Why is there no Russian Aristotle?

There is Plato in Russia, but there is no Aristotle. Platonic words - “idea” or “paradigm” - are perceived with the ultimate seriousness of the excellent student going to answer the lesson; Aristotic - “Entertechia” or “Potency” - with a curve grin of a schoolboy, painting portraits in a textbook.

Even the famous Prince Kurbsky decided to translate one of the Latin injuries to Aristotle, and the modern researcher calls this "literal and very close to the original translation." In particular, “to characterize the translation language, the choice of terms is indicative: ORDINATIO - “Code”, “Establishment”; Subjectio - “subject”; Praedicatio - “Preach”; Mo dus - "Chin"; Negativus - "hiding"; Universalis - "Cathedral" [1].

Russian thought was then engaged in the ranks, direct range and collegiality for several centuries as plots, and not as the logic that precedes any plots. The fantasy of Aristotle’s translators began precisely in the letter-up: such inventions of the Russian mind as “non-tender” for the translation of the word atom / individual ( diofiov / individuum ) or “creature” for translating Substantia , are not “accurate”, but baseless translations, which are not related even to the rhetorical imagery of church-business texts, in which atom should be translated as "non -inher", and substantia as “constant”/“constancy”.

These would be full -fledged images, but the translators went a different path. T.V. Chumakova talks about Substantia translation As a “creature” that such “terminology ... is understandable and true” [2], it seems that in the same sense in which any character will understand if we know in advance that he is fictitious.

In the middle of the XIX century, inspired by the successes of positive sciences, the translators again took up Aristotle. M.N. Castorsky already used the word not “creature”, but “substrate” [3]. "On the Ave., science is in the substrate, in the soul, and science serves as a designation of the substrate, for grammar Ave." The Russian word "designation" means more identification than classification to some category; And from the syntax, it is completely unclear what is happening: grammar becomes a substrate of scientificity or scientificity - a substrate of grammar. What exactly: grammar should be considered a full -fledged science or an example and example of the correct science we will see in grammar.

Translation by M.N. Castorsky constantly pushes us to simplified Platonism, to the consideration of relations between the idea and the thing, the name and the name, knowledge and knowable. But Aristotle was no longer interested in those hierarchical relations in the world that are involuntarily created by our speech rushing to the subject and at the same time not reaching it. Such a speech, which, understanding the world, involuntarily introduces the hierarchy, is seduced by the world and seduces it to be perfect - for Aristotle, such Platonic speech was no less problem than the surrounding world, the structure of clouds or living organisms.

When in 1991 they decided what kind of intellectual charge the new Russia needed, S.S. Averintsev sharply contrasted Platonism, familiar to the Russian intelligentsia, with his careless attitude to everyday life and an abstract of an abstract ideal, and a neat conscientious aristocraticism, so rare in our area:

"Aristotle Not Puts the question , justifies Lee our Abstract​ thought rhetoric ; He writes " rhetoric " in Three Books , CHECMOM TRIVE internal logic GO​ phenomenon . He Not discusses , do not expel Lee poets from Ideal GO states ; He writes " poetry . " Question Not V Tom , to be Or not be phenomenon , a V Tom , KOVA​ objective Laws this phenomenon And How , focusing For these laws , extract Maximum good And minimum Evil " [4].

These words, as often in Averintsev, contain not only scientific observations, but also the translation program: to see in terms of Aristotle, not sentences, but leading questions. How to translate Aristotle so that he spoke to us, and was not in court for making judgments about the world? Most of the participants in that conference went on a different path, starting to reason how to connect our modest efforts to the existing greatness of Russian culture, how to make all living things become a guarantee and hostage of a non -future, but past greatness. The decay was in the core of the most important discussion, which could generally change the attitude to the socio-political problems in Russia.

Central term Aristotle Category They usually translate as a “judgment”, although literally it means “verdict”, “verdict”, which has already justified or already condemned things. Similar German term Urteil can be translated by decomposing ur- TEIL , as the "ancient share", "the oldest destiny." Both Aristotle and the Germans are not going to judge things, leaving only reputation from them. On the contrary, the fullness of things should confirm our reputation.

As well as for Russian translators, the substrate, ordoοκείμενον , again became the problem: how to combine the grammatical meaning of the “subject” to the philosophical significance of substance, independent existence. Although you just need to choose a word that will justify the existence of speech consisting of both predicates, and the existence of things, which are always better than not recognized.

