[PHILOSOPHY] Ontology, or the Theory of Being by Peter Coffey philc

Every work here needs a reader! Please sign up and help us complete these books. The symbol ~ means that Proof Listeners are needed
Post Reply
shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » October 16th, 2020, 9:24 pm

Ontology, or the Theory of Being by Peter Coffey (1876 - 1943)

This is a challenging read so it is advised that readers go through the sections they want to read before claiming them.


The book is an introduction to metaphysics and Thomistic Ontology. ( shreyasethi)
    1. How to claim a part, and "how it all works" here To find a section to record, simply look at point 5. below at the sections. All the ones without names beside them are "up for grabs." Click "Post reply" at the top left of the screen and tell us which section you would like to read (include the section number from the left-most column in the reader list, please). Read points 6. to 8. below for what to do before, during and after your recording.
    2. New to recording? Please read our Newbie Guide to Recording!
    3. Is there a deadline? We ask that you submit your recorded sections within 1-2 months of placing your claim. Please note that to be fair to the readers who have completed their sections in a timely way, if you haven't submitted your recording(s) after two months, your sections will automatically be re-opened for other readers to claim, unless you post in this thread to request an extension. Extensions will be granted at the discretion of the Book Coordinator. If you cannot do your section, for whatever reason, just let me know and it'll go back to the pool. There's no shame in this; we're all volunteers and things happen.Please do not sign up for more sections than you can complete within the two month deadline.
    4. Where do I find the text? Source text (please only read from this text!): http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/35722
    5. Please claim sections (the numbers in the first column below)! If this is your first recording, please let me know under which name or pseudonym you'd like to appear in the LibriVox catalogue. We can also link to a personal website/blog.

      Prospective Prooflisteners: Please read the Listeners Wanted FAQ before listening! Level of prooflistening requested: wordperfect


      Please don't download or listen to files belonging to projects in process (unless you are the BC or PL). Our servers are not set up to handle the greater volume of traffic. Please wait until the project has been completed. Thanks!


      Magic Window:



      BC Admin ===========================================
      This paragraph is temporary and will be replaced by the MC with the list of sections and reader (Magic Window) once this project is in the admin system.
      • Project Code: 7wluscNo
      • Link to author on Wikipedia (if available): (Peter Coffey) : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Coffey
      • Link to title on Wikipedia (if available):
      • Number of sections (files) this project will have: 75
      • Does the project have an introduction or preface [y/n]: No
      • Original publication date (if known): 1914
      • If you are a new volunteer, how would you like your name (or pseudonym) credited in the catalog? Do you have a URL you would like associated with your name?:
      ============================================

      Genres for the project: *Non-fiction/Philosophy/Modern

      Keywords that describe the book: philosophy, metaphysics, modern

      ============================================
    6. BEFORE recording: Please check the Recording Notes: viewtopic.php?p=6430#p6430

      Set your recording software to:
      Channels: 1 (Mono)
      Bit Rate: 128 kbps
      Sample Rate: 44.1 kHz
    7. DURING recording:
      No more than 0.5 to 1 second of silence at the beginning of the recording!
      Make sure you add this to the beginning of your recording:
      START of recording (Intro)
      • "Section [number] of Ontology, or the Theory of Being . This is a LibriVox recording. All LibriVox recordings are in the public domain. For more information, or to volunteer, please visit: librivox DOT org"
      • If you wish, say: "Recording by [your name], [city, your blog, podcast, web address]"
      • Say:
        "Ontology, or the Theory of Being , by Peter Coffey. [Chapter]"

      END of recording
      • At the end of the section, say:
        "End of [Section]"
      • If you wish, say:
        "Recording by [your name], [city, your blog, podcast, web address]"
      • At the end of the book, say (in addition):
        "End of Ontology, or the Theory of Being , by Peter Coffey. "

      There should be ~5 seconds silence at the end of the recording.


      Note: Since the footnotes are an essential part of this book, kindly ensure that you read them as and when you come across them in the text and then continue with the rest.


      Please remember to check this thread frequently for updates!
    8. AFTER recording
      Need noise-cleaning?
      Listen to your file through headphones. If you can hear some constant background noise (hiss/buzz), you may want to clean it up a bit. The latest version of Audacity is recommended for noise-cleaning. See this LibriVox wiki page for a complete guide.
      Save files as
      128 kbps MP3
      ontologyorthetheoryofbeing_##_coffey_128kb.mp3 (all lower-case) where ## is the section number (e.g. ontologyorthetheoryofbeing_01_coffey_128kb.mp3)

      Please ignore tags for Genre and Track Number - these will be filled in automatically at the cataloguing stage.
      Transfer of files (completed recordings) Please always post in this forum thread when you've sent a file. Also, post the length of the recording (file duration: mm:ss) together with the link.
      • Upload your file with the LibriVox Uploader: https://librivox.org/login/uploader
        Image
        (If you have trouble reading the image above, please message an admin)
      • You'll need to select the MC, which for this project is: philchenevert
      • When your upload is complete, you will receive a link - please post it in this thread.
      • If this doesn't work, or you have questions, please check our How To Send Your Recording wiki page.

      Any questions?
      Please post below
Last edited by shreyasethi on October 20th, 2020, 10:48 am, edited 2 times in total.

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » October 17th, 2020, 8:08 am

I will set this up for you. Looks very interesting but as you know it is a huge work. I have put a tilde ~in front of the title to advertise for a proof listener?
Also, you have set this up as a group project, is that what you intended to do? Or a solo. I would like to know before setting it up.
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » October 18th, 2020, 2:39 am

philchenevert wrote:
October 17th, 2020, 8:08 am
I will set this up for you. Looks very interesting but as you know it is a huge work. I have put a tilde ~in front of the title to advertise for a proof listener?
Also, you have set this up as a group project, is that what you intended to do? Or a solo. I would like to know before setting it up.
Hi!!!!
YESSSS IT'S AN AWESOME READ (some people have contradictory opinions hehe). That would be wonderful, thanks a lot!!!!!! It is in fact a group project since it's a monumental task :shock: :shock: and I didn't put the tilde as I was hoping to PL it myself, if that's okay???
THANKS AGAIN
-SS

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » October 18th, 2020, 5:55 am

shreyasethi wrote:
October 18th, 2020, 2:39 am
philchenevert wrote:
October 17th, 2020, 8:08 am
I will set this up for you. Looks very interesting but as you know it is a huge work. I have put a tilde ~in front of the title to advertise for a proof listener?
Also, you have set this up as a group project, is that what you intended to do? Or a solo. I would like to know before setting it up.
Hi!!!!
YESSSS IT'S AN AWESOME READ (some people have contradictory opinions hehe). That would be wonderful, thanks a lot!!!!!! It is in fact a group project since it's a monumental task :shock: :shock: and I didn't put the tilde as I was hoping to PL it myself, if that's okay???
THANKS AGAIN
-SS
Yes that is fine. Have you PLed before? You know the guidelines? Also, you have 75 sections which sounds in the ballpark. I am interested in how you have divided up the book so will make the magic window in a few minutes. Wow, Ontology; the word takes me back many years to my philosophy class. Gee.
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » October 18th, 2020, 11:12 am

philchenevert wrote:
October 18th, 2020, 5:55 am
shreyasethi wrote:
October 18th, 2020, 2:39 am
philchenevert wrote:
October 17th, 2020, 8:08 am
I will set this up for you. Looks very interesting but as you know it is a huge work. I have put a tilde ~in front of the title to advertise for a proof listener?
Also, you have set this up as a group project, is that what you intended to do? Or a solo. I would like to know before setting it up.
Hi!!!!
YESSSS IT'S AN AWESOME READ (some people have contradictory opinions hehe). That would be wonderful, thanks a lot!!!!!! It is in fact a group project since it's a monumental task :shock: :shock: and I didn't put the tilde as I was hoping to PL it myself, if that's okay???
THANKS AGAIN
-SS
Yes that is fine. Have you PLed before? You know the guidelines? Also, you have 75 sections which sounds in the ballpark. I am interested in how you have divided up the book so will make the magic window in a few minutes. Wow, Ontology; the word takes me back many years to my philosophy class. Gee.
Hehe yes I have, I've PL-ed 2 of the volumes of the letters of Oscar Wilde. Honestly the Gutenberg MS has page numbers so I've used those as to formulate a rough schema of the sections. WOAH you know what Peter Coffey will be talking about (sounds intimidating I only read it as an amateur and probably got half the things wrong). Did you know Wittgenstein wrote his only book review ever to shame Coffey's The Science of Logic??? I find that very steamy :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :wink: anywhos, I hope to put the MW in order soon.
THANK YOU FOR MC-ING
-SS

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » October 18th, 2020, 6:26 pm

