[Linguistics, Etymology and evolution]Idea

Hello everybody, I would like to enlist some support from all of you language,history and philosophy buffs concerning a difficult matter I have stumbled upon. It concerns the word ‘idea’. I am after the knowledge on how the word came to mean ‘thought’, as in common English use nowadays. You might not think this important, but allow me to elaborate below (in a Freudian manner):

1) Renewed Thrust (Drang)
Today I was reading a small publishing of my old professor in history of philosophy Piet Steenbakkers. It concerns a comparison of the translations into Dutch of Spinoza’s ‘Ethica’. Piet Steenbakkers being an honorary member of the organization ‘Spinozahuis’ (House of Spinoza) and being my old professor as well as my interest in Spinoza’s work peeked my interest. In this work I found the most interesting distinction. One of the notes with Gorter’s translation the distinction was made between ‘idea’ and ‘ideatum’ (Spinoza wrote in Latin). ‘Idea’ meaning thought and ‘ideatum’ meaning that which is thought. For anyone familiar with Spinoza’s work the importance and necessity of this distinction will probably be clear. I will not elaborate on this particular detail because I do not think it is important in this issue.

2) Sources (Quellen)
In ancient Greece Plato referred to thoughts (or words or God, but I am not after the religious aspects here) as ‘logoi’ (plural), as some of you may know. His student Aristotle discussed thought as well, but he came up with the term ‘idea’, which means form (after Plato by the way) (Source: Oxford Dictionary of philosophy).

The problem with this is that Spinoza’s ‘idea’ is translated with ‘thought’, as would Plato’s ‘logos’, but not Aristotle’s ‘idea’. The reason for this is that Spinoza wrote in Latin. From Latin the word is translated as grasping, idea (source: Wolters Latin-Dutch dictionary (10th print), translated from Dutch to English by me). From Latin to English the meaning has not changed I think. The only strange thing (to me) is that the Greek-Dutch dictionary refers to these meanings as derived from Plato. I think this is due to the mistranslation of Plato’s ‘world of idea’s’ (Timaeus), which is then taken as the English ‘idea’s’, which would refer to ‘logoi’, but being the Greek ‘ideas’ and referring to ‘forms’. I can find no source for this though. I must signal this as an assumption. If anybody can find some literature on this, please refer to it!!

Addition:
Plato separates ‘eidos’ (visible form) from ‘idea’ (form in thought) (source: Oxford dictionary of Philosophy).

3) Object (Objekt)
The object of this topic is a discussion of the evolution of the word ‘idea’ by it’s wrongful use (the minor premise in the syllogism). I think that words can be ‘loaned’ by other languages (loanwords), making that there was probably a misinterpretation of a foreign influence by which the language of the foreigner(s) in question was misinterpreted (the major premise in the syllogism). However, perhaps it is best if we research the etymological meanings of the words ‘idea’ in both ancient Greek and Latin and compare the two, just in case the word evolved separately in the two languages, leading to the same word with different (but similar) meanings.

4) Aim (Ziel)
What I want to know is how the word ‘form’ (Greek idea) came to mean ‘thought’ (Latin ‘idea’) and in English thereafter.

Please everybody, lets try to keep of topic posts to an absolute minimum. I think this will be hard enough as is.

Here’s the word IDEA as parsed out in the Online Etymological Dictionary: etymonline.com/index.php?sea … hmode=none . It might help.

In English, the word “idea” means something that can be thought or imagined. The word “ideate” means to think or imagine. And thus the word “ideation” means thought. This should solve your problem with distinguishing between Plato and Spinoza and their relative terminology.

Okay, here a copy paste:

idea
early 15c., “figure, image, symbol,” from L. idea “idea,” and in Platonic philosophy “archetype,” from Gk. idea “ideal prototype,” lit. “look, form,” from idein “to see,” from PIE *wid-es-ya-, suffixed form of base *weid- “to see” (see vision). Sense of “result of thinking” first recorded 1640s.

    "Men of one idea, like a hen with one chicken, and that a duckling." [Thoreau, "Walden"] 

ideate
c.1600, from idea + -ate.

