|
Understanding through Discussion |
|
QuickSearch
|
|
| |||||||
| Chatting now: | Chat room empty | ||||||
| letchimWOD | |||||||
|
| Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
| Author | Topic: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days)  Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Round 1 I am trying to make the case that the word 'Thoery' has the same meaning as 'theology' because of it's etymological roots. I want to focus on the Greek meaning, because one derivitive (θεωρός) is the equivalent of the Latin meaning.
( http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon )
( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory )
Regardless of whether one uses the word 'theo' or 'thea', it is in fact, rooted in the concept of God. From there, the morphology and etymology begins. And we do not seperate the morphological and etymological applications of the term from the term itself. The lexeme is undeniable. If 'theo' is simply 'spectating' or 'a view' as you are attempting to maintain, then where does the 'emperical or logical quality' come in? What is it that we are viewing? It comes in by keeping in mind the logical (Logos / reason) and contemplative aspects of the lexeme, in addition to it's aspect of simple observation. We cannot seperate the viewing from what it is that is being viewed. And in the sense of the sciences we are viewing reality. As I said before, a difference in relationship between the 'theology' of God, and the 'theory' of some aspect of reality, is purely one of contemplating reality's ultimate nature, be it living and relational or simply an indifferent material force. What is certain, is that in spite of any difference in form, they do not amount to a total or practical difference; rather, they are different forms of the same lexeme. Both represent an abstract construct or methodology thought and expected to be logical, consistent, reflective, and illuminating of reality. To focus on the latin ('a view' + 'to see') aspect of the morphology of the word 'theory' is to deny the Greek ('contemplation, speculation, theoretics, theory, view theoria') meaning of the term which captures better the english meaning of the word. It is also certain that our theory (or theology) of God (or reality) is accompanied, or used in conjunction with, concepts that are akin to sight, viewing, seeing and watching; as in a theatre or show. Hence the morphology of the lexeme; incorporating the many characteristics that flow from such a contemplative and significant term know as 'theo'. 'Theory', like 'theology', is a word with theistic roots and tied inexorably to the concept of the ultimate reality irrespective of it's actual nature. All philosophcal constructs or mathematical postulates of reality are the same in this regard. It matters not if they are 'theistic', 'atheisict', pantheistic, agnostic, secular, etc. All take a position on the concept of the supreme, or ultimate reality, assuming it to be true and real regardless of whether they choose to address the 'whole' or 'ultimate scope' of reality, either by saying that we cannot know what God (or reality) is; or by saying that this current world (and understanding of it) is the only knowledge or understanding worthy of consideration and any 'ultimate scope' or wider theory is unpractical or irrelevant. They've still addressed 'the issue', by ultimately giving their own postulate or theory (philosophy) of life and reality. And yes... God is synonymous with reality: In a previous thread ( www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131), Kuresu provided a link that makes this plain: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/etymology-of-theory/ It follows:
Edited by Rob, : No reason given. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Admin Director  Posts: 11253 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 9.4 |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rob Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Guess that makes me a boot-licker? :o How about promoting the topic?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adminastasia Inactive Member |
I am willing to put this in Coffee House. I am hoping to keep things more on topic by allowing you the appropriate place to hash things out. I would prefer if the topic wasn't a continuation of the talk with kuresu, and maybe I can coerce you into removing those references, and just presenting the word 'theory' as the first word for 'study'. You don't have to put all your eggs in the first basket you find. :) I will wait for your final changes, and give the other admins a chance to protest. Edited by Adminastasia, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
AdminBuzsaw Inactive Member |
I agree, great call, Adminastasia. Too much in this basket, for sure. Edited by AdminBuzsaw, : No reason given. For ideological balance on the EvC admin team as a Biblical creationist.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rob Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I might need some time. This week is very busy at work. I already have 18 hrs in and it's only monday. And next week is a longa awaited family vacation. But your suggestion is realistic. It's has become far too personal between Kuresu and I. I accept responsibility for that ,since it seems to happen with everyone and not just him. I'll do my part... Just give me a couple weeks. I might get it done this week...
