(November 7, 2018 at 1:28 am)Belaqua Wrote: There's nothing wrong with a little synecdoche.
I learned a new word today. Thanks.
Quote:But if you say "Germany is Bavaria," you're leaving out large parts of the traditional definition of Germany. And that's not a trope, it's just a falsehood.
Likewise, if you say "Christianity is X," and X is a portion that ignores large important aspects of the tradition, that's not accurate.
When I say Christianity is X, it isn't to much of a stretch to assume I mean the modern state of Christianity in most (but not all) contexts. It is possible to refer to Italy and make statements that (while true) do not apply to the Roman Empire. Am I saying that Italy isn't influenced by its Roman history? No. But I can make judgements about Italy's political activities without mentioning Marcus Aurelius (especially if it's 1939). Taken as a whole, to mention Italy whilst ignoring its Roman influences "ignores large important aspects" of its history. It really depends on what you consider "important" too.
The issue is further confused by the fact that sometimes people use the same word to refer to the historical essence of something and also to refer to its current state. I have said both of these sentences:
1) America is a republic of free people, not a world power.
2) America is a capitalist empire.
Statement 1 refers to the America's historical traditions and political philosophy. Statement 2 refers to the current state of America. The context in which I made each of the statements reveals more about what I am referring to than forcing me to say "America is X" and then pointing out how much of a generalization X is.
