Helmut, lists,
Aristotle's 10 categories in "Categories" include _/poiein/_ (to do, to
make) and _/paschein/_ (to suffer, to undergo), such as 'to cauterize'
and 'to be cauterized'. He also discusses _/energeia/_ (activity) and
_/entelechia/_, both of which are sometimes translated as 'actuality'.
Both the final and the formal causes are conceived of as act as cause.
Aquinas distinguishes between _/act as action/_ and _/act as form/_.
It starts with two of Aristotle's categories, becomes three principles,
and ends up with four causes.
As far as I can tell, the Ancient Greek infinitive _/paschein/_ means
'to suffer', 'to undergo', while the Latin deponent infinitive employed
to translate it, _/pati/_, has a divergent sense of 'enduring' in the
sense of 'not succumbing to'. This helps make sense of the idea of
_/act/_ as the extent to which the patient _/does/_ succumb. And there
classical philosophy goes no further.
However, _/agens/_ *:* necessity :: _/patiens/_ *:* possibility, ergo
passive forms of both _/agens/_ and _/patiens/_ must be principles. The
extent to which the _/patiens/_ does not succumb to the _/agens/_ must
be the _/passum/_, the borne, the balanced, which, with due stability,
is form as structure as cause. I don't mean to sound melodramatic, but
that's the two cents' worth that keeps me interested in philosophy.
Best, Ben
On 5/6/2015 9:04 PM, Helmut Raulien wrote:
Hi!!
Agent, Patient, and Effect are a triadic affair, call it relation,
call it what you want, but they are triadic. If there is no effect,
there was no activity (no Agens). If there was nothing to be the
subject, there was no patiens. If there was no effect, there were
neither both of them. If there was one of them, there were all three.
So, anything means that there are agent, patient, and effect. You do
not need to be called "Peirce" to understand that. Best! Helmut
*Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 07. Mai 2015 um 01:15 Uhr
*Von:* "Benjamin Udell" <[email protected]>
*An:* "<[email protected]>" <[email protected]>,
"Peirce-L 1" <[email protected]>
*Betreff:* Re: [PEIRCE-L] RE: [biosemiotics:8580] Re: Natural
Jeff D., lists,
Where does Peirce discuss agent and patient as a dyadic relation? I'm
willing to believe that he does so. I recall (perhaps inaccurately)
that he called the sign's object the _/agent/ _ and the sign itself
the _/patient/ _, but didn't call the interpretant the _/act/ _.
- Best, Ben
On 5/6/2015 1:48 PM, Jeffrey Brian Downard wrote:
-----------------------------
PEIRCE-L subscribers: Click on "Reply List" or "Reply All" to REPLY ON PEIRCE-L
to this message. PEIRCE-L posts should go to [email protected] . To
UNSUBSCRIBE, send a message not to PEIRCE-L but to [email protected] with the
line "UNSubscribe PEIRCE-L" in the BODY of the message. More at
http://www.cspeirce.com/peirce-l/peirce-l.htm .
