The Reading Room

« first day (3841 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1106 days later) »

bobble

04:46

I've managed to pull together a more well-defined and narrowly-scoped version (in my opinion) of one of the questions I was initially interested in asking. Let's see how this fares.

(I'm also quite open to anyone suggesting/editing tags, I wasn't sure what to add beyond the requisite author/work/language ones)

Bookworm

05:05

Q: How is Aias's initially informal speech reflected in the original text?

I am reading James Scully's translation of Aias (also known as Ajax), in The Complete Plays of Sophocles, translated by Robert Bagg & James Scully. When Aias first enters, his speech is quite informal, lacking normal capitalization or sentence structure: O O my sailors! friends! you alon...

2 hours later…

Mithical

06:47

@bobble I added aias as a synonym of ajax, in any case.

4 hours later…

Rand al'Thor

10:59

@bobble orthography?

b_jonas

11:09

@Bookworm That's not much to go on. 1960s children book, delightful pictures, white kitten playing, and the moon in a puddle. Do you suppose it's one of Suteev's books?

That doesn't match “book called the moon game”, but I'll try to find some tables of contents to see if it matches the name of any stories. Also I think there's only a dog playing with the moon's reflection in a pond, and another story about birds and the moon, no cats and the moon. But I don't remember for sure.

Oh wait, there is one about a cat and the reflection of the moon, but not in a pond, but on a piece of glass on the roof.

4 hours later…

bobble

15:22

@Bookworm how is this question reflected in the HNQs?

bobble

16:15

@Randal'Thor I considered that, but discarded it because while I was noting orthography in my text, I was asking about any way this was conveyed in the original text, which might not be orthographical

Tsundoku

16:49

@NapoleonWilson Could you please explain why you use the slight "atheistic pride"? My answer does not start from "atheism is right" or some such position. My main argument is quite different: on a site where we basically come to learn from each other, is it really appropriate to censor certain types of statements because of how people feel about them? Would such a policy by appropriate on a site where answers are meant to be evaluated based on the evidence and arguments they present?

@NapoleonWilson Could you explain why you use the term "offended" here in spite of its ambiguity? Do you "insulted"? If yes, is it reasonable to feel insulted by a statement about a specific text (as opposed to statements about people)?

Could you explain which part of my answer represents "an attempt to solve the broader issue of religion"? As opposed to protecting free speech against censorship based on feelings?

"discussing the truth or fictionality of whatever text is ultimately not necessary or even the site's job". Whether that gets discussed depends on the question being asked. Is it the site's job to provide a safe space for feelings about specific texts?

Napoleon Wilson

17:49

@Tsundoku I don't really make big difference between the two or considered to delve too much into meticulous definition details about what the word "offend" could possibly mean. I only found the logical conclusion that people feel offended on behalf of a text rather odd.

@Tsundoku Neither is really the site's job. Which is why a pragmatic approach as Gareth presents seems an altogether more helpful approach.

Tsundoku

@NapoleonWilson I'm putting the finger on an equivocation used by certain religious persons; the equivocation as such isn't mine though.

Napoleon Wilson

@Tsundoku It's not really intended as a slight more than a colloguial summary that doesn't spend too much time on proper wording in a chat message. But yes, your answer did seem to start from that position, which is a noble position in itself, but not necessarily the best one to approach the problem from in this specific case.

@Tsundoku I strongly doubt that religious people are genuinely offended on behalf of a text. If that is the assumption, then I'm afraid the problem is absolutely not understood.

If that's not the assumption, then it's a starwman argument.

Tsundoku

It's the tone of those statements (as I have heart them in debates) that tells me they mean "insulted". The target of those feelings is statements about faith or religious texts.

Since the original statements are about ideas, not people, how do people end up being insulted?

I'd be happy to hear an alternative explanation than the one I offered.

Napoleon Wilson

I'm not even sure why the differentiation between "insulted" and "offended" is even relevant for anything. They mean practically the same.

Tsundoku

"Offend" has several meanings, as I explained in my answer. "Insult" is less ambiguous. That's why I use the term here.

