It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Anankē, What is it, and is it Anything We Need To Be Concerned About?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



Anankē, What is it, and is it Anything We Need To Be Concerned About?


I searched about the word "Anankē" which you found peculiar. I came up with the following :

Strong´s Greek: 318

anagké: necessity
Original Word: ἀνάγκη, ης, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: anagké
Phonetic Spelling: (an-ang-kay')
Short Definition: necessity, constraint, compulsion
Definition: necessity, constraint, compulsion; there is need to; force, violence.


Alas, and woe! To the cosmos there is this thing, the Anankē, and don't let it crush you!


Here is Matthew 18:7 in Greek with emphasis added to the word which you reffering:


οὐαὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἀπὸ τῶν σκανδάλων ἀνάγκη γάρ ἐστιν ἐλθεῖν τὰ σκάνδαλα πλὴν οὐαὶ τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐκείνῳ δι᾽ οὗ τὸ σκάνδαλον ἔρχεται


Source

Hope that helps.

Peace




posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 04:21 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd


The Seven Rules of Hillel are to be employed in all cases in scripture.

Wasn't Hillel the father of Mishnah? Born in Babylon?
This jumped out at me from the link you provided:

THE SEVEN RULES OF HILLEL
2. G'zerah Shavah (Equivalence of expresions)

An analogy is made between two separate texts on the basis of a similar phrase, word or root – i.e., where the same words are applied to two separate cases, it follows that the same considerations apply to both.

Tenakh example: By comparing 1 Samuel 1:10 to Judges 13:5 using the phrase "no razor shall touch his head" we may conlude that Samuel, like Samson, was a nazarite.

"New Testament" example: In Hebrews 3:6-4:13 Paul compares Psalms 95:7-11 = Hebrews 3:7-11 to Genesis 2:2 = Hebrews 4:4 based on the words "works" and "day"/"today" ("today" in Hebrew is literally "the day"). Paul uses this exogesis to conclude that there will be 6,000 years of this world followed by a 1,000 year Shabbat.

Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, for one thing. And why must a word written in Greek by the author, first be translated into Hebrew in order to get its meaning?

Equivalence of meaning: I often use a word or concept from a source in order to refute that very concept.

Why even attempt to interpret Hebrews 3&4 in this manner, in order to arrive at this 6,000 year scheme, when people can more easily read it from Epistle of Barnabas? Is that merely a twisting of canonical text to fit a non-canonical teaching?

So must we conclude by this rule two of Hillel that if Jesus used the same words that Hillel did, then Jesus must never have contradicted Hillel?



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 05:48 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 

He goes away from the Dead Sea Scroll version of metaphysics and goes into a personal ethic, "woe to you who cause little ones to stumble." If there is some angel of darkness so what? You (teacher) are not exempt from responsibility for your own actions. The Father doesn't want any little one to perish. vs 14.
I think this is what Jesus did, was he took all these things people already had in their heads from preachers of various sects, and he went through these ideas by contradicting them. That worked for them, back in that time. It helps us when we can now see some of these things he was refuting.
I maybe take a more gnostic view where there is a universe and things just work a certain way inside that universe. The gods inside that universe are just aspects of the nature of that universe. Our only hope is to look to a bigger power, one beyond the existence of a universe.
ETA: meaning for a vindication of our lives, meanwhile taking responsibility, from which vindication should be expected.
edit on 15-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Back to this idea of a Stoic connection with Paul, I wanted to make a comment about that, and it has to do with my getting the other book I had ordered, in the mail today, Jesus according to Paul. This is a book published by Cambridge University Press, and it is this one author's search in Paul's writings, for Jesus. Just from my short amount of time looking through it, there is not too much to talk about, as far as there being Jesus teachings, as teachings of Jesus, in Paul. That does not mean, none, but little. What this little is, seems interesting in how it may influence this question of whether Paul was teaching ethics from a somewhat stoical viewpoint. I am no expert, but I could imagine myself as a Stoic, and I had some pretty good philosophy about how to live my life, except one thing, should I get married and have a wife? Would doing so harm or help my stoic pursuits? This is essentially the very things where Paul cutts through the philosophy and says, "So commands the Lord".



