--- Muzeum Narodowe <adurus@...> wrote:
> Dear Clifford,
>
> Could you give also in citation the Bekker's page number, not only book and
chapter? It
> would be very helpful for me.
>
> Greetings
>
> Alfred Twardecki
> National Museum in Warsaw
>

The copy of the "ROUGH" draft of trans is without Bekker references,
but compairing to the Greek.. here they are:
1094a18-b11.

The "(#)" refer to the older pre-Bekker sentence numbers..
that the Bywater edition of the OCT keeps on the right hand
side of the page.

Regards

Clifford Bates

> ATTACHMENT part 2 application/ms-tnef

Here is NE Book 1, Chapter 2.. from the Rough Draft lit, trans. by David
McBryde..

(1)So, if there is some end of the things that are done which we wish
for because of itself, the others [wished for] because of this, and we
do not choose everything because of something else (for, it will thus go
on to infinity, so that our longing is empty and foolish), [it is] clear
that this would be the good and the best.

(2)Won't the knowledge of it also have a great bearing on life, and,
just as archers having a target, [won't we] be more likely to happen
upon what is needful?

(3)If [it is] so, it must be attempted, in outline at least, to
comprehend just what it itself is, and of which of the sciences
or capabilities [it is].

(4)And it would seem [to belong] to the most authoritative and
most of all to the ruling art.

(5)And political expertise appears [to be] of this sort;

(6)for, it arranges which of the sciences ought to be in the cities,
and what sort each [citizen] should learn, and until when; and we see
even the most honoured of the capabilities are under this; like,
generalship, skilled household-management, rhetoric;

(7)and since this [expertise] uses the rest of the active sciences;
and further, since it legislates what things must be done and what
things must be abstained from, the end of this must include those of
the others; so that this would be the human good.

(8)For, even if it is the same for a single [person] and for a city,
that of the city appears [to be] greater and more complete, both
to attain and to preserve; for, [it is] satisfactory for just one
[person], but more noble and more divine for a nation or for cities.

(9)So then, the investigation, being a sort of political expertise, aims
at these things.
======

Again, I must thank Scot Carson for his comments.

I must again preface my reply with saying that the translator
David McBryde gave this to me as a "ROUGH" start at something he
hopes do complete someday in the future.  So it was in this spirit
he let me take a gander at it.  But seeking to give him feed-back
and looking to get us to take a close reading of the NE text, I
decided to post from his "ROUGH" draft text.. to get things
going.

David wrote this note to me and I submitt it to the lists
for consideration and a reply to some of Dr. Carson's
criticism.

Clifford Bates
Warsaw University

=====

Clifford,

I'm somewhat uneasy about a very unpolished first-draft
translation being offered to people who know their Greek.
But in any case I have two things to say to Scott Carson's
informed replies.

1. "fore-choice" is a translation I took over from Harry V.
Jaffa. It is the only way (in my opinion) to translate this
word into English. The only other option would it to leave
it as prohairesis, that is, not to translate it. The translation
of it as "choice" or "decision" are incomplete, it is a choice
or decision which happens beforehand. Notes would be
necessary to help the reader understand the term I use,
but I'm not at that stage.

2. Since T. Aquinas refers to the Dignitas of the city and
L. Strauss alludes to this in his chapter on A's Politics
in City and Man, I'm open to the possibility that kalOs
may have a stronger emphasis than is normally detected
by those who habitually translate it as "rightly" etc.
Whether their interpretation is correct is hidden unless
the word is translated by an English word which covers
this aspect of its meaning.

As regards to translation, the more literal the better as
far as I'm concerned. "Good" English is a secondary
consideration (at least at draft stage).


regards,
David McBryde

This is just to notify people that I am starting
the discussion of the NE on two list... Lance's
aristotle-ethics@onelist.com and mine
aristotle-pol-phil@onelist.com, so if you are replying
to a post on one list, please cc: the post to the
other...

I am doing this only to get things started on both lists,
and hope that they will go in different directions.

