I realized today, when this question hit the front page again, that this answer is not only wrong (for which I've already downvoted) but also mostly not an answer. The author hasn't been back since posting it last August. Should we edit it down to the parts that actually address the question? Something else?
Sometimes personal belief, not dispassionate analysis, governs actions.
We all have biases; it's part of being human, and it's certainly part of participating on a site about religion. But we're looking for questions and answers that start from the text and follow some logical path to answers. ...
Am I just missing the point entirely here or is this answer illogical and hard to follow? I'm just not sure because it was upvoted so clearly at least one other person found it helpful. I think it has the potential to be an interesting point, I just have no idea how he is getting from point A to point B. As it stands, it seems nonsensical and irrelevant to me. It doesn't directly answer the question.
Aristotle's point is that the question "why?" (δἱα τἱ;) is the foundation of what we call "science." Just because the question uses the preposition δἱα does not mean Aristotle is commenting on that meaning of the word itself. He is critiquing Plato's philosophy of Forms. Unless I'm missing something....
@swasheck so I actually think hannes may have a point, although a very anecdotal and philosophical one that likely has little bearing on this text (I suspect even if Aristotle did discuss the meaning of the word, applying it to this would be anachronistic as well as foolish since philosophers frequently use words in new ways - why else would he need to argue for additional meanings if they were common?)
@swasheck but my suspicion is that the author of this book is misunderstanding Aristotle's intentions. Just because his primary question uses the preposition does not mean he is intending to engage in a philological debate. He is explaining meaning/existence itself
@swasheck bingo, I'm actually surprised he gave me a source at all, but there are still connecting dots that need to be made to make it relevant to the text, as I requested:
Please clarify your actual response to the question. I don't see how Aristotle's four causes is relevant as they actually have nothing to do with the meaning of the preposition as much as nature itself. Also, as it stands this is more of a comment than an answer. Explain how it is relevant (i.e. identify some more sources closer to the writing of Romans as well. Aristotle predates the writing of Romans by approximately 380 years. His thoughts on a preposition may be somewhat anachronistic - but not necessarily). — Dan2 days ago
@swasheck haha but i asked for a second opinion because i want to give the user the benefit of the doubt on this one. I've told you my initial hunch, but if there is a smidgeon of a chance hannes has a valid point I want to at least throw him an upvote. I'm just not following the logic thus far
@Dan i'm generally skeptical of an overly philosophical approach to linguistics. it requires a LOT of work to connect classical philosophy to hellenistic literature.
@swasheck but we have no clear proof that Paul read Philo (to my knowledge), but then again they may have been intellectually similar (but most Protestants seem to argue against this)
Sometimes personal belief, not dispassionate analysis, governs actions.
We all have biases; it's part of being human, and it's certainly part of participating on a site about religion. But we're looking for questions and answers that start from the text and follow some logical path to answers. ...
The Library
The Library