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   
reply to post by pthena
 




Wasn't Hillel the father of Mishnah? Born in Babylon? This jumped out at me from the link you provided:


The Mishnah is a text along with the Talmud. Hillel did serve in their development.



Hebrews wasn't written by Paul, for one thing. And why must a word written in Greek by the author, first be translated into Hebrew in order to get its meaning?


Correct. As Origen said, "Only God knows." The copy Jerome had was in Hebrew. I think you are confusing the process of rightly dividing truth. It comes by comparing context and association with lesser and greater examples. Read the Seven Rules closely. One reading is not enough to get it. This is a process that must be practiced like working a puzzle. It takes skill and time to master.



So must we conclude by this rule two of Hillel that if Jesus used the same words that Hillel did, then Jesus must never have contradicted Hillel?


It's not merely the word itself, but the context and association with other uses of the word. Go back and read the list of verses that I posted where the word is used. There are also other opportunities to compare by associating the word in other historical documents such as the Dead Sea Scrolls. Once you start down this path, a world of other truths will emerge. Take your time. Practice and master the Seven Rules. God delights in us when we rightly divide light from darkness. The Word is a mystery to be solved.



edit on 15-10-2011 by SuperiorEd because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

. . .the process of rightly dividing truth. . .
Is this something Thoth teaches?
Just wondering. I mentioned earlier how this is in one of the Timothy "letters", and asked you if you knew about this term having another source. You brought up hermeneutics. Do they talk about rightly dividing things?



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 07:46 AM
link   
For a bit of a preliminary review on the Jesus According to Paul book, it is not what I was expecting but maybe just as good. That is not me endorsing it, but saying I did not expect too much. I liked something which I had read in the description on Amazon that sounded encouraging, which is that the author ignored the disputed books supposedly by Paul, in the bulk of the book. After reading Bart Ehrman's book, Forged, I was not too thrilled by this author's, Furnish, take on the Book of Acts. Where there are discrepancies between Paul and Acts, he seems to want to reconcile them by pushing Paul towards Acts, something I find reprehensible. He ties Acts in with Luke, which he proclaims to be the earliest Gospel. If that is true, then the beginnings of that tradition, behind Acts, was what Paul was already opposing in Galatians, and even more reason, to me, to not accept that version over Paul's.

I want to quote a sentence from the Paul and the Stoics as an example of how the author, Pedersen, constructs his sentences. I mentioned how this was a scholarly academic type of work but it is not so enigmatic as a lot of that sort can be, and he seems to have been a lecturer who probably took questions from his pupils and has a good feel for what it takes to get his point across.

"The claim is only that if one is concerned about a certain range of interpretive problems of literary structure and coherence of thought that have engaged students of Paul's letters through much of the 20th century, then there is a perspective here that contributes to solving those problems and to that extent provides a reading that is good."

If anyone is interested in getting into this sort of inquiry, I found something which would be a good way to understand the issues of the philosophy of ethics, to read an Article in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy on the ethics of Aristotle. Pedersen goes into explaining that his writing a book on that same subject is what launched him into this book on Paul and the stoics.
www.iep.utm.edu...

edit on 16-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

. . .the process of rightly dividing truth. . .
Is this something Thoth teaches?
Just wondering. I mentioned earlier how this is in one of the Timothy "letters", and asked you if you knew about this term having another source. You brought up hermeneutics. Do they talk about rightly dividing things?


