From 7eaa26569ef03a3f9a72633e004deb575924043e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: atinukeworld <36278939+tobiano94@users.noreply.github.com> Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2018 14:58:16 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] Update p01_ch04_pref.md complete translation of the file from English to Yoruba --- .../p01_ch04_pref.md | 85 +++++++++---------- 1 file changed, 42 insertions(+), 43 deletions(-) diff --git a/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch04_pref.md b/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch04_pref.md index cccb0665d..96d465897 100644 --- a/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch04_pref.md +++ b/yo/Universally Preferable Behaviour/p01_ch04_pref.md @@ -24,86 +24,85 @@ Niwon igba ti awa eniyan bale she ishee pupo, ounkohun ti eniyan lema shee je ou Ti a ba lo oro yii fun ijiyan lori asaama wa pelu awonesi ti an fe. -### Preferences And Arguments +### Iferanju ati ariyanjiyan -Remembering our above analysis of self-defeating arguments, we can easily understand the contradictory nature of the statement: “preferences do not exist.” Given that every human action – including making philosophical statements – is chosen in preference to every other possible action, arguing that preferences do not exist requires a *preference* for arguing that preferences do not exist, which is a self-contradictory statement. Arguing that preferences do not exist is exactly the same as arguing that language does not exist. It is an utterly self-defeating argument. +Fifisokan bi a sero ariyanjiyan ti o n shegun arare si, a ni oye itako oro naa. “Iferanju o wa”. Niwon igba ti gbogbo ishe eniyan-pelu sisoro oye- a yan lori gbogbo ishee miran, arinyanjiyan wipe iferanju o wa nilo iferanju fun ariyanjiyan kan wipe, iferanju owa ti o si je oro ti o n tako ara re. ariyanjiyan wipe iferanju o wa je nnkan kaanaa pelu ariyanjiyan wipe ede o wa ti osi je oro ti o n tako ara re. -Since it is impossible to act without expressing a preference – either implicitly or explicitly – anyone who acts accepts the premise that preferences exist. Thus it is impossible to debate the existence of preferences without accepting the existence of preferences. +Nigba ti ko sese lati she lai ni iferanju, boya bakan abi omiran-enikeni ti o ba shee gba pe iferanju wa. Nigbanaa ko sese lati she aariyanjiyan lai gba wipe iferanju wa. -### Preferences And Universality +### Iferanju ati gbigbalagbaye -The next question thus becomes: are preferences purely subjective, or can they be universal? +Ibere to kan nipe, shee iferanju wa pelu imule ni tabi o je oro ti oni imule lagbaye? +Nikedere, awon iferanju kan ni imule. Iyanfe orin, ishee, litireso ti eyan fe juu ati beebeelo ni imule, o si nife ti onikaluku ma n ni. -Clearly, some preferences are subjective. Musical tastes, personal hobbies, favourite literature and so on are all subjective and personal preferences. +Isoro naa man dide nigba ti a ba fe tunmo iferanju ti o nimule. -The challenge arises when we try to define some preferences as *objective*. +Imuwa fun ifiyesi niwajuwa ni shee awon iferanju kan ni imule lagbaye -The proposition before us is thus: *can some preferences be objective, i.e. universal?* +Ti mobasope awon iferanju ni imule, mi o tunmo si wipe gbogbo eniyan tele iferanju yiii nigbogbo igba. Ti mob a jiyan wipe kamami je iferenju ti o mule, awon ti o n yegi fun ara won le kamilowoko ti mo ba sope ijehun je iferanju ti o ni imule,ijiyan mi ko ni imule pelu awon ti o n gbawe ati awon ti o ni anorexia. -When I say that some preferences may be objective, I do not mean that all people follow these preferences at all times. If I were to argue that *breathing* is an objective preference, I could be easily countered by the example of those who commit suicide by hanging themselves. If I were to argue that eating is an objective preference, my argument could be countered with examples of hunger strikes and anorexia. +Nigbanaa,ti mo ban soro nipa iferanju ti o shee gba lagbaye, mo n soro nipa ohun ti awo eniyan man feranju lati shee. Nimulo oye sciecii- eleyi ko sowipe won ma n she bee ni gbogbo igba, nigba ti billion eyan lo n kan si oun atijo ju igbalode sciencii