (yeah, it's the Oxford, and it's so dusty it needs a vacuuming). Kindly go easy on me, I'm new to reading the heavyweights. And even worse, I'm Canadian.
>>25025952There's the newer Reeves translations, which are decently accurate and less wooden than the Oxford translations. Sachs might be another interesting alternative, though be warned that for all the terms he makes simpler according to their simple Greek meaning (steresis is translated as "lack" instead of "privation"), there's still a few strange renderings of a crucial terms (entellecheia is translated as "being-at-work-staying-itself") that might be frustrating, though that doesn't really affect his translations of the Ethics or Politics.
>>25025972Thank you, that's tremendous. I really had no idea what direction to go. I'll have a look at both Sachs and Reeves. Thanks so much.
>>25025952Go for Sachs as often as you can. If not Sachs, then Hippocrates Apostle (I mean, come on, with that name how can you not trust the translation?). If not Hippocrates Apostle, (e.g. for works like Prior Analytics which people tend not to disturb), then whatever is standard in the field. I have the Hackett for Prior An. >>25025972Some words are untranslatable. But thankfully, energeia and entelecheia are so important to the crux of Aristotle's work that it's worth the extra stiltedness. Literally revolves around those two concepts, which are really one concept, so you should be thinking more carefully as to what it means anyway.
Oxford Revised Translation of the Complete Works
>>25026011Certainly, Sachs's enderings don't bother me, but I could see how someone might read them and get very annoyed quickly just based on how those two words are rendered.
>>25026132This.
>>25025952>translation
>>25026132>>25026139Then they're not cut out for Aristotle. If they don't want to be annoyed, they can read it in the original Greek. If they want the subtleties to fly over their head, they can read a bog standard Latinized translation. If they want to actually understand Aristotle, start with Sachs. Actually following what Aristotle is talking about is going to be annoying anyway. You might as well get it all out of the way by paying close attention in the beginning.
>>25025952The dryness isn't the result of translation; it's the style he wrote his treatises in. Instead of looking for something more palatable, I'd recommend reversing the order of his writings. The standard academic order would have you start with the Organon, then progress to physics, De Anima, ethics, metaphysics, and finally, rhetoric and poetics. That's fine if you have a frame of reference, but if you're not taking classes, you're gonna be overwhelmed even by the Organon. Not because it's difficult, but because it's hard to focus on. I'd suggest starting with Poetics and Rhetoric first, because they're very easy to digest, even entertaining to a degree, though still primarily lectures like all his other works. From then on, I'd continue with the Organon, which is by far the most dry, but required and will pay off. After that, I'd read his works on natural sciences, and then I'd turn to ethics, then physics, and finally, metaphysics, which I believe should be read in succession. This is the good part but also the most difficult.
>>25026287Honestly, Nicomachean Ethics, then Categories and maybe On Interpretation
>>25026287OP here. Thank you, that is tremendous. A very, very big help. Much appreciated! I did start with Organon and, yeah, the effect is exactly as you describe. Great post, thanks again.