-ate (1)
suffix used in forming nouns from Latin words ending in -atus, -atum (e.g. estate, primate, senate). Those that came to English via Old and Middle French often arrived with -at, but an -e was added after c.1400 to indicate the long vowel. The suffix also can mark adjectives formed from Latin past participals in -atus, -ata (e.g. desolate, moderate, separate), again, they often were adopted in M.E. as -at, with an -e appended after c.1400. In chemistry, -ate is used to form the names of salts from acids in -ic.
-ate (2)
verbal suffix for Latin verbs in -are. O.E. commonly made verbs from adjectives by adding a verbal ending to the word (e.g. gnornian “be sad, mourn,” gnorn “sad, depressed”), but as the inflections wore off English words in late O.E. and M.E., there came to be no difference between the adj. and the verb in dry, empty, warm, etc. Accustomed to the identity of adjectival and verbal forms of a word, the English, when they began to expand their Latin-based vocabulary after c.1500, simply made verbs from Latin past-participial adjectives without changing their form (e.g. aggravate, substantiate) and thus it became the custom that Latin verbs were Anglicized from their past participle stems.

I do not think this solves my issue. It refers to loanwords from Greek to English, not to Latin. However, it does make an interesting argument for the thought that both ‘form’ (of thought) and ‘object’ (of thought) can be translated by the same word in a different form…(apologies for the double meaning of terms in one sentence). It would go a long way to account for the confusion.

Doesn’t it make more sense, in translating words from one language to another, to think of them as covering overlapping but different areas of conceptual space? Look that Google Translate result for ‘idea’ from English to Latin and Latin to English

English to Latin:

And Latin to English:

There are clearly spaces that both words cover, but there is at least some space covered by the modern word that no one Latin word covers.

Similarly, the words “form” and “thought” do have some common conceptual space, as terms that can both refer to an abstract or idealized quality of a thing that only exists subjectively within a person’s inner experience. They also have spaces that are covered by only one or the other. It seems to me that the mistranslation would be to apply a simple substitution from one language to the next. In some situations, it seems perfectly appropriate (given a lack of other options) to substitute ‘form’ for ‘thought’. In others, the substitution does not capture the meaning.

Once you import a word from another language, though, it becomes a part of the native language. Even if the word we transliterate as “sushi” is distinct from the word we transliterate as “sashimi” in the original Japanese, the English word “sushi” refers to virtually all cold fish, rice, and/or seaweed creations one can find at a Japanese restaurant. At some point, they become distinct words in the originating and adopting languages that happen to sound the same. They aren’t really the same word.

(On an interesting side note, I noticed on etymonline that the English words “idea” and “vision” have the same Proto-Indo-European root, “weid-”, which is striking because they seem to have diverged to form separate words, and then re-converged into a lot of the same conceptual space.)

The root of the English is base rooted in the Greek.
The word appears in Greek as ἰδέα, which means something along the lines of “notion, appearance, pattern, form, and the like”.
It is derived from the Greek word εἴδω, which means “to see; behold”.
This in turn is from the Sanskrit वेत्ति (Vetti), which means to know or understand, perceive, experience, or the like.
This in turn is from the Proto-Indo-European √vid meaning the same definition; to know or understand.

The Latin cognate lateral was videō (in the present active anyways).

You can see it in biblical Greek such as in Matthew 28:3.
ἦν δὲ ἡ ἰδέα αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀστραπὴ καὶ τὸ ἔνδυμα αὐτοῦ λευκὸν ὡσεὶ χιών.

This loosely translates to something akin to:
He was now this idea of himself as lightening and the clothing of his bright as snow.

Or, you could write it:
He was now this understanding of himself as lightening and the clothing of his bright as snow.

Or…
He was now this appearance of himself as lightening and the clothing of his bright as snow.

Or…
He was now this form of himself as lightening and the clothing of his bright as snow.

Or…
etc…

So to answer your question: It already meant “thought” conceptually as part of even it’s Proto-Indo-European beginnings, and did as well in the Greek.
The Greek thought of thought as a visible concept; so the cross-linking between sight and thought is seen in the Greek.

@Carleas:
I agree with you that once a loanword has been loaned there effectively are two words, only spelled similarly. However, there was a moment when the word was loaned and I would like to know how that went about and how the word got the meaning it has as used in Latin (by Spinoza among others).

Are you willing to post your findings on ‘idea’ and ‘vision’ by the way? And I would like to know if you are a linguist. The Proto-Indo-European does not get mentioned all that often, which prompted my question.

@TheStumps:
Interesting point. Indeed Plato describes his thought in relation to vision in his allegory of the cave, light making forms visible on the wall. It also points to Apollo’s importance according to many sources and its intermediary link between Ra and the Christian ‘God’. However, this leaves the question how the root of the Greek idea came to mean both vision and thought since Plato separates ‘eidos’ (visible form) from ‘idea’ (form in thought) (source: Oxford dictionary of Philosophy). Do you know the answer to this?

Apart from that it still leaves the question of the exact point of transference to Latin.

@Everybody:
Thanks for the input everybody! I am remembering things I had forgot and learning new things as well. I am thinking to make a nice letter for my professor including all of your inputs. Perhaps he knows some more that we are missing, but I would like to discuss it here more first so that I will not say anything obviously stupid.

It’s the other way around.
The question isn’t how did ἰδέα come to mean εἴδω, but instead, how did εἴδω come to mean ἰδέα.
εἴδω came first.

Here’s a relatively well described entry of it’s multiple meanings:

blueletterbible.org/lang/lex … 1492&t=KJV

But as you can see, the word already (even before we get to ἰδέα) contains both capacities.

If you want a logical reason why the Greek’s linked the two; it’s actually rather base.
If you see something; then you know it.
But it shouldn’t be mistaken that “to know” a thing by it’s appearance in the Greek was not to “know” it’s reality.
If something is not what it appears as is seen, then it is something described as a thing like ὅραμα; “vision” (horama).

What you see is what you know, but if what you know is otherwise than it appears to you, then I would write that the image of it appeared not as it was, but when you came to know this you saw it’s true form and cast aside it’s vision.

In all italic cases used; I am linking a running circle of Greek thought.
These words are all related to the same basic rule-set of sight equating to knowledge.

But this isn’t really so much a question about how sight was linked to knowledge.
Instead; it’s a question of what exactly was knowledge to the Greek?

Knowledge to modern man is clinical; unless extrapolated for philosophical dissection.
By normative standards, knowledge is a word that is nearly equated in modern western thought as firm.
Sight and image is just observation.
Knowledge is fact.
Thought is a mysterious vacuum of consciousness.

This is more or less the standard concept floating around the average western society and beat upon by varying arguments.

In the Greek, however, this wasn’t quite how things were linguistically laid out.
Know, γνῶσις (gnosis), meant: “I am aware” (or similarly; to recognize).
It comes from γινώσκω (ginosko), meaning “to know, understand, perceive,”

Again, still linked.
There’s no escaping this merger.
You can even go all the way back to the Proto-Indo-European roots…they are still linked.

It’s basic as this:
Do you know Tom? (I gesture to Tom)
I know him, yes.

How do you know him?
You know him because you have seen him before.

A moment on sight…it might clarify to explain the Greek for seeing is εἶδος…as in, to have seen something, or to see.
I would say they εἶδος me throw the ball.
εἴδω is the root for ἰδέα.
It’s cognate εἶδος is the word for sight.
Sight, perceive, thought.
Thought, have awareness, aware.

Further, to “testify/witness” (all concepts related) or a “witness (with conjugation)” is μάρτυρός.
The description is simple: one that is a spectator to/of some thing.

So to be a witness of something is to see it, and to see it is to know it, unless it’s true form was not apparent to your sight, in which case you would be said to have a slanderous sight or knowledge.

These concepts are nearly equal in the Greek as they were in the Proto-Indo-European.

Oh, and something else.

You mentioned Plato.
Perhaps now we can look at Plato as not combining vision, knowledge, and reality, but instead was separating the three at length because they were so given as interwoven nouns.

Sounds strange to our 20th and 21st century minds, but on the other hand; about every other day I read something on here about the “illusion” of reality.

See my point?

Arab/Islamic culture might have influenced it, too, as Greek philosophy was supposedly (re)introduced to Catholics via Arabic translation.

Also, the exchange between the usages among common people and educated people may have impact on the evolution.

Also, check out the word ‘eidolon,’ from which we get ‘idol’ and ‘idolatry.’ These words are etymologically linked with ‘idea’ as well.

etymonline.com/index.php?sea … hmode=none

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eidolon_%2 … _double%29

@Nah: The influence you are talking about is after the Latin loan of the word, so not relevant in this case, but thanks for the heads up. It is a good point.
@Jonquil: Are you suggesting that the root ‘id-’ means image in general? In the sense of a picture of something, in the mind or otherwise? That is an interesting thought (in the normal meaning). The sources given are of the 13th century though. Do you think this was what Plato meant with it as well?
-Or is it just a re-interpretation of a 13th century school or something?

Addition:
@TheStumps:

Would you like to elaborate?

I’m just noticing correlations is all. Take a look back at my first post on this thread. The words “idea” and “ideate” connote more than “think” and “thought” do in the way that they include imaging (or envisioning), imagining, as well as thinking.

Okay, this is going towards what TheStumps was talking about earlier I think. Do you think you can get a solid source for the broader meaning of the ancient Greek ‘idea’ and ‘logoi’, as well as the Latin ‘idea’?

