Talk:Peripatetic axiom

Philosophy: Epistemology / Science / Medieval Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Epistemology
	Philosophy of science
	Medieval philosophy

It sounds Greek, not Latin, to me...

Okay, does it still need to be cleaned up? It looks nice to me. --JDitto 19:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A different Latin expression of the axiom

I just came across this Latin sentence in Susanne Langer's "Philosophy in a New Key": "Nihil est in homine quod non prius in amoeba erat." I googled to find a translation and found this in "Emotion and Meaning in La Bohème: An Application of the Aesthetic Constructs of Leonard B. Meyer": 'This concept is expressed in the Peripatetic Axiom: “Nihil est in homine quod non prius in amoeba erat" (Nothing is in the intellect that was not first in the senses).'

Is this indeed another way of expressing the Axiom in Latin? If so, perhaps someone would care to add it to the entry. Nick (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of the Latin there is "Nothing is in man that was not first in the amoeba." In other words, it's a punning adaptation of the principle to evolutionary theory. Given the title of the works you found it in, I wouldn't be surprised if the authors copied it from somewhere, not realizing that it was not the original axiom. 2604:3D09:7B80:CC0:58E2:2FB4:5BD4:EF06 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]