From LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat Mar 6 22:48:26 2010 Reply-To: John Cowan Sender: Lojban list Date: Mon Apr 07 16:49:27 1997 X-UIDL: 860446127.000 From: John Cowan Organization: Lojban Peripheral Subject: Philosophy (was: CPE: Corliss Lamont) X-To: Lojban List To: John Cowan Status: U X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 1719 X-From-Space-Date: Mon Apr 07 16:49:27 1997 X-From-Space-Address: - Message-ID: la xorxes. cusku di'e > I think philosophy has to be a saske. [...] > Any suggestions from the philosophers? pc denounced this view, which was the original Loglan view, as long ago as 1980, and I posted his remarks to this list on 18 October 1993. I will repeat them here. [...] The L4/L5 (1975) word for "philosophy" is (the equivalent of) "pensi zei sakse", think-science. (Institute Loglan doesn't have an equivalent of "nun-".) In TL4/4:200, {pycy. cusku di'e} > This ... word is one of the worst items in the established Loglan > vocabulary. Philosophy is not any kind of a science -- even the > pickwickian sorts that astrology or sociology are -- and hence is not > the science of thought, in particular. That title might better go to > psychology, were it may not fit well, but certainly better than it does > for philosophy.... Since no canons of the scientific method -- and no > appeal to evidence of a scientific sort -- is relevant here, the best > words are surely those from the fields of airy argumentation. Since > the subjects are words and/or ideads dealt with in a strange way or > ideologies ditto ("the analysis of concepts and the criticism of beliefs" > we used to say) how about something from [ciste ke sidbo darlu] > (the [ke] is to cover the two phases -- the systematic discussion of > ideas and the discussion -- admittedly also systematic, in the same sense > of ideologies -- systematized ideas, more or less. The resulting lujvo is "ci'erkemsibdau", not much worse than "philosopher". (This discussion neglects the distinction between "-y" and "-er".) -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org e'osai ko sarji la lojban