genders?

Philosophers and rhetoricians, Welcome!
User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

genders?

Post by Hammurabi » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:24 pm

Hi guys!

I have just read Cratylus from Plato (not yet in greek :cry:) and I found very interesting the strong explanation, sometimes even sarcastic, to language.
Well, I could talk about a thousand nice things within this dialogue but now, I've realized that he never mention anything about the gender of the names.

There was a thing that catch my attention in the first pages of the Wheelock's Latin, it says: "latin, like english, has three genders..." then he explains about the grammatic gender and all that, yet... for me english doesn't have three genders in fact, because it only put a difference betwen man and woman, and things, which is imopossible to avoid in any language, but even so, the adjectives and noun's modifiers never change and indicate this difference. For me english hasn't the plenty of the gender's conception.

However many other languages have genders, specially latin, greek and their derivates. I grew up speaking latin languages, and for me it is pretty normal and even, poetic that the inanimate things have also a gender. But where this inanimate gender come from? for me it is obvious that it is a result of the mental relationship of a thing to the essence of the masculine and feminine, and inanimate which are man and woman and things, but how? which are the ways we can relate things in order to have a gender such as "masculine" and "feminine"?

:?
phpbb

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sat Apr 22, 2006 7:43 pm

I was thinking about a really interesting word: sea

"sea" is usually feminine:

greek: η θάλαττα
spanish: la mar
french: la mer
latin: mare (n)

I found a really nice referrence and maybe explanation to this relationship in the Joyce's Ulysses:

"Across the threadbare cuffedge he saw the sea hailed as a great sweet mother by the wellfed voice beside him."

:shock:
phpbb

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit » Sat Apr 22, 2006 8:33 pm

Hhm, in sanskrit the word for sea is masculine, saagara.

Modern English has lost its grammatical gender, but does have the three genders which are used for nouns and pronouns: generally masculine is used for concrete words, feminine for abstract words and neuter for animals.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sat Apr 22, 2006 9:49 pm

While English generally lost the distinction between genders, it's still there. The pronouns he, she, and it still reflect that distinction, and no, it's not impossible to avoid. I believe that certain African languages do not keep distinct males v. females. Contrary to what you may think, gender has absolutely nothing to do with "sex". Proto-Indo-European had two genders - masculine and neuter. Feminine actually developed from masculine. I'm sure you can think of words in Latin that look like they should have been masculine but were actually feminine, no? Malus? Or the old PIE word for neice, *snorus. Gender is merely a way of classifying nouns in a language.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:03 pm

Well, as a native speaker of English, when I started learning Frencch I thought inanimate objects having a gender was plain weird (and stupid ... sheesh, why make poor foreigners memorize that silly nonsense even though it doesn't contribute to communication at all). Of course, there is the classic English 'ship' - every ship goes on her maiden voyage...

According to the brief section on English grammar in one of my French grammars, English has four genders - masculine, feminine, common and neuter. A boy is masculine, a girl is feminine, a child is common, and a body is neuter.

Isn't the masculine gender of PIE really the common gender?

Modern English has lost its grammatical gender, but does have the three genders which are used for nouns and pronouns: generally masculine is used for concrete words, feminine for abstract words and neuter for animals.


That does not sound like the Modern English I know...

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:20 pm

Hi!

Chris Weimer wrote:Gender is merely a way of classifying nouns in a language.


I think that there should be a more profound explanaition for the genders in certain languages, I mean, like Plato said "the names are not only words, but a notion of the essence of the object that is named"
And I didnt mean "sex" when I mentioned man and women in the gender conception, but the association of the gender conception, in other words the feminine and the masculine as a separated definition.

As I tried to say with the Joyce quotation, the sea is something that was realated with the feminine by "shore" cultures like roman and greeks because they knew, maybe not consciousness, that the sea represented their subsistence and origins, that's maybe why they thought on it as a mother and related it with the generator rol of the feminine. Maybe we can also think about the masculine tendence of the "sun" the same way.

I just want to say that genders in languages have profound implications and can tell a lot of the philosophy, conception of reality and existence and obviously culture of the people that created them.



:oops: :oops: :D
phpbb

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:26 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:
Modern English has lost its grammatical gender, but does have the three genders which are used for nouns and pronouns: generally masculine is used for concrete words, feminine for abstract words and neuter for animals.


