tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Wed Apr 03 10:24:56 2002

Back to archive top level

To this year's listing

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]

Re: pIn'a'

> 'ISqu' wrote:
>  > bIjangpa', mu' "philosopher" vImughmeH mu' {pIn'a'} vIlo' vIneH.
> Dr Lawrence once wrote about {HolQeD}, the KLI's quarterly journal:
>    "Actually, this IS canonical. It is a backfit that Marc Okrand was
>     kind enough to provide (I think in an interview), casually acknowledging
>     that of course this compound meant 'language science', or 'linguistics.'
>     And, presumably it does open the door to 'geology' and 'mathematics' and
>     many more."
> We can now add {HuchQeD} "economics" ("money science") to this (cf. KGT 
> 148). On this model, you could probably say *{SovQeD} "knowledge science". 

As one who considered becoming a philosophy major and settled on having it as 
one of my three concentrations in a Liberal Arts and Sciences degree, I have to 
object to the idea of Philosophy being "knoledge science".

If you go back to the etymology of the word philosophy, it refers to "the love 
of wisdom". Love is not science and wisdom is not knowledge.

At the root of philosophy is the love of the thinking process. It is an 
exploration of the thinking process; the use of thought to explore all things. 
Knowledge is, at best, the source of premises to use by philosophers in their 
larger logical abstractions.

Consider that, to a writer, a library of books already written may be valuable 
as a source for new ideas to be explored in new manuscripts, but the 
manuscripts are much more important to the writer than the already-published 
works. This is the relationship between knowledge and philosophy. The process 
of thought is where passions are focussed. Knowledge is a mere raw material for 

pe'vIl QubtaH *philosopher*.

Meanwhile, neither philosophers nor scientists have any interest in embracing 
the other's chosen discipline. Neither fully respects the perspective of the 

Scientists believe that they can observe effects and successfully theorize the 
causes. Philosophers have their own math that blocks that possibility. Using 
logic, observing effects, you can never determine causes. Just look at the 
logic table. It is obvious.

Meanwhile, philosophers believe that they are doing the most important human 
endeavor, practicing the discipline that most clearly marks the difference 
between humanity and other creatures of the Earth. Scientists see this as 
remarkably unproductive toward the advancement of the species.

Please don't confuse philosophy and science.

> But, if you're partial to {pIn'a'}, by all means use it.
>  > jabbI'IDlIjmo' vuDmeyvam vIlajQo'.
>  > chaq {ghobtej} vIlo'. "paghmo' tIn mIS" vIlaDtaHvIS mu'vam vItu'.
> Hmm... an "ethicist", from {ghob} "ethics, virtue"? It depends on what you 
> feel a Klingon philosopher does. You know, *{ghobQeD} and *{ghobtej} aren't 
> bad, considering Klingon obsession with adhering to honor and a moral code. 
> A philosopher might be someone who considers the best way to do that.

Again, Ethics is a branch of philosophy and not science. There is no ethical 
research. Nobody does ethical blind studies. There is no ethical technology or 
medicine; no ethical engineering. One thinks about ethics, and the root of 
philosophy is thinking, not knowing.

That's the weird thing about religion, since it is a branch of philosophy, 
though it keeps making absurd claims to being a science. The only philosophers 
who believe themselves to be scientists are psychotic.

>  > chaq {Sov tej} vIlo'. chaq {SovwI'} vIlo'. wej jIwuq.
> Many on the list use {tej} "scientist" for the practitioner of a given 
> {QeD}: e.g. *{Holtej} "linguist" ("language scientist"), suggesting 
> *{Sovtej} "philosopher" however strange that may sound to humanists.

It is even stranger to philosophers, mostly because {Sovtej} may be a biologist 
who studies the chemical and electrical nature of thought processes in the 
brain, but he is not a philosopher. He could be a librarian, involved in the 
scientific cataloging of knowledge, or he could be involved in heuristics, 
trying to develop better means of finding known facts in order to apply them 

These could be "knowledge scientists", but a philosopher is not a scientist in 
any way, and would feel insulted by the attempt to label them as such. The 
person making such a claim would be so obviously ignorant of the whole point of 
>  > vuDmeyvam vIqelta':
>  > ?Sov pIn'a' (=master of knowledge)
>  > ?meq pIn'a' (=master of reason/logical thinking)
>  > ?qech pIn'a' (=master of ideas).
> Again, it all depends on just what you think a philosopher studies, doesn't 
> it?

I can't feel certain that {meq} has the full variety of meanings that "reason" 
has in English. I've always thought of it as the simpler noun very naturally 
combined to form {meqmo'}.

Of these, I like {qech pIn'a'} most, but more than any other, I'd choose 
{Qubchu'taHwI'}. Philosophers never stop thinking, and they exhaust the process 
as perfectly and completely as they can. It is what they are compelled to do.
> Other words to consider include {nger} "theory", {De'} "data, information", 
> {ngoD} "fact", {vuD} "opinion", {QeD} "science". Cf. also {leSSov} 
> "foresight" for the practical side of philosophy.

Again, I think you misunderstand the meaning of the word "philosophy". Likely, 
the closest thing to a practical side of philosophy is probably Ethics. Even 
then, this is a prescription for what you "should" do, which is not exactly 
scientific. It can be used as guidance for legislators (who are not exactly 
scientists, either) and judges (for determining the spirit of the law and for 
guiding them in deciding upon punishments). All these science-based words you 
offer do not really apply to philosophy very well.
> Yet another option is {po'} "expert". Coincidentally, {pIn} is also slang 
> term for "expert, authority" according to KGT.
> -- 
> Voragh
> Ca'Non Master of the Klingons


Back to archive top level