Re: Query: Boku desu sentence meaning.
Jim Breen
> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
Context? Assuming you encountered it in some Japanese
dialogue, what came before it?
As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
は/が, 僕はうなぎです does *not* mean "I am an eel."
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Ben Finney
> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
I'd need more context, of course. It translates literally, for me, as
"As for me, [it] is".
> Is it "I am" or "I are" or "I is"?
Not inherently, no. There's no necessary implication that "boku" is
the subject of "desu"; instead, "boku" is the *topic* of the whole
statement, and the specific *subject* of "desu" must be gleaned from
the context.
> Can I reduce it to ""Boku wa da" or "Boku wa"?
The latter, I think; but only colloquially.
> When I say "I am" (et al), what am I saying in Japanese?
The word "is" in English has two separate meanings of interest, that
must be disambiguated before you can translate to Japanese.
One is "exists-is"; e.g., "The coin is in the box". That's "aru" in
Japanese (or "iru" for animate beings).
The other is "equals-is"; e.g., "The coin is round". That's "da" in
Japanese.
--
\ "You know what I hate? Indian givers... no, I take that back." |
`\ -- Emo Philips |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Cindy
> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
There is no such Japanese by itself alone.
B. Ito
"Cindy" <leftlatera...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1189994288.6...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 16, 5:25 pm, mirror <mai...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> There is no such Japanese by itself alone.
>
That's right.
If some learners want to clarify the matter,how about referring
to the following sentences.
"Boku no janai, boku wa desu."
"Boku ga janai, boku wa desu."
"Boku ni janai, boku wa desu."
"Boku wo janai, boku wa desu."
Another normal and decent approach would be:
The answers to all the following questions can be
"Boku wa desu." ("wa" may be abreviated. Also wa and ga are
possibly exchanged depending upon contexts.)
"Dare wa shiawase desuka?"
"Dare wa shiawase de wa nainodesuka?"
"Dare wa uta ga jouju nano desuka?"
"Dare wa uta ga jouju de wa nainodesuka?"
"Dare wa uta ga heta nano desuka?"
"Donata wa unagi wo meshiagara nainodesuka?"
"Dochira wa sanpo ni o(i)deni naranainodesuka?
"Boku wa" desuka soretomo "Boku ga" desuka?
"Taka rarete ureshiitte sonna koto arunodesuka?"
(Example: "Arimasu. Boku wa desu."
etc. etc. I will try to think of more and more examples
if requested.
-----------------------------------------------------
B. Ito
Ben Finney
> mirror <mai...@127.0.0.1> writes:
>
> > What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> I'd need more context, of course. It translates literally, for me, as
> "As for me, [it] is".
Or rather, "As for me, [X] is [Y]", where both X and Y are
unstated.
Either of them might be "boku", but that would have to come from
context *outside* that statement since "boku ha" doesn't say anything
about the subject of the verb "desu".
--
\ "Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because fiction is |
`\ obliged to stick to possibilities, truth isn't." -- Mark |
_o__) Twain, _Following the Equator_ |
Ben Finney
Sean
> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
Nothing much, so far as I can tell.
>
> Is it "I am" or "I are" or "I is"?
Nope. Get rid of the "wa" and you might be getting there.
>
> Can I reduce it to ""Boku wa da" or "Boku wa"?
Reduce it to "Boku desu" and you'd have something like "It's me."
e.g. - Dare ga ichiban hansamu desu ka.
- Boku desu.
>
> When I say "I am" (et al), what am I saying in Japanese?
>
>
> Paul
Paul Blay
> mirror wrote:
>> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> Nothing much, so far as I can tell.
>
>> Is it "I am" or "I are" or "I is"?
>
> Nope. Get rid of the "wa" and you might be getting there.
Incidentally what does "I is" mean in English. ;-)
Sean
Same as "I am," but not standard. Who da man? I is.
Paul D
> mirror wrote:
>> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> Context? Assuming you encountered it in some Japanese
> dialogue, what came before it?
>
> As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
> は/が, 僕はうなぎです does *not* mean "I am an eel."
Since when does "boku" necessarily even refer to the first person? :)
Paul D.
Cindy
> On 2007-09-17 08:31:15 +0900, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > mirror wrote:
> >> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> > Context? Assuming you encountered it in some Japanese
> > dialogue, what came before it?
>
> > As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
>
> Since when does "boku" necessarily even refer to the first person? :)
Since the time restaurants started delivery services.
Paul D
答えがわからなくなった。>_< =;
Paul D.
Dan Rempel
Kinda like "She Took off I Romeo":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTJq3HnF6JI
Dan
-- If I had any humility I would be perfect.
-- Ted Turner
Bart Mathias
> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
All I can get out of it is, "It's 'boku-wa.'" I would punctuate the
Japanese "'Boku-wa'-desu."
> Is it "I am" or "I are" or "I is"?
>
> Can I reduce it to ""Boku wa da" or "Boku wa"?
Depending on context. Same meaning: "It's 'boku-wa'" or "'boku-wa.'"
Answer to the grammar question, "'Boku-wa'-desu-ka, 'boku-ga'-desu-ka?"?
> When I say "I am" (et al), what am I saying in Japanese?
Nothing. "I am" is pure English. I suppose it might sound a little
like 愛病む, but that is a stretch.
If you want to express the meaning of English "I am" in Japanese, it
would most likely be "boku-desu/-da" or "boku-ga-desu/-da." It would be
the answer to a question probably beginning with "dare-ga."
Bart
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 23:31:15 GMT, Jim Breen <jimb...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> mirror wrote:
>>> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> means "I am" and I thought to myself "No way."
Which lesson of which set? I have them all, and don't remember this at all.
KWW
Ben Finney
> I can not go through them all. But the exchange happened in the
> first five of the first set (about 2-1/2 hours of boredom and I
> apologize. Work from the back in the recordings to speed things
> up).
Since you're the one that claimed the sentence came from Pimsleur, it
would seem that the burden of proof (i.e. identifying the specific
lesson so others can confirm that it says what you claim) falls to
you, not Kevin.
--
\ "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn't it." |
`\ -- Groucho Marx |
_o__) |
Ben Finney
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:08:36 -0400, Kevin Wayne Williams
> <kww.n...@verizon.nut> wrote:
>
> first five of the first set (about 2-1/2 hours of boredom and I
> apologize. Work from the back in the recordings to speed things
> up).
my transcriptions. The word 僕 doesn't appear in Pimsleur at all (which
is what I remembered ... one of my complaints is that they use 私 to the
complete exclusion of any other form), and the closest equivalent phrase
(私はです) doesn't appear.
KWW
KWW
Cindy
> > Since the time restaurants started delivery services.
>
Paul ha nani chuumon shitano?
Boku wa unagi desu.
Cindy ha?
Ora wa tenpura soba dosu.
mirror ga pizza wo chuumon shitara sobaya kara kotowararetan datte.
chance
"Bart Mathias" <mat...@hawaii.edu> wrote
> If you want to express the meaning of English "I am" in Japanese, it
> would most likely be "boku-desu/-da" or "boku-ga-desu/-da." It would be
> the answer to a question probably beginning with "dare-ga."
Excellent!
'Dare wa ookii ieni sumunoka'
'Orewada'
Paul Blay
>>> What does "Boku wa desu" mean?
>
> means "I am" and I thought to myself "No way."
If the previous sentence was "Who's going to the party?" then
"Yes way."
Bart Mathias
Let's play democracy. I vote with the other Paul: No way!
Bart
Paul Blay
>
> Let's play democracy. I vote with the other Paul: No way!
I also voted with the other Paul by canceling my post half
a minute after I posted.
Kevin Wayne Williams
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 19:41:22 -0400, KWW wrote:
>> Perhaps paying more attention would help relieve the boredom. I searched
>> my transcriptions. The word 僕 doesn't appear in Pimsleur at all (which
>> is what I remembered ... one of my complaints is that they use 私 to the
>> complete exclusion of any other form), and the closest equivalent phrase
>> (私はです) doesn't appear.
>
> be "Watashi wa desu." I used "boku" in my initial query because I
> didn't pay attention to my formality level. Then I propagated my
> error.
>
> As I work back, the quotation is in the first four lessons of the
> first series of thirty lessons.
Any clue what you actually heard yet?
KWW
Nigel Greenwood
> mirror wrote:
> As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
> は/が, 僕はうなぎです does *not* mean "I am an eel."
I tried to contact JR, but he'd Gone Fishin'.
The sentence he discusses is closer to "Mine's an eel," isn't it? Or,
more prosaically, "I'll have eel".
Nigel
--
ScriptMaster language resources (Chinese/Modern & Classical Greek/IPA/
Persian/Russian/Turkish):
http://www.elgin.free-online.co.uk
Cindy
> On Sep 17, 12:31 am, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > mirror wrote:
> > As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
>
> I tried to contact JR, but he'd Gone Fishin'.