Yes. You need to read the Corpus Hermeticum. Thoth and Hermes mirror the lives of three people. Hermes is said to be three times great. When we mention Queen Elizabeth, the question is: Which one? The same holds true for Hermes. Hermes one lived 300 years in the service of God as a messenger from God to man. Enoch lived 300 years (365 total) in the service as a messenger from God and man. Each have a parallel to the other. Enoch I and the book of Jasher both tell the story of Enoch and early mankind struggling against the 'divine beings' of Genesis 6. The pyramids are mentioned in Isaiah 19:19 as a monument to the Lord. Connect the dots and you see that knowledge was preserved for mankind. Joseph's life after the flood mirrors the life of PtahHotep. The maxims of Ptahhotepare his writings. The third Hermes was Moses who was schooled in the courts of Egypt after Joseph interpreted the knowledge. This then leads Moses to the land of Cansan and we see the thread of truth weaving through History as God manages the path of mankind through history.

Back to the Corpus Hermeticum. You can read it online, but the best translation is a book called 'The Way of Hermes'. Four scholars translated from all copies available into a readable English translation. Compare the writings of Ptahhotep to all other Egyptian papyrus. You will see the difference. Compare Enoch I and Jasher with the others mentioned and you will see the same parallel to the Bible. All of these can be rightly divided against each other to reveal the same central truths. In other words, they agree.

The Bible is the root that can then be used as the key to unlock all other documents in the world for truth or counterfeit truth. The only way counterfeit truth can come into the mind of man is by wrapping it in some form of truth. The mind already knows truth. It only needs to be revealed to be realized. Socrates made this observation when he said that all knowledge is present in man and only needs to be realized again to be known. In other words, we possess truth which is hidden like the emerald. Once the emerald is realized, all other counterfeit truth becomes rubbish to be discarded.

Ptahhotep

"Be not arrogant because of that which you know; deal with the ignorant as with the learned; for the barriers of art are not closed, no artist being in possession of the perfection to which he should aspire. But good words are more difficult to find than the emerald, for it is by slaves that that is discovered among the rocks of pegmatite."

We are the slaves that are set free by finding the emerald. The king does not need the emeralds. He needs us to gain the knowledge by work. We earn the fruit of the tree of knowledge from our toil. See this thread. LINK



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 
Doesn't answer my question, if they talk about "dividing the truth" which seems to be a favorite of yours taken from a pseudo-biblical source, unless I can find another.
I was thinking this morning about if I had an actual philosophy or not, and I decided I did. I think it is anti-bible, if you think of the Old Testament as being Bible. Then my other term I would use for what is opposed to Bible would be, New Testament. I was trying to find a definition for the word, Supra-terrestrial and came up with only one thing that seemed at all substantial, which is a belief in another world which is not necessarily all that far away, as it is separated by a normally impenetrable barrier. The mythological description involves having this supra-terrestrial world above us but also setting on a plate of iron. This made me think of the prophecy of Ezekiel against Jerusalem, where he builds a model of the city and places a big iron plate between him and the model, representing The Lord not having the ability to hear their cries for assistance, as I take the meaning, but the point being is that an iron plate would be an indication of a high level of impenetrability by any means, such as today we might think of a lead plating being a good defense against radiation from a nuclear blast.
So here you have this world that sucks to a certain degree, then somehow another word that sucks not at all, but somewhere we can't go, or have much in the way of communication with, such as being able to call on as if the gods were sitting on a nearby mountaintop.
Now that does not mean there are not those gods sitting on a nearby mountaintop, but they are terrestrial, meaning, of this world. Believing in these gods is quite natural and we can easily see the cause and effect connection between these gods and our lives, which would lead people to worship such gods, since that seems to be a possible way to have a better life. You could take this worship to varying degrees but it all boils down to an attempt on the part of the worshipers to influence the earth gods, to manipulate them to your own benefit.
Well you can do that but when your life on this earth is over, then you are firmly placed in the grasp of those earth gods who obligingly take you to that place in the center of the earth, to spend eternity.
The alternative may be to have a different attitude where you create a mental separation between yourself and those gods, knowing that ultimately, they have nothing to offer, other than what fades away, which is a legacy. Very few people have such a lasting legacy and they may have lived a very tormented life, such as Alexander, who comes to mind. Then you accept the world as given you and learn to deal with it without calling on those near at hand, and you never worship them, and you strive to not leave a legacy so much as to have a self contained integrity which would be found appealing in the supra-terrestrial world which appeared in this life to be completely oblivious to your fate. This way of life requires faith, while the terrestrial life requires none.



