Printable View
If there is one thing that catches regularly my attention is obsession with vocabulary. I mean, some philologists could spend years at the time discussing the meaning of a word they'll never agree on. I understand it can be better explained by the investment of desire rather than by trying to reach an absolute truth. Any thoughts on the matter?
I think words history doesn´t differ from human story in terms that philologists and historicians have they own backgrounds. Is there an absolute truth in history? Like myths, I always prefer a poetic explanation rather than those like "the first men in horse the greek saw became the centaurs". I like to believe that once upon a time there was Chiron.
Dear Fernando, that is quite an interesting perspective. Wittgenstein would say there is no thinking outside language, so our entire world is based on it. Hence, is there anything that is not metaphorical? Let's not go as far as Chiron... think of Achilles! Who knows if he existed?! But he is a whole set of ideas pronounced in one name. Discussions generally are related, also, to language... we don't know the conditions in which the pre-classic Greeks used to live, and we create a picture of it. I don't think it's bad. I don't think it's good. I'm not judging. What I'm saying is that we are trying to build a truth using layer upon layer of language. Should we reduce everything to a matter of aesthetics? both language and the truth? -this problem touches us deeply: a translation would be good or bad based on the concensus of a society. But we know that there are, for example, correct relations of causality and incorrect ones in a sentence. That is related directly to the usage of the gerund. I hope I'm clear on what I mean to say... discussion is just for the sake of discussion. I understand those people enjoy discussing. I hope they don't think they'll reach a truth eventually. They might build one, though...