24 Dec '18 05:45>
The linguist Sassure postulated that nothing is ever fully translatable, and that, even within the same language, the closest thing to a language that would be fully translatable and interchangeable, word for word, would be a group of people who are in the same age group, from the same city, and just basically fit the exact same demographic profile.
Taken to its extreme end, you could say that even in these circumstances there are still going to be a lot of gaps. For instance, you could have two best friends who have very opposite feelings about the word "drunk" because one of their fathers was a sloppy, brooding drunk and the other had a father who simply never drank. This even makes me think a bit of discussions we used to have in school rooms after reading literature: even in a group of all 17-year olds, everyone a white midwesterner, 9 out of 10 from Protestant backgrounds, you would still end up with big chasms in how a thing would be interpreted.
... This idea also always reminded me of when I would be having a debate and someone would refuse to acknowledge that my idea had merit, and would instead insist that there was something sinister lurking in it. I always envisioned that, upon death, when entering the Kingdom of God, I would be vindicated -- and as each person passed into eternity, they would have a split second to look upon the face of God and be imbued with a new way of thinking where everything that there was became fully translatable, and as they gazed into the eyes of the others in the Kingdom, they would learn what it was to be them and what it was to think as them.
This would not diminish your own mental life, but would enrich it, as it did not ask for an idea to be subsumed to it... It is like an other-worldly pluralism where you understand that there is a great diversity of virtuous thoughts, virtuous systems, and meritorious thinkers, and that the real curse upon us on Earth was the ignorance of having a flawed, mortal brain.
You could perhaps even argue that seeking to understand someone on their terms and in their language is a very important demonstration of the virtue of charity, and the virtue of wisdom. If this is the case, perhaps you could even say that it is a sin to mischaracterize or excessively attack another's position, particularly when there is a blatant disregard for their views.
Of course, there is a lot more to say about this sort of idea, and I believe I will return to this theme in the future... But perhaps it would be useful for us to think about where we are failing in building bridges, and whether we are arguing with the goal of getting better, exercising ourselves, facing challenges, etc., and whether or not we are just engaging in an egotistical and malicious exercise.
Taken to its extreme end, you could say that even in these circumstances there are still going to be a lot of gaps. For instance, you could have two best friends who have very opposite feelings about the word "drunk" because one of their fathers was a sloppy, brooding drunk and the other had a father who simply never drank. This even makes me think a bit of discussions we used to have in school rooms after reading literature: even in a group of all 17-year olds, everyone a white midwesterner, 9 out of 10 from Protestant backgrounds, you would still end up with big chasms in how a thing would be interpreted.
... This idea also always reminded me of when I would be having a debate and someone would refuse to acknowledge that my idea had merit, and would instead insist that there was something sinister lurking in it. I always envisioned that, upon death, when entering the Kingdom of God, I would be vindicated -- and as each person passed into eternity, they would have a split second to look upon the face of God and be imbued with a new way of thinking where everything that there was became fully translatable, and as they gazed into the eyes of the others in the Kingdom, they would learn what it was to be them and what it was to think as them.
This would not diminish your own mental life, but would enrich it, as it did not ask for an idea to be subsumed to it... It is like an other-worldly pluralism where you understand that there is a great diversity of virtuous thoughts, virtuous systems, and meritorious thinkers, and that the real curse upon us on Earth was the ignorance of having a flawed, mortal brain.
You could perhaps even argue that seeking to understand someone on their terms and in their language is a very important demonstration of the virtue of charity, and the virtue of wisdom. If this is the case, perhaps you could even say that it is a sin to mischaracterize or excessively attack another's position, particularly when there is a blatant disregard for their views.
Of course, there is a lot more to say about this sort of idea, and I believe I will return to this theme in the future... But perhaps it would be useful for us to think about where we are failing in building bridges, and whether we are arguing with the goal of getting better, exercising ourselves, facing challenges, etc., and whether or not we are just engaging in an egotistical and malicious exercise.