>A correction: our grammar is subject/predicate based, not
>subject/object
>based. The grammar fulfills the general pragmatic function of first
>stating the topic (or subject) to be discussed, and then saying
>something about it (the comment or predicate). (In other words,
>different meanings of the word "subject" (and "object").)
>
>But on philosophical subjects and objects, I read somewhere that the
>first philosophic use of the terms "subjective" and "objective" (or
>there Greek equivalents) was among the Stoics, i.e., post-Aristotle,
>and
>read somewhere else (I need a better filing system) that the locus of
>the two switched between medieval times and ours, that is, the
>objective
>was ideational, the subjective phenomenal.
>
>And, of course, my oft-mentioned Barfield gives a well-argued thesis
>contrary to your thoughts about Homer having any concepts like
>"subject"
>and "object", and couldn't have, since consciousness didn't evolve into
>subject/object form until later.
>
>- Scott
Though some of this is quite interesting, I often find things discussed in this forum hard to read because, as is much of what's above, so much of what I read feels, to me, to be a lot of nitpicking.
No offense intended to Scott or anyone else personally, but when I come check my mail and find 75 emails completely filled with this sort of thing (not that a lot of it isn't interesting nitpicking, it's just so excessive), I find myself just deleting it all. I've got five books I'm reading at the moment and its just plain hard to keep up.
Cheers,
--Nate
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 25 2002 - 16:06:33 BST