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rob Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
'theo' 'theory' 'theology' Round 1 I am trying to make the case that the word 'Thoery' has the same meaning as 'theology' because of it's etymological roots. I want to focus on the Greek meaning, because one derivitive (θεωρός) is the equivalent of the Latin meaning.
( http://www.kypros.org/cgi-bin/lexicon )
( http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/theory )
Regardless of whether one uses the word 'theo' or 'thea', it is in fact, rooted in the concept of God. From there, the morphology and etymology begins. And we do not seperate the morphological and etymological applications of the term from the term itself. The lexeme is undeniable. If 'theo' is simply 'spectating' or 'a view' as you are attempting to maintain, then where does the 'emperical or logical quality' come in? What is it that we are viewing? It comes in by keeping in mind the logical (Logos / reason) and contemplative aspects of the lexeme, in addition to it's aspect of simple observation. We cannot seperate the viewing from what it is that is being viewed. And in the sense of the sciences we are viewing reality. As I said before, a difference in relationship between the 'theology' of God, and the 'theory' of some aspect of reality, is purely one of contemplating reality's ultimate nature, be it living and relational or simply an indifferent material force. What is certain, is that in spite of any difference in form, they do not amount to a total or practical difference; rather, they are different forms of the same lexeme. Both represent an abstract construct or methodology thought and expected to be logical, consistent, reflective, and illuminating of reality. To focus on the latin ('a view' + 'to see') aspect of the morphology of the word 'theory' is to deny the Greek ('contemplation, speculation, theoretics, theory, view theoria') meaning of the term which captures better the english meaning of the word. It is also certain that our theory (or theology) of God (or reality) is accompanied, or used in conjunction with, concepts that are akin to sight, viewing, seeing and watching; as in a theatre or show. Hence the morphology of the lexeme; incorporating the many characteristics that flow from such a contemplative and significant term know as 'theo'. 'Theory', like 'theology', is a word with theistic roots and tied inexorably to the concept of the ultimate reality irrespective of it's actual nature. All philosophcal constructs or mathematical postulates of reality are the same in this regard. It matters not if they are 'theistic', 'atheisict', pantheistic, agnostic, secular, etc. All take a position on the concept of the supreme, or ultimate reality, assuming it to be true and real regardless of whether they choose to address the 'whole' or 'ultimate scope' of reality, either by saying that we cannot know what God (or reality) is; or by saying that this current world (and understanding of it) is the only knowledge or understanding worthy of consideration and any 'ultimate scope' or wider theory is unpractical or irrelevant. They've still addressed 'the issue', by ultimately giving their own postulate or theory (philosophy) of life and reality. And yes... God is synonymous with reality: In a previous thread ( www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131 -->www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131">http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=13&t=83&m=121#131), Kuresu provided a link that makes this plain: http://orgtheory.wordpress.com/2006/07/11/etymology-of-theory/ It follows:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adminastasia Inactive Member |
You don't have to write everything at once. Mention that you want to discuss the word 'theory', and let the trial begin. All the evidence does not need to be presented in the opening statement. I don't care how personal things are with kuresu, but the point is that anyone reading a thread for the first time should be able to follow the train of thought without past references to people who may or may not still be here. A thread should not be contingent upon one person's participation, and if it is, it should be a GD. I don't want this to be a GD, it is not worth it. I would only be willing to do one thread for random semantics in Coffee House. I want to give you one exemption before your vacation, and promote, but I really think we could do without the 'God is reality' etc., and stick to the first few sentences. ABE; OK, I am doing it just this once :) as is, since others seem willing to participate. Edited by Adminastasia, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Adminastasia Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member  Posts: 8786 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
since you called me in from another thread. it appears that thea (to view) and thea (the feminine of theos) are merely homonyms. thea is the root of words like "theatre" and "theory." theos is the root of words like "theology" and "atheist." theoria and theorein seem to be different words that wikipedia has conflated. even as such, it is generally poor practice to try to equate words based on etymological roots. the usage and accepted definitions are much more important. even then, the historical usage may not mean much about the modern usage -- lots of secular things have religious origins and vice-versa.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
anastasia Member (Idle past 1902 days)  Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
This is my only contribution: Thea was the Goddess of sight. At some time, the word 'thea' may have become synonymous with 'viewing'. If that is true, then one must distinguish a difference between words which have this derivitive as a root, and words which use 'thea' in the form of a god or goddess concept. I can not answer why the masculine 'theos' appears to be used in 'theory' except that perhaps in the original Greek the word itself calls for the masculine. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given. Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
arachnophilia Member Posts: 8786 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
indeed.
