Re: [] Re: Pragmata = Objects?

Fotis and Jon,

Those words are also derived from verbal roots:

FK> In modern Greek, the meaning is the following:
 > (all words in plural)
 >
 > ???????? == pragmata == things
 > ??????????? == antikeimena == objects

In fact, the following three have very similar roots:

Latin 'objectus' -- thrown against

German 'Gegenstand' -- standing against

Greek '???????????' -- lying against

In general, objects are thrown, standing, or lying around
or against whatever.  That's true in my house.

JA> But there seems to be, more lately, or perhaps recurringly,
> a regression from the hey-days of process, relational, and
> systems thinking into ontological particularism, a curious
> compromise formation between essentialism and nominalism.

All those 'isms are trying to impose somebody's ideology on life.
What I liked about R-W Mann's analysis of the Aristotelian and
pre-Aristotelian terminology is his focus on how people actually
use language.  He suggests that the sharp distinction between
processes and things was invented by Aristotle, and it's a mistake
to talk about it as an inevitable "common sense" view.

Whitehead noted that modern physics is more compatible with the
views of Heraclitus, who emphasized the flux:  "panta rhei" --
all flow.  I translated 'panta' as 'all' rather than 'all things'
to avoid forcing a thing-centered view on Heraclitus.

John


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]