Date: Tue, 8 Apr 1997 16:52:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <199704082052.QAA21204@mail1.access.digex.net> Reply-To: Esteban Flamini Sender: Lojban list From: Esteban Flamini Subject: Re: Philosophy To: Logical Language Group X-Mozilla-Status: 0011 Content-Length: 5403 X-From-Space-Date: Tue Apr 8 16:52:51 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU This posting is intended as a contribution to the discussion on the translation of "philosophy" and "philosopher". I apologize myself for any mistake or misunderstanding of Lojban grammar it might contain (I'm a newcomer). So far the following brivla have been proposed: lezu'o pijysisku (by Mark Vines): activity of seeking wisdom kampijyske (by Jorge Llambias): science of wisdom ci'erkemsibdau (by John Cowan): discussion of ideas and arguments tadnytadni (by Lee Daniel Crocker): study of fields of study All of these are good. For the first, I think it would be clearer, and closer to what I suppose to be Mark's intention, to say "zazpijysisku", seeking the *state* of being wise. The second tells us that philosophy is a kind of science (at least in a broad sense) and it has something to do with wisdom. I think someone hearing this word for the first time would infer the right meaning, provided s/he knows the etymology of "philosophy" ("sophia" means wisdom). So, if understandability (does this word exist in English?) is the criterion by which a lujvo is judged, I really think "kampijyske" is the best. Both of them are metaphors, not definitions. The other two try to translate philosophy by defining it, something that not even the philosophers have quite done. As for "tadnytadni", I think a logician or philosopher of science would agree with it, but maybe an ethicist or an estheticist would not. Another way to translate this words (one that I think no one tried yet) would be to create a fu'ivla (borrowing) instead of a lujvo. So I propose (I hope I'm respecting fu'ivla morphology): prenfilsofi: x1 is a philosopher tadnyfilsofi or saskyfilsofi: x1 is [a] philosophy I think this words, or any other fu'ivla of this kind will be understood at first hearing. After all, "philosophy" is a technical term borrowed from Greek into most languages (I wonder how is "philosophy" translated into Chinese). If you like this idea, stop reading now. If you prefer a full lojban word for "philosophy" and none of the four above lujvo looks convincing to you, I have my own proposal. BTW, looking for my lujvo I reminded that in natural languages words like "philosophy" show the so-called "process/product ambiguity". Suppose you want to say in Lojban the following sentence: "Socrates is a philosopher" How would you do? First of all, a philosopher is some kind of thinker, so you can say: "la SOkrates. pensi" But not any kind of thinker, but one whose job (jibri) is thinking, so "la SOkrates. jibri pensi" or maybe "la SOkrates. pensi se jibri" (Socrates' occupation is thinking; Socrates is an intellectual. Right?) I'm assuming that jibri counts for any kind of regular occupation, whether paid or not (BTW: is 'se jibri' a good translation for 'proffesional'? What do you think?) Now, a mathematician is a proffesional thinker too, and so is a historian. What kind of proffesional thinker is a philosopher? I'd say, one who thinks about general principles (jicmu), so it could be expressed "la SOkrates. jicmu pensi se jibri" So, we could coin for "philosopher" the following lujvo: cmupeiseljibri: jicmu+pensi+se+jibri: $jibri2=$pensi1 is a philosopher, (who works on subject $pensi2=$jicmu1) and I'm not sure whether or not I should include more arguments. Now "se cmupeiseljibri" is any subject of philosophical inquiry. Look at these statements: "Philosophy is the seeking of wisdom" "Kant's philosophy is very interesting" In the first case "philosophy" refers to an activity, but in the second case it refers to a/the product of this activity (a corpus of doctrine, maybe a set of statements). This is called "process/product ambiguity" (I don't remember who introduced the term). Moreover, every name of a science shows this ambiguity (so, we should be careful when making lujvo for them). Now, look at "Philosophy embraces logic, ethics, metaphysics..." Here "philosophy" has -I think- yet a third meaning, namely, one of a field of study (not a corpus, but kind of a potential playroom for building a corpus within it, if you like the metaphor). Natural languages are apparently bound to these kind of ambiguities, but it seems that in Lojban you should keep each meaning separate. So (this is the moral) if you should speak Lojban you'll face questions you are probably not even aware when speaking your native tongue. Well, everything which is a subject of philosophical study is "se cmupeiseljibri", so the whole field of study should be "loi se cmupeiseljibri" or "lo'i se cmupeiseljibri" (I'm not sure which of them). Philosophy as an activity is "zu'o cmupeiseljibri", isn't it? I.e., that what philosophers do. And as a corpus, I think it's a kind of achievement, so it should be "mu'e cmupeiseljibri". Alternatively, we can add a third place to "cmupeiseljibri": the system/doctrine/works of the philosopher; so "philosophy" as a corpus could be "loi/lo'i te cmupeiseljibri". Now: le zu'o cmupeiseljibri cu le nu sisku le za'i prije Philosophy is the seeking of wisdom lo'i mu'e cmupeiseljibri la kant. cu mutce ka cinri Kant's philosophy is very interesting loi se cmupeiseljibri cu ... (and please don't ask me to fill in the dots!) ;-) Philosophy embraces logic, etc. I will be grateful to any criticism to these ideas. co'o mi'e .esteban. --------------- Esteban Flamini (BTW: I'm an undergraduate student of... philosophy)