That does not sound like the Modern English I know...


I guess I was confused with Dutch, where concrete words are often masculine and abstract words are feminine. In English objects, abstractions and animals are all neuter, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender
My mistake. :wink:

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:31 pm

I remember in the flim Jules et Jim, they discusss how, in French, war (la guerre) is feminine, and in German (insert german word for war) it's masculine/neuter (it's beeen a while since I saw the movie). Like Hammurabi, the characters looked for some cultural/philosophical difference between the French and the Germans based on that difference, though it was only a brief scene.

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:45 pm

I've just found more about Sea by Joyce...

just wanted to share it with you guys.

"-God! he said quietly. Isn't the sea what Algy calls it: a great sweet mother? The snotgreen sea. The scrotumtightening sea. EPI OINOPA PONTON. Ah, Dedalus, the Greeks! I must teach you. You must read them in the original. THALATTA! THALATTA! She is our great sweet mother. Come and look."

I gess that Joyce clearly also thought in sea as a part of the feminine.. even in a language that has no genders but for men and women.

:D :oops: :shock:
Last edited by Hammurabi on Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phpbb

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sat Apr 22, 2006 10:47 pm

Sanskrit wrote:I guess I was confused with Dutch, where concrete words are often masculine and abstract words are feminine.

That may very well be the general rule. I don't know. Ship is fem. in Dutch as well.
BTW Sanskrit, do you know if there is a rule concerning when to use which of the two definite articles in Dutch (de, het?)
I know which goes with which word but I don't know the rule.

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:00 pm

Bert wrote:That may very well be the general rule. I don't know. Ship is fem. in Dutch as well.
BTW Sanskrit, do you know if there is a rule concerning when to use which of the two definite articles in Dutch (de, het?)
I know which goes with which word but I don't know the rule.


There are two words for ship in Dutch. The first is "(het) schip," this is a neuter word. The second is "(de) boot," which is both masculine and feminine according to my dictionary. "De" is used with words that are masculine, feminine or both masculine and feminine. "Het" is used for neuter words.
Last edited by Sanskrit on Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:04 pm

Hammurabi wrote:I think that there should be a more profound explanaition for the genders in certain languages, I mean, like Plato said "the names are not only words, but a notion of the essence of the object that is named"

Plato's ideas of words stems from his philosophy, which we now call Platonism, which stated that objects on earth are merely based off of their ideals in "heaven". Not only does his philosophy suck, but his linguistic analysis sucks as well. The idea of the "essence" of words is thoroughly false and demonstrated so by historical linguistics.

That goes for the rest of the post as well.

swiftnicholas
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 383
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 4:04 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by swiftnicholas » Sat Apr 22, 2006 11:07 pm

Hi Hammurabi :) You're so brave to be reading Joyce, since English is like your third or fourth language---that must be even worse than trying to read Pindar! And at the same time you're absorbing Greek and Latin! I wish I was that good at languages too. :) I've grown to love Joyce too, although I didn't always. And I remember that exact passage you quoted here, although I forget where it is from; I wrote it down too when I read it.

Anyway, I love this part:

Isn't the sea what Algy calls it: a great sweet mother? The snotgreen sea.


And scrotumtightening should be used more often: what a great word! Think of all the possibilities: Last year in New York it got down to -23F, a scrotumtightening temperature. I was just scolded by whiteoctave for my careless versification; what a scrotumtightening ordeal that was. I thought for sure that car was going to hit us---how scrotumtightening!

I'm sorry that I don't have anything interesting to say, but that often happens in philosophy ;)

~N

annis
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 3399
Joined: Fri Jan 03, 2003 4:55 pm
Location: Madison, WI, USA
Contact:

Post by annis » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:23 am

As Chris Weimer has mentioned, some languages have far more than the three genders we're used to in indo-european languages. Swahili, the simplest Bantu language, has eight, and its more exotic relations have 10-15. The usual sorts of things we expect of genders — like noun/adjective agreement — is very entertaining for people studying these languages. :)

While it is interesting to talk about cognitive science in relation to grammatical gender, it's about how humans classify in general, rather than classify by sex in particular. There's an entire book on the subject: Women, Fire and Dangerous Things.
William S. Annis — http://www.aoidoi.org/http://www.scholiastae.org/
τίς πατέρ' αἰνήσει εἰ μὴ κακοδαίμονες υἱοί;

Bert
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 1890
Joined: Sat May 31, 2003 2:28 am
Location: Arthur Ontario Canada

Post by Bert » Sun Apr 23, 2006 12:56 am

Sanskrit wrote: There are two words for ship in Dutch. The first is "(het) schip," this is a neuter word. The second is "(de) boot," which is both masculine and feminine according to my dictionary.
Thanks. That's interesting. I've only seen abstract names or feminine names for boats.
Sanskrit wrote:"De" is used with words that are masculine, feminine or both masculine and feminine. "Het" is used for neuter words.