fun otito lo, ko si ona miiran lati mo otito nipa agbaye laisi sciecii, sugbon awa eniyan le shee itumo miran fun”otito” bi “asise” ki won si ni itelorun pelu arawon pelu iranu. -Thus when I talk about universal preferences, I am talking about what people *should* prefer, not what they always *do* prefer. To use a scientific analogy, to truly understand the universe, people *should* use the scientific method – this does not mean that they always do so, since clearly billions of people consult ancient fairy tales rather than modern science for “answers.” There is no way to achieve truth about the universe without science, but people are perfectly free to redefine “truth” as “error,” and content themselves with mystical nonsense. +Nibakana, ti omokunrin ba fe iwosan aiisan kan, oye ki o lo ogun, ko ye ki o ma shee aztek ijo ojo. Ife lilo ogun ju ki eeyan ma she ijo inu ojo yii wa funagbaye, niwon igba ti jijo o le fun yan si iwosan arun. Sugbon, awon were kanwa ti yo ni iwosan pelu ijo, sugbon asigbalagbaye wipe ti eniyan bafeni iwosan, yo logun. -Likewise, if a man wants to cure an infection, he *should* take antibiotics rather than perform an Aztec rain dance. The preference for taking antibiotics rather than doing a rain dance is universal, since dancing cannot cure infections. Thus, although there is the occasional madman who will try to cure himself through dancing, it is still *universally preferable* that if a man wants to cure himself, he must take antibiotics. +Ni oro miran, ti o ba fe de oke giga, fife eyi o le sheeshee; ti o ba fe mo ibere aye yi,adura o le fun wa ni idahun. Awon eniyan shi fe, wo shin gbadura, eleyi ko ni pe fife ati adura ko maa shishe. Ni eleyi lokan, eja ki a pada si ibeere boya iferanju nkan ni aye ni imule tabi ko ni. -In other words, if you want to get to the top of a mountain, wishing for it will never work. If you want to know the origins of the universe, prayer will never provide an answer. People still wish, and pray, but that does not make wishing or praying any more effective. With that in mind, let us turn to the question of whether or not universal preferences can be valid. +### Arinyanjiyan ati gbigba lagbaye -### Arguments And Universality +Ti mob a yan lati shee ariyanjiyan, mo ti gba opo premise to tosi akoko wa lati yonju nibi. -If I choose to debate, I have implicitly accepted a wide variety of premises that are worth spending some time to unpack here. +#### Premisi 1: A jo wa -#### Premise 1: We Both Exist +Ti mo ba yan lati se ariyanjiyan pelu e, mo gbodo gba wipe a jo wa ni. Ti mob a nigbagbo wipe mow a, iwo kosisi,nigbana ariyanjiyan mi o ni itumo, a si je ishe were. Ti mo ba beere ijiyan pelu ara mi ninu digi, oye kin penu mo ni, ko ye ki won shee ariyanjiyan pelu mi. -If I choose to debate with you, then I necessarily must accept that we both exist. If believe that I exist, but you do not, then debating makes no sense, and would be the action of a madman. If I were to start arguing with my reflection in a mirror, I should be sedated, not debated. +#### Premisi 2: ero ni agbara fun gbigba daradara -#### Premise 2: The Senses Have The Capacity For Accuracy +Niwon igba ti eniyan o le soro ni iduro, gbogbo aariyanjiyan nilo ero eniyan. Kiko nilo oju,siso nilo gbigbo,fifura nilo kikan. Gbogbo imuwa fun ifesi gbekele ero fifimule. -Since human beings cannot communicate psychically, all debates necessarily involve the evidence of the senses. Writing presupposes sight; talking requires hearing; Braille requires touch. Thus any proposition that depends upon the invalidity of the senses automatically self-destructs. +#### Premisi 3: ede ni agbara fun itunmo -#### Premise 3: Language Has The Capacity For Meaning +Nijora si premise keji, niwon igba ti gbogbo ijiyan nilo ede, imuwa fun ifesi kaakan ti o simi lori premise wipe ede o ni itunmo, a o yo ese imule re lesekese. Lilo ede lati fiyanjiyan wipe ede o ni itunmo dabi ki eyan ma lo courier fi ran eyan nise igba ti a shin jiyan wipe courier o le je ishe. -Similar to Premise Two, since all arguments require language, any proposition that rests on the premise that language is meaningless is immediately disproven. Using language to argue that language has no meaning is like using a