WOAH you know what Peter Coffey will be talking about (sounds intimidating I only read it as an amateur and probably got half the things wrong). Did you know Wittgenstein wrote his only book review ever to shame Coffey's The Science of Logic??? I find that very steamy :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :wink: anywhos, I hope to put the MW in order soon.
THANK YOU FOR MC-ING
Actually I studied a lot of philosophy in college many years ago so yes, I do have a general idea of what he is talking about. And his writing, the little I've read so far, seems clear and easy to follow. I did not know about Wittgenstein and his book review of Coffey. tsk, tsk. So have fun,take your time and we will start on the journey. :D (Now, does this keyboard actually exist, or is it just the accidents without substance? Hmmmm. )
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » October 19th, 2020, 5:04 pm

Moving this great project to Readers Wanted: Boooks :thumbs:
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » October 19th, 2020, 9:29 pm

philchenevert wrote:
October 18th, 2020, 6:26 pm
WOAH you know what Peter Coffey will be talking about (sounds intimidating I only read it as an amateur and probably got half the things wrong). Did you know Wittgenstein wrote his only book review ever to shame Coffey's The Science of Logic??? I find that very steamy :lol: :lol: :lol: :wink: :wink: anywhos, I hope to put the MW in order soon.
THANK YOU FOR MC-ING
Actually I studied a lot of philosophy in college many years ago so yes, I do have a general idea of what he is talking about. And his writing, the little I've read so far, seems clear and easy to follow. I did not know about Wittgenstein and his book review of Coffey. tsk, tsk. So have fun,take your time and we will start on the journey. :D (Now, does this keyboard actually exist, or is it just the accidents without substance? Hmmmm. )
There's a cheesy joke I remember everytime I think about anything philosophy- Morty comes home to see his wife and his best friend, Lou, naked together in bed. Just as Morty is about to open his mouth, Lou jumps out of bed and says, "Before you say anything, old pal, what are you going to believe, me or your eyes?"

This kinda proves how advanced my understanding of Coffey is :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
-SS

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » October 19th, 2020, 9:50 pm

philchenevert wrote:
October 19th, 2020, 5:04 pm
Moving this great project to Readers Wanted: Boooks :thumbs:
WOAH. I FEEL VALIDATED (because you called the project 'great') even though validation is a meaningless construct in itself. Anywhos, I decided to change the plan of the sections a bit and combined a few (a whole lot) together so that the number of sections got reduced drastically. I hope that it's not too much of a problem for you to remove sections 40-75 because I can totally change the MW if you think it's too inconvenient for you to delete that many sections. Do let me know.
-SS

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » Yesterday, 1:30 am

shreyasethi wrote:
October 19th, 2020, 9:50 pm
philchenevert wrote:
October 19th, 2020, 5:04 pm
Moving this great project to Readers Wanted: Boooks :thumbs:
WOAH. I FEEL VALIDATED (because you called the project 'great') even though validation is a meaningless construct in itself. Anywhos, I decided to change the plan of the sections a bit and combined a few (a whole lot) together so that the number of sections got reduced drastically. I hope that it's not too much of a problem for you to remove sections 40-75 because I can totally change the MW if you think it's too inconvenient for you to delete that many sections. Do let me know.
-SS
Before we do that, please remember that a section should not be too long after it is read. Our rule is nothing longer than an hour finished. But with that said, it is much more difficult to attract a reader to long sections, especially with dense matter like philosophy where each sentence is heavy work. I personally would try to keep sections between 20 and 30 minutes, say 3 to 4 thousand words at the max. This is the hard part for a Book Coordinator, to divide a book into sections that make sense and yet are sized to attract readers. A soloist does not have to worry about this and can make 'em any size they want but a group project has to make it attractive to readers who like them bite sized and don't want to spend 7 hours recording and editing one humungous section. Note that the book is divided into 110 numbered paragraphs, each with it's own heading. I would use these instead of pages., e.g. Paragraph 33 Individuation of Accidents is about 1100 words long and a logical chunk. Many sections would probably need to be subdivided but the reader can find the paragraphs easily. Just a thought since the author divided up things for us in what he considered logical parts.

With that said, take another look at the matter. This is a very long book; 2.3 million is the longest book I have ever worked with. It will probably take many years to finish if it gets finished at all. In my opinion, you should be adding many sections, not taking them away.
Take another look and see how you would feel reading and editing page of it then get back to me.