How about; "Het mannetje" (The little man) and "het meisje" (The (little) girl.) Maybe all singular diminutives are grammatical neuter?

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:04 am

Chris Weimer wrote:Plato's ideas of words stems from his philosophy, which we now call Platonism, which stated that objects on earth are merely based off of their ideals in "heaven". Not only does his philosophy suck, but his linguistic analysis sucks as well. The idea of the "essence" of words is thoroughly false and demonstrated so by historical linguistics.


Chris,

Have you actually read any Plato, or are your deep insights - "his philosophy sucks" - the result of a survey course in "ancient thought"?

It's too bad you weren't around during the lifetimes of Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. You could have spared them needless study.

As to the achievements of historical linguistics, even Saussure conceded that "only some signs are absolutely arbitrary". There is also the amusing historical anecdote that he considered Esperanto, whose fledgling movement was at the time headed by his brother, to be wrong-headed.

Cordially,

Paul

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:41 am

Bert wrote:How about; "Het mannetje" (The little man) and "het meisje" (The (little) girl.) Maybe all singular diminutives are grammatical neuter?


Yes, I forgot to mention that. All singular diminiutives are grammatical neuter. I didn't know the English word for that though, thanks. :) "De" is also used for plural words, e.g. "het schip - de schepen, het kantoor (office) - de kantoren (offices), het meisje (girl) - de meisjes (girls)." You can compare "het meisje" with the German: "das mädchen - die mädchen." Singular diminiutives in German are also neuter.
Last edited by Sanskrit on Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:10 am, edited 4 times in total.

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Sun Apr 23, 2006 1:50 am

well, while I find Plato's /Socrate's "ideas in the sky" idea hmmmm far-fetched and there are quite a few things in his Politeia I don't agree with, I wouldn't say he sucked.

And I rather liked the rest of Hammurabi's post really and, while I have absolutely no idea why some inanimate objects are male and others female (depending quite often to the language) I liked the rest of his posts and it IS an interesting question.

Having said that, perhaps the different people called sea a she because one minute she's calm next minute she throws a temper tantrum? :wink: :D

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 2:24 am

Hi everyone.

swiftnicholas wrote:Hi Hammurabi :) You're so brave to be reading Joyce, since English is like your third or fourth language


Thanx for your commentaries swiftnicholas! Well, I do try to read Joyce in his original language, but I'm never too far from my spanish translation :D :oops: because it is really hard to understand "everything" he has to say, I mean reading Joyce in english is like reading Cortázar in spanish or maybe Proust in french, I would be glad to know any comment you have about philosophy, because it is my "girl" and my love (now speaking about genders). :lol: :D

And hi Irene! I'm glad to heard about you, and thank you very much for your commentaries you are so sweet.

IreneY wrote:Having said that, perhaps the different people called sea a she because one minute she's calm next minute she throws a temper tantrum? :wink: :D


Well, thinking about the experience I have with women I would accept this explanation almost as truth indeniable. :cry: :cry:

I was thinking about another possible way within clasification (´cause I think the most important thing here is dialogue and knowing other's opinion) I think that each country's mythology has a lot to do with word's genders, (and so mythology has a lot to do with philosophy)
The earth:
η Γαια
La terre
La tierra
Terra (f)
It is one of the first things in every cosmogenesis; and it is usually feminine (maybe we can explain it nearly the same than to sea) the generator of life, "the first mother". Now I think that "De principio" it has been always the conception of á¼￾ναντίας between man and women, or maybe just ἑτέÏ￾ας, and what is opposite to the mother earth?
the sky
ο ουÏ￾ανός
El cielo
Le ciel
Caelum (n)
Which is the "housband" of the earth in greek cosmogenesis.

Well, my point is that conception of gods and myths it another important motor within the creation and clasification of genders.

