From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:48:58 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 10149 invoked from network); 11 Apr 1997 07:32:13 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 11 Apr 1997 07:32:13 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <13.B3792032@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Fri, 11 Apr 1997 9:32:13 +0100 Date: Thu, 10 Apr 1997 16:30:14 -0400 Reply-To: "Scott L. Lewis" Sender: Lojban list From: "Scott L. Lewis" Subject: Philosophy X-To: LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 2662 Lines: 62 Message-ID: Steven Belknap writes: >Of course, perhaps there is an empirical philosophy which will someday >rise from the mire like chemistry did from alchemy. That happened a couple of hundred years ago. The empirical philosophy that rose from the mire is called "Science." Up until then it was called "Natural Philosophy." >The dictionaries also lack the definition which to my mind gets at the >heart of what philosophy is: a misguided attempt to apply rational >thinking to existential angst. This is a good thing. It forces neurotics to express their angst with some degree of rigor, and while they are distracted by that, we can tiptoe away from them. ;-) However, your definition neglects to mention that Philosophy also applies rational thinking to such things as ethics, beauty, the nature of knowledge, and to what constitutes rational thinking. Granted, it does not necessarily lead to truth with a capital "T", but it can be useful for framing essential questions and weeding out some of the BS. The trouble with Philosophy is that every time someone enters a philosophical domain and develops: 1) some useful ways of representing the domain's knowledge, 2) an effective method for observation and measurement, and 3) a practical methodology for experimenation, they call it a science and run off with it. This leaves philosophers with all the nasty, intractible stuff that nobody else wants. I don't know about you, but it's enough to give *me* a bad case of existential angst! =8-0 >If you firmly believe that the concept "philosophy" can be translated >into lojban lujvo, which do you prefer? I submit that you won't find >any more satisfactory than the fu'ivla. Actually, philosophy seems to >me to be a good example of why fu'ivla are important. > I heartily agree. Reading this discussion reminds me of the old story about the blind men describing an elephant. Just as the blind men can't describe the totality of the elephant by descibing one part they can touch, a single lujvo would be woefully inadequate for naming something as complex and multi-dimensional as Philosophy. On the other hand, an effective way to employ lujvo might be to discuss particular aspects of a broader topic. This could be very handy for getting rid of ambiguity. That way, your listener/reader will know that you are discussing the analysis-of-concepts-and-critique-of-beliefs part of Philosophy, and not the experiencing-existential-angst part...which they probably don't want to hear about anyway. Regards, Scott Scott L. Lewis Dupont Information Systems Development Methodology & CASE Tool Support lewissl@csoc-mail.lvs.dupont.com (302) 774-1164