Astro Boy and Jungle Emperor
I used to love science subjects. "1 plus 1 equals 2", "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is 180 degrees", "substances are made up of molecules, and molecules are made up of atoms". They seem to be accepted all over the world without being denied by anyone. I've never seen "the world" before.
Compared to that, Japanese and social studies had vague answers, had to be memorized (I had a poor memory), and were uninteresting.
I grew up in Japan during the period of high economic growth. Scientific omnipotence, the "future" shone with science. "Astro Boy" "was" in my head. Of course I wanted to be a scientist. I was not good at sports, so I thought I could become "Dr. Ochanomizu" even if I couldn't become Astro Boy (laughs).
However, the girl I "accidentally" fell in love with (I had a crush on her) was a humanities major, so I changed to a humanities major (sweat). It is only half a century later that I realize that it was an event that denied my life up to that point (sweat, sweat).
"Jungle Emperor" by Osamu Tezuka, the author of my favorite "Astro Boy" has been broadcast. It was very interesting. It is a work that can be said to be the exact opposite of "scientific omnipotence." And by learning the term "non-Euclidean geometry" (I don't know what it means), I learned that "the sum of the interior angles of a triangle is not necessarily 180 degrees". Still, I could not deny that "1 plus 1 equals 2" and "materials are made of molecules".
Yuru Linguistic Radio[Wiki]
I had absolutely no interest in linguistics, the best humanities subject. After retiring, I happened to see his YouTube "Yuru Linguistics Radio". Taiki Mizuno and Ms. Horimotomi's story was very interesting and drew me in. The program has been on air since March 2021, but I started watching it about half a year later. I don't remember how I started watching it. I think it was by chance.
Mr. Mizuno is a “dictionary nerd” and a hard-core humanities person, but he is full of passion for “knowledge (knowledge)” and I feel sympathy for him. Although his "knowledge amount and memory power" are not as good as him. As a big senior of "Otaku", I feel like I want to support him. Mr. Horimoto is an information-oriented person, and his way of thinking is similar to the way I used to think. I still enjoy computer programming, and it's great to be able to tell a computer what to think, and if I do it correctly, it will do what I want and give me the results I want. Of course, it's not easy to get there, but the effort itself (knowledge acquisition and logical thinking) is fun.
Both of them have a great sense of humor. I get the feeling that both of them want to "show off" their knowledge. I love quiz shows. It is a pleasure to “know” something more than others. "Poop Eureka Quiz" is perfect for my hobby.
Currently, the program has about 190,000 subscribers, but at first they probably didn't think they would become so famous. I think it was something like "I want to talk to you."
There are countless theories, including those that are said to be "established theories". Akira Mikami's "The Elephant Has a Long Nose" and the author's "Japanese doesn't need a subject", which were featured in the program, go against the current policy of the Ministry of Education, and of course there are many counterarguments. That's it. Of course, Mr. Mizuno knew that, and he probably didn't think his knowledge was "infallible and perfect." If one's knowledge is "infallible and perfect," one does not seek to acquire more knowledge than one who has attained enlightenment. And you don't have to flaunt it. I want to talk to people because I think "that's not true", because I'm worried. That's why I think the concept was to talk about what you think "as much as you like" even though you know that there are various opinions (theories).
However, when the number of subscribers increases and they feel that their program may have "influence", they are told that "there is an error (in the academic sense)". I think I've become afraid of So I started apologizing. There is a "notice" at the end of each program that says, "We haven't done rigorous verification. There are various theories about the content. Please listen after understanding." It appeared. Perhaps it is the part that they are convinced that they are "wrong" and not the "difference in way of thinking". But since I don't know everything, of course there are things like that. It is impossible to know or read everything in the field of aa (syntax) of A (linguistics), the work of XX by a scholar named 〇〇.
And let's say you're interested in generative grammars. If you read a lot of books related to it, you will inevitably find it difficult to see how "generative grammar" is evaluated by the world (not by academic societies) and whether it is "correct". Biases such as "It's right regardless of evaluation" and "There are times when it's right and wrong, but I like it" are applied.
