Philosophy (was: CPE: Corliss Lamont)

[John Cowan <cowan@CCIL.ORG>]

la xorxes. cusku di'e

> I think philosophy has to be a saske. [...]
> Any suggestions from the philosophers?

pc denounced this view, which was the original
Loglan view, as long ago as 1980, and I posted his
remarks to this list on 18 October 1993.
I will repeat them here.

[...] The L4/L5 (1975) word
for "philosophy" is (the equivalent of) "pensi zei sakse", think-science.
(Institute Loglan doesn't have an equivalent of "nun-".)

In TL4/4:200, {pycy. cusku di'e}

> This ... word is one of the worst items in the established Loglan
> vocabulary.  Philosophy is not any kind of a science -- even the
> pickwickian sorts that astrology or sociology are -- and hence is not
> the science of thought, in particular.  That title might better go to
> psychology, were it may not fit well, but certainly better than it does
> for philosophy.... Since no canons of the scientific method -- and no
> appeal to evidence of a scientific sort -- is relevant here, the best
> words are surely those from the fields of airy argumentation.  Since
> the subjects are words and/or ideads dealt with in a strange way or
> ideologies ditto ("the analysis of concepts and the criticism of beliefs"
> we used to say) how about something from [ciste ke sidbo darlu]
> (the [ke] is to cover the two phases -- the systematic discussion of
> ideas and the discussion -- admittedly also systematic, in the same sense
> of ideologies -- systematized ideas, more or less.

The resulting lujvo is "ci'erkemsibdau", not much worse than "philosopher".
(This discussion neglects the distinction between "-y" and "-er".)

--
John Cowan                                              cowan@ccil.org
                        e'osai ko sarji la lojban