Although I didn't stress it in the post, I'm using an empathic and phenomenological approach to understanding ancient authors. (Of course, I'm sure you picked up on that!) :)
Oh indeed! I can see you bracketing, receiving, and interpreting in empathy rather than observing in that split Cartesian world. Brings tears to my eyes! :-D
About my phenomenological approach? Well, it consists of bracketing my "natural attitude" (i.e. a closed-off kind of prejudice) in order to explore all the possibilities coming through the text. Also, I'm trying to connect "empathically" (a la Edith Stein) with the author and see the world as he does.
Very resonant with my own experience. Almost always when I inquire into the historical meaning of a word I use in the common way I find that it has a richer, more specified and thought provoking meaning than I had realized. The shrinking of vocabulary turns once hard-edged words into mush. I remember decades ago learning about the "schwa" sound (sp?) which as I understand it is just the universal short vowel sound. It's the reason that some languages are written with only consonants. The conmpression of vocabulary turns rich, highly specific, indeed enlightening words into fungible "schwas" from which we learn so much less than we could.
100% Richard! I met a linguistic expert last year at a classical education conference. He said the idea that language gets more complex over time is false. It's actually the reverse. Our language is become "compressed" as you say, or flattened over time. We're actually losing meaning, new technical words (like "digitize") notwithstanding.
I accept the challenge!
Wonderful!
Wow. Powerfully and inspiringly written Amy. Thank you for those insights!
Although I didn't stress it in the post, I'm using an empathic and phenomenological approach to understanding ancient authors. (Of course, I'm sure you picked up on that!) :)
Oh indeed! I can see you bracketing, receiving, and interpreting in empathy rather than observing in that split Cartesian world. Brings tears to my eyes! :-D
Tell more about this, seriously.
About my phenomenological approach? Well, it consists of bracketing my "natural attitude" (i.e. a closed-off kind of prejudice) in order to explore all the possibilities coming through the text. Also, I'm trying to connect "empathically" (a la Edith Stein) with the author and see the world as he does.
Very resonant with my own experience. Almost always when I inquire into the historical meaning of a word I use in the common way I find that it has a richer, more specified and thought provoking meaning than I had realized. The shrinking of vocabulary turns once hard-edged words into mush. I remember decades ago learning about the "schwa" sound (sp?) which as I understand it is just the universal short vowel sound. It's the reason that some languages are written with only consonants. The conmpression of vocabulary turns rich, highly specific, indeed enlightening words into fungible "schwas" from which we learn so much less than we could.
100% Richard! I met a linguistic expert last year at a classical education conference. He said the idea that language gets more complex over time is false. It's actually the reverse. Our language is become "compressed" as you say, or flattened over time. We're actually losing meaning, new technical words (like "digitize") notwithstanding.