So, Reineke did better than I would have about the extent of Latin, as I wouldn't have had numbers about the corpus - I'll leave that numerical bit to those who have the resources and desire
I'd also like to note that I speak a lot about the Western Canon below, and of Western tradition. This is not to denigrate any other tradition, nor out of any desire to deny anyone a seat at the table. I am very aware of those who have been excluded from said conversation, and the problems of inclusivity (and that's a whole 'nother tangent). Additionally, there are certainly many other traditions, each of value and rich in their content. Furthermore, I recognize that any written tradition across languages is shaped by the language community - the "canon" in the anglophone world looks different than other parts of Europe (NB, this is a large part of why I learn langauges!).
Working backwards:
Regarding the role of the conversation throughout the WestAni wrote:The discussion evolved into the assertion that the thinking and ideas most valuable to the world came through Latin and Greek. I think that is kind of a dumb statement since it is unverifiable, but it prompted a great discussion.
I think here the assertion is about the "world" that took its path through Western Europe and into the Americas. Latin philosophy considered itself the inheritors of the Greek tradition (this is why e.g. Aurelius wrote his meditations in Greek, which he considered to be more fitting for philosophy), and much of the philosophical conversation has been a series of influences from the early Greek thinkers (Whitehead, who was mentioned before, is probably one of the first who is doing something novel; the positivists could be counted here but what turned into analytic philosophy did have to go through the collapse of logical positivism prior to it. Even as late as Hegel, it's essentially "hey, look at what Plotinus wrote, let's interpret that into my scheme"). If one is talking about, say, the Western literary canon, you can't really get away from either the direct or the indirect influence of those original thinkers, and, as has been noted, the use of Latin (and Greek! Look at Renaissance work in Greek!) as a second language, as a medium of educated thought or expression. Even today, across "pure" philosophical disciplines and "philosophy of" (especially phil of science), you'll find positions influenced by (or occasionally directly those of) the ancients.
Indirectly as well, in both the anglophone world and through Europe, we have a cultural tradition of education in these "classical" languages, and "classical" works. If one were particularly interested in that tradition, the modality is through the vehicle of the original, as it's been a bit of Western culture since the Renaissance that the source text in the source language expresses more than a translation.
Does everyone need this kind of background? Nope. Is it nice? I think so.
Ani wrote:Further, for important works, you can usually find long expositions that containing all the analysis and translational considerations.
This is true, however, I'd argue that the amount of time to become genuinely conversant with the literature explaining all the bits around translation and background and influence approximates (if it is not greater than) the time to learn enough Greek and Latin to read comfortably.
MorkTheFiddle wrote:Some of what Plato has Socrates say is downright nonsense.
For sure!
MorkTheFiddle wrote:Without the intervening 2500 years of explanations and interpretations, how important would Plato be?
Well, the thing is, it's not just Plato, right? It's the Neoplatonists or the Stoics, thinking they are the authoritative interpreters of Plato. It's Augustine, who reads Plotinus and thinks he's in conversation with Plato. It's Pseudodionysius and Boethius, it's Aquinas, it's Wolff and Leibniz, Kant and Hegel, and so on, each directly in conversation with Plato as well as those who came in between (apologies for a handful of theologians there, but you get what I mean).
Regarding translations, especially of Ancient Greek and LatinMorkTheFiddle wrote: I have read enough to believe that nothing gets lost in translation. Plato's style of writing does get lost, and he is a masterful writer, to which some of his longevity can be attributed, but not the ideas.
This is problematic. The easiest example is the US-American claim of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", intentionally formulated on a particular translation using "happiness", which has become ambiguous (and probably was then to many). There are monographs on this term (
eudaimonia, by the way) alone in Aristotle and Plato, and much modern virtue ethics is built on it. The ideas are still there - if you get the background of some terms explained (another one is the virtue-art-habit-work bundle), and are willing to do the digging in the secondary literature...and if every translator uses the same terms the same way (they don't). Arguably this is very specific, and not necessary to everyone, but the plain fact is that it's probably as much work to have a deep understanding of the Ancient Greeks in translation as it is to read them in Ancient Greek. I've made a fair amount of academic hay out of "you can't just do this in translation...you keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means"
MorkTheFiddle wrote:But leave that aside, are there any ideas from Latin secular literature that we use unadulterated in their original form? Is what the Romans called a republic what we would call a republic? Haven't their ideas like the ideas of the Ancient Greeks substantially mutated with the passage of time and the application of interpretations?
I think here there's a lot of value in being able to make this distinction, and to "look behind" texts quoted in support of a position to be able to critically engage with it. Your question about the republic, sure, we can analyze that without learning Latin, but we can also get some insight by looking at the way it's spoken about, or we can learn the language and have an intuitive understanding of the concept. It's about the same work, if we're going to cast the net wide, just different starting points.
Regarding cultural signaling, comparative culture, and value by ageAni wrote:To this end, how do we separate what is cultural signaling in educational choices from what has a quantitative value.. or is it even possible to quantify or analyze great thought across distinct cultures. And how does the idea that "the length of time a work has survived is indicative of the value of ideas it contains" relate here..?
I'm not entirely sure what cultural signaling is, to be honest. Something like virtue signaling, and the desire to belong to a specific cultural tradition?
I'm not sure great thought can be quantified at all, and even influence can be argued for anyone but the really heavy hitters. I think there's perhaps a lot in education that can't be quantified, but I tend to talk about education as both "imparting of knowledge, practical or not" and "formation" (again, something I have from not-English!
), so we may not be talking about the same thing here. My question when considering educational choices is more "what sort of person might be shaped by this" or "what sort of person might need to be exposed by this" and seeing of that (in my concept) lines up with my goal (ha, to say nothing of anyone else's goal!).
I don't think time has much to do with value, but within traditions, we do see ideas recur, and I think there's a lot of value in being able to look at a "literary conversation" across the ages, and the manner in which these ideas are taken up, modified, passed on, and have shaped our surroundings.
As one can probably tell, I have specific ideas about education and culture, and come from this viewpoint in much of the above. I've tried not to be pedantic or long-winded (which is difficult at the best of times, and more so when you figure that this is right in the middle of a conversation about stuff that I teach or discuss academically) - if I've been too unclear, or if I've offended anyone, please know I don't mean to, and I'm trying hard to have a nice conversation. My wife tells me not to go on and on and on and on, so I'm trying to not do that as well!