Note: I think TheStumps and you are probably on the right track concerning a meaningful explanation. Thanks guys!

id- does indeed refer to image in the Greek.
It refers to a thing which is seen.

But it’s not a word; it’s a prefix.

Logoi is just an inflected form of Logos.
Logos just means, “words, speech, etc…” (all things akin).
It comes from λέγω (lego), which means “I say/speak, etc…”

Lego refers to the action of doing.
Logos refers to the things you are producing themselves.

The root is Proto-Indo-European *leg-, which means to lay down
This was used in the sense of “to put something down”, and not exactly “to lay one’s body down” (though sometime’s used in such fashion by certain authors; though not commonly).

It’s a concept of placing something upon something else.

So when you think of “I say”, the root of it is to place your thought onto the other person (or what-have-you that you are speaking to).

If you are writing, then it is being laid down upon paper.

This is why “legal” is rooted in the same; to place down upon in form.

So it is a tethering word that describes taking whatever id- you are working with and applying it into action of presentation, leg-.

If we then reflect upon this action, then we are now looking at the logos of the lego of the idea.

Words, then, are two parts in the concept: an image (like thought) and an image (like writing).
But more to the apt point of it; words are not a thing itself, but the appearance of a thing as it shows in communication.

When I say “I love you”, that isn’t my “love” itself.
It’s the appearance of “love” in communication; proxy.
Words are representations.

Hence, in English, “logo” refers to an emblem of some kind that represents the conceptual identity of something.
If we were Greek of old, then the action - that the logo represents - taking place would be the lego of an idea.
And an idea is just something that is seen (eidos) as something you know (gnosis) because you saw (eidos) it in your mind.

It’s a looping definition.
Gotta love 'em.

Plato spent a length elaborating on the “ideal” form of a thing and contrasted it to the physical form it would take.
To the 20th/21st century mind, this would appear to be a linking between the two; that Plato spent a length discussing the relationship between the “ideal” and the “actual”.
Instead, if we understand the muddled origin of “thought” in which he inherited from his society, then we can understand that he wasn’t discussing the relationship, but instead examining the dichotomy of what made the “image” of a thing in the mind different from the “image” of a thing in the physical world.

This pretty much points out what I was saying; that your question of how the two became linked is inverted from how the terms arise in historical lexicons.
They were already linked at their origin; it was through time that a distinction would be carved out that separated them to the point where we have need for words like, “illusion” to mean things seen or made known deceptively.

The Greek pretty much lacked a word for this.
Even the word phantasm or apparition breaks down into a root that just means something was made visible (by means of φάος; meaning, light [derived from *bʰel- in Proto-Indo-European; meaning the same thing]).

Interestingly enough, it is by combining *bʰel- (pha-) and *leg- (lego) that we get phlego (Latin; flargo) meaning, to light a thing (inferring fire; being the only source of light that was controllable at the time).

And again; we can see lego binding something; light (phaos) laid upon a thing (lego); thereby lighting it.
(phosphorus ultimately links right back to this same origin; phaos; as well)

So we can see right here that “phantom” has it’s root; not in trickery, but in illuminating.
Which, illuminate is from illumino (to enlighten/brighten), which is from lumino (light up), which is ultimately from lume (fire), which is from lumen (light, eyes, daylight), which is from lux (light, in general) who’s congnate in Greek is λευκός…which we saw previously in Matthew 28:3 as “bright” (referring to a property of a thing).

So again; a thing regarding “knowing” in some fashion links back to visual capacity.
At man’s basic level; pretty much everywhere on the planet; vision and knowledge are linked as one concept at the start of language.
It’s only through time that they become separated by deep thinkers like Plato (each in their respective societies).

Where did you get this information, TheStumps?

That varies…

I’ve spent a lot of time around Greek, so things like eidos and logos are really familiar to me.
You can find these etymological links, however, (I’m sure of it) probably well enough in Wiktionary if you look at roots and cognates.
I know that good 'lil wiki has a great resource that I use for quick reference on Proto-Indo-European roots (really, just haven’t found a more concise list; their’s is pretty good).
Here’s the link to their roots list for that.
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix: … pean_roots

For the roots to the Greek…I’m just familiar with most of those; now and then I would look up the word in a dictionary to make sure it’s root was indeed where I thought it was if I couldn’t recall.

As far as grammatical influence…oi…that’s just lots of reading.

Thanks man!!!

Yar!

Okay, just one more:

If the prefix id- means image, than what does the word -ea mean?