Probably, since the start of the program, the preliminary verification has been done properly, and there is also a foundation that Mr. Mizuno himself has studied. Later, linguists have played supervisory roles or made appearances. It may be different from "academic", but I feel that the original "as much as you like" has changed.
I won't go into the details of what Mr. Takehiro Kanaya said, as it was mostly introduced on "Yuru Linguistics Radio". Please read this book and watch "Yuru Linguistics Radio".
Can You Speak Japanese Properly?
There are three prime ministers who appear in "The Japanese Language Will Never Die." Shinzo Abe, Yasuo Fukuda, and Taro Aso. Each of them is memorable, but in terms of words, the impression of Taro Aso is strong. It feels like a "old man of a construction shop" with his appearance. However, although I was not good at reading sentences, other than that, I felt that my personality was frankly expressed. Why do Japanese politicians and bureaucrats read the entire text? I think that he (she) himself is not there (the content of the sentence). It must be directing the "position as a role" that can be replaced any number of times. Celebrities and people with status are criticized for that alone. Not to mention misreading, it's a good target. However, what is criticized is not the individual "Taro Aso", but the "position" of the "Prime Minister".
As for myself, I don't think I speak ``proper Japanese''. I mispronounce kanji all the time, and if I read a new (unfamiliar) katakana word, I'm sure I'll bite it (a lot in the news these days). I'm not particularly good at "honorifics". I don't even remember learning in elementary and junior high school.
In the band ``Japanese has honorifics but no subjects'',
A hotel receptionist who was asked by a guest where the room was,
"Then I'll teach you."
○ or X as an honorific?
Can you give me an immediate answer? I couldn't And the obi has no answer, nasty. I bought it and read the text. The list price at the time of the first edition (2010) is "740 yen + tax". The tax rate at that time was 5%. Currently, it is sold at used bookstores for 110 yen or 220 yen including tax, so please buy it.
I had surgery the other day and just got out of the hospital. It didn't bother me that much while I was in the hospital, but I'm worried about what the nurse (or doctor) said when I went to the hospital. They are very polite. “May I ask your name?” “May I take your temperature?” “May I take your blood pressure?” “May I go to the X-ray room?” If I say, "I don't like it," will they say, "Is it okay if I go home?" My condition is getting worse, so I want to see a doctor at any cost. Well, if the patient consented, it wouldn't be a medical lawsuit, but I think it's kind of strange.
If you don't have the confidence to use honorifics properly, you won't like to speak in public. I don't know how to talk at work or at company drinking parties. It's fine if it's just a friend you don't care about. I went to Gyoza no Ohsho for the first time the other day. I asked for warm Shaoxing wine, but it was brought by a girl who seemed to be a part-time high school student. She looked so hot that I told her to tell her friends that when she said, "You look hot," she said, "It's really hot." Until then, I was very polite and spoke according to the manual, so as an uncle, I was very happy to have an atmosphere where I felt like I was in touch with a high school girl (laughs). maybe.
School Grammar
I don't remember learning Japanese grammar (school grammar) at school, but I do know words like Godan conjugation and Joichidan conjugation. (forgot what it means). But speaking of grammar, I learned English grammar in junior high school. SVO, intransitive verbs, transitive verbs, etc. And I remember learning a "verb conjugation table" in old texts in high school. Therefore, I feel that Japanese grammar was inferred from that English grammar and classical grammar.
So, I was thinking of trying to make the Japanese I speak closer to that (English). By clarifying whose action (subject), I was trying to make it a "logically correct" word. I believed that "there is no subject in Japanese" is "wrong" and that the "subject is omitted" or "the subject is included at the end of the sentence". In that sense, I thought that "Japanese is not a logical language."
The author cites three major errors in school grammar
1. Japanese doesn't need a "subject"
2. Strange adherence to hiragana analysis
3. The misunderstood auto/transitive verb opposition in Japanese
.
