What does the name mean? person; It means that he sees "how" and observes carefully "he raises". From this, then, comes the conclusion that of the beasts only man was correctly named "man," that is, "he who examines what he has seen»(Αναθρών ά όπωπε). This definition was formulated by the great Socrates in Plato's work "Kratylos".
Today, alas, humans have become beasts! And it is no coincidence that what is happening around us daily and globally.
So we name only what we experience and the names correspond to experiences, that is, to reality. But who, and in what way, gave the names to everything around us? Does the different name for the same thing change the (ideal) object itself? These are exactly the questions that Socrates answers in the following fascinating dialogue with Hermogenes.
Socrates: "Come now think, where the legislator intends, when he sets name; What does the craftsman aim for when he builds the shuttle? "Doesn't he aim for something in such a way that it is made to weave?"
Hermogenes: "Correct".
Socrates: "So what, if the shuttle breaks in his hands at the time he makes it, is it? when she does another she will aim at the broken one (kataagyian) or towards that form of it shuttle according to which he built and the one that broke?» Hermogenes: "In that form, I think."
Socrates: "Then it's not the fairest of all, should we call it a shuttle per se?»
Hermogenes: "I have this opinion."
Socrates: "Well, my dear friend, and the by nature proper name for each thing the denominator must know how to imprint it in the consonants and syllables and, aiming at that name itself, to construct and imprint all the names, if he wants to be a valid denominator ".
From the dialogue we conclude that Socrates likens the blacksmith to the denominator in terms of the object of art, that is, iron and the name. Just as the blacksmith has a conceivable idea of the object he wants to make from metal parts, so does the blacksmith for the object he wants to name from parts of the word, that is, the syllables. If the object is broken, it does not mean that the mental idea has changed. What happened is that he broke the object. Thus, the blacksmith can rebuild the object according to the conceivable idea, which remains unchanged. Similarly, if a name "breaks", that is, loses its original meaning, it does not mean that the original meaning itself has been altered. What happened is that the meaning of the name changed. Socrates essentially tells us that if a word loses its meaning over time, then we should not aim for the "broken" but for the original meaning itself.
Are we today, experiencing a more general degeneration of visions, principles and values, using names that represent the original idea or using "broken" names that have lost their true meaning?; Greek names of universal values come to my mind, such as: freedom, democracy, law, equality, rule of law! Do these values, as we experience them today, retain the conceivable idea per se or have they ended up in "kerkis katagagia", that is, the broken shuttle of Socrates?
The above questions are rhetorical, of course, but the following is essential: Would it be "wise" to "visit names" again? Let us not forget that the Athenian philosopher Antisthenes stressed: "Principle of wisdom or visitation of names".
Ohm. Professor Stella Priovolou, President of the College of Emeritus Professors of EKPA.