:oops: :oops: 8) :D
Last edited by Hammurabi on Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
phpbb

Sanskrit
Textkit Member
Posts: 129
Joined: Sun Mar 05, 2006 6:53 am
Location: The Netherlands

Post by Sanskrit » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:15 am

Gods did definitely play a role in word gender. Venus is generally considered feminine in the west, because Venus is the planet of the Greek godess of love, Aphrodite. There is a book called "men are from mars, women are from venus." In hinduism the deity of the same planet is masculine. The planet is called shukra, ruled by the "guru" of the demons. Shukra is also a symbol of male virtility.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 3:59 am

Paul wrote:Have you actually read any Plato, or are your deep insights - "his philosophy sucks" - the result of a survey course in "ancient thought"?

Both, actually.Though I've read parts of Plato here in there, I thank my ancient polisci for the thorough reading of the Republic and ancient philosophy class for the rest of him. I did find that parts of Plato I liked best happened to be the ones that most think are authentic Socrates, while that which I thought were not-so-good seemed to be some of the fine examples of Plato's own intellect.

It's too bad you weren't around during the lifetimes of Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Heidegger. You could have spared them needless study.

Oh, yes, do beat that strawman! Beat him hard, and beat him good, because you haven't even bothered to attack my position. Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.

As to the achievements of historical linguistics, even Saussure conceded that "only some signs are absolutely arbitrary".

Please be more relevant.

There is also the amusing historical anecdote that he considered Esperanto, whose fledgling movement was at the time headed by his brother, to be wrong-headed.

Hrm, you mean the same Esperanto that vied for the status of universal tongue oh-so-many years ago and hasn't come close to reaching that position yet? That one?

I fail to see your relevance.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:54 am

Being woefully ignorant of Plato (a situiation I intend to correct when my Greek is better), I cannot contribute anything useful to this discussion. This tangent does make me think of Voltaire's conte "Songe de Platon".

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 5:02 am

thanx GlottalGreekGeek!

I didn't know that conte, I've now read it all. and I love it!...

I also realized about the first words....

"Il avait songé que la nature humaine était autrefois double, et qu’en punition de ses fautes, elle fut divisée en mâle et femelle."

thank you!

:D :D 8) :oops:
phpbb

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Sun Apr 23, 2006 6:29 am

I was still thinking about the opposites...

If one creates a relationtip of an element with wether the feminine or the masculine as already described, the opposite element "has to" represent the opposite gender, because if an element is opposite to one another it has to be opposite in all qualities and since a "gender" quallity has been already assigned to this frist element, the other element has to be also of an opposite gender. Thus I think that if a language has one gender, it has in fact no gender at all, because gender has to represent a ἕτεÏ￾ας.

I found this very nice quotation from the Aristotle's Metaphyisics about the conception of the opposites that I just wanted to share with you:

ἕτεÏ￾οι δὲ τῶν αá½￾τῶν τοÏ￾των Ï„á½°Ï‚ á¼€Ï￾χὰς δέκα λέγουσιν εἶναι Ï„á½°Ï‚ κατὰ συστοιχίαν λεγομένας,

πέÏ￾ας [καὶ] ἄπειÏ￾ον,
πεÏ￾ιττὸν [καὶ] ἄÏ￾τιον,
ἓν [καὶ] πλῆθος,
δεξιὸν [καὶ] á¼€Ï￾ιστεÏ￾όν,
ἄÏ￾Ï￾εν [25] [καὶ] θῆλυ,
á¼ Ï￾εμοῦν [καὶ] κινοÏ￾μενον,
εá½￾θὺ [καὶ] καμπÏ￾λον,
φῶς [καὶ] σκότος,
ἀγαθὸν [καὶ] κακόν,
τετÏ￾άγωνον [καὶ] ἑτεÏ￾όμηκες:

:D :D :shock: :shock:
phpbb

User avatar
Bardo de Saldo
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 392
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:34 pm
Location: Newer Mexico

Post by Bardo de Saldo » Sun Apr 23, 2006 11:29 am

I was reading the Mexican Constitution last week (talk about Joyce) and was surprised to read "discriminación por cuestión de género" (gender discrimination). It proves that politicians aren't very well educated anywhere in the world anymore. (Gender and género are false cognates.)

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Sun Apr 23, 2006 4:27 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:Oh, yes, do beat that strawman! Beat him hard, and beat him good, because you haven't even bothered to attack my position. Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.


OK. I brushed my teeth and went to bed. It's a new day and, guess what, your "position", as you so bravely call it, remains a mere assertion; one that borders on the inarticulate.

Consequently, even an idiot like me has no trouble "correctly identifying your position".

Perhaps if you put forth something meatier than "his philosophy sucks", a conversation would be possible.

Cordially,

Paul

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 8:29 pm

Paul wrote:OK. I brushed my teeth and went to bed. It's a new day and, guess what, your "position", as you so bravely call it, remains a mere assertion; one that borders on the inarticulate.

Consequently, even an idiot like me has no trouble "correctly identifying your position".

Perhaps if you put forth something meatier than "his philosophy sucks", a conversation would be possible.

Cordially,

Paul

Well, since you asked, I can explain now.

First of all, I despise all metaphysics and any philosophical inquiry that has no scientific base behind it. If it is not rooted in actual facts, then it is not valid, and especially not valid if it proposes unscientific yet supernatural explanations, such as Forms (and the "Ideal Form"). It was in this boiling pot that Christianity became seasoned, a most unfortunate thing.

And then there's his ideas on censorship and Spartan practices, such as making all children wards of the state.

I do admit I haven't gotten around to reading Laws yet, so if he would happen to change his mind on any of these issues, I could possibly change my mind on him. But as it stands, his conclusions I would most certainly not want to adopt.

Cheers.

Rindu
Textkit Member
Posts: 162
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2005 3:34 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC

Post by Rindu » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:00 pm

????

Sorry, this is still no more than assertion.

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Sun Apr 23, 2006 9:20 pm

Rindu wrote:????

Sorry, this is still no more than assertion.

What were you expecting for? I was giving my opinion on why Plato's philosophy "sucked" and I did. Were you expecting me to bring out every scientific paper that contradicts the notion of the divine?

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:40 am

Chris Weimer wrote:First of all, I despise all metaphysics and any philosophical inquiry that has no scientific base behind it. If it is not rooted in actual facts, then it is not valid, and especially not valid if it proposes unscientific yet supernatural explanations, such as Forms (and the "Ideal Form").


Chris Weimer wrote:Were you expecting me to bring out every scientific paper that contradicts the notion of the divine?


What do you understand by "scientific base"? If you are talking about modern mathematical physics, then you are squarely in the realm of nature: matter and its changes. What can knowledge of this natural realm possibly tell you about the non-existence of a supernatural realm?

Modern science is a great good, of utmost utility and predictive power. But it has nothing to say about the existence of the immaterial; you simply can't get there from here. In fine, a "scientific paper that contradicts the divine" cannot do so on the basis of scientific principles.

Here's something for you to chew on from my favorite enemy:

"It is no different with the faith with which so many materialistic natural scientists rest content nowadays, the faith in a world that is supposed to have its equivalent and its measure in human thought and human evaluation - a "world of truth" that can be mastered completely and forever with the aid of our square little reason....That the only justifiable interpretation of the world should be one in which you are justified because one can continue to work and do research scientifically in your sense (you really mean, mechanistically?) - an interpretation that permits counting, calculating, weighing, seeing, and touching, and nothing more - that is a crudity and naivete, assuming that it is not a mental illness, an idiocy."

Cordially,

Paul

P.S. - there is much in Plato that I dislike. But he is worth studying.

User avatar
GlottalGreekGeek
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 3:37 am
Location: Mountain View

Post by GlottalGreekGeek » Mon Apr 24, 2006 4:36 am

So your favorite enemy is Nietzche, eh? Why is he your enemy, and why is he your favorite (Not that I have much of an opinion on Nietzsche either - another great philosopher which I have read deeply enough to have a coherent opinion).

There's a nearby bookstore which sells "Nietzche's Will to Power" bars - it advertises itself as the nutritional supplement of the Superman. I find it funny, but overpriced.

User avatar
Hammurabi
Textkit Neophyte
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2006 6:40 am
Location: Paris, France

Post by Hammurabi » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:23 am

Well, it seems this became a dicussion about Plato and his pholosophy! :o :o

Well.. let Plato speak and -through Socrates- gives his opinion about Chris Weimer and his debate (if I may call it so)...

