Etymythology and Metaphysics

Speranza

L. R. Horn once lectured (if that's the word since the club is a delight of informality) on 'etymythology' at the Elizabethan Club, and the name stuck with me!

Anyway, this from wiki, as we discuss and explore with R. B. Jones the extent to which Carnap and Grice can be reconciled in such an abtuse field of study as metaphysics appears to be (and while we recall that one Grice Note in the Grice Collection reads, "a new discourse in metaphysics" -- "From Genesis to Revelations").

Wiki reads (slightly adapted)

"The word "metaphysics" derives from the Greek words μετά (metá) ("beyond", "upon" or "after") and φυσικά (physiká) ("physics")".

"The word "metaphysics" first used, in Greek, as the title for several of Aristotle's works."

"And it was thus used because these works were usually anthologized after the works on physics in complete editions."

So it's like the novelist wrote the novel but failed to name it. Cfr. "The Catcher in the Rye" mistitled after R. Burns, or "Sideways": "I'm writing a novel". "What is it called?" "The day after yesterday". "That's today, no?".

Wiki continues:

"The prefix meta- ("beyond") indicates that these works come "after" the chapters on physics."


----

I.e. it would be a bibliographical prefix, as it were, as used by boring people such as librarians -- even if I run the Swimming-Pool Library...

---

Wiki continues:

"However, Aristotle himself did NOT [emphasis Speranza -- one of his Grice Notes] call the subject of these books "Metaphysics"."

"Rather, Aristotle referred to the subject of these books as "first philosophy.""

--

"prote philosophia"

philosophia prima

--

"The editor of Aristotle's works, Andronicus of Rhodes, is thought to have placed the books on first philosophy right after another work, Physics, and called them τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικὰ βιβλία (ta meta ta physika biblia) or "the books that come after the [books on] physics"."

Perhaps he thought that titling it "First Philosophy" would NOT sell?

--- (And to think this was all burned up in Alessandria depresses me).


Wiki continues:

"This [manoevure by Andronicus of Rhodes] was misread [read: MISUNDERSTOOD -- Speranza] by Latin scholiasts, who thought it meant

"the science of what is beyond the physical"".

Oxford followed suit. And they had two professors: the professor of physical philosophy, and the Waynflete professor of meta-physical philosophy (Strawson was one).

Wikipedia continues:

"However, once the name was given, the commentators sought to find intrinsic reasons for its appropriateness."

This reminds me of U. Eco and "The name of the rose". Why should be an intrinsic reason for a 'rose' to be called 'rose'?

Wikipedia continues:

"For instance, ["metaphysics" -- or trans-naturalia, in neo-Latin] was understood to mean "the science of the world beyond nature" (physis in Greek), that is, the science of the immaterial."

-- ghostly subject!

Wrong, when one knows that Aristotle was a hyle-morphist, rather; i.e. one who believed that 'shape' (morphe) ALWAYS comes attached with 'matter' -- And so, one who would DENY the immaterial per se.

Wikipedia continues:

"Again, it was understood to refer to the chronological or pedagogical order among our philosophical studies, so that the "metaphysical sciences" would mean "those that we study after having mastered the sciences that deal with the physical world" (St. Thomas Aquinas, "In Lib, Boeth. de Trin.", V, 1)".

Aquinas was TOO scholastic to my taste!

Note that this is not his Summa, but a rather 'early'? commentary on Boethius -- and thus perhaps not to be treated too seriously.

Wiki concludes the etymythological note on 'metaphysics':

"There is a widespread use of the term in current popular literature which replicates this error, i.e. that metaphysical means spiritual non-physical: thus, "metaphysical healing" means healing by means of remedies that are not physical.<sup>[8]"

----</sup>
Well, blame it on Andronicus -- of Rhodes (of all places!).

Heidegger possibly uses 'metaphysical' even differently. For one, I agree with his explication of the etymythology of philo-sophy.

Heidegger argues that 'philo-sophy' should NOT be read as the 'love' of wisdom, but the wisdom of love!