The ideal sense of a word and the real meaning of it: the divergence point of the Ancient Greek and Indian Philosophies; [СМЫСЛ СЛОВА И ДЕНОТАТ СЛОВА. О РАСХОЖДЕНИИ ГРЕЧЕСКОЙ И ИНДИЙСКОЙ ФИЛОСОФИЙ В РАЗНЫХ НАПРАВЛЕНИЯХ]

The article discusses a possible reason for the mutual disinterest of the Greek and Indian philosophical traditions. The philosophers ignored each other, and it is a problem, since for six centuries (3 BC-3 AD) Indian and Greek cultures closely interacted on the territory of the Greco-Bactrian and Indo-Greek kingdoms. To find the answer, it is proposed to take into account that both philosophical intuitions appeared and developed in cultures with different schemes of rationality. The Greek scheme is based on the pair of logos-praxis. Two skills are specifically combined in the logos as activity: to think and to generate rational speech according to special rules. The Indian scheme is based on the opposition of intentional acts of consciousness to its objects among which there are both acts with material things and speech acts. This scheme emerged first in the ritual context. Due to the specifics of their rationality scheme, the Greeks are looking for an ideal object associated with the word, expanding the rules for using their native language and not quite noticing it. In the dialog Hippias Major, Socrates applies the distinction of syntactical constructions with or without a definite article. Without this distinction, it is impossible to formulate the problem of a possible existence of the beautiful in itself (eidos of the beautiful). The translation of this passage into languages with an article is trivial, but in languages devoid of article, as Latin, translators were forced to make additions. As a result, a new ideal object appears for the Greek thought. In the Buddhist dialogue Milindapañha in the Pali language the interlocutors wonder what is the real object of the word «chariot». They come to the conclusion that it does not exist in the world. Later the arguments of the same Buddhist school indicate that the chariot is to be found not in the natural world, but in encompassing human activity. Thus, the Indian reasoning deprives everyday naive consciousness of the illusion of the reality of the chariot. Thinking about words as connected with thoughts, as Greeks do, and as connected with things, along with the Indians, are not compatible within one discourse and are mutually almost incomprehensible. The interaction of these philosophical traditions seems unnecessary and improbable. © 2022 Russian Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.