Japanese doesn't need a "subject"
Mikami said that there is a "subject" in Japanese. On the contrary, it is said to be a very important concept for the Japanese language, and its label is ``ha''. Next, there is also the “nominative case”. This is marked by the case particle ``ga''. However, the nominative word is only a "complement", and the nominative complement is not an essential element for forming a sentence. So the conclusion is clear. The Japanese syntactic explanation does not need a "subject". If you take off the sunglasses of the subject and review the Japanese language, the problem of "the difference between ha and ga" will not arise, and the basic sentences of Japanese will be really clear as a single predicate. In other words, there are only three types of noun sentences (example: I like it), verb sentences (example: I laughed), and adjective sentences (example: fun). On the other hand, English has a subject and predicate, but this is due to the "special circumstances" of many Western languages such as English that "the form of a verb cannot be determined without a subject" (personal change). (“Nihongo wa nai” will be referred to as “death” below, p.86)
It is a mistake to think that it is.
Mystery of sticking to hiragana analysis
Japanese conjugation tables in textbooks (including ancient texts) are written in hiragana. It's called "five-dan utilization" or "joichi-dan utilization".
The stem of "drink" should be "Nom-" instead of "no". In general linguistics, the "double articulation" advocated by Martinet is a major principle, and this "double articulation" is the difference between human language and animal sounds. (deceased, p.92)
Condemns school grammar as "unscientific" (deceased, p.93).
The Misunderstood Self/Transitive Verb Conflict in Japanese
What is Structuralism? It was a challenge to Sartre's existentialism, which was regarded as an intellectual giant at the time, and which regarded "individual active subjectivity" as a matter of course and emphasized freedom separated from the chain of groups or "places." Met. I heard a lecture by Lévi-Strauss some thirty years ago, where he emphasized the shift from conscious linguistic phenomena to unconscious "structural" research. In addition, it was the discovery of general rules based on the relationship (thing) rather than the actual situation (thing) as the basis of analysis. This is the ``structuralism'' he advocated, and I believe that it can be applied admirably to the self/transitive verb opposition in Japanese, and that ``general rules'' can be discovered. (Deceased, P.96)
I'm a bit confused about auto/transitive verbs. When I was a student, I didn't feel refreshed about things like case particles (so-called ``tenioha'') and auxiliary verbs (``desu-masu'', etc.), but since I memorized them just for exams, as I said, I forgot them. .
Well, the point is "to be" and "to be" ("su" in archaic language). For example, ``turn (Mawa-Su)'' is a transitive verb, and ``turn (Maw-ARU)'' is an intransitive verb.
"Yes" and "Do"
"Do" is an artificial act. "There" is a state that is natural or beyond human control.
Japanese people's plant orientation toward animals is a worldview that puts plants that "have" higher than animals that "do". It's all about respect for the subject. ("Japanese has honorifics but no subject", hereinafter displayed as "kei", p.177)
We “see” it in our interpersonal relationships. In this approximation, the person is verbalized as an existence that "exists" in the natural world and that has a power that transcends human activity. (Kei, P.176)
The distinction between ``self/transitive verbs'' and ``active/passive'' in English has /suru", which is a characteristic "honorific" in Japanese. If you add ``kosoado'' to this,
in other words, you, the speaker, are likened to the weak. The typical image is the "frog" facing the "old pond". The action in the world of "ko" in "kosoado" becomes "objective respect", and the verb "suru" is mainly used for expression. The ``person of interest'' or ``listener'' is regarded as nature ``over there'' far away, and this is lifted up and placed higher. In that positional relationship, the one who is "here" on the ground engages in some fleeting action even if he is not busy. (Kei, P.177)
If you can understand it well, you will have a better understanding of the Japanese language and Japanese culture.
ChatGPT
Last month, when my child came home, he showed me using "ChatGPT". It is interesting. If you put in a program, it will explain and correct it. It's amazing.
I use Google search a lot. It will give you the "answer". When I searched for "ChatGPT" just now, "about 796,000,000 (0.31 seconds)" was displayed. But I only see the first page, and it's a couple of cases. So I'm worried that people will believe only the "representative" meanings and explanations. If the results are still unsatisfactory, you can search further. ChatGPT is on a different level. Even if you ask the same question, you will get different answers.