edit on 16-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:09 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


If a person embraces darkness, then the light will be meaningless. The way to see clearly is to embrace light. Trying to explain away truth in some other form will only leave confusion. Eliminate the darkness first to see the light as it is.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Maybe we have a different idea of what light is.
You seem to think of a light in the earth, as in taking a spade and uncovering some rocks and then, out from a magical stone, comes forth light.
I think of a light within us that was there from birth but it gets ignored by the distractions from the delights of the senses. So there is no discovery, no excitement of novelty, just work and perseverance with what we were given, and need to put into application.
I know this probably sounds odd, but it is this thing that is in Paul, according to this Danish man I am reading, it is almost as if Paul is saying, quit seeking, stop trying to meet something external in the way of any demand on us but to properly exercise what is already internal.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 

Maybe we have a different idea of what light is.
You seem to think of a light in the earth, as in taking a spade and uncovering some rocks and then, out from a magical stone, comes forth light.
I think of a light within us that was there from birth but it gets ignored by the distractions from the delights of the senses. So there is no discovery, no excitement of novelty, just work and perseverance with what we were given, and need to put into application.
I know this probably sounds odd, but it is this thing that is in Paul, according to this Danish man I am reading, it is almost as if Paul is saying, quit seeking, stop trying to meet something external in the way of any demand on us but to properly exercise what is already internal.


We could say that light is what we see from the surface and waves. If you stand on the shore of the ocean, do you see the ocean from the surface and waves, or is there much more down deep? Light is not what we see or experience. It is much more. We reveal light from the darkness in our lives. Light reveals the darkness in our lives. They are both necessary to reflect truth.



posted on Oct, 16 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
reply to post by SuperiorEd
 
John 1 gets into the thing about light.
It seems this light has been made available to men.

As a note on my earlier post, in case anyone wonders where I got this word, supra-terrestrial from, in is in this,

By extension-2. `one who enjoys preeminence', in earthly or supra-terrestrial realm, often pl. ruler, authority Lk 12:11; Ro 8:38; 1 Cor 15:24; Eph 3:10; 6:12; Col 1:16.
Frederick William Danker. The Concise Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Kindle Location 1102). Kindle Edition.
which comes from the definition of, archē or ἀρχῇ, which is the second word in John 1:1, the beginning. Of course this in the second definition, while the first definition covered that particular verse. Using the provided verses connected to the second definition, you get, rulers, heavenly rulers, rule, rulers, the rulers, principalities, in the same order as given by Danker in that definition.

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor heavenly rulers, nor things that are present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in creation will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.




edit on 16-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 17 2011 @ 07:48 PM
link   
After further reading in Paul and the Stoics, I was convinced that the author was being objective and unbiased, so I made the investment into what the author says is a virtual sequel to the Stoics book, which is, Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul. I will quote a couple sentences from the preface:
"The book has had a long gestation. It began in the spring of 2001 when I spent a sabbatical as a Fulbright Scholar at Yale Divinity School and began to study Paul's language on the body. I also spent a considerable amount of time on its ideas in 2003-7 as part of a research project on `Philosophy at the Roots of Christianity' generously sponsored by the Danish Research Council for the Humanities." Troels Engberg-Pedersen. Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit (p. vii). Kindle Edition.
The book was published Spring of 2010.
This is a clue, to me, for why he can be impartial, because of the nature of his funding which is just the general pursuit of knowledge in the humanities, so he is not beholden to any religious institution to have results favorable to them.
What the author is doing in this book is showing how there are different ways to understand what someone has written, and you should take some of it as metaphorical, some of it as what he calls cognitive, and some as concrete. His contention is that during a lot of the study of the writings of Paul, people have looked at it mostly in a backwards sort of way, attempting to extract from it a theology which probably was not there in the first place. He seems to focus on aspects of it where people have taken things he meant very concretely, meaning things that exist in the material world and can be described in a way derived from direct observation. Theologians have taken those things and made it to be understood in a more ethereal, or spiritual way, which is not what Paul meant.
So that was just me giving my take on a book I probably spent twenty minutes looking at but have ideas about by reading parts of the book this is the sequel to.
edit on 17-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   