ΣωκÏ￾άτης (Θεαίτητος)
κινδυνεÏ￾ουσιν οἱ á¼￾ν δικαστηÏ￾ίοις καὶ τοῖς τοιοÏ￾τοις á¼￾κ νέων κυλινδοÏ￾μενοι Ï€Ï￾ὸς τοὺς á¼￾ν φιλοσοφίᾳ καὶ τῇ [172d] τοιᾷδε διατÏ￾ιβῇ τεθÏ￾αμμένους ὡς οἰκέται Ï€Ï￾ὸς á¼￾λευθέÏ￾ους τεθÏ￾άφθαι.
… οἱ δὲ λόγοι ἀεὶ πεÏ￾ὶ á½￾μοδοÏ￾λου Ï€Ï￾ὸς δεσπότην καθήμενον, á¼￾ν χειÏ￾ί τινα δίκην ἔχοντα, καὶ οἱ ἀγῶνες οá½￾δέποτε τὴν ἄλλως ἀλλ' ἀεὶ τὴν πεÏ￾ὶ αá½￾τοῦ, πολλάκις δὲ καὶ πεÏ￾ὶ ψυχῆς [173a] á½￾ δÏ￾όμος: ὥστ' á¼￾ξ á¼￾πάντων τοÏ￾των ἔντονοι καὶ δÏ￾ιμεῖς γίγνονται, á¼￾πιστάμενοι τὸν δεσπότην λόγῳ τε θωπεῦσαι καὶ á¼”Ï￾γῳ ὑπελθεῖν, σμικÏ￾οὶ δὲ καὶ οá½￾κ á½€Ï￾θοὶ Ï„á½°Ï‚ ψυχάς. τὴν γὰÏ￾ αὔξην καὶ τὸ εá½￾θÏ￾ τε καὶ τὸ á¼￾λευθέÏ￾ιον ἡ á¼￾κ νέων δουλεία ἀφῄÏ￾ηται, ἀναγκάζουσα Ï€Ï￾άττειν σκολιά, μεγάλους κινδÏ￾νους καὶ φόβους ἔτι á¼￾παλαῖς ψυχαῖς á¼￾πιβάλλουσα…


Socrates: I mean to say, that those who have been trained in philosophy and liberal pursuits are as
unlike those who from their youth upwards have been knocking about in the courts and suchplaces, as a freeman is in breeding unlike a slave.
…. The consequence has been, that he has become keen and shrewd; he has learned how to flatter his master in word and indulge him in deed; but his soul is small and unrighteous. His condition, which has been that of a slave from his youth upwards, has deprived him of growth and uprightness and independence; dangers and fears, which were too much for his truth and honesty, came upon him in early years...


Atte.

Plato -cited by Hammurabi :oops: :D :D :lol:
phpbb

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Mon Apr 24, 2006 5:53 am

I really find it hilarious that not only did Paul and Hammurabi rip their passages out of context without any commentary, as if these philosophers should always be regarded as absolute truth (nevermind that Nietzsche ripped Plato a new one) but that they chose the passages full of blatant ad hominem. Oh yeah, real mature guys! Keep up the hard quote mining! 8)

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Mon Apr 24, 2006 1:26 pm

Chris Weimer wrote:I really find it hilarious that not only did Paul and Hammurabi rip their passages out of context without any commentary, as if these philosophers should always be regarded as absolute truth (nevermind that Nietzsche ripped Plato a new one) but that they chose the passages full of blatant ad hominem. Oh yeah, real mature guys! Keep up the hard quote mining! 8)


A. Commentary - what are you talking about? Why do you care who authored it? If you are able to respond to its content, please do so.

B. Absolute truth - eh? It's a quotation from a philospher. Take it in the spirit it was offered, as food for thought.

C. Ad hominem - I sure hope you don't think that the bolded personal and possessive pronouns really mean "Chris Weimer"! Nietzsche isn't really talking to you, Chris. NB: the emphasis was in the original.

D. Quote mining - just because you googled the quotation to find its author doesn't mean that I did something similar. I've spent most of my adult life in "conversation" with Herr Nietzsche. I knew exactly where to find this quote.

E. Nietzsche "ripped Plato a new one" - this shows the same kind of insight as your "Plato's philosophy sucks". But, to recall your first reponse to me, of what relevance is this to the content of the quotation, or of my post?

And that brings us to the main content of my post - you ignored it.