courier to send a message arguing that couriers never deliver messages. +#### Premisi 4: titosonaa nilo ife agbaye -#### Premise 4: Correction Requires Universal Preferences +Ti o ba tomi sona fun ashishe ti mo she, o ngba otito ninu wipe yo dara fun mi lati to ara mi sona, kin shit un ashishe mi she. Ife re fun mi lati tun ashishe mi she o ni imule, sugbon o ni oye o si wa kiri aye. -If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be *better* for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal. +Ole so fun mi “kpe ko da ero re pada si temi toripe mo nife re” sugbon dipo,” oye ko tun ero re she tori ko to”. Ashishe mi otayo lati ijiyan pelu re, sugbon bi esi oye mi lori oye to mule. Ijiyan re wipe kin tun ashishe mi she sun lori iyi otito-bi apeere. Ayan otito ju ashishe lo, otito shi ni imule kiri aye. -You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth. Your argument that I should correct my false opinion rests on the objective value of truth – i.e. that truth is *universally preferable* to error, and that truth is *universally objective*. +#### Premisi 5: ogbon we lati she iyato laarin otito ati aijeotito -#### Premise 5: An Objective Methodology Exists For Separating Truth From Falsehood +Ti o ba gba pelu mi, sugbon mo so fun e wipe o gbodo gba pelu mi tori wipe mi o kin she ashishe, o le ma ni itelorun pelu ijiyan mi. ti o ba fi idi ti mofi wa ni ona iro, sugbon mo kon tenumo wipe mow a lona otito tori wipe mo man wa lona ooto nigbogbo igba. A o le pe ni ijiyan. -If you disagree with me, but I tell you that you must agree with me because I am always right, it is unlikely that you would be satisfied by the rigour of my argument. If you provided good reasons as to why I was wrong, but I just kept repeating that I was right because I am *always* right, our interaction could scarcely be categorised as a debate. +Igba ti mob a fi awon idi kan leele lati mo otito kuro ninu iro, mo n gba wipe otito je nnkan ero. -The moment that I provide some sort of objective criterion for determining truth from falsehood, I am accepting that truth is more than a matter of opinion. +Eleyii ko sowipe awon idi mi wa logikali-mo le sowipe ko loba eni esin, bi apeere, sibesibe, ti mob a shebe, mo ngba wipe otito je oun ti ale de si ti kosi duro le lori iri eyan kan- wipe ogbon wa lati shee iyato otito kuro ninu iro. -This does not necessarily mean that my objective criteria are *logical* – I could refer you to a religious text, for example. However, even if I do so, I am still accepting that the truth is something that is arrived at independent of mere personal assertion – that an objective methodology exists for separating truth from falsehood. +#### Premisi 6: otito dara ju iro lo -#### Premise 6: Truth Is Better Than Falsehood +Ti mob a so wipe ayeyi pelebe, o si so wipe aye yi o ri pelebe, sugbon oyika ni, nigba naa ongba wipe otito ati iro wa, otito shi dara ju iro lo. -If I tell you that the world is flat, and you reply that the world is not flat, but round, then you are implicitly accepting the axiom that truth and falsehood both exist objectively, and that truth is better than falsehood. +Ti mob a so fun e wipe mo nife icy creamu chokolati, o si so funmi wipe vanilla lo feran, kossese lati “fihan” wipe vanilla dara ju chokolati lo. Igba ti o ba tomisonna pelu awon idi ti o mogbon wa, o n gba wipe iidi ti o mogbon wa wa, pelu wipe otito ti o mogbonwa she itewogba nigbogbo aye ju ashishe lo. -If I tell you that I like chocolate ice cream, and you tell me that you like vanilla, it is impossible to “prove” that vanilla is objectively better than chocolate. The moment that you correct me with reference to objective *facts*, you are accepting that objective facts exist, and that objective truth is *universally preferable* to subjective error. +#### Premisi 7: ijiyan ti ko ni waala ni ona to dara julo lati pari ija -#### Premise 7: Peaceful Debating Is The Best Way To Resolve Disputes +Ti mob a so fun e wipe aye yii ri pelebe ni, o si yo iban sita, oshiyin mi niban, eleyi ma n je apeere ijiyan ti on jeeje leekokan Otito, ijiyan wa o ba ni iyanju sugbon nitori okan lara wa lo shin duro lopin. -If I tell you that the world is flat, and you pull out a gun and shoot me, this would scarcely be an example of a productive debate. True, our disagreement would have been “resolved” – but because only one of us was left standing at the end. +Ti o ba sofun mi tele wipe wa she idahun si ijiyan yi pelu yiyiban fun mi, mi o ko nife ni ijiyan yi pelu re rara nikedere, ijiyan duro le premise wipe eri, idi, otitoo ati ogbon je liana ti agba lagbaye lati ma ri ija laarin awon eniyan. Ko ni wa logikali lati jiyan wipe iyato ero ye ki o ni ipari pelu lilo wahala-ilodeede ijiyan kan fun iyi wahala ni lilo wahala.