Prime Minister Kishida met with the CEO of OpenAI (April 10, 2023). Well, I thought, but the next day (I think it was) there was an article in the newspaper saying, "ChatGPT will make a written answer" (I don't have the article at hand, so it's not accurate). I thought, ``I don't need a prime minister or bureaucrats anymore.'' ``I don't need to think about it anymore. I don't think "What ChatGPT is saying (actually, I've never heard him speak, but ChatGPT can answer if you put in the Prime Minister's voice data) is correct", and "I'm at the top of Google search. I don't think it's correct because it's displayed, and I don't think it's correct because it's written in an authoritative book.
It's very easy to leave the research and thinking to the computer, but the important thing is not "who thinks", but whether the computer "thinks". Are computers thinking in less than a second when ChatGPT answers?
Since the year before last, the NHK Cup Television Go Tournament has displayed 3 moves in order of strength, with 3 % of the ``Situation Judgment'' and ``Predicted Moves''. I'm a novice at Go, so I don't know the superiority of the position, but it's very interesting to see that each move in the middle of the game changes by several tens of percent. Now it seems that it is indispensable for shogi players to "study with AI". Is Go AI "thinking"?
The core of a computer is an electronic board "logic board (motherboard, main board)" that moves with electrical signals. Logic boards, as the name suggests, work "logically". Because it is logic, "true or false" "Yes or No" "Yes or No" "1 or 0 "White or black", in terms of electricity, "On or Off". Any complex data is translated into combinations of 0's and 1's and processed, and the final result is also a combination of 0's and 1's. In the case of a game of Go, you win (1) or lose (0).
In terms of rules, there is also a "draw". It seems that Go AI sometimes shows "wrong moves", but that means "wrong" for humans. You can't go wrong with winning or losing results.
If the Go AI is "thinking", it means that "being logical (rational)" is "thinking". And I've been trying to be rational (logical) ever since "monogogoro" came along.
Specificities of English
French has almost turned English into a different language. It stems from the fact that Guillaume, Duke of Norman, invaded England from France in 1066 over the succession to the throne, defeated his former king's brother-in-law, Harold, and conquered England. The winner, Guillaume, became King William I of England. This is what the world calls the Norman Conquest.
The ruling class crossed the Straits of Dover in the tens of thousands. They wrote and spoke in French. Officially, the document was written in Latin. Thus, all political, economic, social and cultural activities in England were carried out by the ruling class whose mother tongue was French. The humiliating conditions for the British continued until the beginning of the fourteenth century, when the Hundred Years' War began. Three hundred years indeed. (Deceased, P.67-68)
Amidst this, a large amount of French vocabulary was introduced into Old English, and grammatical simplification took place. I mentioned earlier that English lost the distinction between masculine/feminine nouns and also lost noun declension (declension) and verb conjugation (conjugation). With the addition of the obligatory use of the transitive verb ``Do'' in interrogative/negative sentences, which was only for emphasis, modern English has further strengthened the SVO tendency centered on action sentences. Grammar relations can no longer be expressed only by word order, and it is mandatory to place the actor at the beginning of a sentence. This is the occurrence of the subject. (Deceased, P.76)
An important change in perspective theory is the loss of the difference between second-person honorifics and honorifics, resulting in the single word "you". This was a significant change in English, given that French and German still retain the ``tu/vous'' and ``Du/Sie'' distinctions, respectively.
The transitive verb of action Do, which was sometimes used for emphasis, has become obligatory in interrogative/negative sentences, and furthermore, its tendency to ``subject language centered on action sentences'' has changed. It is modern English that has been strengthened. In English, where grammatical relationships can no longer be expressed only by word order, it is now obligatory to place the word "actor" at the beginning of a sentence.
This is nothing but the occurrence of the subject. In other words, the subject is not universal in human languages, but is a phenomenon that occurs exceptionally in some Western languages.
Languages like English, French, and German that have a subject in the sentence are still very few, and the number of them does not exceed 10, including Nordic. (Kei, P.32-33)
It means that English (modern English), which always needs a subject, is a "special (peculiar) existence" among the languages of the world. . Western linguistics seems to be based on the idea that it is "universal" in language. It can be SVO, SVC, or SVOO, but it always assumes "S" (subject).
I found this table while googling. "Expression of Pronominal Subjects (pronominal subject expression)”. Of the 711 languages, 82 require pronouns in the subject position. Japanese is "Optional pronouns in subject position". The most common is "Subject affixes on verb (the subject is attached to the verb, the affix, and the inflection of the verb express the subject)." There are other examples such as "Subject pronouns in different positions", but even if the position is different, whether it is expressed as a verb (predicate) or optional, the "existence of the subject" is the premise. It is Well, aside from the number, languages that require subject pronouns like modern English are in the minority.
The Ego is a Western Idea
When the Tale of Genji was written, there was no subject in English. And like Japanese, the verb came at the end of the sentence. (P.31)
By the way, "you" was originally not even a subject form (= nominative case). The nominative is ``ye'' and ``you'' is the objective. Parallel to this, ``I'' when standing in the subject is now always written in capital letters (FF) as ``I''. English is the only language in the world where only "I" is treated as special. (Kei, P.33-34)
English is a language that not only requires a subject, but also emphasizes the ``I'' in a special way.
Descartes' famous quote, "I think, therefore I am," comes from Discourse on the Method (1637). The original is "Je pense, donc je suis". At the time, academic papers were mainly written in Latin, but Discourse on Method was written in French. At that time, not only women and children, but also young men could read Latin. Mersenne, who had a close relationship with Descartes, translated this word into Latin as "Cogito ergo sum." ``Ergo'' is ``therefore'', but ``cogito'' is the first person singular nominative present tense of ``cogitare''. Similarly, ``sum'' is the first-person singular nominative present tense of ``esse''. Latin and Old English did not have nominative pronouns (subjects).
The ``I'' emphasis is certainly characteristic of modern English and French. If there is a subject, the sentence is basically SV.
SVO or SOV is fine. In French it is SOV, as in "Je t'aime".
One thing I don't understand about the author's assertion is that
On the other hand, in Western languages, the subject is essential for building sentences. Since verbs use person conjugation, the form of the verb cannot be determined without a subject. (Kei, P.57)
. Conversely, if the verb is in the personal conjugation, the subject may not be necessary. "Subject affixes on verb", which is the most common in the above table, is exactly this, and it seems to be the mainstream of the world's languages.
Looking at the table, there are red dots (subject-required languages) here and there outside of northern Europe. Some of them were colonies of England and France, but others don't seem so. Certainly, the symbolic ``absolute subject'' in modern English clearly indicates the ``self as a subject,'' that is, the ``ego''. This clarifies the opposition of "subject vs. predicate" and "subject vs. object". And that conflict tends to lean toward respecting the "subject" that is causing the conflict, that is, the "ego." I feel that the sharpened ego, without any decoration, is like the statement "I think, therefore I am", that is, "I am what I am, do I have any complaints?"
When I was young, it was cool to say "I am what I am" and I admired it. And I feel like it was a "bad thing" to say that. I longed for it because it was bad. The "student movement" is what everyone said in a loud voice and put it into action. Many people supported it. After that, "I am me" became "natural" and had to be said. Is the peak around the time of the bubble? Then, on the contrary, "I am me, I can't do it" has become a "correct argument", but how much power do you have? Do you mean "it depends on the economy"?
God's Perspective, Earth's Perspective
"If there is anything that scares me after living in Canada for so long, it is , is the "God's point of view" looking down on the situation from the heights of the sky.
In many cases, the viewpoint becomes a claim of "justice protected by God" in alliance with the "monotheism" of Christianity. It goes without saying that religion has a great influence on Western philosophical and philosophical logic. I can't help but think I'm giving. This is probably why English speakers have such a strong tendency to think of the absolute "I" in isolation, rather than seeing themselves in relation to other elements. (Kei, P.36)
On the other hand, Japanese is a "ground's point of view." Even though we are on the same earth and in the middle of nature, we think of giving priority to nature and respecting it. "Suru" and "Humble" are Japanese honorific expressions.
Hideo Suzuki's Forest Thoughts/Desert Thoughts” (NHK Books).
Human thinking can be divided into forest thinking and desert thinking. However, since human logic is rooted in being divided into one or the other, I stated that it can only be divided into those two. Specifically, forest-like means that the viewpoint is in one corner of the ground, and the posture is to look upwards "from below", while desert-like means to have the eyes of a bird looking down "from above". It is also a contrast between "bad vision" and "good vision." It is also a contrast between "careful" and "decisive." It is also a description of "professional attitude" and "comprehensive attitude".
These forest-like and desert-like thoughts are not necessarily divided according to whether one lives in the forest or in the desert, but have they been nurtured in forest-like thoughts—specifically, Buddhism? , because he grew up in a desert-like ideology--specifically, for example, Christianity--and the preferred scheme, nature -> productive relations -> human beings, that is, nature mediates the intermediate terms of productive relations. If we follow the scheme of working on humans as a , we can say that humans are related to nature by inheriting the way of thinking that was born from nature, that is, nature -> mode of thinking -> human. Moreover, since thoughts are driven by the power of their own logic, forest-like thinking and desert-like thinking do not necessarily exist in correspondence with the current natural environment. Rather, its origins lie 5,000 years ago when monotheism was established by aridification. (Same book, P.215-216)
“Like” and “Love”
I was born in the Showa era and felt embarrassed by the word “love.” I feel like I'm lying.
Since the beginning of the Meiji period (1866) in Japan, the word has been used as a translation of the English word love along with ``love love'' and ``renbo''. prevailed. ("Selected Edition Japanese Language Dictionary" " Love ” section)
I think “love” is a subjective act of longing for something. It is a subjective act of “(love)” instead of “(like a certain commercial) being there”.
"If you think about it, 'I like you' is not an intentional act. The Japanese think that this is not an act to do, but a situation in which it is. (Kei, P.21)
Becoming in love with someone is not an active act. "I fall in love with you." There is no subject. “Like” is not something that can be controlled, but rather lies beyond subject and object.
“It is natural that an English-sounding love confession cannot be created from an idea that does not emphasize intentional acts. Because it is a variation of ``I like I have,'' neither Hanako nor Taro actually ``does'' anything. It literally just "is" there. (Kei, P.22)
In the past, I didn't even say "I love you" directly, but used roundabout expressions. When I watch dramas these days, I feel like there are a lot of lines like, "I can't understand unless you put it into words." And I feel that the expression "I love you" is increasing. Do young people today feel uncomfortable with English-sounding (literal) sentences such as "I love you"?
"I" and "you" "like" (the situation) "there". This is the correct way to read the sentence. This is because ``wo'' is a case particle used as the object of action sentences in Japanese. because they are not. (P.22)
“I like you” does not have any “subjective intentions”, so there is no responsibility. There is no way to take responsibility. From the other person's point of view, "I like you" means "You fell in love without permission. I don't care." In other words, falling in love is the person's responsibility. Since you've fallen in love with someone on purpose, stop saying "I like you " ("I like you" doesn't mean anything). But can you do that?
The reversal of nature and man
This is because the original meaning of subject is not ``master'', but its diametrically opposed ``servant''. (Kei, P.35)
"subject" comes from the Latin subiectum. This is the Latin translation of the Classical Greek ὐποκείμενον (put down). Both classical Greek and Latin are everyday terms (there were no philosophical terms), so they were used in various ways. According to 19th-century Aristotelian scholar Becker (who hasn't read it), Aristotle used the word in three senses. In terms of my sense, I think it's the feeling of "the foundation where the form dwells" "before it becomes words (verbalization, consciousness, structuring)". In that sense, it is "matter, first substance." I think it's "things before it had a substance". That takes "form (form)" (verbalization/recognition) is "κατηγορέο (conceptualization?)", categorization.
It becomes possible to verbalize (recognize) as an entity by imbuing the form (universality, idea) in the "something" before verbalization. ``The subordination foundation for universality (predicate) to reside in individual objects (subjects)'' (Written by Hirokiyo Furuta, Basic Concepts of Western Philosophy and the World of Japanese Language, Chuokeizai-sha, p.6). Thinking about it this way, that "something" is something that has not yet become a "subject" or a "subject," and is "something like the ability (possibility) to put into words" and "existence as the possibility of being put into words." (Word, Logos, Logic). Or "the possibility of being recognized as an individual thing wearing a form" (nature/existence). We cannot perceive itself, but without imagining it, we cannot explain that there are words, perceptions, or singularities. The meaning changes depending on whether the emphasis is on the ability to form the form or on the side receiving the form.
Later, theologians and philosophers used the term in various ways. Haven's "Mental Philosophy" (1857), translated by Amane Nishi, states that ``the ability of the mind to go inward is
subjective, the ability to face the external world
called objective. (ibid., p.2). It is difficult to say whether there is any meaning in explaining translated words with translated words, but the word that expresses what does not exist is nai. Where there are no elephants, the word "elephant" would not exist, and it would be difficult to explain "elephant" to the people there. It is difficult to explain the sea to someone who has never seen it. Conversely, it is difficult to explain a world without the sea to people who live in places where the sea is the norm. Because there is no word "sea" in that world.
I have been taught that a sentence consists of a subject and a predicate. We have been taught that things are made of molecules (atoms). I didn't know "subject", "predicate", "molecule", "atom", or "sea", "elephant", "mother", "mandarin orange", and "school". However, it is very difficult for me to think that there is no subject, as well as to think that there is no molecule.
The ever-changing nature of two-character kanji idioms is in some respects convenient for reproducing European philosophical concepts such as subject and object, whose meanings have gradually changed over time. Good (in the sense that it can also change its meaning in response to the change in meaning of both vocabularies in European languages). But in another way, woe. European philosophical concepts are semantically cultivated from the everyday language of the Greco-Roman era while remaining in the same language system. Toya was led by influential philosophers of the time (Aristotle, Kant, etc.) and trends (for example, the rise of objective science after the 19th century). While multiple usages have arisen and are in conflict with each other, they have been inherited according to their influence and continue to this day. On the other hand, since its introduction to Japan, the Chinese language has been regarded as a symbol of extraordinary knowledge as ``another language'' or ``a formal language'', and placed in a different space from the Yamato language (Japanese language) that speaks the truth. It's here. (P.14, "Basic Concepts of Western Philosophy and the World of Japanese Language", supra)
, Japan did not need it until then. The fact that they weren't in the Japanese language means they weren't in Japanese culture.
Once upon a time, the word "society" was a very difficult word to translate. This is because, first of all, there was no word in Japanese that corresponded to society. The fact that there was no equivalent word means that in the background there was no reality in Japan that corresponded to society. ("translation language establishment situation” Iwanami Shinsho, P.3)
There was no “love,” “society,” or “individuality” in Japan. We have to keep in mind the double problem of "explaining in translation" the "translation".
"Things" and "things"
(In the English translation of Yasunari Kawabata's "Snow Country", quoter) Although it expresses ``things'' (events) that include transitions, in English, the ``thing'' of the train was deliberately brought up and replaced with the expression ``emergence from the tunnel''. (Deceased, P.74-75)
Someone attacked us. That's why we attack by clarifying "who". This is a "video game-like idea" that simply reverses the subject and object of transitive sentences, but what was completely forgotten here is "why". That's the question. (LF) The reason why the question of why America was attacked by terrorism is difficult to come up from "God's point of view" is that the "why" is not a thing (thing/person) but an event/event. (Kei, P.37)
"What" and "who" are "things". Jinzaburo Takagi expresses this with “why” and “how”.
For example, we could bring up the heliocentric theory of the setting sun and answer from the rotation of the earth. But it doesn't really answer the question "why". (“How do we see nature now?” Hakusuisha, p.111)
What we are answering is actually nothing more than an answer to the question “how”. (P.112)
The separation of and , shelving of , were the requirements for the establishment of modern science. (Same as above)
"1 plus 1 equals 2" and "substances are made of molecules" are "how". There are usually no questions such as " 1 plus 1 equals 2" or " matter is made of atoms". It is a philosophical problem called "logic (rationality)".
It boils down to the fact that the concept of the universe as logos, the idea of nature under a purposive order, was well suited to European Christianity. Isn't it? Furthermore, the dualistic thought that clearly distinguishes between nature and humans, the value system that emphasizes reason and asserts the superiority of reason, and the so-called ``intellectual view of nature'' based on this, are the whole system. It would be a good fit for the Christian community. (ibid., p.85)
Nature has become logos, or logic. Seeing nature logically (rationally) means correctly seeing nature as an object. It is the "human subject," that is, the "subject," who sees it. Neither "1" nor "2" nor "molecules/atoms" nor "God" exists in "Nature (Pysis)". It is on the side of human logic (concepts/categories). Think of it as if it were in nature (inside the object). That is the secret and trap of "subject-object structure (subject = predicate structure)".
Because I speak Japanese
The logic is "logos (λογός)". “Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος (in the beginning was the word)” (John 1:1.1). From the point of view of Western logic, speaking words and being logical are synonymous. However, it merely represents the "subject-predicate structure" characteristic of Indo-European languages.
In Spanish and Italian the subject is still not obligatory. It is the Western languages such as English and French that have become more human-centered, and it is a well-known fact that most of the world's languages, including Japanese, still have a nature-centered structure. In particular, modern English stands out even among Western languages, and has become a language whose structure itself can only be thought of as self-reliant. (Deceased, P.78)
Japanese does not have a subject. Rather than saying that "the Japanese language is not logical", it means that "the Japanese language (culture) has no logic".
Simply put, the Western ``I'' faces ``Thou'', but the Japanese ``I'' connects with ``Thou'' and faces in the same direction, melting the line of sight. I would say it fits. (Deceased, P.107)
The fundamental problem of languages based on SVO construction, as represented by English, leads to the "domination of S (subject) over O (object)". That's what it means. Then, the most scary thing is that "S" is inevitably given "justice" along with "power". This is why speakers of European languages, including English, do not apologize much when they make mistakes. The fact that Japanese people, both as individuals and as a nation, are constantly making mistakes is not unrelated to the fact that the basic syntax is "a single predicate" (Akira Mikami, cited above). As Kitaro Nishida professed, a predicate is a "place" that includes both subject and object. (Deceased, P.183-184)
Since the Meiji era, the Japanese (I) have been confronted with the conflict between ``society'' and ``individual'' in the walls of and . (This is why Soseki Natsume is still read today.)
Not only English education, English grammar and school grammar, but also science education (or education in general) will not fill the gap, but will make it a ``natural thing'' and ``why (thing)''. is being forgotten. Both SNS and bullying are “things in society (returning things to things)” just like “nature”, and they are “objects” for consideration and overcoming. "Scientific (academic, Wissenschaftlich) socialism" is the object of overcoming capitalist society (liberal society).
Nature, society, and others are not objects to be dominated or overcome.
There is no Western, scientific, analytical ``I'' that confronts, dominates, or tries to change nature. What exists, on the contrary, is the ``me'' that blends in and assimilates with nature. (Kei, P.154)
Japanese does not have a subject. There is no Western ``I'', or ``ego''. For those of us who consider Japanese to be our “mother tongue” (in Illichi’s words, it is not a “mother tongue taught” at school, but a “vernacular spoken language”, Gender, Iwanami Gendai Sensho, p.171), it is natural for us to I believe that there is a "potential" to "assimilate" with people, society, and others, rather than confronting (controlling) them. I feel like that's the last "hope" I have left.