>
> The sentence he discusses is closer to "Mine's an eel," isn't it? Or,
> more prosaically, "I'll have eel".
Very good! Then, you understand "Boku wa Lexus" as well.
Paul D
I like the sentence 大根は太らない myself. :)
Paul D.
Ren
>
> Paul D.
daikon radish, ham actor
wa am, is, are, was, were, is as, is not as
futo to become fat
ra [ru-verb]
nai [informal, negative]not
Um, this is kind of like a pun. It's funny.
Cindy
> On 2007-09-27 21:04:25 +0900, Cindy <leftlateraldecubi...@gmail.com> said:
>
> > On Sep 27, 5:50 am, Nigel Greenwood <ndsg_m...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> On Sep 17, 12:31 am, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> mirror wrote:
> >>> As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
> >>> / , does *not* mean "I am an eel."
>
> >> I tried to contact JR, but he'd Gone Fishin'.
>
> >> The sentence he discusses is closer to "Mine's an eel," isn't it? Or,
> >> more prosaically, "I'll have eel".
>
> > Very good! Then, you understand "Boku wa Lexus" as well.
>
I am supposed to laugh, right?
Jim Breen
> On Sep 17, 12:31 am, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>mirror wrote:
>>As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
>>は/が, 僕はうなぎです does *not* mean "I am an eel."
>
> I tried to contact JR, but he'd Gone Fishin'.
That was the first edition....
> The sentence he discusses is closer to "Mine's an eel," isn't it? Or,
> more prosaically, "I'll have eel".
Or several other alternatives. It all depended on the (unstated) subject.
The key thing is that 僕 was the *topic*, not the subject.
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Nigel Greenwood
> Nigel Greenwood wrote:
> > On Sep 17, 12:31 am, Jim Breen <jimbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>mirror wrote:
> >>As Jay Rubin pointed out very elegantly when discussing
>
> > I tried to contact JR, but he'd Gone Fishin'.
>
> That was the first edition....
>
> > The sentence he discusses is closer to "Mine's an eel," isn't it? Or,
> > more prosaically, "I'll have eel".
>
> Or several other alternatives. It all depended on the (unstated) subject.
There's a similar example in Naoko Chino's excellent Basic Japanese
Sentence Patterns (p 89);
-- Kyoo wa nani o tabemashoo ka.
-- Soo desu ne. Watashi wa tempura desu ne. (Watashi wa tempura o
tabemasu.)
Nigel Greenwood
of "I think, therefore I am"?
Paul Blay
> As a matter of interest, what's the standard translation in Japanese
> of "I think, therefore I am"?
我思うゆえに我あり
Phil
> As a matter of interest, what's the standard translation in Japanese
> of "I think, therefore I am"?
>
Ware omou, yue ni ware ari. It is written われ思う、故にわれあり in the below
Japanese translation of "Discourse on Method" or 方法序説 （ほうほうじょせつ - houhou
josetsu）. It's easy to spot in section 4 because it has the Latin in caps
immediately following it （COGITO ERGO SUM）:
http://www.genpaku.org/dcart01/dcart10j.html
The phrase is usually written with more kanji as you'll see in the notes at
the bottom of the above cited web page. Here it is in its normal form,
followed by hiragana and romaji:
我思う、故に我あり
われおもう、ゆえにわれあり
ware omou, yue ni ware ari
The original French and English translations are available at Project
Gutenberg. Here they are - French followed by English:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/13846
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/59
--
Phil
Phil
Or コーギトー・エルゴー・スム (ko-gito erugo- sumu: Cogito Ergo Sum). Interestingly, if
you look up the Japanese 我思う、故に我あり in the Kojien, it explains it with the
katakana as follows:
我思う、故に我あり
〔哲〕デカルトの言葉「コギトーエルゴースム(cogito, ergo sumﾗﾃﾝ）」の訳語。
A purist, though, would take issue with the Kojien. Descartes originally
wrote the expression in French and not in Latin, "Je pense, donc je suis"
as you can see in la quatrième partie at this site:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/13846/13846-h/13846-h.htm
Moreover, in "Meditations on First Philosophy" which Descartes wrote in
Latin, he deliberately avoids the use of the phrase, "Ego cogito, ergo sum"
in arriving at the first certainty, revising the reasoning he used in the
earlier "Discourse on Method."
--
Phil
Marc Adler
> Um, this is kind of like a pun. It's funny.
No, it's much simpler than that. "You don't get fat if you eat
daikon." You normally have to say "daikon yakusha" to get the bad
actor meaning.
