[hist-analytic] To On Hei On; Or: Why Analysis *Is* Metaphysical
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Jlsperanza at aol.com
Sun Feb 15 12:35:51 EST 2009
---- Note that if we are dealing with 'transcategorial' epithets here, it
does seem like some metaphysical outlook pervades even the driest of syllogisms!
------- And what do you think of Aristotle's 'healthy'. What's healthy in
the first place? Surely no cows, or grass, or oats. But things (ens) like you
I'll reply your comments on 'qua' now so that if you have a chance to see my
"Re: The Dawn of Analysis" with further qua-qua, as I call it, you'll get an
exegesis, as it were, into the bargain!
In a message dated 2/15/2009 11:09:09 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
baynesrb at yahoo.com writes in "Re: qua"
>Consider the syllogisms (as I have reconstructed them
>from Aristotle's description) from Posterior Analytics 1 49a
Call me naive, but I ignored your "38" thing and I took me _some_ to
identify the Greek "49a". I finally did it via an online version of the GERMAN text
"Analytica priori". It's odd that some online versions (I'm not referring to
R. B. Jones's) have the chapter, but not the versicle, as it were!
>MP Of the good there is knowledge (qua good)
>mP Justice is good
>C Ergo: Justice is knowledge (qua good)
>MP Of some particular thing there is knowledge (qua some particular thing)
>mPThe good is some particular thing
>C: Ergo: Of the good there is knowledge (qua some particular thing).
>Ignore the, apparent, invalidity of the second syllogism.
>'Qua' sets out a qualification.
Right. It's odd that it _seems_ cognate with 'qua-lity', but recall that
'quality' from what I understand, is _qualitas_ which is a translation of
Aristotle's very own _poiotes_. You mention below the 'heta', but if I may, I think
it's the _letter_, 'eta', so-called, i.e. the long /e/. But with the
aspirated accent, hence /he/. Plus, it's, not in the ablative of the Latin, qua,
since the Greek does not have ablative, so it would be plain 'dative'. I have
transcribed that as 'hei'. But I'd have to check if the transliteration 'he',
plainly, is also used. This may be to the fact that the 'i', the iota, becomes
subscripted, as it were, in Greek, and sometimes it defies transliteration.
(I'm in a rush, too, as someone else has to use my computer today!)
>Aristotle is making a
>proposal concerning where, in the first, syllogism, to put
>the second occurrence of 'good'. He puts it with the Major
>term, because if he puts it with the middle, then the
>predicate of the conclusion will not hold of the minor
>term. Further, if you put it with the minor term then
>you get pointless redundancy (good (qua good)).
Wow: I'm surprised you were able to decipher his 'coine' (Just joking)! I
was wondering about the 'pointless redundancy'. A. Baeck (or Back with umlaut if
you google him -- he is an American philosopher, despite his name,
apparently) calls them 'reduplicative PREPOSITIONS'. In some cases the reduplication
is obvious, but I'm not sure when it comes to the genus summum, 'being qua
being' (to on hei on). Now here, I would object to the use of 'being'. It's mere
"ens", an individual _ens_. I would think, in Latin "ens qua ens". It may be
redundant, but a reminder of the type of syllogisms one is bound to meet
when engaging in metaphysical discourse! (Grice was right it's the most
difficult thing in the world -- Aristotle's Metaphysics -- and he was surprised that
his seminars at UC/Berkeley were not totally _vacuous_!).
>goes with the major. Anscombe claims that Aristotle
>puts 'qua' with the subject rather than the predicate,
>and, then, draws the conclusion that there are no things, A,
>such that they are "A qua B."
-- and if that would be on p. 208, wonder if it's the 'double effect' paper.
The list of contents for that volume has the 'double effect' paper starting
on p. 207, I think.
>In the first place, Aristotle
>is not making a general claim in the passage cited for
>believing that 'qua' always goes with the predicate, only
>that when there are two occurrences of the term, one as
>modifier that modifier must in the context of a syllogism
>belong to the Major term. This is misleading.