Regards

Clifford Bates
Warsaw University

--- Andrew Lancaster <100761.200@...> wrote:
> Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:24:29 -0500
> From: Andrew Lancaster <100761.200@...>
> To: "INTERNET:aristotle-pol-phil@onelist.com" <aristotle-pol-phil@onelist.com>
> Reply-to: aristotle-pol-phil@onelist.com
> Subject: [aristotle-pol-phil] Reading of Nic Ethics
>
> From: Andrew Lancaster <100761.200@...>
>
> I very much welcome this as I am currently going through The Politics
> (concerning which I will drop notes into the Aristotle Politics list) and I
> often have to refer to many translations (I have no real Greek) of many of
> Aristotle's works, but the Ethics is an especially important one.
>
> First some translation comments from an amateur:
> 1. How close would pre-disposition be to what is intended by fore-choice?
> 2. The last sentence of para 2 would perhaps be better with one more square
> bracketed insert, rude though it seems to Aristotle. Eg: And [concerning
> things] of which there are some ends apart from the actions.
> 3. Kalos. Why not fine? I know it comes across odd in some dialects of
> English but it is not as if it is so far from what is meant here.
> 4. Gignomai. Re. Scott Carson's comment, I do not really his alternative.
> Coming into being is perhaps slightly stranger than gignomai was to a
> greek, but it is not impossibly strange and there is no other way to really
> get the core of it. The translation proposed by Mr Carson seems to change
> the meaning in making it better English.
> 5. Capability in para 4 does not seem to give itself to the Engish reader
> so well, but I can't think of a better word.
>
> Then the Ethics. Numbers as used for paragraphs in Aristotle.
>
> 1. The sentence always stays in my mind.
> I feel there are many implied concepts already in the way A contrasts:-
> art and investigation.
> actions: pre-meditated and not.
> From looking at parts of the Politcs 1, I would interpret foresight to be
> something we are supposed to be noticing in the way Aristotle has set this
> up. I mean I don't think he ever suddenly jumps up and says that foresight
> is key to better human living, but he mentions is at all key places where
> he is discussing what might be.
> It strikes me as important that this is something which Machiavelli also
> does, though more famously and more loudly.
> -Concerning art (techne) , consider that in I.11, A says that the works
> which are most artistic are those least involving chance.
> -Can anyone think of a statement which defines investigation (methodos) in
> Aristotle's texts?
> -praxis is made in this to be different from prohairesis. Does that mean it
> is not voluntary or conscious? If so then how can it be said to aim at
> something?
>
> 2, 3, and 4. The point is that productive things can aim at a thing, but if
> they do then the thing must be an instrument to get something else, and
> eventually the ruling end is an action. (Even though the instruments are
> better than the actions that made them, because they are one step closer to
> the good.)
> Politics,  Book 1, chap 4 goes into this difference between productive
> instruments and non.The point there seems to be that only a human can be
> the effecter of good (so if you don't have a slave it will have to be you)
> because it must be an action, and tools can't move themselves.
> It is interesting to compare Aristotle and modern economics on the service
> industry. It seems to be a concern of Aristotle, but I am not 100% sure of
> his opinion yet.
>
> 5. Points out what I said in my first parenthesis in 2,3 and 4 above. Goods
> can be better than actions in the build up to a final aim.
>
> So far we are already left with the big question of what the ruling arts
> are in the end?
>
> Best Regards
> Andrew Lancaster
>
> > ===================================================
> The Aristotle Political Philosophy List.
> Moderated by Clifford Angell Bates, Jr Phd
> Contact at: batesc@...
> Connected with Aristotle's Political Philosophy Page
> http://members.tripod.com/~batesca/aristotle.html
>
>
>

Again, I must thank Scot Carson for his comments.

I must again preface my reply with saying that the translator
David McBryde gave this to me as a "ROUGH" start at something he
hopes do complete someday in the future.  So it was in this spirit
he let me take a gander at it.  But seeking to give him feed-back
and looking to get us to take a close reading of the NE text, I
decided to post from his "ROUGH" draft text.. to get things
going.

David wrote this note to me and I submitt it to the lists
for consideration and a reply to some of Dr. Carson's
criticism.

Clifford Bates
Warsaw University

=====

Clifford,

I'm somewhat uneasy about a very unpolished first-draft
translation being offered to people who know their Greek.
But in any case I have two things to say to Scott Carson's
informed replies.

1. "fore-choice" is a translation I took over from Harry V.
Jaffa. It is the only way (in my opinion) to translate this
word into English. The only other option would it to leave
it as prohairesis, that is, not to translate it. The translation
of it as "choice" or "decision" are incomplete, it is a choice
or decision which happens beforehand. Notes would be
necessary to help the reader understand the term I use,
but I'm not at that stage.

2. Since T. Aquinas refers to the Dignitas of the city and
L. Strauss alludes to this in his chapter on A's Politics
in City and Man, I'm open to the possibility that kalOs
may have a stronger emphasis than is normally detected
by those who habitually translate it as "rightly" etc.
Whether their interpretation is correct is hidden unless
the word is translated by an English word which covers
this aspect of its meaning.

As regards to translation, the more literal the better as
far as I'm concerned. "Good" English is a secondary
consideration (at least at draft stage).


regards,
David McBryde

Clifford Angell Bates Jr <batesc@...> wrote:

which is why they nobly declare
that [it is] the good which all things aim at.


Again, I look forward to hearing any reaction to the above text.
I would differ with his use of "noble"... and would choose
"beautiful" in its place..

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello people,
I would like to know why 'noble' or 'beautiful(ly)' instead of  'rightly'.
This passage seems to be connected to 1101b-28 where the adverb kalos is used
again with the same meaning in 'rightly pleaded his cause'. Is this correct?

kind regards,

Ricardo Holanda,
Brazil



____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

My apologies if I'm quoting too much material from earlier posts....

----- Original Message -----
From: Clifford Angell Bates Jr <batesc@...>


> I am suggesting "beautiful" or "beautifuly" in this passage to
> suggest the distinction between *kalOs* and *agathos*.. when
> we speak about "noble" the assumption of goodness is often
> implied in English, but this is no longer the case with
> "beautiful"... thus to distinguish between the two.. I like
> beautiful.  It also makes us become aware that perhaps such
> a choice is not also one that is "truth" or "complete" but
> one that "beautiful" or "appealing to the beautiful ones".

I believe I see your point; but if your concern is with the connotation of
the *English* words (a concern I find in your remarks about the "assumption
of goodness"), surely that must be directed by a concern for the connotation
of the Greek words. It is well and good to try to distinguish between
*kalOs* and *agathos*, but it is not clear to me that rendering *kalOs* as
"beautiful" really accomplishes that precisely because of the connotations
of that English word. Something that is "beautiful" may, I suppose, be
beautiful because of its aptness, but I suggest that the idea of beauty is,
in the minds of most readers, not associated with the sense of *kalOs* here
intended. In short, it is not clear to me that "beautiful" *is* a literal
translation of *kalOs* in this context.

> Dear Dr. Carson we are looking at this translation as a means to get
> to the Greek text and hence a reading the ethics.  I believe the
> translator (David McBryde.. who let me use his translation.. which
> he is working on) is trying for a literalness that will allow the
> Greekless reader to get the feel of the original text.