AncientSwordRage

18:42

@Tsundoku I think the precise meaning is less important (to those offended) than the sentiment felt. Trying to prove a point on a technicality misses the point entirely

As for the assumptions in your answer to the meta question... My response was too long for a comment when I read it, and I don't really have the time nor energy to do so over stackexchange chat

Needless to say, if a thing makes up part of somebody's identity dismissing it in anyway will be dismissing that person by proxy.

Tsundoku

Since equivocation is often used in debates on faith, I wouldn't dismiss it as just a "technicality".

Equating people with their ideas is another fallacy. One that I have seen on the meta site before, but then in the shape of equating people with the questions they post.

AncientSwordRage

I think assuming equivocation rather than accepting you are dealing with things that can't be pinned down and described easily. If such things were easy to write about and understand there wouldn't be much need for this stack site, would there?

As for equating people with their ideas being a fallacy, I would also say separating a person from their ideas is the more flawed approach. Could I easily separate you from your thoughts and feelings on this topic?

Tsundoku

If you think I "assume" equivocation, can you please explain how people end up feeling insulted when someone makes a statement about a text?

With regard to separating people from their ideas: (1) Distinguishing is not the same as separating; (2) we "separate" ourselves from certain ideas each time we change our mind about something.

AncientSwordRage

@Tsundoku I've already explained about people forming an identity from 'things', if that thing is a religious text it follows they would find themselves offended by proxy.

You've not actually answered my question on separating you from your ideas. You've brought in another word, and then made a comment about changing minds.

I would argue we aren't separated from past ideas but informed by them, one would hope

Tsundoku

18:57

I don't understand why separating people from their ideas would be a "flawed approach". A flawed approach to what?

@AncientSwordRage Not really. To take a silly example: A believed the Earth was flat. A was shown evidence that the Earth was spherical. A separated themselves that the Earth was flat. In this scenario, I would say that A is now informed by the new idea, not by the old one.

AncientSwordRage

@Tsundoku flawed approach to empathizing? Understanding them?

@Tsundoku say an alternative version of 'A' never believed in a flat earth, are they the same as the version who used to but no longer does?

Tsundoku

Are you saying that certain types of statements about religious texts should not be allowed on the main site because those statements are a flawed approach to emphathising? I'm trying to get a clearer formulation of what you are arguing for.

AncientSwordRage

@Tsundoku it was a response to 'Equating people with their ideas is another fallacy. I'm questioning that statement with a counterargument

I think empathizing with people regardless of your own point of view takes precedence over correctness, especially as it's rarely needed.

That's me done. If you want to further know my thoughts I put them in a response to that same question you answered

Tsundoku

Re "are they the same as the version who used to but no longer does?" That gets us into a complicated philosophical discussion on the metaphysics of identity. I don't think we need to solve that problem here. My point is that it is perfectly normal for people to change their mind about something and thus "separate" themselves from older ideas.

"correctness ... is rarely needed". On Stack Exchange ... I'm speechless.

Bookworm

19:21

Q: Why are these biblical scenes mentioned in italics and title case in "Satan in Goray"?

In Isaac Bashevis Singer's Satan in Goray, this is mentioned in the descriptions of Levi, Rabbi Benish's son, and Nechele, Levi's wife: Nechele never ceased complaining of how she had fallen into a vulgar house; her thin lips mumbled constantly, and her nose crinkled as though she suffered from ...

yiddish-literature isaac-bashevis-singer satan-in-goray

2 hours later…

bobble

20:59

@Bookworm the-bible?

1 hour later…

Gareth Rees

22:27

Speaking of treating religious works the same as any other literature, have opinions changed enough in the last couple of years that we can reopen this question?

Tsundoku

22:42

Even though I close-voted it at the time, I'm not entirely sure what to do with that question. (1) It has been answered on Biblical Hermeneutics SE. (2) Is this the question asking for literary analysis or theology.

My last comment on that question says, "I will vote to reopen if/when the OP clarifies that the intent of the question is literary, not theological." but the user has an unregistered account and has not returned to the site since 2019.

« first day (3841 days earlier) ← previous day next day → last day (1106 days later) »

all rooms