I would give this video a hundred likes if I could. I was unaware of the translational problem with using the word “essence” in Aristotle-that’s amazing. As you discussed, I am obsessed in “Reconstructing A Is A” with getting people to understand Aristotelian Metaphysics as in the business of focusing on the raw act of apprehension itself versus establishing a constant substance (this comes up in A Philosophy of Glimpses too). I like to talk about Aristotle in terms of “reading,” and because we can “read” x phenomenon as “a cat,” there is “reason to think” there might be a constant which makes a thing a cat, but that is a secondary concern to exploring and considering the raw apprehension of “cat” itself. To put this another way, when I write the letters “tca,” nothing is apprehended, but then with a little rearranging into “cat”-bam-we get the image of a feline in our heads. Sure, we can wonder “Is my idea of a cat actual?” but this is a different question from the question, “How is ‘reading’ possible?” "What is 'reading?'" The ability of humans to read has always mystified me and been a major focus of mine, ever since I was a kid. Anyway, just wanted to say that I really really really appreciate your reading of Aristotle here, and I appreciate the revelations regarding the language. Your mastery of classical languages always impresses.
Wonderful to see someone doing philosophy with passion and care. Makes me almost feel hope 🙏 ✨ for this weary modern world 🌎 Please keep up your much needed work!
This is brilliant. Thank you so much. I have long suspected that the translation from the Ancient Greek has been unsatisfactory. Your translation is much better and far more illuminating
@@JohannesNiederhauser Thank you! I will certainly be watching your videos. I have been trying to wrap my head around Aristotle's definitions of substance, form & universal, essence, and substrate while reading through the organon and physics. trying to work my way to his metaphysics soon!
A brilliant short lecture! I'm trying to grasp, at least, some aspects of the notion of negativity in philosophy - a bit too grand gesture? Yes, I know. Following through your videos though, I learned a lot and find you are the best guide on the path so far. Thanks a lot. - from S. Korea.
You’re a great philosophy teacher! I love your lectures and your dialogues with students and other philosophers. This, like many of your videos got me thinking….generally, to me (I am a film maker living in LA) safeguarding the phenomena resembles much of what story-telling is. Perhaps story-telling is a more “grounded” way in safeguarding the phenomena. To elaborate, the fundamental question that Heidegger asks is, what is Being? Why are there beings versus no beings at all? I ask the same question but in terms of story-telling: What is Being in the story-telling world? Why is there content at all in the story versus different content or rather no content at all? The answer: theme. Being in the story-telling world is the theme. Having a thematic sense of Being or in other words, “to say what is and what isn’t and what still is”, all the while recollecting a new understanding by forgetting the old understanding (i.e. the process called “change”), is a possible way of letting beings be in their Beingness. My point, a story told well (that is, a story’s theme is expressed to a significant degree) seems to follow how to safeguard the phenomena (that is how one derives meaning in their everyday life), hence focusing on what the concept of theme is seems to be a possible path for the task of thinking to take.
Thank you Johannes. Quite a bit to think about: Essence as that which was to be, be; ousia or presence. This is difficult to understand and I will have to listen again, but "that which was to be, be" seems similar to Heidegger saying, "Dasein exist factically or this 'to be(existence)' is always situated in a world that is always already there and this existence and situatedness (befindlichkeit) together makes the Presence?
Richard Hope’s is fine. The Loebs translation is perfectly fine too as a standard classical translation. But when we attempt to open the text up again, it can only be a guideline
I would give this video a hundred likes if I could. I was unaware of the translational problem with using the word “essence” in Aristotle-that’s amazing. As you discussed, I am obsessed in “Reconstructing A Is A” with getting people to understand Aristotelian Metaphysics as in the business of focusing on the raw act of apprehension itself versus establishing a constant substance (this comes up in A Philosophy of Glimpses too). I like to talk about Aristotle in terms of “reading,” and because we can “read” x phenomenon as “a cat,” there is “reason to think” there might be a constant which makes a thing a cat, but that is a secondary concern to exploring and considering the raw apprehension of “cat” itself. To put this another way, when I write the letters “tca,” nothing is apprehended, but then with a little rearranging into “cat”-bam-we get the image of a feline in our heads. Sure, we can wonder “Is my idea of a cat actual?” but this is a different question from the question, “How is ‘reading’ possible?” "What is 'reading?'" The ability of humans to read has always mystified me and been a major focus of mine, ever since I was a kid. Anyway, just wanted to say that I really really really appreciate your reading of Aristotle here, and I appreciate the revelations regarding the language. Your mastery of classical languages always impresses.
