The relationship found after an expanded interpretation is not necessarily the same as the relationship to the original concept.

https://gyazo.com/20e85a90b0c2cc7de6f6ff7e1f3e24aa

Mr. A talks about concept X

Over time it gets magnified.

Mr. B talks about the relationship R between "expanded concept X" and concept Y

A later viewer gets confused by the thought that Mr. B talked about "the relationship between 'concept X' and Y that Mr. A talked about".

Suppose Mr. A creates concept X, and after some time Mr. B claims that there is a relationship between concept X and concept Y.

Not that Mr. A would agree that "Concept X and Concept Y are related."

At this time, "A's concept X" and "B's concept X" are not equal

Confusion arises by calling both of these two different concepts "Concept X".

So at the "Aristotle's Metaphysics" stage, there's no materialism involved with that.

Aristotle, who died in 322 B.C., thinks

Materialism in the 17th century

In between the two is the great event of the rise of Christianity.

So Leibniz is taking the "God created the world with a purpose" position and criticizing the "idea that the world exists without a transcendent purpose is not pious."

If you equate it with Aristotle's ideas before Christianity, confusion will spread.

So is the word "metaphysics" itself.

Western Zhou? appropriated the I Ching term for "metaphysics" and gave it the name "metaphysics" does not mean that Aristotle or any medieval philosopher thought there was a connection between metaphysics and the I Ching.

Aristotle (384-322 BC) wrote an unnamed section on "What is Being?"

Around 30 AC Andronicus arranged and placed it after the ta physika (book on nature)

Since it did not have a name, it was called 'metapsychica' with meta meaning 'later' and became metaphysics in later times.

Are there any philosophers making the philosophical claim that they are related?

relevance

Have more theorists in the post-Derrida era been using the theory of deconstruction as a support in their own field?

I get the impression that most of the blog posts that come up on Google are on Mr. B's side.

I still think it's important to check the original source.

Mr. A's opinion and Mr. B's opinion are naturally different, but they are equated, or even Mr. B's opinion is overestimated by the prestige of Mr. A.

If it's Mr. A's opinion I want to know, then I'd better ignore Mr. B and listen to Mr. A.

---