Oh and you need to make a note in the magic window when a section contain Latin, Italian or some other language so a reader can be forewarned to avoid it if they do not wish to deal with that. Also you need to establish your policy on footnotes, are they ignored or read inside the text. I recommend ignore them.
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » Yesterday, 8:10 am

philchenevert wrote:
Yesterday, 1:30 am
shreyasethi wrote:
October 19th, 2020, 9:50 pm
philchenevert wrote:
October 19th, 2020, 5:04 pm
Moving this great project to Readers Wanted: Boooks :thumbs:
WOAH. I FEEL VALIDATED (because you called the project 'great') even though validation is a meaningless construct in itself. Anywhos, I decided to change the plan of the sections a bit and combined a few (a whole lot) together so that the number of sections got reduced drastically. I hope that it's not too much of a problem for you to remove sections 40-75 because I can totally change the MW if you think it's too inconvenient for you to delete that many sections. Do let me know.
-SS
Before we do that, please remember that a section should not be too long after it is read. Our rule is nothing longer than an hour finished. But with that said, it is much more difficult to attract a reader to long sections, especially with dense matter like philosophy where each sentence is heavy work. I personally would try to keep sections between 20 and 30 minutes, say 3 to 4 thousand words at the max. This is the hard part for a Book Coordinator, to divide a book into sections that make sense and yet are sized to attract readers. A soloist does not have to worry about this and can make 'em any size they want but a group project has to make it attractive to readers who like them bite sized and don't want to spend 7 hours recording and editing one humungous section. Note that the book is divided into 110 numbered paragraphs, each with it's own heading. I would use these instead of pages., e.g. Paragraph 33 Individuation of Accidents is about 1100 words long and a logical chunk. Many sections would probably need to be subdivided but the reader can find the paragraphs easily. Just a thought since the author divided up things for us in what he considered logical parts.

With that said, take another look at the matter. This is a very long book; 2.3 million is the longest book I have ever worked with. It will probably take many years to finish if it gets finished at all. In my opinion, you should be adding many sections, not taking them away.
Take another look and see how you would feel reading and editing page of it then get back to me.

Oh and you need to make a note in the magic window when a section contain Latin, Italian or some other language so a reader can be forewarned to avoid it if they do not wish to deal with that. Also you need to establish your policy on footnotes, are they ignored or read inside the text. I recommend ignore them.
I've used the numbered paragraphs as reference. Initially, I'd thought of clubbing together the smaller ones and using the rest as individual sections but then I converted 3-4 (on an average) of them into one section because I didn't want the chapters to be too fragmented. It made more sense doing that because it provides a certain level of continuity and coherency to the sections, which is much needed since it philosophy and if I broke it down into too many parts, some realisations that are key to understanding a lot of concepts may get lost in the process.
I did take another look and since on an average each section should be about 4000 words. If I had to make a guess, I'd say that the upper limit in terms of duration would be 40-45 minutes with 30 minutes being the average duration.
Also a lot, almost all the sections have some sort of foreign language, mostly Latin and sporadically Greek. Keeping that in mind, I wonder if it would be better if I simply added a message in the main post that this can be a challenging read and that readers should review their sections before claiming them.
I usually agree that footnotes can be disposed off in a recording but since I've gone through the footnotes, I know that some of them are really important for understanding the text and the references made in it, especially for listeners who are relatively new or inexperienced in the field of philosophy. So I'll make sure to add that too in the main post.

Thanks a lot for your help and advice. I really do appreciate it.
-SS

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » Yesterday, 10:17 am

You are doing a great job. You seem to have a good grasp of sections. As for footnotes, how will you tell a reader which ones to ignore and which to read? Also, where do you want them to insert the footnote, at the spot of the note, or at the end of the section? That will need to be addressed. It might be best to set up standard instruction for how to read them too, like "say "footnote, followed by the note" or 'note' or whatever you think best but it should be consistent throughout the book for every reader. .
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

shreyasethi
Posts: 261
Joined: May 31st, 2020, 12:28 am

Post by shreyasethi » Yesterday, 10:44 am

philchenevert wrote:
Yesterday, 10:17 am
You are doing a great job. You seem to have a good grasp of sections. As for footnotes, how will you tell a reader which ones to ignore and which to read? Also, where do you want them to insert the footnote, at the spot of the note, or at the end of the section? That will need to be addressed. It might be best to set up standard instruction for how to read them too, like "say "footnote, followed by the note" or 'note' or whatever you think best but it should be consistent throughout the book for every reader. .
Thank you, I'm really excited about this project. As for the footnotes, I think it's not smart to ask readers to record some footnotes and leave out the others, it would only confuse them. It makes most sense for them to read the footnotes as and when they come across them so that the moment something needs explaining, it is explained. I'm going to make the necessary changes to the main post to make sure that they don't skip the footnotes.
THANK YOU, REALLY.
-SS

philchenevert
LibriVox Admin Team
Posts: 19457
Joined: October 17th, 2010, 9:23 pm
Location: Basking by the Bayou
Contact:

