oude pragma outhen esti para ta megethe^ aisthe^ta kecho^rismenon
I don’t understand this.
Please explain this for me and show me a coorrect translation.
I am vague with the “para”. In what meaning is it used here ?
My temporary translation :
Nothing is separated from the size-having-existance which is perceived by the sense
\
Below is what I searched out about “para” myself and thought “this might be it”..
In LSJ, “para” + acc., the heading 3.2 “(metaphorical use of “past, beyond”) over and above, in addition to”
ouk esti para tauta alla (there is not other things in addition to those)
para tauta panta heteron ti (something other than all those)
In LSJ, “para”+ acc., the heading 1.8 “(with verbs of estimating) to set so and so, to hold something”, — there was a use with “einai” beside the verbs of estimating like “agein”, “tithenai”, “poieisthai”.
para ouden esti (is equivalent to nothing)
para ouden autais e^n an ollunai poseis (it might be equivalent to nothing for them if they lost their husband)
ou para mega esesthai to ptaisma (the failure will not be equivalent to a big one)
It would be helpful if you could provide the reference for this quote, since
it’s difficult to read it in this way.
In any case, from my brief search, this idea is common in Aristotle’s writings.
and from the translations it seems that παρά + acc. here means alongside of, x occurs
alongside of y/when y happens.
οὐδὲ πρᾶγμα οὐθέν ἐστι παρὰ τὰ μεγεθῆ* αἰσθῆτα* κεχωρισμένον.
Nor any action is divided alongside of the sublime sensible objects/
when the sublime sensible objects are divided. [whatever that means ]
in pl., sublime objects (LSJ)
sensible objects, by the translation of Aristotle’s Metaphysics@Perseus.
Context would be helpful, but the idea of the passage is clearly a denial of the existence of any sort of transcendent reality, like Platonic Forms, that exists independently of the sensible world,
A more or less literal translation would be: Nothing whatsoever exists that is separate from/transcends sensible objects.
That quote is an LSJ’s sample sentence for “pragma” under the heading of 2.2 “thing, a concrete reality”.
Is this information helpful to you ?
And I checked LSJ for “megethos”, and found that the heading 2.4 “loftiness, sublimity” was of Rhetorical field, like “a lofty speech”, “a sublime topic of philosophy”. So, the plural “sublime objects” is a Rhetorical expression. But somehow I feel that the phrase “megethe^ aisthe^ta” is not talking about “sublimity, loftiness which is sensed”.
I’ve found the text from which this quote was taken, Aristotle’s On the Soul/De Anima, Section 432a
line 3. This edition from 1910, with Scholia, has the quote like this:
I’m sure others versed in philosophy in general, and Aristotle’s writings in particular, would prove
more helpful in understanding the idea conveyed in this quote.
“if nothing is separated from the size-having-existance which is perceived by the sense, nevertheless in the sensed forms there are objects of the mind (opp. to the sense) and what are described abstractly, namely, described as the sense-objects’ various aspects and qualities”
(As I checked the opposite word of “aphairesis” in LSJ, that is, “prosthesis”, I found out that “prosthesis” means in Aristatle’s logic to add the description of qualities to the simple substance, to make clearer what the substance is. The “aphairesis” is the opposite process.)
That’s because as a new member my comments need to be approved by a moderator, which took several days in this case, and then they appear without warning in the middle of the thread, where they would have been if they posted immediately. It probably drives a lot of potential members away, because, as in this case, it is almost impossible to contribute to a discussion in a meaningful way, when you have a four day lag…
]