I am once again endeavoring to read Aristotle's Organon. Does anyone have any tips of understanding it? Whether commentaries or infographs or just note-taking advice.
I've read a book on Aristotelian logic but it is written in later medevial lingo while Aristotle himself uses his own way to explain things and it's very difficult to understand.

I've only read the categories so far

>>24560244
I've gotten through Intepretation and Categories without much trouble, but have been totally filtered by Prior Analytics

>>24560253
Why? What's the difference with the other two?

>>24560281
I think it's just because it's bigger. Categories and Intepretation are very short but Prior and Posterior Analytics are much bigger as well as being more complicated

>>24560235 (OP)
What translation of Posterior Analytics and Categories do you recommend?

>>24560446
With works like these it's unironically best to just have multiple translations and cross reference them. If you don't understand a passage in one translation, you may understand it in another.
That being said, avoid anything too ancient, the old scholastics liked to modify the texts to be more christian friendly and are not trustworthy

>>24560235 (OP)
>>24560446
Hippocrates Apostle, yw

>>24560235 (OP)
'How to Read a Book' by Mortimer Adler, unironically.

>>24562144
This. But take your time OP, its not a race. Read him slow and well

If you can read basic Latin, Averroes’ commentaries were very illuminating for me. The biggest protip I have is to realize that he’s not writing about “logic” in general, at least in the Analytics it’s all about episteme and apodeixis. A syllogism is not, primarily, an argument form or a way of reasoning (who reasons in syllogisms?) it’s a scientific explanation with explanans as middle term, as becomes very clear in Post An. The mixed modal logic is a bitch but it does make sense if you can figure out the puzzle. Hint: look at the (very few) example syllogisms and note what sorts of terms (think Categories) fall in each position. If you think Prior An is about “reasoning” in general you will never understand it, or Post An for that matter. And people who post here are retards, don’t come here for advice. Except for me obviously I’m quite intelligent. Apodeixis (demonstration) is NOT a “proof”, again if you’re not retarded this should become clear in post an. You need a very high autism quotient to truly understand these books. Good luck.

>>24562342
This anon is generally correct. But you dont need to be an autist or 'smart'. Just fo what 99% of what lit pretends to do and read the books.

>>24562375
Eh you definitely need a lot of autism to understand the mixed modal syllogistic. I’ll agree though that the rest isn’t really extremely esoteric, you just need to study it.

Another thing to consider OP is that English translators render Aristotle’s technical vocabulary in terms of modern logic. They tend to assume that the syllogism is an argument with premises that runs minor to major to conclusion, but this is false. “It is by interpolating a term inside, and not by inserting one outside, that what is demonstrated is demonstrated.” (Many such passages). Again apodeixis isn’t “proving” something it’s explaining something. Aristotle explains episteme as explanation in many places, in post an, in ne, and elsewhere.

For the mixed modals one aspect that makes it tricky is that words like endechomenon and ananke have multiple overlapping meanings. I’ll say this too if he’s writing about episteme, which he is, the categorical cannot primarily mean the “actual” - science doesn’t deal with the actual. It’s actually morally unspecified. He does use it as “actual” in an exotic form of anagoge in the proofs of the mixed contingents.

Also frankly the mixed modal isn’t actually important for understanding Aristotle but it is a cool puzzle.

>>24562430
>morally
Modally

Anyone who claims Aristotle doesn’t “use” his syllogistic in the rest of the corpus got filtered and doesn’t know what his syllogism even is.