Talk:Physis

Comments

The article as it stands is an essay about a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It could be rewritten into an article about whatever topic or topics the word covers. --Xyzzyplugh 00:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have altered it considerably. If it is still about a word, that word is of crucial importance in the development of ideas. There are several books written about just this word. Is each such book a dictionary, of a rather limited and restricted sort? No. This article and those books are about a concept.

– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 23:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

What about this word related to physics?...because in this article, there is none mention the word related to physics...che (talk) 08:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Che, we have the following text in the article:

Since Aristotle, the physical (the subject matter of physics, properly τὰ φυσικά "natural things") has often been contrasted with metaphysical (the subject of metaphysics), discussed in Aristotle's works so titled, Physics and Metaphysics.

Given its context here, this shows the connection between physis and physics. It includes a link to the article Physics. That article in turn links to this one, and this one provides the etymology that is needed at that article.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 09:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there's plenty to be learned about the Greek concept of 'nature' from Aristotle's texts, but I think the physical/metaphysical distinction is anachronistic. Contrary to what is alleged in the article, Aristotle never titled any of his works "Metaphysics." In the earliest collections of Aristotle's works, what we now call "Metaphysics" was simply the work that came after the "Physics". The modern title of that work dates back to the early latin translators. [Who wrote that? Noetica^Tea? 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)]

physis

wt is mutual force? wt is capacitor?wt do u know about it? capacitance? electomotive force —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.63.226.227 (talk) 19:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Another article?

There also appears to be a phusis page: are the two translations distinct? Admittedly, my knowledge of ancient Greek is quite embarrassing, so maybe someone more knowledgeable can clarify. Thanks. Krea 15:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, Krea. It is exactly the same word. They are just different transcriptions, since the Greek letter υ (upsilon) turns up in English as either u or y. (Note hubris and hybrid, also from a single source.) In fact, the form phusis is definitely to be preferred. I contributed to the present article some time ago; but I am now doing very little editing at Wikipedia (for "political" reasons), and will not do this work of merging. But I do propose that this page be merged into phusis. That page should then be expanded and improved. Note that there are redirects to here already in place from Φύσις and Φυσις – two ways of representing the original Greek word.– Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Noetica: I suspected that my (very basic) knowledge of ancient Greek (or at least, their alphabet) was not wrong, but I wanted to make sure from someone with more authority on the subject than I. I'll try to sort this merging thing out... Krea 13:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding this in this section of the talk because its the only place where phusis is mentioned.

I see the French wikipedia spelling is phusis not physis, and that the French introductory definition is a little different from what is here... even with Google Translate fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phusis.

Two other points not mentioned in the current English article:

→ Martin Heidegger's use of the term (mentioned in the French wiki page, more details here: )

→ The French philosopher of science Bruno Latour when speaking / written slides in English uses the spelling Phusis (and other videos)

I'd like to propose that for these reasons

1. The spelling phusis be added as alternative to the English article, otherwise people searching for phusis will end up with the shorter/less detailed French wiki page (this is what happened to me)

2. That a reference to Heidegger's use of the term and his definition be added (which is what Latour is citing though he doesn't mention it in this clip)

I'm not expert enough in this to feel comfortable making these changes...

Aupward (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Thoreau allusion

I don't believe Thoreau specifically mentions "physis" in Walden. At least I can't find the reference. While I agree that the concepts referenced in Spring could be understood in terms of physis, I think the current way in which it is stated is misleading. If there is a secondary source which confirms the reading, it needs to be posted. If not, I think that the statement qualifies as original research. 76.184.224.225 (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted, Anonymous! I searched on all likely terms in Thoreau's text, and found nothing. So I have deleted that allusion. ☺ Noetica^Tea? 10:07, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Citations in Classical Usage section

The middle of the "Philosophical Use …" para -- "This is the basis of today's classic biological debate" through "The Greeks would refer to law, order, and rationalism as "nomos"." needs a source. The remainder of the para -- starting with "Women in general …" -- is poorly sourced. A google search for "nomos physis Phaedra OR Medea OR maenads" yields Kosak's Heroic Measures as the first hit. FN 76 there indicates "The nomos-physis debate turns up in just about every genre of Greek literature in the fifth century, including the Hippocratic Corpus (most obviously in Airs, Waters, Places, cf. esp. 14 and 24). For scholarly discussion, see Heinemann 1945 [Nomos und Physis] and Kerfred 1981 [The Sophistic Movement] Ch. 10." humanengr (talk) 06:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that's because a lot of that paragraph is plagiarized from my earlier article: https://quatr.us/greeks/nomos-physis-greek-philosophy.htm I'd appreciate the plagiarism being removed.

"Mathematics, music, and architecture, which all follow strict sets of rules and attempt to order nature, are all good examples of nomos. Architecture brings space under control, music brings noise under control, and mathematics brings the infinite under control. For this reason, Greek men liked all three of these arts very much." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:B:50F7:94B:B8DA:3B:CE26 (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Physis or Physikos in chapter one of St Paul to the Romans?

My concordance (Clinton Morrison 1979) says the word used in Romans 1:26 and 1:27 is physikos not physis. The verse number for the quote also seems to be 1:27 not 1:26.

Could the statement in the article be checked and if necessary corrected by someone with a real knowledge of NT Greek? (I tried to check myself in a Greek Testament, but the words physis and physikos are too similar for my extremely limited knowledge of the inflexions. There do not seem to be any notes on manuscript differences belonging to these verses, however).

This may sound pedantic, but the meaning of the verse is theologically significant; it is not one of those things where incorrect information on it has no real life consequences! FloweringOctopus (talk) 08:45, 11 May 2023 (UTC)