No Subject

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>> If one wants to refer to the concept represented by the English

>> word "philosophy", I would suggest resorting to a fu'ivla. Same goes
for

>> words like "communism". If you construct a lujvo for these words,
they will

>> be very new concepts, as much of their meaning resides in their
historical

>> and linguistic context. "Biology" or "Statistics" on the other hand,
are

>> self-correcting, and their essence ought be straightforwardly
expressable

>> in a lujvo.

>

>I see no difference at all between biology and philosophy in this

>regard.  "Life" is no more objective a concept than "consciousness",

>but we all agree that what we call by those names exists, and we

>generally agree on where to find it and how to identify when people

>are studying one or the other.  We may disagree on the details of

>each field, but we know what things are biology and which philosophy.

>


Several lujvo or English glosses for lujvo have been proposed for
philosophy. None of them seem to me to carry the essential idea of
philosophy. This problem is reflected in the American Heritage English
language definitions of philosophy:


<bold><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</para=
m><bigger><bigger><bigger>phi*los*o*phy
</bigger></bigger></bigger></color></fontfamily></bold><fontfamily><param>He=
lvetica</param><bigger><bigger>(f</bigger></bigger></fontfamily><bigger><big=
ger><fontfamily><param>American_Heritage_A</param>=BE</fontfamily><fontfamil=
y><param>Helvetica</param>-l</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>American_Heritag=
e_A</param>=C4</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>s</fontfamily=
><fontfamily><param>American_Heritage_A</param>2=FA</fontfamily><fontfamily>=
<param>Helvetica</param>-f</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>American_Heritage_=
A</param>T</fontfamily><fontfamily><param>Helvetica</param>)
<italic>n. pl.
</italic><bold><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</param><bigger>phi*los*o*phies
</bigger></color></bold><italic>Abbr.
</italic><bold><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</param><bigger>phil.
philos. </bigger></color>1. a. </bold>Love and pursuit of wisdom by
intellectual means and moral self-discipline. <bold>b. </bold>The
investigation of causes and laws underlying reality. <bold>c. </bold>A
system of philosophical inquiry or demonstration. <bold>2.
</bold>Inquiry into the nature of things based on logical reasoning
rather than empirical methods. <bold>3. </bold>The critique and
analysis of fundamental beliefs as they come to be conceptualized and
formulated. <bold>4. </bold>The synthesis of all learning. <bold>5.
</bold>All learning except technical precepts and practical arts.
<bold>6. </bold>All the disciplines presented in university curriculums
of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
<bold>7. </bold>The science comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics,
metaphysics, and epistemology. <bold>8. </bold>A system of motivating
concepts or principles: <italic>the philosophy of a culture.
</italic><bold>9. </bold>A basic theory; a viewpoint: <italic>an
original philosophy of advertising. </italic><bold>10. </bold>The
system of values by which one lives: <italic>has an unusual philosophy
of life.=20

</italic>[ Middle English <italic>philosophie </italic>from Old French
from Latin <italic>philosophia </italic>from Greek from
<italic>philosophos </italic>lover of wisdom, philosopher; See
<bold><color><param>1530,0022,D70C</param><bigger>philosopher
</bigger></color></bold>]


</fontfamily></bigger></bigger>These "definitions" are all over the
map, and in my view reflect the common use of the word philosophy to
mean "exactly what one wants it to mean, no more and no less." The
meanings people attach to this word seem to me to be idiosyncratic,
culturally dependent, and highly variable. The only American English
words with more wiggle room than philosophy are "God" and "religion."


Chinese philosophy is very different from American philosophy. Chinese
biology and American biology converge to the same science, (with the
expected disparity at the cutting edge, of course.) "That which ascends
converges." Science ascends, philosophy does not-it flops about like a
dying fish on top of a heap of the already dead, due to its=20
nonempirical nature. (Please, lets not get into logical positivism.)=20
The dictionaries also lack the definition which to my mind gets at the
heart of what philosophy is: a misguided attempt to apply rational
thinking to existential angst.


Of course, perhaps there is an empirical philosophy which will someday
rise from the mire like chemistry did from alchemy. I personally do not
think so, but I suppose its possible. Certainly reading the writings of
philosophers is a useful mental exercise, just as reading about the
history of feudal societies, or the beliefs of the latest headcase cult
is instructive. So I'm not saying the study of philosophy is not
valuable.


If you firmly believe that the concept "philosophy" can be translated
into lojban lujvo, which do you prefer? I submit that you won't find
any more satisfactory than the fu'ivla. Actually, philosophy seems to
me to be a good example of why fu'ivla are important.


Steven Belknap, M.D.

Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine

University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria