What is the better edition for complete works of Aristotle?Hackett or the revised oxford?
Either is fine. Aristotle is such a dry author that translation isn't worth splitting hairs over.
>>25315426Why buy these obscene expensive books
>>25315426Hackett unless you can't think for yourself and need to be spoonfed interpretations via extensive notes.>>25315511Consistency in translated terms is important.
>>25315514>$120 for a 2700pg, 2 volume work >expensiveA day's wage or less isn't expensive for something that will last you months and months
>>25315518Yeah that's expensive considering all the works are public domain
>>25315426I'm not sure that the new Hackett is substantially more accurate, but it is more consistent w/r/t a consistent nomenclature. If you don't have either edition, go for the Hackett.
Modern library
>>25315527thats not how you use the word expensive, zahir
Save yourself from the $100 scam. Go for the Modern Library "Basic Works of Aristotle" and read the rest of the "complete works" online.
Oxford for me.
>>25315828How so
people living in the equivalent of a shipping container with nothing but the cold glow of a mobile phone screen and a subscription to plant-based protein bars to comfort them between uber eats and sportsball dopamine hits are telling you that cloth-bound annotated academic texts are a scam
>>25316302Its a scam becuase of the sellers preying on people who want to read Aristotle with complete works that are largely not interesting or worth reading, not that the book isn't nice (but it isn't, I've owned his copy and subjected them to destroying and mistreatment, and it's pretty weak). I live in the American equivalent of a drywall mud hut, every time it rains my house melts and reselas itself and every day I am mercy of God I will never have enough money to live in a solid of a building as a shipping container.. I don't do subscriptions on principle, and I don't watch sports, and I am just one guy, next time you can quote directly instead of doing the passive aggressive callot u thing muddying u up.
>>25316323Your being an retarded faggot, given that all of Aristotle is worth reading in fact must be read because his philosophy is dispersed in all his works
>>25315426>>25315511Many translators change the original Greek to make it conform to their anti-platonic question begging presumptions>Bonitz, (1848), followed by Jaeger and Ross, changed the words wJ" to; in the last line to to; wJ" for no textual reason at all; they made and accepted the change for no other reason than that without the change, the text would naturally be read to say that God is to everything else as medical science is to health, the form of a building in the maker is to the building, and a human parent is to its child. But if this is so, then Aristotle would seem to be maintaining that God possesses the forms of all things: that is, God knows all these.
>>25316708I'm not seeing the issue. Ross's translation is practically the same for the last line, here's his for the passage in ft 95:>And since the moving cause in the case of natural things is-for man, for instance, man, and in the products of thought the form or its contrary, there will be in a sense three causes, while in a sense there are four. For the medical art is in some sense health, and the building art is the form of the house, and man begets man; further, besides these there is that which as first of all things moves all things.His note on that line reads:>Bz. conjecture, to hos for hos to, is required by the sense.That makes it sound like, contrary to Gerson, there is an argument provided at least by Ross, small as it is, and it doesn't look as if the end result in translation changes anything at all. So now I'm puzzled what you and Gerson think the problem is.
>>25316708Well so which version should I get?
Check if, on Hackett's, De Generatione et Corruptione's translation is H. H. Joachim's. It is the translation on the revised oxford translation. It's terrible, and I had a lot of trouble understanding the meaning of some chapters because Joachim misunderstood the text and translated some key terms wrong. E.g. "hypokeimenon", substractum, on Aristotle means either subject or "that which survives the change". On 1.2-4, Aristotle uses the term meaning subject; Joachim translates meaning "that which survives the change". This result in some serious problems of what the fuck Aristotle means, and it's impossible to solve.
>>25316829Hippocrates G. Apostle>>25316784I guess you have to be aware of Jaegers anti-platonic revisionism to understand. They change the text. The problem with that should be self explanatory.
>>25316784>is required by the sense [of my anti-platonic revisionism]
>>25316883>>25316829>>25315426Reeve is a Jaegeran subversive
>>25316883>>25316890I'm not defending Jaeger, his critical edition is an embarrassment, but Bonitz's grammatical change for improved sense literally changes nothing substantive. Again, here's Gerson's translation of the line at issue:>Further, besides these there is that which, as first of all things, moves all things.Ross:>further, besides these there is that which as first of all things moves all things.What's the "anti-Platonic" difference here? Bonitz's conjectural emmendatation produces in Ross the exact same sentence with slightly different punctuation. Is Gerson hallucinating something?
>>25317203I assume he's referring to comments made by any of those three on the revised text as justifying some reading of theirs, he's probably already paraphrased these views elsewhere in the book.
>>25317230>>25317203Reeve's "translation" that follows Jaeger doesn't read as you assume but instead says: >furthermore, beyond these there is what as the first of all [movers] moves all things.Even adding [movers].——Meanwhile Apostle in picrel:>that which, as first of all things, moves all things.
>>25315426What do anons think of Thomas Taylor's translation?
