|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: misc lexeme morpholgy and semantic theory | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
You are on to something Arachnophilia... but not the way you think, and it belongs in another thread.
http://EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. -->EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
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). Thea and theos are not homonyms. Thea meaning "to view" and thea meaning "goddess" (feminine of theos meaning god) are homonyms. I'm still researching the etymologies so I don't have anything else to offer right now. I just wanted to clear that up. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
I am not a panthiest. I am a Christian...
PaulK: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. Yes... very good! There is diversity. Just don't forget the unity. That's what 'university' means. As to your point... A narrower body of what? I've made this precise argument long before and it was ignored. You like to focus on one aspect of the whole show, so that you can wish away the others. If theory only means 'a view to see'. What is it you are looking at? If it means to contemplate, then what are you contemplating? A seperate section of reality? Is reality divided?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: It seems more likely to me that the word "thea" (meaning "sight") came first and the goddess was named from the word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
Thea and theos are not homonyms. Thea meaning "to view" and thea meaning "goddess" (feminine of theos meaning god) are homonyms. I saw that too... But it's not that simple...
THEA (Theia) The Titan goddess of sight and clear blue skies. She was the mother of the Sun, Moon and Dawn. (http://www.theoi.com/Encyc_T.html ) http://EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea. -->EvC Forum: The significance and symbolism of the sea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: If you are not a panthiest then you must accept that there are elements of physical reality which are distinct from God.
quote: You may have made the argument before and it may have been ignored because it is complete rubbbish. We don't equate "physics" and "theory" - one is a specific field of study containing many theories and the other is a general term for a narrower boy of work
quote: You mean that I focus on the topic rather than believing at the irrelevant sophistry you concoct to avoid admitting your error.
quote: It doesn't mean that. As I already told you etymology does not dictate meaning. And even if it did it would not have to specify. Here's what theory means according to dictionary.com
the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture. Note that "a view to see" is not listed as one of the meanings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jaderis Member (Idle past 3425 days) Posts: 622 From: NY,NY Joined: |
If theory only means 'a view to see'. What is it you are looking at? If it means to contemplate, then what are you contemplating? A seperate section of reality? Is reality divided? Indeed, the ancient Greek philosophers wondered the same thing. They even established the practice of theoria in which they would travel to other cities to witness sacred events, report and through the experience be "transformed by the journey of theoria and the activity of contemplation." The practice and its meaning evolved as you will read in the link. None of this, however, has anything to do with the original etymology and the meaning of thea "to view." Nor, as Paul and others have pointed out, does it have anything to do with the current definitions of theory and theology or the what "reality" is. You can believe that all of reality is God, that's fine with me and, I am sure, all of us here, but your etymological arguments do nothing to support that idea or the idea that the word theory has anything to do with God. Besides, words only have the meaning that we humans give to them. They have no other significance. "You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
PaulK:
If you are not a panthiest then you must accept that there are elements of physical reality which are distinct from God. Absolutely! Did I say otherwise? Law and fact is God (the supreme reality). Theory is simply a tentative 'speculation' (a possible view... your theory/ my theory) that may or may not turn out to coherently explain what we know is factual or lawful. PaulK: We don't equate "physics" and "theory" There are physical laws that are not in dispute, but have you not heard of 'theoretical physics'? Of course you have... This is the rub. Here is the real point of tension. Please do listen carefully. Paul, is logic valid and why? Try answering that without invoking a theory of philosophy. Do we not distinguish between fact and theory based upon very careful reasoning and method? Said method and reasoning is based upon what? Is it not logical coherence? So logic is the key to unlock the puzzle... The assumption that the scientific method is valid, is itself a philosophical construct based on logic. And it is coherent and logical and therefore valid. That is the purpose of philosophical theory. To provide the unity in diversity (University). You completely take this for granted. And that is Davies' point:Paul Davies, theoretical physicist / Australian Centre for Astrobiology: Davies on the question: ”Does the monotheistic tradition of an intelligible universe have any impact on modern science?’ “The worldview of a scientist, even the most atheistic scientist, is that essentially of Monotheism. It is a belief, which is accepted as an article of faith, that the universe is ordered in an intelligible way. Now, you couldn’t be a scientist if you didn’t believe these two things. If you didn’t think there was an underlying order in nature, you wouldn’t bother to do it, because there is nothing to be found. And if you didn’t believe it was intelligible, you’d give up because there is no point if human beings can’t come to understand it. But scientists do, as a matter of faith, accept that the universe is ordered and at least partially intelligible to human beings. And that is what underpins the entire scientific enterprise. And that is a theological position. It is absolutely ”theo’ when you look at history. It comes from a theological worldview. That doesn’t mean you have to buy into the religion, or buy into the theology, but it is very, very significant in historical terms; that that is where it comes from and that scientists today, unshakably retain that worldview, as an act of faith. You cannot prove it logically has to be the case, that the universe is rational and intelligible. It could easily have been otherwise. It could have been arbitrary, it could have been absurd, it could have been utterly beyond human comprehension. It’s not! And scientists just take this for granted for the most part, and I think it’s a really important point that needs to be made.” That is why these two issues are really the same topic... 1. You demand the use of logical coherence as a means of establishing the legitimacy of the emperical world and to explain it. 2. But when ID points out the failure of logical coherence and offers a far more intellectually satisfying and philosophically coherent response, you then turn and say that philsophical coherence is not that important to reality or science by holidng up instead 'methodological naturalism' as king... which is valid only if the philsophical assumptions behind it is true. Do you understand? Can you see beneath the surface? This whole mess began with David Hume (a philsopher btw). You mentioned sophistry. The following is sophistry at it's most glorious and theatrical: "When we run over libraries, persuaded of these principles, what havoc must we make? If we take in our hand any volume of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance, let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames, for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion."
(David Hume An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding) Hume's statement is fatally flawed because his statement does not contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number'. Nor does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence. How do we make a meaningful statement that is metaphysically stated, in order to tell us that metaphysics is meaningless? Or put another way, how do we make a philosophical statement, in order to tell us that philosophy is meaningless? It is illogical. That is what both you and Hume are trying to do... Think about it... PaulK:the·o·ry [thee-uh-ree, theer-ee] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation -noun, plural -ries. 1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity. 2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. 3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory. 4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory. 5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles. 6. contemplation or speculation. 7. guess or conjecture. Thank you Paul... Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
jaderis:
Besides, words only have the meaning that we humans give to them. They have no other significance. Ah... there you are. PaulK said essentially the same thing. It all depends upon what 'is' means. That is another topic that I have tried to raise. See how it is all related Percy / Nosey? Jaderis... your quote above... do you expect me to understand the concepts therein based upon the words you used to relay it to me? And is that concept an objective reality? Is it objectively true that words do not have meaning? Or is that the meaning you are giving the words?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anastasia Member (Idle past 5953 days) Posts: 1857 From: Bucks County, PA Joined: |
PaulK writes: It seems more likely to me that the word "thea" (meaning "sight") came first and the goddess was named from the word. Entirely possible. I only made an assumption/deduction, because I would imagine the goddess was in 'existence' and pretty well-known for quite some time in Greek culture. I was thinking about our word 'god' and how it is used for both a proper name, and for gods in general. The morphology of words can be strange and surprising at times. It is also possible that 'thea' and 'thea' are simply homonyms. It was just coincidental that they could be linked. I believe Rob is mistakenly assuming that 'thea' is the female of 'theos', as if the word derived from 'theos'. I feel it is the other way around, that 'theos' paralleled 'thea', but that this could only happen a long time after the proper name of the goddess had become a catch-all for deities in general. I hope that makes sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Yes, you did (Message 7)
And yes... God is synonymous with reality
Indeed, once you accept that there are elements of reality that are not God you accept that there are theories which are not even a part of theology.
quote: And those laws are a component of theory (e.g. the four laws of Thermodynamics are a part of the Theory of Thermodynamics). And I have indeed heard of theoretical physicists. The term is used to distinguish between those physicists who work mainly on developing the theory from those who work mainly on experiments. And the existence of the term supports my point that the words "physics" and "theory" are distinct - otherwise it would be redundant - referring to a "theroetical theoretician".
quote: I did read carefully and found no argument relating to the actual issue under discussion. The real point of tension is that you were wrong and you are desperate to avoid admitting it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
Is this a test of my knowledge of languges? no, just the best answer i can figure out.
I am very suprised by this criticism of yours. I don't think Wiki has conflated anything. looking at the article, it tangles up the two words that don't appear to be related.
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). theos in the feminine is thea. thea can be either "view" or "goddess." the two are different words that are spelled the same but have different meanings. it is possible that the word originally comes from the goddess by the same name, or vice versa, but they are not the same word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
PaulK:
Indeed, once you accept that there are elements of reality that are not God you accept that there are theories which are not even a part of theology. Your conflating temporal reality with eternal and absolute reality. The supreme reality is God. I never said theory was part of theology. The point is that theory is the same discipline. Theory is apart from Him; a cheap immitation, but much more pleasureable to the lustful eye.
I did read carefully and found no argument relating to the actual issue under discussion. The real point of tension is that you were wrong and you are desperate to avoid admitting it. What exactly was I wrong about. You resorted to denying that words have historical and fixed objective meaning in order to win the argument. If word etymology is irrelevant, then how can we understand what the ancients were talking about? How could we say that I (or you) am wrong about anything? Wrong compared to what? The fact is, that the logical concepts are the issue, we use different words to convey those concepts. The meaning hasn't changed, just the word games like those of Hume. Nietzche was at least honest...
"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." (Friedrich Nietzsche) Yet he, you, purpledawn, and jaderis use words to tell us such things... You have to get outside the box to make those things stick. If we say there is no 'transcendental signified', then we have just posited one. You might as well say that there is no truth...Well, is that true? A man last wekk told me he doesn't believe in anything... I asked him if he really believed that? He got the point... will you?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Rob  Suspended Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 2297 Joined: |
it is possible that the word originally comes from the goddess by the same name, or vice versa, but they are not the same word. I misread your original post... but jaderis corrected me. They are the same word, but I have yet to show a inarguable link between them... other than the suspicious simmilarity between 'a view', and 'the goddess of sight'. I'll look into it. Feel free to do the same. It simply requires more research. My intuition says.. 'not coincidence'. Edited by Rob, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
arachnophilia Member (Idle past 1344 days) Posts: 9069 From: god's waiting room Joined: |
they are the same word, but I have yet to show a inarguable link between them other than the suspicious simmilarity between 'a view', and the goddess of sight. I'll look into it. Feel free to do the same. we speak english, so let me give you an example in english that you are probably unaware of. in old english, we had a word, "goodly" or "godly," and thus the modern word "good." good comes from the word god. but if i say, "hey, this is a good song" i don't mean the song is about god. and if i say, "this food tastes good" i don't mean it tastes like jesus.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024