50 réponses à ce sujet

[ThePasserby]

The thread on Rite or Right of Annullment prompted me to speak on these two synonymns: certainty and certitude. Let's see what www.dictionary.com says:

Certainty implies a thorough consideration of evidence: "the emphasis of a certainty that is not impaired by any shade of doubt" (Mark Twain). Certitude is based more on personal belief than on objective facts: "Certitude is not the test of certainty" (Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.).
Read more: http://www.answers.c...y#ixzz1IiBZ8jny


The Qunari, including the Arishok and others who admire their philosophy, use the word "certainty". I guess looking at the world from their perspective, everything in life seems to support their point of view - that everything and everyone has his place. They are so indoctrinated from birth to see it this way that except for the Tal Vasholth, every fact of life is in accord with their belief.

For the rest of us, including Hawke, there is no certainty that a woman cannot be a warrior, or that a merchant cannot be a noble. From Hawke's point of view, the Qun philosophy is but a set of beliefs that is hardly supported by any evidence, hence to him, the Qun provides certitude, not certainty.

In short, the Qunari should use the word "certainty" with respect to their Qun beliefs, but for everyone else, they are mere certitudes.

I can't help but cringe each time the two words are used interchangeably in the game.

[Thrennion]

I agree. However, "certitude" is a word that has fallen out of common use. It's not surprising that "certainty" has come to cover both meanings, depending on context.

[ThePasserby]

Thrennion wrote...

I agree. However, "certitude" is a word that has fallen out of common use. It's not surprising that "certainty" has come to cover both meanings, depending on context.

I dunno about the word falling out of common use, but it's a shame if it's the case.

[ThePasserby]

Filament wrote...

Did anyone other than the Arishok use the word "certainty" with regards to the qunari anyway?

I can't remember, but Seamus does, in Act 1, I think. I'm playing the game again, so I'll take note of this. In my first playthrough, I mentally objected even to the Arishok's use of "certainty". But on reflection, I decided that it is fair for him to use it, since he really believes it to be true and that all evidence substantiates it and will not think of it as a mere certitude.

[PsychoBlonde]

Seamus doesn't say certainty, he just says that he's certain of nothing and Ashaad was certain of everything--he found it restful, basically.

The concept of certainty has in many cases become corrupted to mean certitude instead, because most modern ideas about epistemology attack the concept of objectivity. Without objectivity, you cannot achieve certainty, only certitude.

Thanks for bringing this interesting dichotomy to my attention, btw. That's a neat little comparison I hadn't run across before.

[mesmerizedish]

Who ever says "certitude" in the game?

[ThePasserby]

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The concept of certainty has in many cases become corrupted to mean certitude instead, because most modern ideas about epistemology attack the concept of objectivity. Without objectivity, you cannot achieve certainty, only certitude.

Thanks for bringing this interesting dichotomy to my attention, btw. That's a neat little comparison I hadn't run across before.

I might be oversimplifying it, but are you referring to the postmodernist stance of "everyone is the creator of his own reality and for him, his reality is truth"? I never took the module on epistemology in my philosophy major. Still, it'll be sad to see a word get dropped out of the English vocabulary to have another absorb the meaning of the lost word. Precision in language is lost.

Anyway, glad to be of service! 

[ThePasserby]

ishmaeltheforsaken wrote...

Who ever says "certitude" in the game?

Nobody, and that's my point. The word "certainty" is used to cover the meaning of "certainty" and "certitude". It makes more sense and more nuanced to have the non-Qunary characters use "certitude". For them, the right way to use "certainty" in such a context is to accompany it with air quotes - "Ah yes, 'certainty'. We've dismissed that claim."

[greyman33]

ThePasserby wrote...

PsychoBlonde wrote...

The concept of certainty has in many cases become corrupted to mean certitude instead, because most modern ideas about epistemology attack the concept of objectivity. Without objectivity, you cannot achieve certainty, only certitude.

Thanks for bringing this interesting dichotomy to my attention, btw. That's a neat little comparison I hadn't run across before.