Post by philchenevert » Yesterday, 12:41 pm

Thank you, I'm really excited about this project. As for the footnotes, I think it's not smart to ask readers to record some footnotes and leave out the others, it would only confuse them. It makes most sense for them to read the footnotes as and when they come across them so that the moment something needs explaining, it is explained. I'm going to make the necessary changes to the main post to make sure that they don't skip the footnotes.
OK, I am going to have to disagree with you here. Please look at the footnotes, as an example I picked:
14.Cf. Science of Logic, i., § 8.
15.“Quædam igitur sunt speculabilium quæ dependent a materia secundum esse, quia non nisi in materia esse possunt, et hæc distinguuntur quia dependent quædam a materia secundum esse et intellectum, sicut illa in quorum definitione ponitur materia sensibilis: unde sine materia sensibili intelligi non possunt; ut in definitione hominis oportet accipere carnem et ossa: et de his est physica sive scientia naturalis. Quædam vero sunt quæ, quamvis dependeant a materia sensibili secundum esse, non tamen secundum intellectum, quia in eorum definitionibus non ponitur materia sensibilis, ut linea et numerus: et de his est mathematica. Quædam vero sunt speculabilia quæ non dependent a materia secundum esse, quia sine materia esse possunt: sive nunquam sint in materia, sicut Deus et angelus, sive in quibusdam sint in materia et in quibusdam non, ut substantia, qualitas, potentia et actus, unum et multa, etc., de quibus omnibus est theologia, id est scientia divina, quia præcipuum cognitorum in ea est Deus. Alio nomine dicitur metaphysica, id est, transphysica, quia post physicam dicenda occurrit nobis, quibus ex sensibilibus competit in insensibilia devenire. Dicitur etiam philosophia prima, in quantum scientiae aliæ ab ea principia sua accipientes eam sequuntur.”—St. Thomas, In lib. Boetii de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 1.
16.
Ἐττιν ἐπιστήμη τις ἤ θεωοεῖ τὸ ὄν και τούτῳ ὑπάρχοντα καθ᾽ ἁυτό.—Metaph. III., i (ed. Didot).
17.
Metaph. X., ch. vii., 5 and 6.
18.
Cf. Science of Logic, ii., §§ 251-5.
19.
When the term “science” is used nowadays in contradistinction to “philosophy,” it usually signifies the knowledge embodied in what are called the special, or positive, or inductive sciences—a knowledge which Aristotle would not regard as strictly or fully scientific.
20.
Aristotle's conception of the close relation between Physics (or the Philosophy of Nature) and those analytic studies which we nowadays describe as the physical sciences, bears witness to the close alliance which he conceived to exist between sense observation on the one hand and rational speculation on the other. This sane view of the continuity of human knowledge, a view to which the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages were ever faithful, was supplanted at the dawn of modern philosophy in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by the opposite view, which led to a divorce between physics and metaphysics, and to a series of misunderstandings which still prevail with equal detriment to science and philosophy alike.
21.
Cf. De Wulf, History of Medieval Philosophy, pp. 28-9, 66; Mercier, Ontologie, Introd., p. v., n.
So, how are they to read 'Cf'? and what does "14. Cf. Science of Logic, i., § 8." mean? How does that enlighten or explain anything? And how are they to read it? You will need to tell them exactly how to say each of those symbols.
15. is in Latin and 16 is in Greek. The Latin one has a reference to St. Thomas, In lib. Boetii de Trinitate, q. 5, a. 1.l. Unless the reader has studied Scholastic Philosophy it is just a row of meaningless letters and numbers. Remember that our readers rely on you to tell them exactly what to read and how to read it. Do you know how these references should be read? I am mystified by many of them myself and would not even attempt a section.

If you really feel strongly that all footnotes should be read, that is your prerogative as BC but I feel you are setting this up as a failure before it starts. And that does not take into consideration the Proof Listener who must also know Latin and Greek.

So I think I will be withdrawing as MC for you and putting this back into the Launch Pad for another MC to pick up. Someone else may be able to accommodate your plans for this book.
video of our Zoom 10/18/2020 https://youtu.be/OtvgxviSrTw

My horses' name is Mayo. Sometimes Mayo neighs

Post Reply