What new god is there, except a false one? Not even Saturn will be proved to be a god by all his ancient fame, because it was a novel pretence which some time or other produced even him, when it first gave him godship. On the contrary, living and perfect Deity has its origin neither in novelty nor in antiquity, but in its own true nature. Eternity has no time. It is itself all time. It acts; it cannot then suffer. It cannot be born, therefore it lacks age. God, if old, forfeits the eternity that is to come; if new, the eternity which is past. The newness bears witness to a beginning; the oldness threatens an end. God, moreover, is as independent of beginning and end as He is of time, which is only the arbiter and measurer of a beginning and an end.
Tertullian (2010-05-28). Against Marcion (Kindle Locations 163-168).
I downloaded this last night from Amazon, while doing some research on Marcion, and ran across this today and am thinking this is Tertullian's argument against Marcion's central theses about the true God. I have always found it difficult to "get" these ancient writers, as to how they see their logic as being logic.
Marcion believed there was a god who made the world and we did not find out about the actual God who created the Universe as a whole, until it was revealed to us by Jesus. It should be taken note here how contemptuous Tertullian is with this explanation.

when I hear of a new god, who, in the old world and in the old time and under the old god was unknown and unheard of; whom, (accounted as no one through such long centuries back, and ancient in men's very ignorance of him), a certain "Jesus Christ," and none else revealed; whom Christ revealed, they say--Christ himself new, according to them, even, in ancient names--I feel grateful for this conceit of theirs. For by its help I shall at once be able to prove the heresy of their tenet of a new deity.
Against Marcion (Kindle Locations 159-162)
Hey! What happened to all that about Jesus being of the godhead, and all that Trinity ideology? Looks like Jesus is too insignificant of a player in world events to have so grand a role as to be the giver of the revelation of the true ultimate god, in the eyes of Tertulian, who is supposed to be on the non-heretical side in this match-up of religions.
edit on 18-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   
I downloaded another book last night in my quest of trying to figure out where Paul is coming from. I'll quote a line from it:

Other Manuscripts. But what about the other manuscripts? Do they all have the same sequence for the letters of Paul? I dedicated two years of my doctoral studies to finding an answer to this question.
David Trobisch (2009-04-18). Paul's Letter Collection: Tracing the Origins (Kindle Locations 605-607). Quiet Waters Publications: FromTheScholarsDesk.com.
What he is talking about is the order of four books, from letters of Paul, Romans, 1&2 Corinthians, and Galatians, which don't make sense from the standpoint of a book publisher trying to fit all the pages right, in books that were bound, and then written in. His contention is that it was Paul himself who arranged them this way, as his own canon to have copied and generally distributed.
edit on 19-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I'm looking at Logos and Muthos in Google books because it came up after doing a search for Anankē. This is a book dealing with the connection between the Greek philosophers and ancient Greek writers of plays and other non-philosophical works. From a description in this book of one way the concept represented by this word was used is, something like what is described in the NT book of James, where the author of that book is giving a saying of Jesus about trees. He says a good tree bears good fruit and a bad tree bears bad fruit. The reason you could come to this conclusion about trees and there fruit is the understood existence of this invisible force that exerts itself to make sure that the cause and effect works out the way it should.



posted on Oct, 19 2011 @ 11:43 PM
link   
Doing a search for the word Ananke, without the macron over the e, in Wikipedia, I found a definition for this sort of construct I brought up in my last post,

An anankastic conditional is a grammatical construction of the form
If you want X, you have to do Y.
where Y is required in order to get X. For example:
If you wanna be my lover, you have got to get with my friends.
Wikipedia
That's interesting.
There is this word, Ananke, turning up in relation to the fates, sometimes being the mother of (necessity the mother of invention?) the fates, and sometimes one of the three fates, along with Moira and Dikē.

