Dear Ron
25 Feb. u wrote:
Bo before:
> > all correctly by pointing to the fact that "..no one can
> > avoid metaphysics", meaning that wherever anthropologists went
> > people had an explanation of existence, and by this it's plain that
> > Pirsig intended the term to mean something immensely wider than the
> > article that SOM's instigator coined.
> Ron:
> If you mean Aristotle, you are wrong. As said, Aristotles work
> he called a theory of explaination. The term "metaphysics"
> was coined in the renessaince. A mis nomer for where it sat in the
> library.
I guess it's this from your beloved Wikipedia: (the Greek spelling did
not come through)
The word derives from the Greek words µet? (metá) (meaning
"beyond" or "after") and ......(physiká) (meaning "physical"),
"physical" referring to those works on matter by Aristotle in
antiquity. The prefix meta- ("beyond") was attached to the
chapters in Aristotle's work that physically followed after the
chapters on "physics," in posthumously edited collections.
Aristotle himself did not call these works Metaphysics. Aristotle
called some of the subjects treated there "first philosophy
Aristotle himself may not have used the term, but this is what we do
constantly, trace things to their origin in by-gone ages, and as said
"metaphysics" has come to mean "theories about (physical) reality" .
Stop being so damned precocious! Nothing of what you object to has
any relevance except as some Filibustering. Why don't you protest
Pirsig tracing subject/object metaphysics back to the Greeks, after all
the S/O distinction did not arrive until Medieval Times (according to the
once great participant Scott Roberts, I really don't know)?
Bodvar
Moq_Discuss mailing list
Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
Archives:
http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