-Paul

User avatar
Paul
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 700
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2003 4:47 pm
Location: New York
Contact:

Post by Paul » Mon Apr 24, 2006 3:18 pm

GlottalGreekGeek wrote:So your favorite enemy is Nietzche, eh? Why is he your enemy, and why is he your favorite


Hi GGG,

It's a long story, and not especially interesting at that. Here's the short version.

He's an enemy because his ideas are anathema not only to "religious types", but to humanity itself.

He's my favorite enemy because he is a worthy opponent. When he's wrong, he is profoundly wrong; one can learn much even from his errors. I also learned from him the importance of ideas; he forced me to think seriously about what I believe. Finally, he is a delight to read and, after Thomas Aquinas, one of the most intelligent men who ever lived.

Cordially,

Paul

PeterD
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 591
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2003 6:54 pm
Location: Montreal, Canada

Post by PeterD » Mon Apr 24, 2006 6:58 pm

Chris Weimer wrote: Now why don't you run along and be a good boy and brush your teeth before bed. Perhaps tomorrow your school will teach you to correctly identify someone's position before sounding like an idiot.

Wow! And I thought I was rude. :wink:

With regards to brushing one's teeth before bedtime, I must fiercely stress that flossing is of the utmost importance. You can brush until you have scraped the enamel off your teeth. It won't make a difference unless you floss. Of course, you need not floss all your teeth---just the ones you want to keep! :D

And speaking of genders...

I am often reminded ( :oops: ), by pretty, French women, that the word clitoris is of the masculine gender: le clitoris. Strange. In Greek, from whence the French word is derived, it is feminine: η κλειτοÏ￾ις.

Peter
Last edited by PeterD on Tue Apr 25, 2006 12:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Fanatical ranting is not just fine because it's eloquent. What if I ranted for the extermination of a people in an eloquent manner, would that make it fine? Rather, ranting, be it fanatical or otherwise, is fine if what is said is true and just. ---PeterD, in reply to IreneY and Annis

User avatar
Adelheid
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 8:58 pm
Location: Mijdrecht
Contact:

Post by Adelheid » Mon Apr 24, 2006 7:45 pm

PeterD wrote:I am often reminded ( :oops: ) by pretty, French women ...



I was totally focussed on the ongoing 'battle' between Paul and Chris. I am totally thrown off balance now :D

User avatar
IreneY
Textkit Zealot
Posts: 800
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:27 am
Location: U.S.A (not American though)
Contact:

Post by IreneY » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:03 pm

PeterD I am lousy at French too so this maybe totally wrong but maybe the -is ending in French is more or less automatically male?

The reason I am making that wild assumption is that, in another forum in a "why are there genders" discussion, a German guy noted that words taken from another language may change their gender if their ending is of the opposite gender in German.

(Reason number 2 is that a clitoris is a *ahem* uniquely female word so to speak; if anyone asked me why it is female in greek I would reply that it is obvious why)

auctor
Textkit Member
Posts: 142
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2002 6:35 pm
Location: Eastbourne, East Sussex
Contact:

Post by auctor » Mon Apr 24, 2006 11:44 pm

Since this topic has veered somewhat nearer to its starting point, I'd like to ask the historical linguists hereabouts why the Latin words cunnus and mentula are the genders that they are. (Look them up yourselves if you can't guess.)
Paul

Chris Weimer
Textkit Enthusiast
Posts: 533
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:34 am

Post by Chris Weimer » Tue Apr 25, 2006 4:05 am

[quote=Paul]What do you understand by "scientific base"? If you are talking about modern mathematical physics, then you are squarely in the realm of nature: matter and its changes. What can knowledge of this natural realm possibly tell you about the non-existence of a supernatural realm?

Modern science is a great good, of utmost utility and predictive power. But it has nothing to say about the existence of the immaterial; you simply can't get there from here. In fine, a "scientific paper that contradicts the divine" cannot do so on the basis of scientific principles.[/quote]
You're assuming a priori that there is a material realm. Everything we know about the material realm contradicts the suppositions of supporters of the immaterial realm. Who created the universe? Who created man? Why are there lightning bolts? Adding an immaterial realm to explain phenomena like thinking and creation goes against everything we know about them thus far.

Where is your evidence that this realm exists? Even Socrates failed at that one. There is no evidence of any of it.

Post Reply