Marc
Bart Mathias
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:38:52 GMT, Paul Blay wrote:
>
>
>>Nigel Greenwood wrote:
>>
>>>As a matter of interest, what's the standard translation in Japanese
>>>of "I think, therefore I am"?
>>
>>我思うゆえに我あり
>
>
>
> Or コーギトー・エルゴー・スム (ko-gito erugo- sumu: Cogito Ergo Sum). Interestingly, if
> you look up the Japanese 我思う、故に我あり in the Kojien, it explains it with the
> katakana as follows:
>
> 我思う、故に我あり
> 〔哲〕デカルトの言葉「コギトーエルゴースム(cogito, ergo sumﾗﾃﾝ）」の訳語。
>
> A purist, though, would take issue with the Kojien. Descartes originally
> wrote the expression in French and not in Latin, "Je pense, donc je suis"
> as you can see in la quatrième partie at this site:
Odd. It's much more obviously a case of begging the question in French
than the usual Latin. I've always wondered how he could publish that
with a straight face.
Bart
Phil
>>>
>>>>As a matter of interest, what's the standard translation in Japanese
>>>>of "I think, therefore I am"?
>>>
>>>我思うゆえに我あり
>>
>>
>>
>> Or コーギトー・エルゴー・スム (ko-gito erugo- sumu: Cogito Ergo Sum). Interestingly, if
>> you look up the Japanese 我思う、故に我あり in the Kojien, it explains it with the
>> katakana as follows:
>>
>> 我思う、故に我あり
>> 〔哲〕デカルトの言葉「コギトーエルゴースム(cogito, ergo sumﾗﾃﾝ）」の訳語。
>>
>> A purist, though, would take issue with the Kojien. Descartes originally
>> wrote the expression in French and not in Latin, "Je pense, donc je suis"
>> as you can see in la quatrième partie at this site:
>
> Odd. It's much more obviously a case of begging the question in French
> than the usual Latin. I've always wondered how he could publish that
> with a straight face.
>
normally pour over Japanese translations of western philosophers.
Nevertheless, last year, there was an anime series that had a lot of
allusions to western thinkers including Descartes. It's called "Ergo
Proxy" or エルゴプラクシー although the title was always displayed in large Latin
letters and small katakana as you can see at the official site:
http://www.wowow.co.jp/anime/ergoproxy/
The DVDs came with liner notes that explained many of the allusions. One
aspect of the plot involved the Cogito virus - an insidious virus that
infected androids causing them to think for themselves - hence my exposure
to 我思う、故に我あり. The series is licensed for North American distribution and
one or two DVDs have already been released. Here's the English language
website:
--
Phil
Marc Adler
> Odd. It's much more obviously a case of begging the question in French
> than the usual Latin. I've always wondered how he could publish that
> with a straight face.
What do you mean?
Marc
Bart Mathias
"*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
Logically, it's "Je suis, donc je suis" with a bit of sleight-of-hand in
the first clause.
By the way, I've always associated "cogito" with English "cogitate." If
that association isn't way off, why wouldn't 我考う、故にあり be a
better translation? (Granted, 思う might make a better argument.)
Bart
Phil
Interestingly, Descartes thought the weakness of the argument was not in
the 'je' but with the 'pense'. In "Meditations", he avoids reference to
thinking and simply says, "I am, I exist."
--
Phil
Marc Adler
> Logically, it's "Je suis, donc je suis" with a bit of sleight-of-hand in
> the first clause.
I see what you're saying, but I don't think it's fatal for the
argument. You could simply rephrase "If there's self-awareness, then
there exists a self," taking the person out altogether. In terms of
the further development of the argument, that's just as valid, isn't
it?
Marc
Jim Breen
> Marc Adler wrote:
>>On Nov 13, 2:56 pm, Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>Odd. It's much more obviously a case of begging the question in French
>>>than the usual Latin. I've always wondered how he could publish that
>>>with a straight face.
>>
>>What do you mean?
Yes, that puzzelled me too. The Latin seems a pretty accurate translation
of the French.
> "*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
> conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
The "Je" is (just) being grammatical in French. The "cogito" has to be
first person (cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum, ...). The Romans
were pronoun-lite.
> Logically, it's "Je suis, donc je suis" with a bit of sleight-of-hand in
> the first clause.
Eh?
> By the way, I've always associated "cogito" with English "cogitate." If
> that association isn't way off, why wouldn't 我考う、故にあり be a
> better translation? (Granted, 思う might make a better argument.)
Preserve us from producing a Japanese phrase from a Latin version of
the original French, basing our translation on an English derivation
of one of the Latin words.