The original Greek is, I will admit, rather telescopic in places, but it is
not as awkward as this English is (indeed, in a couple of places this
translation fails to be intelligible). A translation, even a literal one,
must pass muster on the grounds of English grammar or it fails to be a
translation. Furth's "Eek" is, of course, an exception to this general
principle, but I think there are grounds for arguing that excessive
literalness actually works *against* getting "the feel of the original
text". Barnes, I think, makes out a fine case for this view in the preface
to the second edition of his commentary on the *Posterior Analytics*.

> As for Irwin's translation.. it is far from literal... [I have
> not seen the 2nd edition yet.. I am in Poland and don't
> even have my personal library with me (its boxed up in
> the States!!!).]

I agree that Irwin does not attempt the sort of literalness that the present
translation does, but it is literal in a way that Ross' translation
obviously is not. The difference, I would argue, between Irwin and the
present translation lies not in the degree of literalness but in the degree
of intelligibility. To the degree that Irwin gives me something more
intelligible he gives me also something closer to the Greek (which,
regardless of what some might think, also gives me something intelligible).

I agree, however, that working through this translation is a good exercise
and provides a conduit for addressing the Greek text, and I look forward to
future installments.
__________________________________
Scott Carson
Department of Philosophy, Ohio University
carsond@...
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~carsond/

I welcome this reply.. Its a good start...

--- Scott Carson <carsond@...> wrote:
> From: "Scott Carson" <carsond@...>
>
> My apologies for sticking to matters of translation in this post. I promise
> to join in whatever philosophical fray develops
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Clifford Angell Bates Jr <batesc@...>
>
> > Book 1, chapter 1 of the NE
> >
> > "(1)Every art and every investigation, and similarly both action and
> > fore-choice, seem to aim at some good; which is why they nobly declare
> > that [it is] the good which all things aim at.
>
> "Fore-choice" seems a little idiosyncratic to me. It's not a standard
> English word, and unless the translation is aiming at pedantic literalness
> I'm not sure such a coinage is really necessary. The more usual "purpose"
> (Joachim) or "pursuit" (Ross) strike me as preferable, conveying pretty much
> the same sense without the neologism, or whatever it is you call something
> like "fore-choice". Indeed, if absolute literalness is what one is after,
> why not something like "fore-taking", since that gets at the root meaning of
> *haireO* a little more clearly; but you see what I'm getting at: too much
> literalness is not necessarily a good thing in a translation.
>
> Perhaps it would be helpful to know what the target audience of this
> translation is? Is it supposed to be like Furth's "Eek" translation of the
> *Metaphysics*, or is it meant to be a little more on the readable side?
>
> You [Cliff--if I may] also note your preference for "beautiful" in place of
> "noble"; here "nobly" is tranlating *kalOs*, and I wonder if you would like
> to translate this as "beautifuly"? I'm not sure what the point would be of
> saying that the declaration was made beautifully. To say that it was done
> "nobly" is also somewhat overdoing it, in my view; why not stick with Ross'
> "rightly", or, if you prefer to keep the connotations behind "beautiful",
> something like "appropriately"?
>

I am suggesting "beautiful" or "beautifuly" in this passage to
suggest the distinction between *kalOs* and *agathos*.. when
we speak about "noble" the assumption of goodness is often
implied in English, but this is no longer the case with
"beautiful"... thus to distinguish between the two.. I like
beautiful.  It also makes us become aware that perhaps such
a choice is not also one that is "truth" or "complete" but
one that "beautiful" or "appealing to the beautiful ones".

> > (2)But a sort of difference appears among the ends; for, some are
> > activities, and some [are] certain products apart from them. And of which
> > there are some ends apart from the actions, in these the products are
> > naturally better than the activities.
>
> The second sentence here is not good English style--again one wants to know
> to whom this translation is directed. A better rendering would be something
> like "Among the things of which  there are ends beyond the actions, the
> products are better than the activities." (I'm afraid my own attempt is not
> much better!) Trying to stick to the very same order of words as is
> manifested in the Greek may be desirable in Furthian Eek, but not in
> English.
>
> > (3)And since there are many actions and arts and sciences, many ends
> > come into being too; for, [that] of medical expertise [is] health,
> > [that] of ship-building, a ship, [that] of generalship, victory,
> > [that] of skilled household-management, wealth.
>
> "Come into being" is, I believe, at best misleading and at worst a mistake.
> It is a fairly standard locution in Greek (but particularly in Plato and
> Aristotle) to use the verb *gignomai* to indicate a consequence. The
> emphasis here is not on the fact that ends "come into being", but that there
> being many ends is a consequence of there being many actions and arts and
> sciences. Better (in my view) is simply "since there are many actions
> k.t.l., there are many ends, too".
>
> > (4)And those of this sort are under some one capability, just as
> > bridle-making and all the other [expertises] of instruments for
> > horses are under horsemanship, and this and every military action,
> > under generalship, and in the same way, others under different ones;
> > but in all [these], the ends of all the ruling arts are more
> > choiceworthy than those under them; for, [it is] for the sake of
> > these that they are pursued.
>
> Here again I have to ask, what is the virtue of rendering the Greek into
> English such as "all the other [expertises] of instruments for horses"? Very
> literal, but not very readable. Irwin has "every other science producing
> equipment for horses", Ross gives "other arts concerned with the equipment
> of horses"; perhaps both are overly expansive, but surely some compromise is
> possible?
>
> In the final clause the translator has either abandoned literalness or
> simply made a mistake: the *pantOn* of 1094a14 does not go with *tOn
> arkhitektonikOn* (else it would be in attributive position), but is a
> genitive of comparison: the ends of the master arts are more choiceworthy
> THAN ALL the others.
>
> > (5)And it makes no difference that the activities
> > themselves are the ends of actions or something different apart from
> > them, as in the sciences spoken of."
>
> In a disjunction one expects not "that" but "whether": it makes no
> difference *whether* the activities themselves, k.t.l.
>
> And finally I would ask the general question: what is the *virtue* of the
> proposed translation? If one seeks elegance, there is Ross, if literalness,
> Irwin; what is to motivate this new attempt? What, precisely, are we to be
> on the lookout for as we go through this translation? Are we helping the
> translator produce a teaching text of his own, or is this just an exercise
> in reading the ethics? I'm happy to help out in either task, but it would be
> helpful to me to understand what sorts of comments and criticisms will be
> relevant to the translator's own purpose.
> __________________________________
> Scott Carson
> Department of Philosophy, Ohio University
> carsond@...
> http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~carsond/
>
>

Dear Dr. Carson we are looking at this translation as a means to get
to the Greek text and hence a reading the ethics.  I believe the
translator (David McBryde.. who let me use his translation.. which
he is working on) is trying for a literalness that will allow the
Greekless reader to get the feel of the original text.

As for Irwin's translation.. it is far from literal... [I have
not seen the 2nd edition yet.. I am in Poland and don't
even have my personal library with me (its boxed up in
the States!!!).]

Are there any other comments or suggestions?

Regards

Clifford Bates
Warsaw University

My apologies for sticking to matters of translation in this post. I promise
to join in whatever philosophical fray develops

----- Original Message -----
From: Clifford Angell Bates Jr <batesc@...>

> Book 1, chapter 1 of the NE
>
> "(1)Every art and every investigation, and similarly both action and
> fore-choice, seem to aim at some good; which is why they nobly declare
> that [it is] the good which all things aim at.

"Fore-choice" seems a little idiosyncratic to me. It's not a standard
English word, and unless the translation is aiming at pedantic literalness
I'm not sure such a coinage is really necessary. The more usual "purpose"
(Joachim) or "pursuit" (Ross) strike me as preferable, conveying pretty much
the same sense without the neologism, or whatever it is you call something
like "fore-choice". Indeed, if absolute literalness is what one is after,
why not something like "fore-taking", since that gets at the root meaning of
*haireO* a little more clearly; but you see what I'm getting at: too much
literalness is not necessarily a good thing in a translation.

Perhaps it would be helpful to know what the target audience of this
translation is? Is it supposed to be like Furth's "Eek" translation of the
*Metaphysics*, or is it meant to be a little more on the readable side?

You [Cliff--if I may] also note your preference for "beautiful" in place of
"noble"; here "nobly" is tranlating *kalOs*, and I wonder if you would like
to translate this as "beautifuly"? I'm not sure what the point would be of
saying that the declaration was made beautifully. To say that it was done
"nobly" is also somewhat overdoing it, in my view; why not stick with Ross'
"rightly", or, if you prefer to keep the connotations behind "beautiful",
something like "appropriately"?

> (2)But a sort of difference appears among the ends; for, some are
> activities, and some [are] certain products apart from them. And of which
> there are some ends apart from the actions, in these the products are
> naturally better than the activities.

The second sentence here is not good English style--again one wants to know
to whom this translation is directed. A better rendering would be something
like "Among the things of which  there are ends beyond the actions, the
products are better than the activities." (I'm afraid my own attempt is not
much better!) Trying to stick to the very same order of words as is
manifested in the Greek may be desirable in Furthian Eek, but not in
English.

> (3)And since there are many actions and arts and sciences, many ends
> come into being too; for, [that] of medical expertise [is] health,
> [that] of ship-building, a ship, [that] of generalship, victory,
> [that] of skilled household-management, wealth.

"Come into being" is, I believe, at best misleading and at worst a mistake.
It is a fairly standard locution in Greek (but particularly in Plato and
Aristotle) to use the verb *gignomai* to indicate a consequence. The
emphasis here is not on the fact that ends "come into being", but that there
being many ends is a consequence of there being many actions and arts and
sciences. Better (in my view) is simply "since there are many actions
k.t.l., there are many ends, too".

> (4)And those of this sort are under some one capability, just as
> bridle-making and all the other [expertises] of instruments for
> horses are under horsemanship, and this and every military action,
> under generalship, and in the same way, others under different ones;
> but in all [these], the ends of all the ruling arts are more
> choiceworthy than those under them; for, [it is] for the sake of
> these that they are pursued.

Here again I have to ask, what is the virtue of rendering the Greek into
English such as "all the other [expertises] of instruments for horses"? Very
literal, but not very readable. Irwin has "every other science producing
equipment for horses", Ross gives "other arts concerned with the equipment
of horses"; perhaps both are overly expansive, but surely some compromise is
possible?

In the final clause the translator has either abandoned literalness or
simply made a mistake: the *pantOn* of 1094a14 does not go with *tOn
arkhitektonikOn* (else it would be in attributive position), but is a
genitive of comparison: the ends of the master arts are more choiceworthy
THAN ALL the others.

> (5)And it makes no difference that the activities
> themselves are the ends of actions or something different apart from
> them, as in the sciences spoken of."

In a disjunction one expects not "that" but "whether": it makes no
difference *whether* the activities themselves, k.t.l.

And finally I would ask the general question: what is the *virtue* of the
proposed translation? If one seeks elegance, there is Ross, if literalness,
Irwin; what is to motivate this new attempt? What, precisely, are we to be
on the lookout for as we go through this translation? Are we helping the
translator produce a teaching text of his own, or is this just an exercise
in reading the ethics? I'm happy to help out in either task, but it would be
helpful to me to understand what sorts of comments and criticisms will be
relevant to the translator's own purpose.
__________________________________
Scott Carson
Department of Philosophy, Ohio University
carsond@...
http://oak.cats.ohiou.edu/~carsond/

Greetings all,

I would like to propose a reading of the Nic. Ethics.  Of course
this has been done before, but I would like to try out the draft
of a translation by David McBryde.  Of course please use whatever
translation you have at hand, but I would be looking for suggestion
how to both understand the given passage and how to improve the
given passage.

