Words as "mere expressions." In this passage of the #PaliCanon of #Buddhism (Samyutta Nikaya 1.25), the question is: Does the "Arahant" (who has attained the goal) use the word "I"? The answer is yes, but only conventionally:
Words as "servants." In Diogenes Laertius, an important source for Greek #philosophy, on #Pyrrhonism:
> So they were merely using the words as servants, as it was not possible not to refute one statement by using another; just as we are accustomed to say there is no such thing as space, and yet we have no alternative but to speak of space for the purpose of argument, though not of positive doctrine, and just as e say nothing comes about by necessity and yet have to speak of necessity.
Words as "makeshift description." In the #Tao Te Ching, 15 (D.C. Lau):
> Of old he who was well versed in the way
> Was minutely subtle, mysteriously comprehending,
> And too profound to be known.
> It is because he could not be known
> That he can only be given a makeshift description:
An anti-linguistic thread, in which words are described as "mere expressions," as "servants," and as "makeshift description" in three different areas of #philosophy: #Taoism#Buddhism and #Greek philosophy @philosophy
(Yes, I know the Lau translation of the #Tao is a bit unlike other translations of this passage)
Add comment