>>25317252Ergo Reeve and Ross "translation" has the presumption that God only thinks his own contentless thinking, and so moves all things as an absolute 'other' (ala Christian creationism). While Khan's and Gerson rightly notes how Nous has the Forms of all things in his simplicity—just like the science of health has of health.I.e. "the prevailing view" = Jaeger'sHere's Λ 10 that Gerson says only makes sense given Lambda 4 with the Greek remaining as it is.I.e, the Good, for Aristotle, is Nous, and Nous is to All Things as the Medical Art existing in the 'Soul' is to health. Hence Intellect Thinking Thinking is the Art of the Forms of All.This is exactly how the Neoplatonists all interpreted Aristotle (unbeknownst to Khan).
>>25317254Better than most translators up to Apostle and Gerson school.John Dillon points out in his translation of De Mysteriis that Taylor is astonishingly superior to most intermediary translations before his own. Contemporary scholars still use many of his emendations over against more recent suggestions.>Just avoid everything spawned from Jaeger.Ofc, there are some emendations by Taylor that are completely left field, but that's fine.
>>25317252>>25317270Seriously, what exactly do you take to be the actual difference between to hos and hos to? *That's* what Gerson says is distorting the passage.>Ergo Reeve and Ross "translation"...I just put up Ross's translation and it's THE SAME as Gerson's. Reeve's translation has nothing to do with what Gerson's talking about, remove [movers] (which is surely editorializing in the translation with the multiple movers in mind), and his translation otherwise produces the same meaning as well. I don't get the hubbub over this.
>>25317281Maybe read Ross own words in the commentary of his Greek edition. I guess Gerson sees this as obvious begging of the question to why he would switcheroo the words. Gerson, it seems, is making an accusation that Ross adopts this emendation to strengthen the anti-platonic interpretation. As he advocates everywhere in the commentary.>is different enoughMeaning if he could force it (Jaegerism) further he would, but he's forced to keep the possibility of "misunderstanding".Blatant sophistry.
>>25317317Again, I quoted Ross on line 34 at >>25316784. The passage highlighted in red has nothing to do with what Gerson's saying, which, again, is about the last line of the disputed passage, as you quoted at >>25316708.Seriously, is this just a dry troll? This makes Gerson look both not very smart, and a nitpicker pretending bigger things are at stake than are really at stake at all. This is about the difference between τό as a demonstrative and τὸ as a regular article, and Gerson translates it *as a demonstrative alongside Ross and Reeve*. Really, what am I missing?
>>25317337"and further" in 27. refers to 34.>to hos proton panton>to proton aitionproximate cause is not God.
>>25317343Ross wants it to refer to Proximate Cause but can't do this without changing the text even more, so he settles for a more ambivalent compromise because "Aristotle was careless".
>>25317343Not what's at issue! Gerson:>...changed the words hos to in the last line to to hos for no textual reason at all; they made an accepted the change for no other reason than that without the change, the text would naturally be read to say that God is to everything else as medical science is to health. But if this is so, then Aristotle would seem to be maintaining that God possesses the forms of all things.None of that is actually at stake just because of where τὸ is placed relative to ὡς. It's just the demonstrative form of the article, and they all translate it about the same way:Gerson:>that which, as...Ross:>that which as...Apostle:>that which, as...Reeve:>what as...ὡς = asτὸ = demonstrative, "that", "what", "which"
>>25317351First of all things is not the same as 'as first' 'of all things'.All things in Ross refers to all other movers, while in original or refers the mover that is to all things as any mover is some set of things.
>>25317371I.e God is the Mover of All Substances the way any specific Substance is a Mover to its stuff.
>>25317371Nigga, there's no difference between Ross's translation and Gerson's for that line. They're THE SAME.
>>25317385Are you ESL?>Ross: besides these [causes] (meaning it is not like the aforementioned), there is that which, AS FIRST - [out] of all [causes] - moves all things.Vs>Besides these (using the aforementioned as analogies) there is that which, as first [mover] of 'all things', moves all things (the way Medicine causes Health).I've already said what the difference is since Ross literally wants to avoid any possibility of a Khan's (Platonic) reading.
>>25317395Dude, you were complaining about Ross's *translation*, now you're complaining that the issue is his interpretation in his commentary? Pick an argument and stick with it, but don't give me this "ignore the evidence of your lying eyes" when his translation is the same as Gerson's for the very line Gerson wants to highlight. That's such horseshit.
>>25317406Their commentaries to their Greek editions tells you their methodology in translation. Their hermeneutics.Ross wants there to be a break, meaning First Mover is not like Health-Art is to health. When it is obvious Aristotle uses them as allegories to how God knows the forms of all things.He literally everywhere in commentary says he explicitly wants to avoid any platonic interpretation of Aristotle and changes the Greek to whatever suggestions most moves it away from platonism.
>>25316323seems as though the one muddied up is you friendo
>>25317412Enjoy your limited understanding entirely dependent on Gerson. This is stupid, and you're not even talking about the actual Greek, and now you're pretending to have read more than half a page of Ross's commentary.