I hope all of you will be willing to join me on this project.

The first passages will is presented below....

====
Book 1, chapter 1 of the NE

"(1)Every art and every investigation, and similarly both action and
fore-choice, seem to aim at some good; which is why they nobly declare
that [it is] the good which all things aim at.

(2)But a sort of difference appears among the ends; for, some are
activities, and some [are] certain products apart from them. And of which
  there are some ends apart from the actions, in these the products are
naturally better than the activities.

(3)And since there are many actions and arts and sciences, many ends
come into being too; for, [that] of medical expertise [is] health,
[that] of ship-building, a ship, [that] of generalship, victory,
[that] of skilled household-management, wealth.

(4)And those of this sort are under some one capability, just as
bridle-making and all the other [expertises] of instruments for
horses are under horsemanship, and this and every military action,
under generalship, and in the same way, others under different ones;
but in all [these], the ends of all the ruling arts are more
choiceworthy than those under them; for, [it is] for the sake of
these that they are pursued.

(5)And it makes no difference that the activities
themselves are the ends of actions or something different apart from
them, as in the sciences spoken of."

----

Again, I look forward to hearing any reaction to the above text.
I would differ with his use of "noble"... and would choose
"beautiful" in its place..

Regards

Clifford Bates
Warsaw University

I thought this info might interest some of you here:

--- LIST HOST <hayek-lhost@...> wrote:
> Date:         Wed, 27 Oct 1999 10:55:10 -0700
> Reply-to: Hayek Related Research <HAYEK-L@...>
> From: LIST HOST <hayek-lhost@...>
> Organization: Hayek Center for Interdisciplinary Research
> Subject:      [HAYEK-L:] CONFER: Politics of Plato & Aristotle - Olympia
>               Greece, 2000
> To: HAYEK-L@...
>
> The XIth International Symposium of Philosophy on
>
> A. THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE
> B. CULTURE AND POLITICS
>
>
> XIth INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
> PYRGOS--ANCIENT OLYMPIA--AMALIADA
> AUGUST 13 - 18, 2000
>
> The OLYMPIC CENTER FOR  PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE,
> in cooperation with the
> THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE MUNICIPALIY OF PYRGOS
>
>
> We would like to invite you to participate in the XIth International
> Symposium of the
> Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture, which will take place on August
> 13-18, 2,000.  The topic for this year is THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF PLATO
> AND ARISTOTLE.  The morning sessions and some of the afternoon ones will be
> devoted to presentations on philosophical issues raised in the political
> writings of Plato and Aristotle.  Some of the afternoon sessions will be
> devoted to the relation of politics and culture, issues that also figure
> prominently in the works of these philosophers.
>
> Following please find the necessary information for making arrangements for
> your participation.  If you need any additional information, do not
> hesitate to contact any of the persons listed on the circular below.
>
> Looking forward to seeing you at the XIth International Symposium of the
> Olympic Center, we remain
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> Georgios Anagnostopoulos, University of California-San Diego
> Leonidas Bargeliotes, University of Athens
> Fred D. Miller, Jr., Bowling Green State University
> Gerasimos X. Santas, University of California-Irvine
>
>
>
> XIth INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM
> PYRGOS--ANCIENT OLYMPIA--AMALIADA
> AUGUST 13 - 18, 2000
> The
> OLYMPIC CENTER FOR  PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE,
> in cooperation with the
> THE CULTURAL CENTER OF THE MUNICIPALIY OF PYRGOS,
>  organizes:
> The XIth International Symposium of Philosophy
> On
> A. THE POLITICAL THEORIES OF PLATO AND ARISTOTLE
> B. CULTURE AND POLITICS
>
> The Symposium will be held at Pyrgos of Elis and the Municipalities of
> Ancient Olympia, Amaliada and Zacharo.  Those who wish to participate
> should complete the  attached Registration Form, giving the title and a
> half-page abstract of their paper, which should reach the Center not later
> than April 30, 2000. Papers should not exceed twelve double-spaced pages.
> Both the abstract and the paper should be written on diskette  (3.5 inch.)
> Mac (word 4.0 and higher) or IBM saved in RTF.  Please note that the
> registration fee is $120.00 (US dollars or the equivalent) per participant,
> which is non-refundable, and covers the following:
>
> *Registration service and equipment.
> *Three or four evening receptions with dinner and musical entertainment.
> *Visits to archaeological sites and the Museum of Olympia.
> *Attendance of a theatrical performance.
> *Bus transportation  between the hotels.
> *Travel to the receptions given by the Mayors of the above mentioned
> Municipalities.
>
>
>
> For your stay in Athens  you should make your own reservation either at the
> Park Hotel, 10 Alexandras  Av., 106 81 Athens, tel. (011-301) 8232711-5 and
> Fax (011- 301) 8238420), from where the bus will depart at 08.00, August
> 13, 2000, or at any Hotel close to the Archeological Museum of Athens.
>
> For your stay in Pyrgos, make your own reservations by contacting the
> OLYMPIA TRAVEL TOURS of Pyrgos, Tel.: (30-621) 24920; FAX: (30-621) 24921;
> Email: info@... (Home page:  www.olympiatravel.com).  The
> following hotels have agreed to special rates for participants:  ALDEMAR
> HOTEL (Class A or 4 stars) on the shores of the Ionian Sea and the IONIAN
> SEA HOTEL ( Class C or 3 stars).
>
> A detailed Second Circular will be sent in due time to those colleagues who
> will have answered this invitation by April 30, 2000.  For additional
> information please contact directly Dr. Leonidas C. Bargeliotes, 9,
> Aristotelous St., 151 24 Amaroussion, Athens Greece, tel.:  Tel. and Fax:
> (011-301) 802 9313 or (011-30-625) 61388; Mobile Tel.:  0977-947916,
> E-mail: lbargel@... or one of the Center's representatives in the
> USA:  Prof. Georgios Anagnostopoulos, University of California, San Diego,
> tel. (858) 534-3072, (858) 481-8501, Email: ganagnos@... or Prof.
> Christos Evangeliou, Towson State University, tel. (410) 825.2755, Email:
> evangel@....
>
> Looking forward to welcoming you at Olympia - Pyrgos, we remain
>
> Sincerely yours,
>
> L.C. BARGELIOTES, President of the Olympic Center
> G. LIATSIS, Mayor of Pyrgos
>
> G. ANAGNOSTOPOULOS
> Chr. EVANGELIOU
> Representatives of the Olympic Center in the USA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                          REGISTRATION  FORM
>
> XIth  INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM OF PHILOSOPHY
> Organized by
> The OLYMPIC CENTER FOR PHILOSOPHY AND CULTURE
>  and the
> MUNICIPALITY OF PYRGOS
> August 13-18, 2000, Pyrgos--Ancient Olympia--Amaliada
> Name & Title______________________________________________________
> Address___________________________________________________________
> Town________________________Postal Code____________________________
> Country____________________________________________________________
> Telephone _______________, E-mail_________________, Fax________________
>     [     ]        I plan to present a paper at the Symposium
>     [     ]        I plan to attend the Symposium without presenting a paper
>
> My registration fee covering:
> a) registration service and equipment.
> b) three or four evening receptions with dinner and musical
>     entertainment.
> c) visits to archaeological sites and the Museum of Olympia.
> d) attendance of a theatrical performance,
> e) bus transportation between hotels and the Conference Hall
>     as well as to the receptions given by the Mayors of the above
>     mentioned Municipalities,
>  is included according to one of the two categories:
> A) Early Registration (until April 30, 2000)                 [    ] $ 120.00
> B) Late Registration (after April 30, 2000)                   [    ] $ 150.00
> Bus transportation from Athens to Olympia and return [    ] $ 40.00
> I am including a donation to the Olympic Center for Philosophy and Culture
> for the construction of the open theater and of other facilities at
> Neochorion:  [    ] _____
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ABSTRACT
>
> Please type, single-spaced, the abstract of your paper in the frame below
> and send it at your earliest convenience, but no later than April 30, 2000
> to:  Prof. Leonidas Bargeliotes, 9 Aristotelous Street, 151 24 Amaroussion,
> Athens, Greece or by Email: lbargel@...
>
> Name and Address:
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> __________________________________________________________________
>
> Title of the paper
> _____________________________________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr.Constantinos Athanasopoulos
> 6 Hiolkou St.
> Kamatero 13451
> Athens-Greece
> Fax: Greece-1-2383613
> e-mail: cathanas@...
>
>
>

Thank you for the advice Innes.
Kind regards,
Ricardo


Innesken@... wrote:
From: Innesken@...

concerning the relation between Homer and ethics in Aristotle & Plato,  have
you had a look at Alasdair MacIntyre's discussions of just that in
(especially) 'After Virtue' and 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' but also
his 'A short history of ethics'?

kind regards
Innes Kennedy

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

The Literary Guild® offers you half off publishers' edition prices on
the books you love to read. Get 5 books for only $2 + 1 free with
membership. Go to http://www.onelist.com/ad/doubleday7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of Slow
Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

Thank you for the advice Innes.
Kind regards,
Ricardo


Innesken@... wrote:
From: Innesken@...

concerning the relation between Homer and ethics in Aristotle & Plato,  have
you had a look at Alasdair MacIntyre's discussions of just that in
(especially) 'After Virtue' and 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' but also
his 'A short history of ethics'?

kind regards
Innes Kennedy

--------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------

The Literary Guild® offers you half off publishers' edition prices on
the books you love to read. Get 5 books for only $2 + 1 free with
membership. Go to http://www.onelist.com/ad/doubleday7

------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of the  lists sponsored by The Free Lance Academy, home of Slow
Reading: http://www.freelance-academy.org


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

concerning the relation between Homer and ethics in Aristotle & Plato,  have
you had a look at Alasdair MacIntyre's discussions of just that in
(especially) 'After Virtue' and 'Whose Justice? Which Rationality?' but also
his 'A short history of ethics'?

kind regards
Innes Kennedy

Hi folks,
Can we separate the actual good of beer from the images imprinted in our
heads? How do we perceive this good? With our senses or with the expectations
created by our mind?

kind regards,
Ricardo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Claude Caspar" <claudecaspar@...> wrote:


Tim,

But, is the beer the Good, or the feeling you derive from imbibing?  Beer
may be a necessary but not sufficient cause of this Good.


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Timothy J. Duggan Jr [mailto:Timothy.J.Duggan.Jr@...]
   Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 5:48 PM
   To: aristotle-ethics@onelist.com
   Subject: [aristotle-ethics] Good List


   Hi,

   On the eve of this, the best month of the year (August), I propose we make
a list of what is good. This list could contain anything, but any entry
would have to be backed up with good arguments.

   The discovery of categories will be most enjoyable. For example, I would
nominate Beer to the list of that which is good. What makes beer different
from other alcoholic beverages? Why not wine? Why not gin and juice?

