Metacrock

No it is worth the effort. But not if you are not a linguistic person. I didn't have the spark. Some people just take to it like ducks to water. Im not a good langaue learner, although I find the end result worth the stuggle, but for me Greek was a major struggle.


It just depends on how badly you want to know things. you will never get out of a text in translation what you get out if by reading it in the original.


One of my favorite novels was Candide by Voltaire. I thought I knew it quite well. When I read it in french is was a whole different thing, it came alive again and beame one of my favorites all over again. On the other hand, I never Zola in English. I read him for the first time in French. It was a total stuggle but I can't read him in English now, it seems like I'm getting a second rate synopsis.

Mathetes

Why would you want to learn philosophy when you can study Greek?

In my case, I am a language geek, so I would like to learn any language that has some substantial literature behind it. In the case of ancient Greek, it has been used by some of the best writers in history (I'm not talking about the Christian fathers, but rather about Homer and Sophocles), and it is also a foundation for modern languages. When you learn Greek you re-discover your own language, and find the hidden meaning of words like "cybernetic", "planet", "synchronous" or "ethnological". Would you be able to spell "autochthonous" without knowing Greek?

I also am interested in history and religion, in an anthropological sense. So early Christian writers are something I'm spending some time on these days.

Metacrock

why not both philosphy and Greek? read Plato!

spin

No, I didn't notice "the tounge in cheek content". What did you write above that does not reflect your views?


spin

Blueskyboris

Metacrock
Surely you are exaggerating.



copernicus
That's right, I do not study ancient languages. The closest I come to language study is when I study the currently accepted etmology of a crucial word.

I have a dozen reasons for being interested, but let us limit our discussion to my chief reason: curiosity. Does curiosity confuse you?

My secondary reason for being interested in why people study ancient languages as a hobby is my interest in Plato's dialogues. I am keenly aware that Christian affected Plato's arguments in subtle or overt ways.

I am not interested in persuading others to stop studying ancient languages. I simply asked a question.



Mathetes
One can learn about etymology without learning ancient Greek.


I guess so. We certainly do need individuals versed in Plato in Plato's own language. That said, I think the project has expanded well beyond Plato and I would venture to assert that a thorough understanding of modern philosophy is more important.

Harry Bosch

All you need is the Holy Spirit brother! Once you have that, you throw out all that ancient language crap. In fact, you can also throw out science, common sense and humility also. - Just trying to be funny

Blueskyboris

Ah-huh.

copernicus

Your question and the tone of your OP implied to me that it was more than idle curiosity. For example, you asked why people should waste their time. In any case, I can satisfy your curiosity. The answer is curiosity!

In that case, you might be interested in studying the Greek original in order to get a better understanding of that influence. If you leave it up to other scholars, they will make their prejudices your prejudices. Having read and translated several languages before, I can tell you that translation does not always capture the meaning accurately.

Let me give an example. Modern linguistic theory (especially the study of phonology--i.e. rules of pronunciation) began in 19th century Russia. Noam Chomsky and his colleague Morris Halle based their entire theory of phonology on their interpretation of that tradition. Because I read Russian, I was able to go back to the original texts (by the great Polish linguist, Baudouin de Courtenay, and his Russian commentators) to find out details that had not been published in English. What I learned was rather shockingly different from what those great scholars believed (about phonemes--for those who are interested). They screwed it up pretty badly. Had I relied on their research alone (as many linguists do even to this day), I would have been ignorant of some fundamental lapses in their understanding of that crucial period of scholarship. Scholars, even highly respected scholars, can get things wrong. So it is always best to check original sources.

Celsus

Hey BlueSkyBoris,

Why waste your time asking questions here when you could be arguing philosophy, learning science, or socialising? ("I'm just asking because I'm curious." ) If you don't understand why people find things interesting that you do not and consider their interests a waste of time, I think you need to look more at yourself than at others.

Joel

Mathetes

I've read Plato, but more as a way of practising and learning words than because I was genuinely interested. To be honest, some of the dialogues seem to me like discussion threads on a bad Internet board, full of mind wandering, rhetorical fallacies and weak arguments. No double posts, though.

As I said, I'm a lot more into literature than philosophy. The only philosophers that have really interested me are the French existentialists (Sartre, Camus and the like), but probably because they were such solid novel writers/playwrights anyway.

I just don't "get" it, I guess. :huh: