Heidegger

Cologne 22-Dec-2007
Cologne 21-Dec-2007

——– Original Message ——–
Betreff: Copula a misnomer for the verb ‘to be’ in its “absolute”
signification
Datum: Sun, 16 Dec 2007 12:37:26 +0100
Von: Michael Eldred
Rückantwort: artefact at web.de
Firma: http://www.webcom.com/artefact/
An: “Heidegger, An-archos”
Referenzen:

Cologne 16-Dec-2007

Joseph Polanik schrieb Sat, 15 Dec 2007 10:41:18 -0500:

> >>>ME: My observation was that in referring to “all that is”, one can
> >>>already say that it is. ‘Is’ is already the predicate predicated for
> >>>”all that is”.
>
> >>JP: here you are simply making up a rule of grammar to suit yourself.
> >>’is’ by itself is not a predicate; but, its implicit complement would
> >>be a predicate.
>
> >ME: I don’t have to make up a rule of grammar, but merely point out
> >that the simplest sentence consists of a subject and something said
> >about that subject, i.e. a predicate. … Of “all that is” one can
> >simply say, “It is”. Thus “is” is already invoked as predicate before
> >you get a chance to choose your so-called “root predicate”.
>
> >Your escape from this dilemma has been to declare “is” to be not a
> >predicate, but a “copula” which necessarily must not say (predicate)
> >anything at all in order to avoid being a predicate. Unfortunately,
> >”is” does say something, and is a perfectly acceptable predicate for
> >the simplest of all sentences.
>
> JP: the term ‘copula’ has been in use since the 12th century when Abelard
> coined it; but, the concept is much older.

ME: Only if one stupidly confuses ‘copula’ with Aristotelean _synthesis_
(see below).

> Aristotle:
> “Verbs in and by themselves are substantival and have significance, for
> he who uses such expressions arrests the hearer’s mind, and fixes his
> attention; but they do not, as they stand, express any judgement, either
> positive or negative. For neither are ‘to be’ and ‘not to be’ the
> participle ‘being’ significant of any fact, unless something is added;
> for they do not themselves indicate anything, but imply a copulation, of
> which we cannot form a conception apart from the things coupled.”
> [Aristotle, De Interpretationis. (translated by E. M. Edghill).
> http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interp…]
>
> JP: some translators use ’synthesis’ to translate the greek word Edghill
> translates as ‘copulation’; but, the meaning is clear: the word that
> performs the copular or synthetic function links subject and predicate.

ME: Edghill is a dope for thoughtlessly replacing the perfectly good
“synthesis” with “copulation”, which grammatically means something
entirely
different (see below).

>
> JP: if you have suddenly decided that ‘is/am’ is not a copular verb (as
> has
> been thought for centuries); then, you have created a new rule of
> grammar.

ME: Insofar as ‘be’ has been “thought for centuries” exclusively as “a
copular verb”, thinking has failed to think (see more below).

In the place of your Axiom 0, which I have translated as:
‘For all that is there is something to be said, namely a predicate P,
that
can be said of all x, where x is among all that is.’
I have made the simple observation that:
‘For all that is there is something to be said, namely, that it is.’

“It is.” is already a perfectly well-formed proposition (which you
obviously
deny). The ontological question is then, what does it mean, i.e. the
meaning
of being.
If you dispute that “It is” does not require a so-called complement,
then
look up the OED under the verb “be” and read the first signification of
this
verb, which the OED describes as “absolutely” signifying (Webster’s
Unabridged Third New International Dictionary also has this “absolute”
signification of the verb “be”).
E.g. “Tyrants and sycophants have been and are.” Byron 1823
So I am not inventing any “new grammatical rule”, but merely listening
to
what the English language already says.

You’re not wanting to claim that there is no such thing as an
intransitive
verb, are you? You obviously confuse the grammatical term ‘predicate’
with
the grammatical term ‘object of a verb’. A predicate may consist of a
verb
alone, a verb + noun object, or many other combinations.

As to your above quotation from _Peri hermaeneias_ 16b20-26, it concerns
verbs standing alone. They are then, Aristotle says, regarded as nouns
(_onomata_) such as _to einai_ (being) or _to on_ (the being). The
translation is also not much use at all, and in fact has succeeded in
entirely misleading you in your fixation on a so-called “root
predicate”.
Take the last part::
_oude gar to einai ae mae einai saemeion esti tou pragmatos, oud’ ean to
on
eipaes auto kath heauto psilon. auto men gar ouden esti, prossaemainei
de
synthesin tina, haen aneu toon synkeimenoon ouk esti noaesai_ (16b23-24)
“Being or non-being namely is not a sign of the practical thing, not
even if
you would say the bare being itself in itself. In itself namely it is
nothing, but signifies/points to in addition a synthesis which without
the
elements that lie together is not to be (cannot be) thought.”

This says that the stand-alone verb (treated as a noun) says nothing in
itself without that which “lies together” with it, i.e. the verb must
say
something _of_ something, namely, the _pragma_ which “lies together”
with it
as the subject (_to hypokeimenon_, lit. ‘that which underlies’). In
other
words, the simplest proposition is a synthesis of subject and predicate,
which latter may be a verb. The fact that Edghill uses “copulation” for
_synthesin_ shows what a lousy, unthinking translator he is.
The so-called copula couples subject and object: Aristotle, however,
thinks
the simple _logos_ as both a _synthesis_ and a _diairesis_, both a
‘putting
together’ and a ‘taking apart’, or, as Hegel puts it, an identity of
identity and difference. These are formulations that modern smarties can
no
longer think. Ontology in our day degenerates to a matter of mere
taxonomy
and classification.

To sum up, according to Aristotle, to say merely “is”, does not suffice
as a
proposition (which for Aristotle is either a _kataphasis_ or an
_apophasis_,
an affirmation or a denial, a ’saying toward’ or a ’saying away’),
whereas
“It is”, where the pronoun “it” stands for “all that is”, is a perfectly
good proposition, for in this proposition we clearly have a synthesis of
verb (as predicate) and that about which it is said, namely, the
subject.
And then we are confronted with the enigma of the meaning of being
itself,
with which great thinkers in the modern age, viz. Hegel and Heidegger,
grappled.

_-_-_-_-_-_-_- artefact text and translation _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- made by art _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ http://www.webcom.com/artefact/ _-_-_-_- artefact at t-online.de _-_
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_ Dr Michael Eldred -_-_-
_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_

Posted on Monday, December 24th, 2007 at 6:05 am
comment | rss 2.0 | trackback