   Here we would be able to get at the real question of what is good. Since
beer is

   -a traditional staple beverage with various healthy attributes

   -associated with the concept of work and "a job well-done" (i.e. Miller
Time) and therefore has positive social benefits

   -a patriotic beverage, that used in moderation, increases the individuals
psychic affinity with the culture

   -an "icebreaker" which allows the bridging of various gulfs and distances
between individuals and so enhances the likelihood of societal evolution

   -a beverage whose appeal is _diverse_

   Let me know what you think of this idea and please nominate anything even
if it seems to be "out of line" with whatever categories this list tends to
follow.

   Peace and Love

   -Tim


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

Hi folks,
Can we separate the actual good of beer from the images imprinted in our
heads? How do we perceive this good? With our senses or with the expectations
created by our mind?

kind regards,
Ricardo
------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Claude Caspar" <claudecaspar@...> wrote:


Tim,

But, is the beer the Good, or the feeling you derive from imbibing?  Beer
may be a necessary but not sufficient cause of this Good.


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Timothy J. Duggan Jr [mailto:Timothy.J.Duggan.Jr@...]
   Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 5:48 PM
   To: aristotle-ethics@onelist.com
   Subject: [aristotle-ethics] Good List


   Hi,

   On the eve of this, the best month of the year (August), I propose we make
a list of what is good. This list could contain anything, but any entry
would have to be backed up with good arguments.

   The discovery of categories will be most enjoyable. For example, I would
nominate Beer to the list of that which is good. What makes beer different
from other alcoholic beverages? Why not wine? Why not gin and juice?

   Here we would be able to get at the real question of what is good. Since
beer is

   -a traditional staple beverage with various healthy attributes

   -associated with the concept of work and "a job well-done" (i.e. Miller
Time) and therefore has positive social benefits

   -a patriotic beverage, that used in moderation, increases the individuals
psychic affinity with the culture

   -an "icebreaker" which allows the bridging of various gulfs and distances
between individuals and so enhances the likelihood of societal evolution

   -a beverage whose appeal is _diverse_

   Let me know what you think of this idea and please nominate anything even
if it seems to be "out of line" with whatever categories this list tends to
follow.

   Peace and Love

   -Tim


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

Tim,

But, is the beer the Good, or the feeling you derive from imbibing?  Beer
may be a necessary but not sufficient cause of this Good.


   -----Original Message-----
   From: Timothy J. Duggan Jr [mailto:Timothy.J.Duggan.Jr@...]
   Sent: Saturday, July 31, 1999 5:48 PM
   To: aristotle-ethics@onelist.com
   Subject: [aristotle-ethics] Good List


   Hi,

   On the eve of this, the best month of the year (August), I propose we make
a list of what is good. This list could contain anything, but any entry
would have to be backed up with good arguments.

   The discovery of categories will be most enjoyable. For example, I would
nominate Beer to the list of that which is good. What makes beer different
from other alcoholic beverages? Why not wine? Why not gin and juice?

   Here we would be able to get at the real question of what is good. Since
beer is

   -a traditional staple beverage with various healthy attributes

   -associated with the concept of work and "a job well-done" (i.e. Miller
Time) and therefore has positive social benefits

   -a patriotic beverage, that used in moderation, increases the individuals
psychic affinity with the culture

   -an "icebreaker" which allows the bridging of various gulfs and distances
between individuals and so enhances the likelihood of societal evolution

   -a beverage whose appeal is _diverse_

   Let me know what you think of this idea and please nominate anything even
if it seems to be "out of line" with whatever categories this list tends to
follow.

   Peace and Love

   -Tim

Hi,


On the eve of this, the best month of the year (August), I propose we make a
list of what is good. This list could contain anything, but any entry would have
to be backed up with good arguments.


The discovery of categories will be most enjoyable. For example, I would
nominate Beer to the list of that which is good. What makes beer different from
other alcoholic beverages? Why not wine? Why not gin and juice?


Here we would be able to get at the real question of what is good. Since beer is


    -a traditional staple beverage with various healthy attributes


    -associated with the concept of work and "a job well-done" (i.e. Miller Time)
and therefore has positive social benefits


    -a patriotic beverage, that used in moderation, increases the individuals
psychic affinity with the culture


    -an "icebreaker" which allows the bridging of various gulfs and distances
between individuals and so enhances the likelihood of societal evolution


    -a beverage whose appeal is _diverse_


Let me know what you think of this idea and please nominate anything even if it
seems to be "out of line" with whatever categories this list tends to follow.


Peace and Love


-Tim

"T. Carwile Head" <tlh@...> wrote:
From: "T. Carwile Head" <tlh@...>

Today, ricardoholanda@... wrote:

>I'm particularly interested in Plato and Aristotles' discussion lists,
>specially if there's a connection to the works of Homer. My main goal is
>access the relation between the Homeric epics and the concepts of ethics
>in Plato and Aristotle. Anyone can help?

I'm interested, but my Classics background is not the world's most
awe-inspiring.  Sorry.


Peace,

Tom

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth
and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
			 -- Albert Einstein


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello Tom,

What are your other philosophical interests?

kind regards,
Ricardo


____________________________________________________________________
Get your own FREE, personal Netscape WebMail account today at
http://webmail.netscape.com.

Today, ricardoholanda@... wrote:

>I'm particularly interested in Plato and Aristotles' discussion lists,
>specially if there's a connection to the works of Homer. My main goal is
>access the relation between the Homeric epics and the concepts of ethics
>in Plato and Aristotle. Anyone can help?

I'm interested, but my Classics background is not the world's most
awe-inspiring.  Sorry.


Peace,

Tom

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth
and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."
			 -- Albert Einstein

I'm particularly interested in Plato and Aristotles' discussion lists, specially
if there's a connection to the works of Homer. My main goal is access the
relation between the Homeric epics and the concepts of ethics in Plato and
Aristotle.
Anyone can help?

