Looking for this book.
>>25352771
>>25352771I’ve been reading the New Hackett Metaphysics C.D.C. Reeve translation alongside John Rist’s “The Mind of Aristotle,” as it was highly recommended by an Aristotelian effortposter on here called ‘Ristanon’. If Ristanon sees this post — I’m having a difficult time parsing through the Metaphysics, and I’d like some more secondary literature to help me. I’d also like more secondary literature on Aristotle’s other works; I’ve just ordered “Aristotle: The Desire to Understand” by Lear, but I’d like to know what you would recommend.
>>25352771The Reeve (either in the new Hackett Complete Works or as a stand alone volume), Apostle, and Sachs translations are all pretty decent. I have a smidge of preference for Sachs.>>25352856Not Ristanon, but have you read Christopher Bruell's commentary, Aristotle As Teacher? It goes for under $40, and goes through it pretty meticulously. There's also a new translation of the Categories by Matthew Wells under the title Allegations, with an engaging commentary that, for example, tries to show how the first chapters that aren't immediately about the categories make sense in the book as a whole. Dling Averroes' commentary on Lambda is also worth your while.
>>25352900Thank you so much, the Metaphysics is absolutely kicking my ass.
>>25352900How does the Sachs translation compare to the Reeve translation? Do you think it would be wise to read both beside each other?
>>25352931Well, the big difference is that Reeve sticks with standard and familiar terminology as it's come down to us, so substance for ousia, essence for to en einai, activity for energeia, actuality for entelecheia, etc., whereas Sachs wants to refresh our thinking by avoiding Latinate terms, so his equivalents of these words come out as thinghood, what it is for something to be, being-at-work, and being-at-work-staying-itself. I don't know that Sachs is fully successful (especially with thinghood), but maybe Reeve is a good bet for a first read, and Sachs for some later read when you've already acclimated to the usual terminology.
>>25352931>>25352964To add, here's how they each render the opening lines:Reeve>All humans by nature desire to know. An indication of this is our liking for the perceptual capacities. For even apart from their utility, these are liked because of themselves—and most of all the one because of the eyes. For it is not only in order to do an action, but even when we are not going to do anything whatsoever, that we choose sight over (one might almost say) all the others. The cause of this is that of all perceptual capacities it enables us to know most fully and makes clear many differences.Sachs>All human beings by nature stretch themselves out toward knowing. A sign of this is our love of the senses; for even apart from their use, they are loved on their own account, and above all the rest, the one through the eyes. For not only in order that we might act, but even when we are not going to act at all, we prefer seeing, one might say, as against everything else. And the cause is that, among the senses, this one most of all makes us discover things, and makes evident many differences.And just as editions, Sachs just has a glossary, his interpretation is limited to his introduction (which is mostly about translation), and some footenotes. Reeve has a glossary, an introduction with his thoughts on what the Metaphysics is about, and a large number of endnotes that explains references, discusses the Greek, or interprets the sense of passages.
>>25352988wow, I didn't expect them to be so different