I might be oversimplifying it, but are you referring to the postmodernist stance of "everyone is the creator of his own reality and for him, his reality is truth"? I never took the module on epistemology in my philosophy major. Still, it'll be sad to see a word get dropped out of the English vocabulary to have another absorb the meaning of the lost word. Precision in language is lost.

Anyway, glad to be of service! 

More or less, yes.

The word probably has also fallen out of favor due to the relatively recent trend towards what could probably best be called selective objectivity.  That is to say, the tendency of people to ignore, or dismiss as irrelevant, facts which are contradictory to their arguments and/or beliefs.  By doing so they are left with a worldview in which only their beliefs appear backed by anything substantive, turning certitude into certainty, at least from their perspective.

[EmperorSahlertz]

The Qun is supported by a lot of evidence, at least the way the Qunari views it. For instance the Qunari have no doubt that woman can be warriors, they just think it is folly since a man would be a better soldier. So when the Qun says that men should be warriors, it is evidenced by itself, that men makes for the better warriors. Circular logic some may say. Natural order, the Qunari say.

[ThePasserby]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

The Qun is supported by a lot of evidence, at least the way the Qunari views it. For instance the Qunari have no doubt that woman can be warriors, they just think it is folly since a man would be a better soldier. So when the Qun says that men should be warriors, it is evidenced by itself, that men makes for the better warriors. Circular logic some may say. Natural order, the Qunari say.

I have no doubt that the Qunari, bar the Tal Valshoth, view the Qun as giving them certainty. My issue is that from the point of view of the rest, including Hawke, the Qun gives the Qunari only certitude. The dictates of the Qun do not give certainty to the average Free Marcher, but merely certitude.

[EmperorSahlertz]

But why should the Qunari care wether or not the Qun gives the bas certainty or not? It gives them (Qunari) certainty. That is all that matters.

And certitude is certainly (ha ha) going extinct in the english vocabulary. To admit certitude is to admit not being sure. Which is unacceptable in our modern day.

[ThePasserby]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But why should the Qunari care wether or not the Qun gives the bas certainty or not? It gives them (Qunari) certainty. That is all that matters.

And certitude is certainly (ha ha) going extinct in the english vocabulary. To admit certitude is to admit not being sure. Which is unacceptable in our modern day.

Suppose you are Qunari and are preaching to me, an average Free Marcher.

You: Join us bas, for in the Qun you get certainty.

Me: I've no interest in your certitudes, thank you.

Get it? You'd use the word "certitude" as a criticism of someone else's belief in his certainties. As I mentioned, it is natural for the Qunari to say that the Qun is their source of certainty in life, however, it is unnatural and rather forced, to have non-believers use the same word for that. For the so-called bas, the Qun just gives certitudes.


edited to avoid censored words

Modifié par ThePasserby, 06 avril 2011 - 04:27 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

But you need to go through a stage of certitude before you can get certainty, so what is the problem? If it didn't give any certitude at all, it would never achieve certainty in the bas' mind. If it were to bring them disgust, the only certainty they would breed is disgust of the Qun.

[David Gaider]

We get frowned at when we use words that cost more than five dollars. Mary once used the word "mendicant", and even though it was wholly appropriate she got glared at. There are some people who think we shouldn't use words that cost more than a buck fifty, but I struggle to accept that.

Mind you, then I see people misusing "irony" and "tragedy" and I cringe, and I wonder just how good a judge I am anymore of what average people should be able to read.

So, yes, technically a word can be correct but, no, that does not mean we can or even should use it.

[ThePasserby]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

But you need to go through a stage of certitude before you can get certainty, so what is the problem? If it didn't give any certitude at all, it would never achieve certainty in the bas' mind. If it were to bring them disgust, the only certainty they would breed is disgust of the Qun.

Certitude does not precede certainty - my first post illustrates the distinction. Certitude is the feeling of being sure without being backed by evidence. It is something akin to blind faith.

Certainty is the feeling you get when you've subjected a belief to every possible test and you're satisfied with it's verisimilitude. This is then not blind faith.

Blind faith (certitude) does not come before verified truth (certainty). 