[^4] -If you told me in advance that you would deal with any disagreement by shooting me, I would be unlikely to engage in a debate with you. Thus it is clear that any debate relies on the implicit premise that evidence, reason, truth and objectivity are the *universally preferable* methods of resolving disputes between individuals. It would be completely illogical to argue that differences of opinion should be resolved through the use of violence – the only consistent argument for the *value* of violence is the use of violence.[^4] +Ni bayi, ijiyan nilo ogbon oye, ede tonitumo,ninu lile otito ti agba layae, ti a si fe ju ashishe enikan lo. -In essence, then, debating requires an objective methodology, through meaningful language, in the pursuit of universal truth, which is objectively preferable to personal error. +Iri otito aye o je ife degiree, sugbon ti iru ni. Abuja ti o dinku asiko ti a fin wako pelu aabo dara lona meji ti ona ti o gun-sugbon awon meejeeji dara ju ki eyean ma wako ni ona ti ko ye. -This preference for universal truth is not a preference of *degree*, but of *kind*. A shortcut that reduces your driving time by half is twice as good as a longer route – but both are *infinitely preferable* to driving in the completely wrong direction. +Ni ona kana, oito o dara ju ashihe nikan lo, afe ni gbogbo ona, asi nilo re. -In the same way, the truth is not just “better” than error – it is *infinitely preferable*, or required. +#### Premisi 8: eniyan she iduro fun ishe re -#### Premise 8: Individuals Are Responsible For Their Actions +Ti mob a jiyan wipe eniyan o she iduro fun ishe re, ojiji leyi o bami, ti a si ri beere boya emi tabi elomiran ni osheduro fun ijiyan mi, ati pe boya mo she iduro fun esi mi tabi omiran. -If I argue that human beings are not responsible for their actions, I am caught in a paradox, which is the question of *whether or not I am responsible for my argument, and also whether or not you are responsible for your response*. +Ti ijiyan mi wipe omo eniyan o she iduro ishe re je otito, nigbana,mi o she duro fun ijiyan mi, mi o shike sheeduro fun esi mi. sibesibe, ti mob a gbagbo wipe mi o sheduro fun esi mi, a ni ogbon ti o dara lati bere ijiyan-a je ekona bi ki a ma jiyan pelu television.[^5] -If my argument that human beings are *not* responsible for their actions is true, then I am not responsible for my argument, and you are not responsible for your reply. However, if I believe that you are not responsible for your reply, it would make precious little sense to advance an argument – it would be exactly the same as arguing with a television set.[^5] +Ni koko, ti mob a so fun e wipe o she iduro fun awon ishe re, mo n sofun e wipe a nife re lagbaye fun o lati gbagbo wipe iferanju osheshe,nigba ti o ni agbara lori ishe re, o kole wani ipo iferanju bi, otito lori iro, fun idi eyi, Ijiyan yii gegebi ijiyan ti o wa loke, tako arare. -Thus, fundamentally, if I tell you that you are not responsible for your actions, I am telling you that it is universally preferable for you to believe that preference is impossible, since if you have no control over your actions, you cannot choose a preferred state, i.e. truth over falsehood. Thus this argument, like the above arguments, self-destructs. +[^4]: Yo wulo lati fi premise yi sokan, tori o ma she Pataki tio baya. -[^4]: It will be useful to keep this particular premise in mind, since it will be very important later on. - -[^5]: The question of responsibility is, of course, closely related to the question of free will versus determinism, which will be the subject of another book. +[^5]: Ibere iduro wanni papa pelu ibeere ishe oun to wuyan nikoju determinisimu, ti o shi je eko ninu iwe miran.