[Main Blog Post] [Book] Thoughts on The Idea of the Holy

[jprussell]

I just wrapped up Rudolf Otto's The Idea of the Holy and decided to organize my thinking a bit with a post. As always, I'd love to hear what you think.

Comments

[sdi]

If I may jump in (on [1]), you're describing something I keep beating my head against in Greek—the adjective δεινός, which means "awful" in the same sort of archaic sense you mention in the blog post: anything that inspires awe, whether it be adoration, wonderment, or abject terror. (Aphrodite's beauty may be "awful" in the first sense, or seeing the ocean for the first time may be "awful" in the second sense, or Hades' three-headed fire-breathing monster-dog may be "awful" in the third sense. None of these are "awful" in the modern sense of how the lazy kid did on his math test.) There doesn't seem to be any good fit for δεινός in English, any more, and literal Greek translations tend to be a little tortured because of it (and words like it).

English is a very versatile language, but the more I look into other languages, the more its failings become apparent to me, and it's frustrating. I long for the day where I can finally speak without words...

[jprussell]

Greek is pesky that way (my usual go-to for this is ἀρετή (areté). You can always take the approach of long ages of classicists - just borrow the word, maybe lightly Anglicized. That has it's own issues, of course, but it does sometimes feel like the best option (I mean, heck, the main idea in the book reviewed here is expressed with a direct borrowing from Latin: the numinous).

As for failings of English, agreed, but it strikes me that every language handles some things better than others. In this case, the single Greek word δεινός (deinós) stresses the similarity of the examples you gave, where English arguably emphasizes their differences better. Flip it around, and Greek's various words for different kinds of love (ἀγάπη (agápē), φιλαδελφία (philadelphía), ἔρως (érōs), and so forth) better highlight that these experiences are different, whereas English "love" better emphasizes what they have in common. There's likely something interesting to be worked out by looking at which concepts a language distinguishes versus smashing together, like the semi-mythical Inuit words for snow or Arabic words for sand.

As you say, moving beyond the need for arbitrary verbal/visual markers for concepts would be awfully convienient (there's that word!).

Cheers,
Jeff

[sdi]

Absolutely, I agree in all respects. (Though, I fear I already have a hard time being understood in English, so if I started mixing Greek into my prose, it'd be hopeless...)

One quick note for future reference is that the second kind of love is φιλία ("friendship") rather than φιλαδελφία (φιλία-ἀδελφός "the love of brothers"). It is common to address someone as "ὦ φίλαι," "my friend" or "my dear."

[jprussell]

Ah, thanks, I thought that "brotherly love" got its own term, rather than just personal and city names, but I appreciate the correction.

[sdi]

Oh man, Greek loves compound words, so it's pretty common to see roots squished together and it's hard to tell what constitutes a "word." (Looking something up in the dictionary is something of an art form and I'm no good at it yet.) My dictionary, at least, has these roots:

φιλία [philia] "friendship"
ἔρως [eros] "sexual desire"
ἀγάπη [agape] "(non-sexual) love"
στοργή [storge] "affection" (esp. parents for childen, etc.)

And then it's common to combine words to get more specific:

φιλ-αδελφία [philadelphia] "love for a brother"
φιλ-ανδρία [philandria] "love for a husband"
etc.