I don't know Latin nor Greek but far as the Anglosphere is concerned and the since the employment of words is to make things less confusing as possible as is within our power-taking into account the our listeners and their state of mind with respect to current "simple apprehension" of certain wordsthat is being signified-the connotation found in use usually for "happiness" in English( to be more precise this word as the contrary for to "sadness"); it would seem that the better alternative would be to use the word "peace", or "fulfilment" ( since the these words doesn't have a contrary. Is "unfulfiled" a contrary to peace? And what is the contrary of "peace", is it "war"? It's difficult for me to guess the contrary of such words. Whereas immediately "sadness" arises as the possible contrary to "happiness"). I know practices that have been followed for a long time cannot be changed but from a practical point of view whatever is most helpful for the people should be given priority. And it would be lot easier for people to know what this is if the word "peace" were employed than "Happiness"( written with the capital "H", I mean are the public expected to know that the employment of "H" is somehow spirtual and that when we use "Being" with the capital letter "B" that we do not mean "being"). I am curious to know what the French, Italians, Germans and the Spanish would use for the word "happiness"( maybe they don't usually employ "happiness" alongside "sadness") 1:04 what I would say is that this would be evidence not on the part of the people as such( since language especially the vulgar ones, permutate. And words can carry connotation in our period that it didn't in an another and it is the on the speaker, writer and thinker to recognise these and do their part and make things easier for the people than to take the position that it is the people that are mistaken. When something like this happen it can be found that it is the philosopher who is mistaken not the people. And this can easily be understood especially simce the philosopher is solitaire and writes on his own and by himself, so much of what goes under the appellation "modern philosophy" wouldn't have to be rejected had they only consulted helo of other people prior to making their works public. From Descartes onwards)
Excellent presentation. The chart format is very helpful. Thank you very much!
Thnkx... How thoughtful to post today. God Bless...
2:02 bookmark
I don't know Latin nor Greek but far as the Anglosphere is concerned and the since the employment of words is to make things less confusing as possible as is within our power-taking into account the our listeners and their state of mind with respect to current "simple apprehension" of certain wordsthat is being signified-the connotation found in use usually for "happiness" in English( to be more precise this word as the contrary for to "sadness"); it would seem that the better alternative would be to use the word "peace", or "fulfilment" ( since the these words doesn't have a contrary. Is "unfulfiled" a contrary to peace? And what is the contrary of "peace", is it "war"? It's difficult for me to guess the contrary of such words. Whereas immediately "sadness" arises as the possible contrary to "happiness"). I know practices that have been followed for a long time cannot be changed but from a practical point of view whatever is most helpful for the people should be given priority. And it would be lot easier for people to know what this is if the word "peace" were employed than "Happiness"( written with the capital "H", I mean are the public expected to know that the employment of "H" is somehow spirtual and that when we use "Being" with the capital letter "B" that we do not mean "being"). I am curious to know what the French, Italians, Germans and the Spanish would use for the word "happiness"( maybe they don't usually employ "happiness" alongside "sadness")
1:04 what I would say is that this would be evidence not on the part of the people as such( since language especially the vulgar ones, permutate. And words can carry connotation in our period that it didn't in an another and it is the on the speaker, writer and thinker to recognise these and do their part and make things easier for the people than to take the position that it is the people that are mistaken. When something like this happen it can be found that it is the philosopher who is mistaken not the people. And this can easily be understood especially simce the philosopher is solitaire and writes on his own and by himself, so much of what goes under the appellation "modern philosophy" wouldn't have to be rejected had they only consulted helo of other people prior to making their works public. From Descartes onwards)