Rule 9 for history of philosophy: learn the terminology
Rule 9: Learn the terminology
Another obvious one, perhaps, but also worth mentioning. Not all philosophers develop their own technical or semi-technical vocabulary, but many do. (Sometimes even those who officially make a big deal out of not worrying about terminology, like Plato.) When reading any philosopher, you need to know which words have a technical meaning and what they mean – this obviously requires knowing at least enough of the primary language to track the terms in question. (I actually considered having a more general rule to the effect of “learn the primary language,” but I worry that this could be discouraging: please do read Plato, even if you can’t read Greek! Still, it really does go without saying that there is a significant sense in which you can’t in fact read Plato if you can’t read Greek.)
This is another rule that has to do with avoiding anachronism. The more we know about a philosopher’s language, including not only the way terms were generally used at his or her time but also the way that this philosopher in particular uses terms, the less likely we are to import our own assumptions about what these terms must mean. There are many examples where scholars have pointed out that interpreters have mistakenly been taking a given word to mean what we now today would mean by it, whereas actually it meant something different – one that comes to mind is “cause” in Aristotle. The best way to guard against such mistakes is to track the use of a word across the philosopher’s works, using context (both in these works and in other works of the time) to get a better grip on exactly what the word means.
In reply to I had the hardest time by Tina Lee
Yes, Kant's terminology is
Yes, Kant's terminology is difficult (for Germans too, I believe). Hopefully I can do something to decode it for you and other listeners when I get to him!
One of the problems with Kant
One of the problems with Kant is that he - would you belive it - sometimes isn't very strict with his terminology. Personally I love Eislers's Kant Lexikon. It gives lenghty definitions for the terms from within Kant's work making extensive use of quotations from his books. It helped me a great deal when I first had to come to terms with Kant.
I actually do believe it. I
I actually do believe it. I came across a passage in which two contrary definitions of time or space (I can't remember which one at the moment) were given in the same paragraph! I believe I threw the book across the room at this point because I blamed myself for not understanding rather than Kant for being confusing.
I wish I had had that Lexikon when I took the course! That would have been very useful. Well, if I ever decide to trudge through the Critique of Pure Reason again, I'll make sure I have that at hand.
Add new comment
- Add new comment
- 11155 views
Blog Archive
- September 2017 (2)
- August 2017 (3)
- July 2017 (3)
- June 2017 (1)
- May 2017 (4)
- April 2017 (4)
- February 2017 (5)
- January 2017 (1)
- December 2016 (3)
- September 2016 (4)
- August 2016 (3)
- June 2016 (3)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (1)
- March 2016 (3)
- February 2016 (1)
- December 2015 (5)
- November 2015 (2)
- October 2015 (2)
- September 2015 (2)
- August 2015 (1)
- July 2015 (1)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (1)
- April 2015 (4)
- March 2015 (2)
- February 2015 (2)
- January 2015 (2)
- December 2014 (6)
- November 2014 (2)
- October 2014 (6)
- September 2014 (11)
- August 2014 (3)
- July 2014 (1)
- June 2014 (4)
- May 2014 (3)
I had the hardest time
I had the hardest time figuring out Kant's terminology in The Critique of Pure Reason. I found that in the end, I simply had to ask the professor! Now I'm feeling like a cheater...
Well, I vaguely remember Kant himself giving a verbal spanking to anyone who used the word 'idea' in a broad sense. I presume he was thinking of his contemporary German audience and people who use the word casually to mean any thought whatsoever. So maybe I won't feel so bad if his contemporaries were as loose with language as I am.