Here she is pictured holding a spindle.
She as a primordial deity sits next to Chronos and marks the beginning of the cosmos.
The worship of her as having to do with the inevitability of death was gradually replaced by the worship of Eros, love.

She is here depicted as bearing a torch, as the bringer of light.
She is the one who is incorporeal of the triad (Thesis, Khronos, and Ananke), so would be comparable to the third person of the godhead in the Christian pantheon (the Holy Ghost, or the Holy Spirit). Thesis apparently was the Monad before there was a diad, then the subsequent triad. The original One is unspoken, as in too holy to even speak of.
edit on 20-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 02:10 AM
link   
A web site quotes some ancient Greek writer where they mention Ananke, which have interesting descriptions of the operation of this deity who holds sway over the universe itself.
Of special interest to me is what they got from a Greek lexicon that dates back to maybe the 960's

Suidas s.v. Anankei (trans. Suda On Line) (Byzantine Greek Lexicon C10th A.D.) :
"Anankei : With Anankei (Necessity) not even gods fight." - Suidas s.v. Anankei

Suidas s.v. Ananke :
"Ananke (Necessity) : In the Epigrams : `See how all-wise Ananke (Necessity) taught him to find an escape from Hades.' And a proverb: 'The gods do not fight against Ananke (Necessity).' It recommends that one should be satisfied with what is available."
Theoi
People believed that the cosmos was spun up out of un-ordered mass into what it is and that in the spinning up of it, there were things fixed that could never be unraveled, to where the very gods had to accept it as it exists. Seems even Jesus recognized this as a fact.

edit on 20-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Aristotle defined terms, Anankē being one of them. I am quoting that section of book 5 of Metaphysics:

We call 'necessary' (1) (a) that without which, as a condition, a thing cannot live; e.g.

breathing and food are necessary for an animal; for it is incapable of existing without these;

(b) the conditions without which good cannot be or come to be, or without which we cannot

get rid or be freed of evil; e.g. drinking the medicine is necessary in order that we may be

cured of disease, and a man's sailing to Aegina is necessary in order that he may get his

money.-(2) The compulsory and compulsion, i.e. that which impedes and tends to hinder,

contrary to impulse and purpose. For the compulsory is called necessary (whence the

necessary is painful, as Evenus says: 'For every necessary thing is ever irksome'), and

compulsion is a form of necessity, as Sophocles says: 'But force necessitates me to this act'.

And necessity is held to be something that cannot be persuaded-and rightly, for it is contrary

to the movement which accords with purpose and with reasoning.-(3) We say that that which

cannot be otherwise is necessarily as it is. And from this sense of 'necessary' all the others

are somehow derived; for a thing is said to do or suffer what is necessary in the sense of

compulsory, only when it cannot act according to its impulse because of the compelling

forces-which implies that necessity is that because of which a thing cannot be otherwise; and

similarly as regards the conditions of life and of good; for when in the one case good, in the

other life and being, are not possible without certain conditions, these are necessary, and this

kind of cause is a sort of necessity. Again, demonstration is a necessary thing because the

conclusion cannot be otherwise, if there has been demonstration in the unqualified sense; and

the causes of this necessity are the first premisses, i.e. the fact that the propositions from

which the syllogism proceeds cannot be otherwise. Now some things owe their necessity to

something other than themselves; others do not, but are themselves the source of necessity in

other things. Therefore the necessary in the primary and strict sense is the simple; for this

does not admit of more states than one, so that it cannot even be in one state and also in

another; for if it did it would already be in more than one. If, then, there are any things that

are eternal and unmovable, nothing compulsory or against their nature attaches to them.

Aristotle, Metaphysics

I found out something interesting today about this title, Metaphysics, that Aristotle did not use that as a term or title but it was a first century editor who took this 14 part collection and designated them to be read AFTER reading Physics, which was a work by Aristotle, properly titled.
edit on 20-10-2011 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join