Meta-Physik expliziert, schon der Wortbedeutung "meta" nach, was die (physische) Welt "im Innersten zusammenhält" (Faust); was aber die Welt im Inneren zusammenhält, das sind Verhältnisse

meta-physics make explicit, according to the meaning of the word "meta" already, that what keeps together the world "inwardly", "IN the inner inside" (Faust);

what does keep the world together inwardly, that's (a fabric of social) Verhältnisse, relations ...

wikipedia, oldgreek prepositions:

meta-, met- - μετά - örtlich: inmitten, zwischen (zusammen, zugleich),
                                    locally: amid, amidst, between (together, simultaneous)
                                                  mit, unter, in, bei, zu oder nach … hin
                                                  with, under, in, nearby, whereto ... there

                                     zeitlich oder in der Rangfolge: nach, hinter
                                     temporally or order of precedence: after, behind

Best regards - Juergen

 

Hi Stephen,

I was only responding to your opening question.  Inciarte is correct, I agree, to say that Hegel argues single-minded for the Truth of the Infinite God, running through Books 4, 7-9, and concluding with 12.

As for a late compilation -- that is more difficult, since internal evidence makes it clear that Aristotle revised this text for decades.

I myself perceive the remnants of a Platonic dualism in Aristotle -- a recognition that the Physical plane is quite separate from the Ethical plane -- so that neither could be reduced to the other side (cf. F. Schelling, Transcendental Idealism (1800)).  Indeed, for Aristotle, the key reconciliation that I see between his Physics and his Metaphysics is that his Science of Logic applied equally to both!

Furthermore, although the Greek prefix "meta" most commonly means "after," it does not necessarily intend the simple "subsequent".   

Even so -- as we seem to agree -- "Metaphysics" was not Aristotle's own title.   Aristotle called this work, Theology, First Philosophy and Wisdom.   Later writers, like Diogenes Laertius (ca. 200 CE) would rename the work, Metaphysics, yet in my opinion, this had nothing to do with the physical position of the text before or after the Physics text.  

I daresay that Diogenes first read what he titled -- and that reading could never have been so superficial as the scholars of the early 20th century have implied.

Happy Holidays to you and yours,

--Paul

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Monday, December 24, 2018, 7:46:00 AM CST, stephen theron stephentheron@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

 

Paul,

You seem to have missed my general argument/suggestion here, referred very much to Hegel's view of the metaphysical but which I also interpret as founded upon Aristotle. Happy Christmas!

Stephen Theron.

---

From: hegel@yahoogroups.com <hegel@yahoogroups.com> on behalf of Paul Trejo petrejo@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 22 December 2018 16:46
To: hegel@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [hegel] metaphysics

 

Stephen,

On the contrary -- I am sure that it wasn't Aristotle who titled the book.    The first written record of the title, Metaphysics, comes from Diogenes Laertius around 200 CE.

I am arguing, ultimately, that whoever first came up with that title, Metaphysics, was nevertheless not some dunce who thought, "Duhh, this book comes after the Physics in my list, so I will call it the Metaphysics."

The eminent scholars from the turn of the last century who proposed that this was the source of the title, Metaphysics, would have done better to prove that such a dunce existed, and made a full confession.   Without that, it is merely guesswork on the part of scholars who are tacitly admitting that they cannot make head or tails out of Aristotle's writing.

All of this is a red herring!    This is a Hegel List!    The only real question is what the word, Metaphysics meant to Hegel himself!     I aver that since Hegel was in fierce contest with Kant, that Hegel meant the term in exactly the same way that Kant meant it.   And Kant meant it in exactly the same way that the scholastics meant it.   And the scholastics had an ancient tradition for the word, going back to Diogenes Laertius!

Let's focus please, on the actual issue.   What did Hegel mean by the term, Metaphysics?    It is those readers who fail to read Hegel "metaphysically" that wish to obscure the term for us, and muddy the waters by attempting to remove the traditional meaning of the term.

All best,

--Paul

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Friday, December 21, 2018, 5:38:17 AM CST, stephen theron stephentheron@... [hegel] <hegel@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

Paul,

Are you sure it was Aristotle who titled the book, actually several books. I didn't think so. F. Inciarte, for example, identifies a single argument, for the truth of the infinite God, running through Books IV, VII-IX and concluding at XII. This in itself,suggests a later compilation. "Die Einheit der aristotelischen Metaphysik" (I quote from memory: in English it's a chapter in FI's Substance and Action, George Ohms, Hildesheim, c. 2002, I don't have the German title of this book, which I helped read through in English, to hand

It is not clear at all to me that Aristotle's Physics are not metaphysical as we use the term today. Thus Book II, for example, elaborates hylomorphism, viz. the theory of form and matter (with privation as offering a surely metaphysical account of the philosophy of substantial change, substance being a metaphysical concept), such as one finds if differently in Hegel's (metaphysical?) logic. Book III outlines a concept of nature, as a "principle", arche, and that is surely metaphysical too, as is the argument for the impossibility of pure chance in Bk. IV, and so on.

Again, the prefix "meta" simply means "after", most commonly, and this can of course suggest a higher grade of consideration just as subsequent. I can only say that in my attempts to understand Aristotle's metaphysics I frequently found key texts in the Physics as also in the "logical" writings such as De interpretatione. Inciarte, again, distinguishes sharpy the Aristotle of the Categories-Schrift from the Aristotle of the Metaphysics, deprecating the former.

Is it worth writing more about the meaning of a word and the history of that meaning? The suggestion in that the physics without absorptiopn in the metaphysics would be "abstract", as in Hegel (his philosophy of nature). Probably in fact anyone who writes on anything has a metaphysics, "positive" or "negative" (these two terms regularly supplanting one another and back again). Is this not Hegel's suggestion (and Aristotle's?). It is also suggested when it is said that "this only is desirable for itself", hence the relative or not so relative nihilism as close cousin to the true metaphysics.

Stephen Theron.