Just keep Plato's Forms in mind when you read it, since that's what Aristotle is responding to. Then you at least know what the topic of discussion is, even if you aren't sure what he's arguing for, if he's arguing for anything.
Just a question in general that I didn't feel like starting a topic on cause it sounded kind of nerdy...Why does almost every discussion about metaphysics/epistemology, in it's examples, focus on a table? Is this really the best example of something we can come up with?
Haha... there are just some preferred examples in philosophy. One philosopher will pick an example, and subsequent philosophers will keep the same example (even though many other examples would work equally well) when responding to that philosopher.
It just so happens that people have been responding to Greek philosophers for nearly the entire history of Western philosophy.
Meh, it's short. I might finish it just to be able to talk intelligently about Joyce. Garp, on the other hand, was 450 pages long and probably spent half of them talking about douche bags. **** Cider House Rules, and **** John Irving.