[EmperorSahlertz]

Are you suggesting that a philosophical point of view should grant instant certainty? No. It must first light a spark within the adherents. It has to offer some sort of indicment to the adherents, which will grow to certitude, and once they have given it more thoughts, and once looked at the world through the philosophy in question, it can grant certainty.

[ThePasserby]

David Gaider wrote...

We get frowned at when we use words that cost more than five dollars. Mary once used the word "mendicant", and even though it was wholly appropriate she got glared at. There are some people who think we shouldn't use words that cost more than a buck fifty, but I struggle to accept that.

Mind you, then I see people misusing "irony" and "tragedy" and I cringe, and I wonder just how good a judge I am anymore of what average people should be able to read.

So, yes, technically a word can be correct but, no, that does not mean we can or even should use it.

I understand. In composing a literary work, the author has to consider his audience when choosing his words, so that the meaning he is trying to convey is not lost. However, the average youngster, I suspect, does not read much these days, with so many other forms of entertainment available to him, like movies, music videos, and video games. Sad as it may be, video games may be a youngster's main source of broadening his vocabulary nowadays.

Not that Bioware has to take up the cause of enriching its players' vocabulary, but perhaps using words that cost, say, 2 dollars won't be so bad?

Who decides what words are too hard, anyway?

[_Aine_]

I volunteer a new word: stragedy - the purposeful plan to initiate mass pain on the masses (a la Anders)

Anders had the best stragedy in mind to fulfill his plan to free the mages.

heh

Shared courtesy of my 6 year old, future linguist and language dissector! lol  Of course, he actually has trouble with the sound of "st" and pronounces it "k" which makes his love for stunt cars amusing at dinner parties.  

Seriousness: I think the word choices should fit the character. Alistair for example would use more common words, speech of the people... where someone like Cailan, Anora, nobles of higher houses would use more elegant and worldly language. People well traveled would throw a few Orlesian words in, or someone like Fenris throwing in Qunari or Tevinter common phrases etc.

Just my opinion though, but I only have $7.50 to my name. I think I will save it for a burger. Or cake.

Modifié par shantisands, 06 avril 2011 - 04:53 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

Well, to the eternal agony of the ones who speak, language is not static. It is constantly evolving and merging with other languages to form new ones. So the ones who decide? Human nature.

[David Gaider]

ThePasserby wrote...
Not that Bioware has to take up the cause of enriching its players' vocabulary, but perhaps using words that cost, say, 2 dollars won't be so bad?

That's my view, yes. The bar seems to fluctuate between two dollars and maybe three-fifty. Any more than that and the editors start sending me polite little notes asking what variety of glue I'm on.

Who decides what words are too hard, anyway?

Technically I do, but ultimately I need to contend with QA and Editing when it comes to disagreements on whether the established bar has been exceeded. For me, I'm okay with a slightly more complex word so long as it actually means something different than the simpler one and doesn't sound like we spent too much time on Thesaurus.com.

[ThePasserby]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

Are you suggesting that a philosophical point of view should grant instant certainty? No. It must first light a spark within the adherents. It has to offer some sort of indicment to the adherents, which will grow to certitude, and once they have given it more thoughts, and once looked at the world through the philosophy in question, it can grant certainty.

Ideologies, like the Qun, or any real world religions, are rarely ever verifiable, hence, from the outsider's point of view, any certainties they provide their adherents are but certitudes.

Also, when one becomes sure of something, he hardly will attempt to verify it, since to him, it is a waste of time. So, I'm not conviced that one's acquisition of knowledge progresses as you stated, from certitude, to verification, then to certainty. Very often, with regards to ideologies, from the point of view of the believer, he goes from a state of not-knowing to certainty. Any attempts at verification are usually selective and biased. However, to the outsider, the believer is still dwelling in certitudes and remains so.

[Maria Caliban]

ThePasserby wrote...

I might be oversimplifying it, but are you referring to the postmodernist stance of "everyone is the creator of his own reality and for him, his reality is truth"?

Postmodern ideas center around the idea of reality being a social construct, not a personal one.