lojban lujvo vs fu'ivla for "philosophy"

[Steven Belknap <sbelknap@UIC.EDU>]

>> 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.
>
>OK, I tried to be polite the first time, but this is precisely the
>kind of editorial baloney I was trying to avoid putting into the
>language.  And the assertions above are demonstrably wrong anyway.
>Chinese biology was /nothing/ like Western biology before they
>started using Western methods.

You misread my comment, and have apparently misunderstood my point. I used
the present tense (is). You are using the past tense (was). Both Western
and Chinese science used an empirical approach, and ended up in the same
place. To say that the Chinese simply adopted Western methods is culturally
chauvanistic, and at variance with the historical record. It is more
accurate to say that Chinese scientists acknowledged the accomplishments of
Western science, and incorporated those findings into their understanding.
Unfortunately, Western science has been rather less willing to learn from
the Chinese, in part because Chinese scientists read Western native
language journals, but Westerner's do not read theirs. The key point is
that given free flow of information, different cultures come to a consensus
on biology, chemistry, and physics, with the exception, of course, of the
bleeding edge of a field, where consensus even *within* a culture is not
yet manifest. That is a key feature of empiricism.

>The history of science is different  Until then it was all about the
>flow of chi and breathing patterns and boiled tiger penis.  Today
>they study microbes because we showed them how.

Well, there is also gunpowder, deep drilling for salt, and of course
spaghetti. (Chinese science)

And, alternatively, there is the state lottery, healing crystals, and UFOs
(Western nonsense)

>Now here's a question: we all agree that Western empirical methods
>are better at finding biological facts than the old Chinese methods.

No. we do not agree. Empiricism is empiricism, it is not uniquely Western
or Chinese. What you call Western empirical methods derive in part from
Greek, Arab, and Chinese precedents. One culture may be a bit more advanced
in the discovery of science or the invention of technology, but the history
of science in both China and the West is remarkably similar in the
approach. Actually, the Chinese were first in developing many aspects of
the scientific method. Baconian science was not experimentalist in the
modern sense. Being the first guy to find aspartame (Nutrasweet) does not
imply that you have got a corner on rational thinking.

>So, if we were to try to explain /why/ those methods are better,
>what activity would we be doing?  Philosophy.  Western biology did
>better than Chinese biology because of the underlying Western
>philosophies of empiricism and/or critical rationalism, where the
>Chinese were still stuck with Confucianism and Taoism.

You've lost me. Is this some kind of "cultural superiority" absurdity?  Are
you suggesting that the West is essentially secular? Seen any good comets
lately?

>
>Philosophy often sounds like nonsense--and often is--because that's
>its very purpose; to explore the limits of every idea from every
>point of view and see where they break.  What's left standing gets
>spun off into a useful science.  The broken remains are left for
>studying in philosophy class, as well as the methods by which we
>broke them, and by which to expand further.  Something like a post
>mortem examination; we're studying failures, but learning how to
>do better.

I essentially agree with this. Doesn't a fu'ivla express the historical
essence of our common world view of the English word "philosophy" better
than a lujvo? (Of course, it is possible that all the contextual stuff
could be overloaded on the lujvo. When lojban has a linguistic history, and
a dictionary of record, this may occur.)
>
>ObLojban: I still like "tadnytadni", but "cmutadni" is OK.

Neither one seems to express the definition of philosophy you have given:
"often sounds like nonsense--and often is--because that's its very purpose"
I can think of other English words which map much better to cmutadni than
philosophy.

Steven Belknap, M.D.
Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine
University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria