On Metaphisycs

Aristotle wrote what we know as the book “Metaphisycs”. I understand it as a compilation of several studies about a subject that has to do with the Being. The book can be compared to a abomination. A monster, from World of Warcraft, made from different pieces of corpses but maintaining a constitution. The complexity of it relies on the relativity of the concept of being. Now let’s go to the real problem. Being in Aristotle is not solely a being. The systematic approach he uses to expose the many ways of being (as “be” when it tends to a quality), classify many concepts, and sometimes the explanations rely on too many different points. Principles, causes, elements, nature, necessity… are some examples for the resources, the devices that work supporting the theory. The substance can be reduced to a model, representation or concept that shares the same identity as Being. At the same time it is relational to the form, the essence, the quality and the quantity, for example. The underlying sense is analogous. Being and substance are just interchangeable words. Ousia may be the term that modern translator should not change. Aristotle sometimes seems to simply accept the several notions of the devices he uses.  Sometimes he doesn’t hesitate to criticize the arguments of others. Is he focused on the problem Aristotle gets to the problem, but doesn’t he get the solution?  I have no idea. I don’t even have an idea about what is Being, of what is to be.

Personalmente yo no comentaria este trabajo. Creo que no termine dando el mensaje que quería dar. En fin, estoy casi seguro de volveré a hacer otro trabajo en ingles. Siento si alguien no lo comprende.