https://youtubetranscript.com/?v=UiUg3G_tSuY
Postmodernism is a good example. Let me just pivot to the concept of a leaky abstraction. It comes from computer science, but I think it applies to words too. Like conceptually, postmodernism is messy. I’m not like, don’t identify as a postmodernist or anything. That’s why I write about metamodernism as a different thing. And that is a complex topic too, right? It’s still evolving, it’s still disputed. And my article was largely about that, the kind of historiography of that. So it’s a complex overview of that. And I have a whole section on postmodernism. And the point is, it’s very difficult to reduce postmodernism to a single universal definition. That doesn’t mean it’s wrong. It means the term itself is a kind of slip-up or diaphanous container for a bunch of ideas. One of my key points is that it’s irreducible. And if people reduce it to say, hey, postmodernism is this, postmodernism is relativism. That’s a vicious abstraction. That does a disservice to ourselves as thinkers because these things are more complex. I’m going the opposite way. You’re saying there’s an essence to all these words. You’re kind of realist about words. I’m not trying to be a realist. I’m trying to be a pragmatist. And I’m like, if I want to use a word, it needs to mean a thing. And if it doesn’t mean a thing, it’s not a word. It’s just jumbo jumbo. Things are mistranslated in Jonathan’s verse, or sorry, not Jonathan, well, John Breveke is versed in the classics and all that. But those things are translated from Greek. In translation, things get mistranslated. Metanoia is a case in point because the Bible translated metanoia its original meaning of change of mind to repentance. This is a classic example of what I’m talking about of vicious abstraction. I’m not saying it’s intentional. I’m not saying the effects are necessarily that damaging or vicious, but it is a misrepresentation or a miscommunication of the original intent. I’m not a linguist, but a basis of linguistics is how a lot of it is metaphysical and socially constructed. Don’t agree that words have an essence. And I think we could defer to John or to whoever on that topic. Maybe you and I are just talking past each other and that’s the last thing I want. Well, okay, I want your argument, right? So if words don’t have an essence, what are we doing? They have essences. They have essences. I mean, I’m trying to meet you halfway and say that they have enough meaning for us to be able to communicate. But not everybody has the same sort of education or primary language growing up. Maybe English is their second language. I’m not arguing that that is true, right? Like that’s the straw man of my position. I’m not arguing that everybody looks at the words the same way, right? That’s definitely not what I’m doing, right? Like what I’m arguing is that there’s a platonic form, right? That is being symbolized by the word. And we all have different conceptualizations of the platonic form because of our historical upbringing, but that doesn’t mean that the form isn’t there and that we’re not talking about the same thing, right? So if you’re saying the form isn’t there, then I don’t have to communicate with you anymore because I’m not talking about the same thing anyway. And if you say the form is there, that means that every word is pointing at that form. So then we’re gonna have to need a form for every word. Like I just see a middle ground there. Yeah, I mean, this is a very philosophical kind of point and debate, you know, are the forms there? Are the forms not there? Part of my approach would be to say, like, you know, it’s important to learn that stuff, but that it’s also, it’s very speculative. It’s neither here nor there, you know, the forms are here, the forms are there, wherever. Like I’m definitely getting lost on one end of this conversation about forms, but like the idea of forms, like you can’t have forms without abstraction, right? The key I’m trying to emphasize here is not Plato. It’s the process of abstraction itself. The process of thinking that we all do has to be understood in a way beyond Plato. Plato is important. So I think, right, like, okay, so I’m gonna invert it, right? So I think if you take the form as primary, right, then we necessarily, when we have a word, we have an abstraction of the form, right? We cannot hold the whole concept in our minds because that’s too big and we have limited life experience. Right, so we always gain an abstraction, right? But as long as we hold in our minds that what we’re relating to is an abstraction of something that’s beyond the word, then we’re good, right? But that needs a sense of humility, right? So for example, right, like when you went to your translation of the Metanoia into, what was it? Repentance. Repentance, like I was okay with that. I didn’t think that was a mistranslation at all. So from my conceptualization and my understanding of Christianity, that is a good representation of that concept. So I like- That’s precisely what I’m getting at though, is if you read what the scholars are saying about the translation, in part, I’m just echoing what the scholars have said. They’re describing it as a definite mistranslation, right? So I’m not saying it doesn’t make sense. Repentance does make sense in the context, but it’s not the complete translation. According to these scholars, right? These are biblical scholars and historians and philosophers who are saying that it’s mistranslated.