excellent
Glorious. A pleasure to hear the de-re-presentalisation of Aristotle. A Destruktion of Plato and even platonism is more than necessary.
Wonderful to see someone doing philosophy with passion and care. Makes me almost feel hope 🙏 ✨ for this weary modern world 🌎 Please keep up your much needed work!
This is brilliant. Thank you so much. I have long suspected that the translation from the Ancient Greek has been unsatisfactory. Your translation is much better and far more illuminating
Wow! I really appreciate this video! I love the literal translations! I would never have gotten this by just reading the english.
Thank you very much also for your kind comment!
You will find more videos on here on ancient philosophy which refer to the original Greek and attempt original translations.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Thank you! I will certainly be watching your videos. I have been trying to wrap my head around Aristotle's definitions of substance, form & universal, essence, and substrate while reading through the organon and physics. trying to work my way to his metaphysics soon!
Cool antiquarian style
A brilliant short lecture! I'm trying to grasp, at least, some aspects of the notion of negativity in philosophy - a bit too grand gesture? Yes, I know. Following through your videos though, I learned a lot and find you are the best guide on the path so far. Thanks a lot. - from S. Korea.
Thank you, Allen. Also have a look at my upcoming course on German Idealism, which includes a lecture on Hegel.
While I am not phil major, it seems there existed in his time the divide or dichotomy between the metaphysical and the representational/empirical?
None of these words even existed.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Yet I heard you use them in this video, thus my confusion? Perhaps, I am not understanding?
You’re a great philosophy teacher! I love your lectures and your dialogues with students and other philosophers. This, like many of your videos got me thinking….generally, to me (I am a film maker living in LA) safeguarding the phenomena resembles much of what story-telling is. Perhaps story-telling is a more “grounded” way in safeguarding the phenomena. To elaborate, the fundamental question that Heidegger asks is, what is Being? Why are there beings versus no beings at all? I ask the same question but in terms of story-telling: What is Being in the story-telling world? Why is there content at all in the story versus different content or rather no content at all? The answer: theme. Being in the story-telling world is the theme. Having a thematic sense of Being or in other words, “to say what is and what isn’t and what still is”, all the while recollecting a new understanding by forgetting the old understanding (i.e. the process called “change”), is a possible way of letting beings be in their Beingness. My point, a story told well (that is, a story’s theme is expressed to a significant degree) seems to follow how to safeguard the phenomena (that is how one derives meaning in their everyday life), hence focusing on what the concept of theme is seems to be a possible path for the task of thinking to take.
Thank you Johannes. Quite a bit to think about: Essence as that which was to be, be; ousia or presence. This is difficult to understand and I will have to listen again, but "that which was to be, be" seems similar to Heidegger saying, "Dasein exist factically or this 'to be(existence)' is always situated in a world that is always already there and this existence and situatedness (befindlichkeit) together makes the Presence?
You will see that Being and Time only discloses its full sense when we understand Aristotle. The same is true for Hegel’s Logic.
@@JohannesNiederhauser Thank you; I am reading two of Heidegger’s lectures on Aristotle.
6:09
Dr. Niederhauser, do you have a preferred translation for his metaphysics? It seemed that you found some it problematic.
Richard Hope’s is fine. The Loebs translation is perfectly fine too as a standard classical translation. But when we attempt to open the text up again, it can only be a guideline
Thank you