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

I am pleased to announce the formation of the plato-meno list,
intended to provide a forum for a slow reading of Plato's Meno.  (For
a brief discussion of what I mean by "slow  reading," please see my
essay at  http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm.)

This is one of a number of lists dealing with Plato among a  larger
group of lists, mostly dealing with philosophy, which are  hosted by
The Free Lance Academy, a not-for-profit organization  whose main
purpose is to create opportunities for serious,  committed
intellectual inquiry outside the university, primarily  by means of
online media such as internet mailing lists.

To subscribe to the plato-meno list, you may point your browser to the
following URL

http://www.onelist.com/subscribe/plato-meno

Or you may subscribe via e-mail by sending a message to:
plato-meno-subscribe@onelist.com (It doesn't matter what you put in
the body of the message or on the subject line, since the address
itself is the subscribe command.)

Perhaps I should mention that the creation of this list was requested
by some of the members of the Free Lance Academy's klein list, and it
is likely that some readers will be using Jacob Klein's Commentary on
Plato's Meno as an aid to their reading.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

I will be away from my computer from April 29 until May 9. I may be
able to check my e-mail while I am travelling, but I may not, so it is
likely that correspondence pertaining to my lists will go unanswered
until my return.

Most of this time I will be in Tbilisi, in the Republic of Georgia.
If you happen to be in that vicinity and would like to get together, I
can be contacted at the Metechi Palace Hotel.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

Announcing:    FIDES-ET-RATIO   (Faith and Reason)

A List Dedicated to the Reading and Understanding of the Encyclical
"Fides et Ratio" by Pope John Paul II


The Free Lance Academy is pleased to announce the formation of the
fides-et-ratio list and you are cordially invited to subscribe.

You may subscribe to the fides-et-ratio list via e-mail by sending a
message to:

fides-et-ratio-subscribe@onelist.com

Or, if you prefer, you can join this list by going to the following
web page:

      http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/fides-et-ratio

The discussion leader for the fides-et-ratio list is Daniel Scuiry
[Daniel.Scuiry@...].  It was also his idea to create this list.
The following is Daniel Scuiry's description of the intention for the
list.

"The purpose of the fides-et-ratio list is to host a critical reading
of the papal encyclical, "Fides et Ratio (Faith and Reason)". We will
survey the encyclical's text with an aim towards relating it to issues
relavent to philosophers, scientists, academics, religionists and
anyone committed to thoughtful reflection on the meaning of personal
existence: "All men and women ... are in some sense philosophers and
have their own philosophical conceptions with which they direct their
lives. In one way or other, they shape a comprehensive vision and an
answer to the question of life's meaning..." (Fides et Ratio, #30).
Our goal is to offer readers, through the benefit of an open forum,
the opportunity to form their own conscience and make their own
critical judgment on the meaning and implications this encyclical may
have in their lives. Hence this list is open to anyone, regardless of
background or theistic persuasion, who believes the encyclical has
meaning and impact in their own lives or the lives of others."

The plan is to complete the reading of Fides et Ration within
approximately four to six months.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

I am looking for texts in which Aristotle opposes himself to
Democritus' atomic theory specifically on the grounds that the
latter would eliminate the substantial unity of many things, as well
as the existence of substantial change. For example, I distinctly
remember texts (but not their location) in which Aristotle states
that according to Democritus, many unified substances would be
no more than "heaps." Any help in locating such specific passages
would be appreciated.

Thank you.
Anthony Crifasi

******************************************************************
**********************Freelance-News**************************
******************************************************************

I am pleased to announce the formation of the Herodotus list and I
invite you to subscribe.

You may subscribe to the herodotus list via e-mail by sending a
message to:

herodotus-subscribe@onelist.com

Or, if you prefer, you can join this list by going to the following
web page:

      http://www.onelist.com/subscribe.cgi/herodotus

The purpose of the Herodotus list is to provide a forum for slow
readings and
thoughtful discussions of the "Histories" of Herodotus. (For a brief
discussion
of what I mean by "slow reading," please see my essay at
http://www.freelance-academy.org/slowread.htm.) The discussion leader
for the
Herodotus list will be Jim Costopoulos of Vassar.

For the first few months there will be some attempt to have the
discussion on the list track a seminar on Herodotus that is now under
way at Fordham.

Note:  This message is being sent to all of the lists hosted by The
Free Lance Academy at Onelist.com.  If you are subscribed to more than
one of those lists, you will receive more than one copy of this
message.  I apologize for the duplication.

Lance Fletcher, President
The Free Lance Academy Foundation
http://www.freelance-academy.org
lance@...

Does anyone have any suggestions regarding research materials/sources for an
inquiry into Aristotle's claim in Book 1 of the Nicomachean Ethics that we
must begin a study of ethics with "what is known to us."  I am interested in
its relation to the field of hermeneutic philosophy and especially Heidegger's
use of the hermeneutic circle.  Thank you.
                                                           Regards,
                                                             Ron McCorkle

Hi,

Thanks for subscribing to the aristotle-ethics list.  I am in the process of
moving a whole group of existing lists to this site.  Right now there are only
three of us on the list (counting me). Pretty soon there will be a lot more. 
Please be patient.

Lance Fletcher
list owner

Hi, folks (all two of you).  Thanks for joining the Aristotle-ethics list.  I'm
sending you this message become I have not yet set up an automatic welcome
message, but I didn't want you to think I am ignoring you.

I am in the process of shifting my lists (about 35 of them to onelist.com.  When
I have done that you will have some company here -- well over 100 additional
subscribers.  Then we can see about generating some interesting conversation.

Meanwhile, please be patient -- or begin talking if you like.

Lance Fletcher
list owner.