Von: "Benjamin Udell" <bud...@nyc.rr.com>
Helmut, lists,
Aristotle's 10 categories in "Categories" include _poiein_ (to do, to make) and _paschein_ (to suffer, to undergo), such as 'to cauterize' and 'to be cauterized'. He also discusses _energeia_ (activity) and _entelechia_, both of which are sometimes translated as 'actuality'. Both the final and the formal causes are conceived of as act as cause. Aquinas distinguishes between _act as action_ and _act as form_.
It starts with two of Aristotle's categories, becomes three principles, and ends up with four causes.
As far as I can tell, the Ancient Greek infinitive _paschein_ means 'to suffer', 'to undergo', while the Latin deponent infinitive employed to translate it, _pati_, has a divergent sense of 'enduring' in the sense of 'not succumbing to'. This helps make sense of the idea of _act_ as the extent to which the patient _does_ succumb. And there classical philosophy goes no further.
However, _agens_ : necessity :: _patiens_ : possibility, ergo passive forms of both _agens_ and _patiens_ must be principles. The extent to which the _patiens_ does not succumb to the _agens_ must be the _passum_, the borne, the balanced, which, with due stability, is form as structure as cause. I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but that's the two cents' worth that keeps me interested in philosophy.
Best, Ben
On 5/6/2015 9:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi!!Agent, Patient, and Effect are a triadic affair, call it relation, call it what you want, but they are triadic. If there is no effect, there was no activity (no Agens). If there was nothing to be the subject, there was no patiens. If there was no effect, there were neither both of them. If there was one of them, there were all three. So, anything means that there are agent, patient, and effect. You do not need to be called "Peirce" to understand that. Best! HelmutGesendet: Donnerstag, 07. Mai 2015 um 01:15 Uhr
Von: "Benjamin Udell" <bud...@nyc.rr.com>
An: "<biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>" <biosemiot...@lists.ut.ee>, "Peirce-L 1" <PEIRCE-L@list.iupui.edu>
Betreff: Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8580] Re: NaturalJeff D., lists,
Where does Peirce discuss agent and patient as a dyadic relation? I'm willing to believe that he does so. I recall (perhaps inaccurately) that he called the sign's object the _agent _ and the sign itself the _patient _, but didn't call the interpretant the _act _.
- Best, Ben
On 5/6/2015 1:48 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
----------------------------- PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to peirce-L@list.iupui.edu . To UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to l...@list.iupui.edu with the line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
