3 ms·

Hmmm... your last link seems to say that studiositas and curiositas are pretty far from modern English's "studious and curious." It seems that studiositas is li

Hmmm... your last link seems to say that studiositas and curiositas are pretty far from modern English's "studious and curious." It seems that studiositas is literally just intellectual temperance, whereas curiositas is the opposite, which rather than curiosity would be excessive curiosity; moderate curiosity (i.e. intellectual temperance) being good. But that mostly agrees with what you said given the substitutions, if we take "curiositas" = "vice of curiosity", etc. It definitely does sound like Aquinas though with his symmetries and obsession with balance.

jerf 4y ago
"Hmmm... your last link seems to say that studiositas and curiositas are pretty far from modern English's "studious and curious." If you want to get into classical philosophy you're going to run into that left, right, front, and center. Many words and concepts they take for granted either correspond to old English words (and I mean old as in time, not as in formaly Old English, though they may be that too), or simply no longer exist in English. Thus, reading translations of them may be quite challenging. Personally I don't think it's because those concepts are necessarily inapplicable or that we're so much better, nor do I necessarily think we're so much worse either. If anything I see it as a very valuable way to get a very different perspective on philosophical issues. However, it will take substantial effort put in to understand what they're really saying; to use very modern terminology, the representational bias of modern English is almost incapable of expressing what they are actually saying. While I won't blindly endorse everything they say, I will say it is also not as stupid as it may sound at first when read in modern English, nor vacuous, nor any other quick dismissal than may come to mind.
- bombcar 4y ago
  This "translating" difficulty exists so much in philosophy, which is why it sounds like philosophers are randomly salting their language with Latin and German - it's jargon for a purpose; they will say "qua" instead of what because they're referring to the philosophical idea behind "qua". It is possible to find well-done introductions that attempt to bring a philosopher 'forward' but even those often find it easier to define what the philosopher means by 'caritas' and then use the Latin instead of translating it as "love" or "charitable love" each time.
bombcar 4y ago
The word that would more align with our modern "curiosity" would be wonder. > St. Thomas defines wonder (admiratio) as “a kind of desire (desiderium) for knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge or faculty of understanding.” Wonder leads people to inquire and seek answers in a deliberate and purposeful manner in order to gain knowledge. St. Thomas identifies that we associate the desired person, event or object with what is “pleasing” and “scarce.” Simply, the wonderer glimpses an elusive knowledge to pursue. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q32.A8 https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q32.A8 from https://www.nashvilledominican.org/desire-wonder-essential-elements-catechesis/ https://www.nashvilledominican.org/desire-wonder-essential-e...

jerf 4y ago

"Hmmm... your last link seems to say that studiositas and curiositas are pretty far from modern English's "studious and curious." If you want to get into classical philosophy you're going to run into that left, right, front, and center. Many words and concepts they take for granted either correspond to old English words (and I mean old as in time, not as in formaly Old English, though they may be that too), or simply no longer exist in English. Thus, reading translations of them may be quite challenging. Personally I don't think it's because those concepts are necessarily inapplicable or that we're so much better, nor do I necessarily think we're so much worse either. If anything I see it as a very valuable way to get a very different perspective on philosophical issues. However, it will take substantial effort put in to understand what they're really saying; to use very modern terminology, the representational bias of modern English is almost incapable of expressing what they are actually saying. While I won't blindly endorse everything they say, I will say it is also not as stupid as it may sound at first when read in modern English, nor vacuous, nor any other quick dismissal than may come to mind.

bombcar 4y ago
This "translating" difficulty exists so much in philosophy, which is why it sounds like philosophers are randomly salting their language with Latin and German - it's jargon for a purpose; they will say "qua" instead of what because they're referring to the philosophical idea behind "qua". It is possible to find well-done introductions that attempt to bring a philosopher 'forward' but even those often find it easier to define what the philosopher means by 'caritas' and then use the Latin instead of translating it as "love" or "charitable love" each time.

bombcar 4y ago

The word that would more align with our modern "curiosity" would be wonder. > St. Thomas defines wonder (admiratio) as “a kind of desire (desiderium) for knowledge; a desire which comes to man when he sees an effect of which the cause either is unknown to him, or surpasses his knowledge or faculty of understanding.” Wonder leads people to inquire and seek answers in a deliberate and purposeful manner in order to gain knowledge. St. Thomas identifies that we associate the desired person, event or object with what is “pleasing” and “scarce.” Simply, the wonderer glimpses an elusive knowledge to pursue. https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q32.A8 https://aquinas.cc/la/en/~ST.I-II.Q32.A8 from https://www.nashvilledominican.org/desire-wonder-essential-elements-catechesis/ https://www.nashvilledominican.org/desire-wonder-essential-e...