From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-biddeford.com> Subject: Re: Anthropomorphic language Date: Mon, 30 Sep 1996 21:32:36 -0400 Michael wrote: > I suppose what is meant by the "anthropomorphic roots" of > the word "determine" is the morpheme "term," which seems > to issue from the uniquely human use of language. I'm still unclear about this, since the use of the word "term" and its cognates to refer to language appears (according to my etymological dictionary) to have emerged rather late; the earliest sense of this morpheme (*terminus* in Latin, *terma* in Greek) concerns boundary stones, limits, etc. I agree with Michael's caution regarding argument by etymology (though occasionally I indulge in it myself). Actually, I find Derrida's use of etymological argument to be amusing in an ironic way. The etymology of "etymology" is "the true and original meaning of words"--in other words, the truth is in the origins. Given Derrida's critique of origins, and of truth, you'd think he'd be ashamed to employ this sort of argument. But so much for theory/practice consistency. (Let me guess here--he'd say that just like his working within the Western metaphysical tradition, "there is no alternative": Bhaskar's TINA formation.) Turning back to our reading, in RTS 50-51 Bhaskar fusses over a distinction between powers statements and normic (law) statements. I think I see the difference, but not entirely, because I'm not sure why this distinction is important, or what it's important for. Although he writes that he'll develop this point in more detail later, could anyone clue me in? PS: Now that we have the three conference sessions in place, is there anything we can do to cajole Bhaskar to attend? --- Tobin Nellhaus nellhaus-AT-biddeford.com "Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005