<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: right review, wrong book
Review: Amazon.com, for reasons best known to themselves, have put my review of the Prometheus books translation of Metaphysics under the Penguin books translation (see below). Just to make things perfectly clear, the Prometheus books translation is bad, the Penguin books translation is good. Now, no matter where they put this, the truth will out.
Rating: 
Summary: Good book, bad translation
Review: Aristotle's "Metaphysics" is superb, no question about it. But this edition ("Prometheus Books" edition, translated by John McMahon--I am NOT referring to the "Penguin Books" edition, translated by Hugh Lawson) is greatly deficient. The translation is horrible, using expressions that are not used in today's English, e.g. "superficies" where other translations have "surface," etc. This edition has no index, no glossary, no notes or commentaries. It's really worthless. Again, Aristotle's work itself is great, but this edition and translation is not worth your money. Get a different one. The best translation is said to be W.D. Ross's, but Lawson's is said to be alright, too.
Rating:
Summary: Bad translation
Review: I bought this, but will toss it in the trash as soon as I find a better translation. Billed as a "new" translation, here is a sample: "But science and art result unto men by means of experience; for experience,indeed, as Polus saith, has produced art, but inexperience chance." "unto" "saith"??? does that sound like a new translation to you? If it really is new, the translator can't write worth beans. Aristotle is transcendently clear, not muddy. The Modern Library Introduction to Aristotle has a much better translation, but only reprints excerpts. I'm still looking for an good edition that is both affordable and complete.
Rating:
Summary: translation is everything
Review: I love Aristotle and his Metaphysics is absolutely amazing. But the Prometheus Books translation, translated by John McMahon, is not exactly great. The translation itself is fine, but it's obvious that minimal effort was put into the book as a whole.... ie: there's no index of terms or people. If at all possible, I would recomend getting a different (and hopefully more useful) translation.
Rating:
Summary: translation is everything
Review: I love Aristotle and his Metaphysics is absolutely amazing. But the Prometheus Books translation, translated by John McMahon, is not exactly great. The translation itself is fine, but it's obvious that minimal effort was put into the book as a whole.... ie: there's no index of terms or people. If at all possible, I would recomend getting a different (and hopefully more useful) translation.
Rating:
Summary: "New Translation"
Review: This book doesn't touch the quality of Jonathan Barnes or Richard McKeon, but it has an admirable and enamoring quality to it. Those of us familiar with reading lots and lots of Aristotle, recognize in the Stagirite a personality that "philosophy" isn't always interested in. This translation attempts to bring out more of this personality. I wouldn't recommend this book to a beginner in Aristotle. However, those of us old friends of A's will find this a bit amusing and lovable. Resist the urge to be offended by the liberal translation, and look instead with a bemused eye.
Rating: 
Summary: The Metaphysics.
Review: You should first note that, when choosing a volume such as this, the quality of the translation is of primary importance. In my experience, one of three publishers who consistently offer outstanding translations of classic philosophical and literary texts is Penguin Classics. To avoid poor translations, please notice reviewer complaints about volumes offered by certain other publishers.
In this work, Aristotle first exposes what he finds to be the logical errors of earlier thinkers. Although he recurrently trains his fire even on his old teacher, Plato, Aristotle's system of thought does not finally escape Platonism. This volume presents several major undertakings, [1] Aristotle's logic, [2] his systematic definitions and arguments as to the nature and priority of "substance", relative aspects of actuality, potentiality, process, differentia, unity and multiplicity, and [3] his theology (First Philosophy). From Book Gamma: "There must be some one science that gives an account of all... and that also gives an account of substance... of that which is one qua that which is one and of that which is qua that which is... The shortcoming of current examinations of these topics is not their failure to be philosophy, but the priority of substance, on which the current philosophical consensus has no view. There are affections peculiar to [quantification as being quantification]... in the same way there are peculiarities of that which is just qua that which is. And it is the truth about these that the philosopher is after." While Aristotle is often said to be the ideological godfather of so-called positivism (a particularly dogmatic species of materialism), he would reject the title. So-called positivists tend to proudly insist that they reject metaphysics. The obvious problem with this assertion is that it is itself metaphysical (as Aristotle would immediately point out). Throughout most of the history of systematic thought, metaphysics has been seen as the supreme discipline (Isaac Newton, the greatest of physicists and mathematicians, found physics and mathematics to be less fascinating than theology, as had Rene Descartes and Blaise Pascal). But the Enlightenment brought with it a rather paranoiac suspicion of pure reason, and especially of First Philosophy. Aristotle would strongly disapprove; "It is, however, vital not to overlook the question of what it is to be a thing and the definitional account of how it is what it is. If we leave these out, scientific inquiry is mere shadow boxing." (Epsilon 1)
Some discourses of The Metaphysics are surprisingly readable, some are quite esoteric, some are puzzling (perhaps even to Aristotle?). Are Socrates and what-it-was-to-be Socrates identical? The author seems to think yes, at least in some sense. The exhaustive attempts to define essence, substance, and yes, definition itself (in Books Zeta and Eta), serve to demonstrate why many presume to avoid metaphysics. Those who call themselves positivists probably won't read this particular work of Aristotle, perhaps claiming even to be proud that they didn't "waste" their time with it. Indeed, some discussions seem merely confusing. Book Kappa revisits arguments and questions introduced earlier, and Aristotle presents his fully developed theology, at times elegant and at times incongruent, in the final chapters of Lambda. For the student of philosophy this remains an important book, one that is foundational to the science of being, metaphysics.
<< 1 >>
|