"Categories" translated by A.V. Kubitsky, the 1930s [5], inadvertently mutter about the laws that are in no way related to real life, inspiring the idea of ​​the grandiose unnecessary of Aristotle. A new translation should show how, thanks to Aristotle, both recognition of real life and “judgment” about it are possible in the sense of its sensation. This is how the translation of Kubitsky sounds at the beginning:

"From existing , one Speaks​ O Some​​ we should be subjected , but Not located Neither V what is the subject , for example Human ; About the subject - separate man​ It is said How O man , but man Not located Neither V what the subject ; Other located in the subject , but Not It is said about some​​ subject ( I. Nazi vay located V subject to what is not​ Being part , no Maybe​ exist separately From that in​ how it located ); For example , a certain skill read​ And write located V Under the lying - V Soul , but Neither O what the subject Not It is said How About the defined skill read And write . AND definite White located​ V subject - V body ( for any color - V body ), but nor about which one subject Not Says Xia How about defined White . A Other And It is said O we must be subject to located V subject to , for example , knowledge located​ V subject - V Soul - And About the subject - skill Read and write - It is said How O knowledge . Finally , different Not Located in subject And Not It is said about what​​ subject to measures​ separate Human And from a delicious horse . Neither That Neither another​ Not located V subject and Not It is said O subject . AND at all All single And Everything that​ One By NO​​ It is said neither O which one subject , but nothing Not interferes something​​ That to whom be V subject . IN yourself The case , defined The ability to read And write belongs to the fact that located V we should be subjected , but Neither O which one not subject to It is said How about defined​ skill read And write" .

In fact, we are not talking about how to talk about things, but about how things can be such that they can, inter alia, talk about them. We need to translate like this:

“If we admit that there is some thing, then there may be different options later. Or there is reason to call it like that, although this thing does not come down to its grounds. For example, a person has a reason to be called a person, but does not come down to this basis on which this is said. Or the thing comes down to the base, but is not called on this basis: after all, if the thing immediately “boils down to the base”, then it is no longer part [i.e. Not property, not possession] of this foundation, to be his name>. So, literacy comes down to the soul as a base (it is in the soul), but is not called the “soul”, and the white color comes down to the whiteness of the body, because every color is the color of the body, but is not called the “body”. Either the thing comes down to the basis and is called on this basis, as “science” comes down to the soul, and on the basis of <features> the soul is called “literacy”. Either the thing does not come down to the base and has no reason name So < what is called >: how A separate person And Separate horse [ having Personal Names ]: They Do not boil down To the basis , called your own names Not on Osseting <​​ Nature >, - That 's why What This Unique things , a All Unique called Not on Some​​ foundation [ a themselves yourself ], although some Milk​ things And have Basic : So , literacy​ has a basis < in soul > " .

The text of Kubitsky continues, again various judgments about the subject, holding our mind in incredible tension. The mind wants to say a phrase, to use at least some subject, just humanly to say something, but cannot from oppressive traction of the translation. The “telling” about what is said so is drawn. And immediately I want to rewrite somehow so that it is to run away from this traction of super-heavy stars of translation to freedom of proper knowledge:

“Obviously , that If O something​​ go breed on base , then And Name , and meaning [λόγος , additional definition ] will characterize This base . So , the word " man " < in general " is thorough , because What Applicable To Any individual man , and This The name is characteristic : we attribute The word " man " to Anyone separate man . Also And the meaning the words " man " characterizes Anyone separate man , so How any A separate person turns out man . Then And Name , and meaning have base How characteristics . A If thing It comes down To base , then in​ Most cases , neither The name , neither meaning Nothing They will not say about base . IN Some cases Name more It remains characteristic , a meaning already Ca n't be characteristic . So , " white " is called body , but The meaning is white no way already Not Related With those scrap . All things or They are called on base Primary the essence of the junior , or boil down To So Osset .​ This Obviously , if figure out With separate cases . So , man refers To stomach , which means , and every individual​ Human - animal . A if​ this it is forbidden was Say neither O com from people By Separately , then , then it is forbidden was would Say O man at all . Or , again , if​ color inherent body in general , then inherent And Anyone body , a If would He Not was inherent No one from tel By separately , then u tel Not was would Colors ... "

Compare with what we have by going through the link to the Cubitsky version, and the language of our textbooks on the social sciences, and the language of solemn speeches about a person, for whom a person abandoned in abandonment, will become clear.

1. Gavryushin N.​ TO . First Russian "Logic" // Almanac bibliophile . Ext . 15. M.: Book , 1983, p . 240. Http://bogomysl.narod.ru/logica.htm .

2. Chumakova T . IN . Aristotle's receptions V Old Russian culture // Verbum : Center Almanac study medieval culture at Faculty of Philosophy SPbSU . Ext. 6, Aristotle and Medieval Metaphysics . SPb ., 2002. Http://drevn.narod.ru/chumakova_aristotle.htm .

3. Aristotle Categories . SPb ., 1859. Www.bookva.org/uploads/1059/download . Spelling Saved .

4. Averintsev WITH . WITH . Christian Aristotelism How internal form Western traditions And problems modern Russia // Russian Thought , 1991, December 27 ; Christianity And Culture V Europe : Memory O past , the consciousness of the present , hope on future . M .: Choice , 1992. P. 20. Www.gumer.info/bibliotek_buks/literat/aver/hr_arist.php .

5. Text And Original , like​ Latin , English And French Translations , you can find Here : https://ru.wikisource.org/wiki/kategory_(aristor) .