Yes, poor Anscombe _got_ misled, and who knows how many hundreds before her.
Note that Aphrodisias has a commentary on the Pr. Ana., and then there's
commentary on the commentary. As Borges recalled I think, "Byron". "Your
explication is good, but it would require another explication".
Byrne makes a point that Aristotle is forcing everything into the three
figures. And it's odd that seeing the Greeks were so derogatory towards the
'barbaroi', it's all, as you note, in BArbArA.
>"Steve R. Bayne was allowed onto the stage, qua stage manager" runs the
>of a regressus ad infinitum:"Steve R. Bayne, qua "Steve R. Bayne",
>But as a description we might require 'being Steven R. Bayne' rather than
>'Steven R. Bayne'. If you follow the consequences of this, the picture
Yes, it does change. But we have to agree with Aristotle that some uses of
'qua' are 'redudant'. Incidentally, in the syllogism you recover, Aristotle has
a qualification as being "false and not intelligible". I read that three
times. I was reading it alla Meinong: surely I was expecting something false yet
intelligible. For if it's not intelligible, how can it be false?
But a lot of this would depend on translation. The 'object of sense' that
Aristotle says man qua is perishable (now that's coine!) is possible "sentient
being". I.e. qua sentient being, man is perishable. This is good, but a bit
atheistic to my mind. For it would entail that God cannot be sentient if he is
not perishable. And perhaps he is not, for Aristotle, since it's just noesis
noeseos, a thought that think thoughs. Also 'perishable' reminded of B.
Aune's clever discussion of 'dispositional' terms like 'fragile'.
"This is a dead parrot. She is no longer perishable. She is _perished_".
--- (I'm starting to use nouns like 'parrot' etc. using the gender those
words have in the Romance language -- this is my attempt to bring a bit more
liveliness to the English language. Just joking. But why should a parrot be
>Note that 'qua' is identified as 'heta' in Greek. This is far more
>controversial, but there are Greek scholars around here who would be
>more worth the time hearing. So I pass it by.
Apparently it's the 'he', with a subscripted iota, 'hei'. This goes for 'to
on he on', but I have not been able to check the An. Pr. 49a passage to see if
he uses the 'hei' thing in 'man qua an object of sense'.
The online Liddell/Scott is very good. I typed Short/Lewis 'qua', and it
gives Greek transliteration, 'hei', so I did that. The entry for 'hei' is of
course 'ho', since it's the masculine demonstrative. Oddly, I could not see in
Liddell/Scott any use of 'hei' as 'qua'! In any case, the change of case is
puzzling. What puzzles me to is that _AFTER_ the 'hei' you get again to the
ens qua ens to on hei on (Met. Z)
anthropos hei zoon homo qua animal
So it's _not_ a prEposition, but the article, definite or demonstrative,
used as a particle. Pretty odd, and perhaps not the best Greek form. But
Anscombe revived it, and we should pay her respects!
>Your Searle point is well taken, but possibly there is another
>distinction at work here, what Chomsky described in _Aspects of the
>Theory of Syntax_ as the performance/competence distinction.
Odd that you should mention that book. S. Soames, of course, studied under
Chomsky (professor of philosophy and linguistics -- this is good for
conjunction reduction, "Is a professor of philosophy and linguistics, so-called, a
professor of philosophy?) and that book has a mistaken reference in the index to
"A. P. Grice", without the proper aspiration of the 'h' in "Herbert"!
>ambiguities run a fine line between these two, typically. Or so it seems.
Yes, and I recall discussing with you elsewhere as to your idea that indeed
there may be ambiguity at the level of the _intention_, 'linguistic'
>On so called: consider 'Gargantua was so-called because of his size'. That
>the sense of 'so-called' intended. As for the screaming Mimi, what can
>I say. Just kidding, good opera. In fact, La Boheme is my favorite opera;
>maybe Turandot. Enough of that!
