Re: Non vitae sed scholae discimus

Quoting Philippe Caquant <herodote92@...>:

> --- Ray Brown <ray.brown@...> wrote:
> > Eh?? Sorry - we? Who are 'we'? Is this yet another
> > generalization?
>
> The very discussion you had about this sentence
> earlier proves that you felt puzzled, just like your
> interlocutor, and just like I was. You said that one
> should know the context, which is quite right. What I
> meant is that when someone reads:
>
> "Non vitae sed scholae discimus" (Seneca)
>
> this someone usually reads it twice and then thinks :
> did Seneca actually say that ? isn't there a mistake
> somewhere ? isn't it the opposite ? why did he say
> that ? what did he mean by that ? what was the context
> ?
>
> while in fact, once the context has been found, there
> is absolutely nothing abnormal in this sentence. So
> the question is: why do we feel puzzled at first
> reading ? And my answer is: because we instinctively
> understand that this sentence is normative, not
> descriptive. So, why do we feel so ? Again, my answer
> is: because usually, such sentences, especially when
> signed by a famous Latin author, are rather considered
> as precepts. This sentence, out of context, does not
> work the usual way. That's why we feel puzzled. And
> this is cultural. And that's my theory, be it right,
> false or incomplete.
Well, I guess this _is_ down to cultural conditioning. I first saw it in
original form (except translated into Swedish), and was not at all surprised to
run into what I perceived as a cynic observation. Aphoristically expressed
cynicism wasn't exactly unknown to the Classics.

                                                          Andreas