4 ms·
"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 class
by 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 agoThis "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.