oh, because only the "the-" part comes from thea. the "-ory" part comes from horan. Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rob Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Arachnophilia:
Is this a test of my knowledge of languges? I am very suprised by this criticism of yours. I don't think Wiki has conflated anything. These particular terms are indivisible. Consider:
As you said yourself, "it appears that thea (to view) and thea (the feminine of theos) are merely homonyms." If 'thea' is the feminine of 'theos', how can they be homonyms? They have the same meaning (gods). Don't forget:
Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rob Suspended Member (Idle past 1798 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I appriciate your comments. I can only say that many of the arguments had already been evolving in the other threads. Mostly, Kuresu and I were both trying to get a handle on the reality of the etymology, and I think we began by grasping at straws. I had to really think about this one and not rely on my intuition alone. It was pretty puzzling for a few hours. As for the invoking of 'reality' and it's realtionship to God... it is an essential part of my argument. Without that connection, I have no case. And it is an essential point that is so very muched missed and taken for granted. That was Paul Davies whole point. Reason (logos) itself is exalted by faith. And I think we would all agree and rightly so. Perhaps now is a good time to re-insert that argument:
All in all, thank you for promoting the topic. I don't mind laying all the cards out. If there is nothing left to be said, then we can not waste disk space on irrelevant debate. And alot of that was occuring as I raised the issue and tried to bring people's attention to the fact that 'theory' is essentially a 'seeing faith'. There was really only one objection. I'd like to be able to move on, set the precident here, and be able to point back to this precident if the question is raised again. In my opinion, the negative reaction to calling theory 'faith' is not because that is a false charge, but because it is based upon people's misconception that 'all faith' is blind faith. Some faith is blind. Not mine... and not that of the scientific community. Because ultimately, irrespective of experience and hard facts, we rely upon the only tool we have with which to make sense of life and it's many clues; that tool... is logic.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PaulK Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 9.0 |
quote: There are two things very badly wrong with this. The first is that the etymological roots do not and cannot dictate current usage. THe second is that the etymological roots provide no support whatsoever for that assertion as you already know. quote: That would be MODERN Greek usage because you used a MODERN Greek dictionary. The sie you used does have an option to search for Ancient Greek words - but "theoria" is not included. You can't work out etymology by relying on modern readings for the same reason that you can't use etymology to dictate modern meanings. Word usage changes over time. quote: i.e. since all you have is a morphological resemblance you want to use that to dictate the etymology just as you want to use the etymology to dictate the meanings. Unfortunately if you look for the word "theo" on the University of Texas site you quoted, it does not mean" God" (that is "theos") - it means "run". Base Form Dictionary. Judging by your past record you'll probably drop the morphology argument now... The rest of your argument essentially states that you view God as reality and therefore all statements about reality are statements about God. This move allows you to classify all statements about reality as "theology" unfortunately it cannot prove your case. Your pantheism is your personal view - and one that is not shared by a majority of people. To everyone else who recognises a distinction between God and physical reality (including those who believe that there is no God) your argument simply does not work. The distinction between science and theology is useful to the majority of people (including theologians !) and thus it will be maintained. Likewise the distinction between "theory" and "theology" would be maintained since "theology" would cover the entire field of study while "theory" would refer to a narrower body of work - just as it does today. But still I thank you for this post because it demonstrates the lengths that some creationists will got to to avoid admitting that they are wrong. Any sensible person would simply have looked up the meanings and admitted error. Or indeed not made such an obviously false claim in the first place. You on the other hand prefer to discard the facts and appeal to etymology as if that could override the meaning. When that fails you say that we should ignore the etymology and appeal to morphology as if that dictated etymology. And you back all that up by attempting to declare pantheism true by fiat ! And even that doesn't prove your case.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Copyright 2001-2013 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2013
