Ok, they are all subjective in the minds of the speaker and the
listener.
mando
On Oct 19, 2008, at 1:39 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a message dated 10/18/08 12:14:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Cheerskep: I still do not accept that all German
words ... how about "gesellschaft", may readily be translated into
English
without at least awkwardness.
Geoff, go look: at no time have I said that ALL words have synonyms
either
within or between languages. The universal I was trying to rebut
was, "NO
words
have synonyms." That seems to me to be exquisite nonsense.
Recall: this thread started with my listing six words that I said
afforded
opportunities to make useful "nice distinctions", and I invited
listers to try
to articulate distinctions they discerned in their own notions
behind the
words. I myself offered some simple thoughts ab out what might be a
useful
distinction to maintain between "gift" and "talent". I even hinted
that I
myself
probably use some of the others interchangeably.
gift
talent
aptitude
skill
capacity
craft
"If Eskimos really do have 27/whatever words
for snow, I'm sure that we don't have English words which would
readily
serve as translations for all of them."
I have an unrealiable memory that that assertion was eventually
revealed to
be false.
"I haven't read a lot of philosophers but I would concur that [when
philosophers] write so
the layman can comprehend the theses, it suggests the philosophers
are
clearer in their
own minds about what they're discussing."
Some time, go Google the entry "ordinary language philosophy". (I
can't
remember who it was, but I have a recollection of some philosopher
saying, in
effect, "I believe that if I can't explain my point in everyday
language to an
intelligent listerner, there's something wrong with my point.")
Say I, "ordinary language philosophy" has somewhat stalled because
it has not
shaken the thinking behind such phrases as "the meanings of words"
and "how
words mean", and the use of the form, "What is X?", as in "What is
reality?"
In particular am I astonished to find no philosopher addressing
this basic
implication of their general position: They all believe that words
("signs"
etc)
DO something. They believe "words" carry on the activity of "meaning",
"signifying", "denoting" etc. Saul Kripke, perhaps the "leading"
living
philosopher today, believes names"name", "pick out".
As far as I can tell, no one has ever looked closely at the notion
that
"words" carry out an "action". To me, that notion entails dizzying
absurdities, and
they've never been examined. The outlandish idea that words DON'T
act is so
contrary to ingrained assumption, that not only is it not taken
seriously,
it's never considered at all.
If one can ever so wrench his mind as to consider it, it still
takes a long
time before its implications become apparent -- or, at any rate, it
took MY
slow mind a long time to see its impact on fundaments of philosophy of
language,
mind, and metaphysics ("ontology").
"I do resent the employment of either
esoteric terminology or the use of familiar words in unfamiliar
ways. I'm
not sayng/writing that it shouldn't be done, isn't done; just that
I think
it gums up communication. Geoff C"
Agreed. And one of the many reasons is that it often veils
unquestioned,
fundamental assumptions.
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: gift/talent/aptitude/skill/ etc
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2008 20:42:57 EDT
Geoff writes:
"I can understand a German-speaker's belief
that no English word quite expresses what he understands in the
German
word
"X"."
If you know three or four people fluent in both English and
German, ask
them
how they would translate these four words:
Cigar, soap, tooth, shoe.
See if every one of them doesn't say:
"Zigarre, Seife, Zahn, Schuh."
Go on to prepositions and conjunctions. Don't expect any of them
to claim
'und' is not synonymous with 'and'. Words are my turf. I'd love
to see
them
all
glorified as unique. But that's baloney.
In truth, I hate how custom made, specialized, the philosophers
have tried
to
make their language. It makes stuff inscrutable to non-academics,
and that
shouldn't be. I'm pleased to notice what I think is a sharp
decline in
recent
years in the use of the symbols of mathematical logic in
philosophical
journals.
But wait, am I being inconsistent? "Be rigorous but be readable?"
No, I
don't
think I am. It's hard, but it can be done to a useful degree.
An essential required gift is good ability to see where the
reader can go
wrong. I used to say in a self-aggrandizing way, "I work and work
and work
on a
piece till I've got it where it seems like it took no work at
all." (Not
the
pieces on this forum, I admit!) What I was largely aiming at was
silently