Bart Mathias
I see the "rephrase" as valid, in the sense of awareness that doesn't
include things like being aware of unicorns or ghosts, etc. In that
sense, one can't be aware of something that doesn't exist.
But I don't think it is a paraphrase. Descartes left out the "if," for
one thing.
Back when I was taking first-semester freshman philosophy, I had a
terrifying moment when I understood Hume's (I think, or was it
Berkeley's?) professed doubt of his own existence. It didn't last long,
and I soon decided it doesn't really matter whether I'm me or not, so to
speak, question-begging-wise. But logically does a self have to be
*my*self?
Bart
Marc Adler
> I see the "rephrase" as valid, in the sense of awareness that doesn't
> include things like being aware of unicorns or ghosts, etc. In that
> sense, one can't be aware of something that doesn't exist.
Well, assuming the self were aware of unicorns, that self would still
exist. I.e., I have to exist, in order to imagine unicorns.
> But I don't think it is a paraphrase. Descartes left out the "if," for
> one thing.
It's logically equivalent. "I'm home by 7 pm, therefore I'm not late
for dinner" "If I'm home by 7 pm, then I'm not late for dinner."
> Berkeley's?) professed doubt of his own existence. It didn't last long,
> and I soon decided it doesn't really matter whether I'm me or not, so to
I think it is Berkeley, and he solved the problem by saying that we're
all just ideas in God's mind.
> speak, question-begging-wise. But logically does a self have to be
> *my*self?
Yes, by definition. If you are aware of a self, then you are aware of
your own self. Assuming there is only one self in existence, it would
still be your self. We can only posit other selves, since we can never
have intimate knowledge of them.
Marc
Phil
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>> Marc Adler wrote:
>>>On Nov 13, 2:56 pm, Bart Mathias <math...@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Odd. It's much more obviously a case of begging the question in French
>>>>than the usual Latin. I've always wondered how he could publish that
>>>>with a straight face.
>>>
>>>What do you mean?
>
> Yes, that puzzelled me too. The Latin seems a pretty accurate translation
> of the French.
>
Indeed it is. Moreover, Descartes used it himself only not in his
"Discourse on Method". By the time he wrote "Meditations on First
Philosophy", he was so adamamant in favor of deductive reasoning in
contrast to inference that he abandoned reference to 'gogito'.
--
Phil
Phil
Personally, I was neither supporting nor defending Descartes. However, I
don't think that thought should be tied to existence. In fact, it is often
when my son doesn't think that I am most aware of his existence.
--
Phil
Phil
I believe that was Nietzsche's view. He felt that Descartes should have
said 'something' thinks.
--
Phil
Phil
If you have access to JSTOR, you can read a twentieth century view (1974)
of Descartes's argument:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0026-4423(197401)2%3A83%3A329%3C75%3ADT%60%3E2.0.CO%3B2-H
--
Phil
Bart Mathias
> Bart Mathias wrote [re 我思う、故にあり in other tongues]:
>
>>[...]
>>"*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
>>conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
>
>
> The "Je" is (just) being grammatical in French. The "cogito" has to be
> first person (cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum, ...). The Romans
> were pronoun-lite.
Yes, I have some familiarity with pronoun-lite languages. Spanish and
Japanese fall in that category.
My remark was based on the fact that there is no actual *reference* (on
the grounds that only nominals refer) to the first person in "cogito,"
making it less *obviously* what I was charging it with.
Of course, the end of the bit has no such reference either. Maybe
Nietzsche would have been happy with a Japanese version like this: 思
う、故にあり. Eleanor Jorden might say that means, "There is thinking,
therefore there is being."
>
>>Logically, it's "Je suis, donc je suis" with a bit of sleight-of-hand in
>>the first clause.
>
> Eh?
Good point.
>>By the way, I've always associated "cogito" with English "cogitate." If
>>that association isn't way off, why wouldn't 我考う、故にあり be a
>>better translation? (Granted, 思う might make a better argument.)
>
>
> Preserve us from producing a Japanese phrase from a Latin version of
> the original French, basing our translation on an English derivation
> of one of the Latin words.
Not unless you say "please."
Bart
Jim Breen
> Jim Breen wrote:
>>Bart Mathias wrote [re 我思う、故にあり in other tongues]:
>>>[...]
>>>"*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
>>>conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
>>
>>The "Je" is (just) being grammatical in French. The "cogito" has to be
>>first person (cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum, ...). The Romans
>>were pronoun-lite.
>
> Yes, I have some familiarity with pronoun-lite languages. Spanish and
> Japanese fall in that category.
>
> My remark was based on the fact that there is no actual *reference* (on
> the grounds that only nominals refer) to the first person in "cogito,"
> making it less *obviously* what I was charging it with.
I disagree. I think the implied first-person nominal in "cogito" is
just as much a reference as the explicit one in "je pense".
While pronoun-lite (to quote myself), Latin is not quite as lite
as Japanese.
Marc Adler
> If you have access to JSTOR, you can read a twentieth century view (1974)
> of Descartes's argument:
Embarrassing as it is to admit, I (double-)majored in Philosophy, so I
have plenty of access to all sorts of books on Descartes. It's true
understanding I no longer have access to... :(
Marc
Marc Adler
> Personally, I was neither supporting nor defending Descartes. However, I
> don't think that thought should be tied to existence. In fact, it is often
> when my son doesn't think that I am most aware of his existence.
Good point. However, there is the idea that if something has a
property, then by definition that thing exists. I forget the name for
this, but it's somewhere, and it makes sense. Therefore, to make
Descartes idea work, you just have to rephrase it in terms of making
thinking a property (of anything). From there, it is obvious that
something exists.
Marc
Marc Adler
> I disagree. I think the implied first-person nominal in "cogito" is
> just as much a reference as the explicit one in "je pense".
I think Bart-sensei is obliquely referring to the subject of this
thread (however nominal it may now be to the rest of us).
我ウナギなり故、我在り、
Marc
Phil
I only took a couple of courses in philosophy by my son became interested
in it as a teenager so that encouraged me to refresh what I'd learned in
college. Then, of course, when you have philosophical allusions in
anime...
--
Phil
Phil
That's pretty much the line of thinking Descartes pursues in "Meditations".
He discards the line of reasoning based on thinking and says, "I am, I
exist."
--
Phil
Phil
> Jim Breen wrote:
>> Bart Mathias wrote [re 我思う、故にあり in other tongues]:
>>
>>>[...]
>>>"*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
>>>conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
>>
>>
>> The "Je" is (just) being grammatical in French. The "cogito" has to be
>> first person (cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum, ...). The Romans
>> were pronoun-lite.
>
> Yes, I have some familiarity with pronoun-lite languages. Spanish and
> Japanese fall in that category.
>
There is a difference between a pronoun-lite Japanese and pronoun-lite
Latin. In Latin, you have verb conjugations for person and number so there
are implied pronouns. This is not the case with Japanese where the verb
remains the same regardless of person or number.
--
Phil
Phil
> Bart Mathias wrote:
>> Jim Breen wrote:
>>>Bart Mathias wrote [re 我思う、故にあり in other tongues]:
>>>>[...]
>>>>"*Je* pense" presumes the existence of "je." Pretending to draw a
>>>>conclusion from a premise based on that conclusion is begging the question.
>>>
>>>The "Je" is (just) being grammatical in French. The "cogito" has to be
>>>first person (cogito, cogitare, cogitavi, cogitatum, ...). The Romans
>>>were pronoun-lite.
>>
>> Yes, I have some familiarity with pronoun-lite languages. Spanish and
>> Japanese fall in that category.
>>
>> My remark was based on the fact that there is no actual *reference* (on
>> the grounds that only nominals refer) to the first person in "cogito,"
>> making it less *obviously* what I was charging it with.
>
> I disagree. I think the implied first-person nominal in "cogito" is
> just as much a reference as the explicit one in "je pense".
>
> While pronoun-lite (to quote myself), Latin is not quite as lite
> as Japanese.
Exactly, you cannot translate "cogito" as they think; however, you can
translate omou as they think depending on the context.
--
Phil
Phil
I guess it would have been more on-topic to have translated "Je pense, donc
je suis" as:
僕思う、故に僕です
ぼくおもう、ゆえにぼくです
boku omou, yue ni boku desu
--
Phil
Bart Mathias
I had but two semesters of philosophy, probably stopping at Phil 102 or
something, so that is kind of over my head. Isn't it a property of
unicorns that they have one horn each?
Bart
Marc Adler
> I had but two semesters of philosophy, probably stopping at Phil 102 or
> something, so that is kind of over my head. Isn't it a property of
> unicorns that they have one horn each?
If unicorns don't exist, how is it possible that we're having this
discussion?
Marc
Phil
> Marc Adler wrote:
>> On Nov 16, 12:44 pm, Phil <phil....@adelphia.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Personally, I was neither supporting nor defending Descartes. However, I
>>>don't think that thought should be tied to existence. In fact, it is often
>>>when my son doesn't think that I am most aware of his existence.
>>
>>
>> Good point. However, there is the idea that if something has a
>> property, then by definition that thing exists. I forget the name for
>> this, but it's somewhere, and it makes sense. Therefore, to make
>> Descartes idea work, you just have to rephrase it in terms of making
>> thinking a property (of anything). From there, it is obvious that
>> something exists.
>
> I had but two semesters of philosophy, probably stopping at Phil 102 or
> something
Sounds like one of my user IDs.
--
Phil
Phil
We're not. We just think we're having this discussion. But since we think
we are.
--
Phil
Louise Bremner
Hope it wasn't one of your passwords....
(One of the bizarre things about being an admin on a certain site, is
the way users not only tell me what their passwords on that site are,
but also how they construct passwords for other sites....)
________________________________________________________________________
Louise Bremner (log at gol dot com)
If you want a reply by e-mail, don't write to my Yahoo address!
Don Kirkman
<1cs1kjjxchckz.rd4om0a421zz$.d...@40tude.net>:
Sure that's not "if we think we are we are, are we not"?
--
Don Kirkman
Marc Adler
> We're not. We just think we're having this discussion. But since we think
> we are.
Come again? ;)
The point is that "existence" isn't limited to physical existence.
Does the quadratic equation "exist"? Mathematicians would argue that
it does. Existence in the Cartesian doubt process would be seriously
handicapped if it were limited to physical things. If you're going to
doubt everything, then you're going to have to include ideas, too.
Therefore, as an idea, unicorns obviously exist. They're even in the
dictionary!
Marc
Phil
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Personally, I was neither supporting nor defending Descartes. However, I
>>>>>don't think that thought should be tied to existence. In fact, it is often
>>>>>when my son doesn't think that I am most aware of his existence.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Good point. However, there is the idea that if something has a
>>>> property, then by definition that thing exists. I forget the name for
>>>> this, but it's somewhere, and it makes sense. Therefore, to make
>>>> Descartes idea work, you just have to rephrase it in terms of making
>>>> thinking a property (of anything). From there, it is obvious that
>>>> something exists.
>>>
>>> I had but two semesters of philosophy, probably stopping at Phil 102 or
>>> something
>>
>> Sounds like one of my user IDs.
>
> Hope it wasn't one of your passwords....
>
"Phil". It gave me the user ID of Phil_102 and asked me to create a
password. That was a few years ago. Nowadays, the most common user ID
for this type of site appears to be an e-mail address.
--
Phil
Phil
If we think we are, we are, are we not?
If we think, we are. We are, are we not?
--
Phil
Phil
That sounds Platonic where physical entities are just imperfect
manifestations of an ideal. A unicorn could have a Platonic ideal but no
physical manifestations.
--
Phil
Don Kirkman
>> Come again? ;)
So contrary to popular myth the relationship between unicorns and
virgins is purely Platonic, I gather.
--
Don Kirkman
Bart Mathias
A good point! I'm going to use it the next time I run into one of those
damned atheists!
Bart
Marc Adler
> That sounds Platonic where physical entities are just imperfect
> manifestations of an ideal. A unicorn could have a Platonic ideal but no
> physical manifestations.
I don't know you're arguing for or against my point, because Plato
would be the first (indeed, was among the first) to argue for the
existence of ideas.
Remember, I'm arguing that a lack of physical manifestation does not
equal lack of existence.
Marc
Marc Adler
> A good point! I'm going to use it the next time I run into one of those
> damned atheists!
Well, that's the Spaghetti Monster argument (nee atheism), so I don't
think you'd get much traction with atheists by arguing that, "God
exists - you know, the way unicorns exist!"
Marc
Sean
I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
Paul Blay
> Marc Adler wrote:
>>
>> Well, that's the Spaghetti Monster argument (nee atheism), so I don't
>> think you'd get much traction with atheists by arguing that, "God
>> exists - you know, the way unicorns exist!"
>
> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
Well as long as you have faith that they exist
(and just for once I have a relevant link).
Phil
>
>> That sounds Platonic where physical entities are just imperfect
>> manifestations of an ideal. A unicorn could have a Platonic ideal but no
>> physical manifestations.
>
> I don't know you're arguing for or against my point, because Plato
> would be the first (indeed, was among the first) to argue for the
> existence of ideas.
>
> Remember, I'm arguing that a lack of physical manifestation does not
> equal lack of existence.
>
against your point - merely making an observation. However, I agree with
the comment you just made. Descartes distrusts perception. Thus, his view
of the world is close to Plato's where ideas have greater relevance than
tangible observations.