Yes, and a stage manager is so-called because he manages the stage. So, if
we are into reducing quas, we do deal with a reduplicated proposition. What
looks like _one_ proposition, is actually two. You are right about Noun Phrases,
but it may be worth considering the 'qua' construction as a relative clause:
qua stage manager
the (so-called) tenor, J. L. Speranza
Steven Bayne <who is the stage manager>
While "who is the stage manager" is a clause within the scope of the NP,
even in appositional style:
Steven Bayne, the stage manager, fired Speranza
it _does_ seem to involve a _predication_. But Aristotle _must_ have his
figures three and tidy! and his three things, two premises and one conclusion! I
cannot object, without him -- no dawn of analysis!
The dawn of analysis, re. Is really a commentary on further 'qua', as I say.
Have a look when you have the time (<----- this is an Austin 'biscuit'
"I've been unable to access Grice "Actions and Events." This might
prove very important. Nor can I locate Sellars on volitions, later
in his career. So I pass, once again. Your point on Grice and Donnellan is
worth pursuing. Let me do so, albeit, briefly.
"I sat the AA meeting qua the man with the martini in his hand."
Now here the description 'the man with the martini in his hand' can
be either descriptive or referential. If the AA folks don't know it's
a martini etc, then it is probably referential not descriptive. I may
have a reputation for defiance and nonconformity, so I want them to
be shocked, but if it just water then the sentence is descriptive and
false. Gosh! Maybe it's the other way around. No. The important thing
is the distinction works. I think Donnellan's distinction, notwithstanding
Kripke's remarks on the topic, is very close to the distinction between
rigid designators and non-rigid designators. I think this is consistent
with your point on Grice."
Yes, on top of this, to start a new fashion (never caught up) Grice uses
'identificatory' versus 'non-identificatory'. I believe D. E. Over (of
Sunderland Poly, on the North Sea) has a good essay on that in "Mind and Language" or
"Linguistics and Philosophy".
Qua participant in the AA meeting, I was bored.
Qua audience, I found the AA meeting boring.
Qua participant, I found the AA meeting a delight.
Qua AA meeting, I found the AA meeting parochial.
Qua martini, I found your martini wishy-washy.
Qua lecture, I found Soames's lecture not too long.
Qua innovative, I found Avramides's lecture not a re-hash at all!
Qua _room_ the place where the AA meeting plenary took place was _dirty_.
Qua trend-setter, Grice was not at his best.
Qua meeting, the AA meeting was a misnomer!
>I want to stay away from guise-theory (Castenada). Partly, because I
>am a bit skeptical, although it is very appealing. Brief point: in an
>unsubmitted paper I argue a relation between what Castenada says about
>"The logic of He" (is that the title?) and quasi-indicators. There is
>is an interesting connection between 'he' and anaphora, vis a vis
>quasi-indicators, so I want to leave this alone just now. I've had no
>time to edit my old paper, never released to the masses, but it has so
>many damned superscripts that I'll let it sit. It's actually based on
>Evans and Donkey Sentences. More later, perhaps.
Yes. Perhaps maybe on donkey and goat-stag. That would make an interesting
I thought 'hei' (not 'he') could be anaphoric. Liddell Scott mentions that
Aristotle uses "Socrates" when he wants to talk about Socrates, but he uses "ho
Socrates" (Italian, "Il Socrate") when he wants to refer to Plato's _book_.
Reminiscent of Russell,
"the author of _Waverley_ lived on a hill"
"the creator of Waverley lived on a hill"
"the creator of Harry Potter liveS on a hill".
I tend to find personal pronouns pretty redundant, most of the case. What I
am charmed with is the vocative use of the first person plural possessive,
very North of England thing: "Our Doris, thee shouldn't spend so long at the
**************A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy
More information about the hist-analytic