--
Phil
Phil
>
>>>> We're not. We just think we're having this discussion. But since we think
>>>> we are.
>
>>> Come again? ;)
>
>>> The point is that "existence" isn't limited to physical existence.
>>> Does the quadratic equation "exist"? Mathematicians would argue that
>>> it does. Existence in the Cartesian doubt process would be seriously
>>> handicapped if it were limited to physical things. If you're going to
>>> doubt everything, then you're going to have to include ideas, too.
>>> Therefore, as an idea, unicorns obviously exist. They're even in the
>>> dictionary!
>
>>That sounds Platonic where physical entities are just imperfect
>>manifestations of an ideal. A unicorn could have a Platonic ideal but no
>>physical manifestations.
>
> So contrary to popular myth the relationship between unicorns and
> virgins is purely Platonic, I gather.
Possibly. If I understand what I see in the news, virgins are going the
way of the unicorn.
--
Phil
Jim Breen
> I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
demonstrate that it's false.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
--
Jim Breen http://www.csse.monash.edu.au/~jwb/
Clayton School of Information Technology,
Monash University, VIC 3800, Australia
ジム・ブリーン@モナシュ大学
Paul Blay
> Sean wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
>> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
>
> Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
> hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
> demonstrate that it's false.
My working hypothesis is that athiests only exist in environments
that don't have integrated spellcheckers.
Paul Blay
> Jim Breen wrote:
>>
>> Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
>> hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
>> demonstrate that it's false.
>
> My working hypothesis is that athiests only exist in environments
> that don't have integrated spellcheckers.
Although I have disproved my hypothesis at the same time as I stated
it, I at least can say that it was a scientific hypothesis as it was
disprovable. ;-)
Dan Rempel
> Sean wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
>> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
>
> Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
> hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
> demonstrate that it's false.
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Wouldn't even Popper agree that finding a single atheist confirms that
particular hypothesis; i.e. worded that way it's unfalsifiable?
Dan
--
"In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with
reality at any point."
-- Friedrich Nietzsche
Jim Breen
> Jim Breen wrote:
>>Sean wrote:
>>
>>>I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
>>>sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
>>
>>Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
>>hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
>>demonstrate that it's false.
>>
>>[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
>
> Wouldn't even Popper agree that finding a single atheist confirms that
> particular hypothesis; i.e. worded that way it's unfalsifiable?
Well, you could turn it around, form a hypothesis that atheists don't
exist, and then falsify it by identifying one.
This is all a bit too existential for me 8-)}
Dan Rempel
> Dan Rempel wrote:
>> Jim Breen wrote:
>>> Sean wrote:
>>>
>>>> I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
>>>> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
>>> Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
>>> hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
>>> demonstrate that it's false.
>>>
>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
>> Wouldn't even Popper agree that finding a single atheist confirms that
>> particular hypothesis; i.e. worded that way it's unfalsifiable?
>
> Well, you could turn it around, form a hypothesis that atheists don't
> exist, and then falsify it by identifying one.
>
> This is all a bit too existential for me 8-)}
As a member of that set of people who doesn't spend time thinking about
that set of things for which there is no evidence (an infinite set, if
I'm not mistaken), I'll just say 'Me too."
Dan
--
The sum of the intelligence of the world is constant.
The population is, of course, growing.
Sean
> Jim Breen wrote:
>> Dan Rempel wrote:
>>> Jim Breen wrote:
>>>> Sean wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure atheists exist, even though I think I am one. Well, I'm
>>>>> sure they exist, but I'm not sure I could prove it.
>>>> Well as a practising Popperist[1], I have established a working
>>>> hypothesis that athiests exist, and I'm waiting for someone to
>>>> demonstrate that it's false.
>>>>
>>>> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
>>> Wouldn't even Popper agree that finding a single atheist confirms that
>>> particular hypothesis; i.e. worded that way it's unfalsifiable?
>> Well, you could turn it around, form a hypothesis that atheists don't
>> exist, and then falsify it by identifying one.
>>
>> This is all a bit too existential for me 8-)}
>
> As a member of that set of people who doesn't spend time thinking about
> that set of things for which there is no evidence (an infinite set, if
> I'm not mistaken), I'll just say 'Me too."
So when I see you sitting there, staring into space, and ask, "What are
you not thinking about?", you will answer, "An infinite number of things."
Dan Rempel
Perzakly.
Dan
--
Arbitrary systems, pl.n.:
Systems about which nothing general can be said, save "nothing
general can be said."