Option 1: Scientists more comfortable with Plato’s conceptual scheme
The scientists of the Scientific Revolution would resonate more with Plato’s conceptual scheme rather than Borges’. Like in the cave, many people in the seventeenth century accepted their current situation regarding how the world worked. They did not want to question it even when they were living in the dark of how the world and science works. The scientists were able to escape into the light and find new discoveries to challenge previous views of the world. When they tried to share their findings, many of them were ridiculed and not taken seriously for what they found. I think this allegory fits the scientists more than Tlön because Borges focused more on how science is idealist, and it is more looking for amazement and metaphors rather than the truth. The scientists were looking for amazement and ways to explain the world, but I think they were looking more for truth like in the cave in order to bring humanity into an age of questioning and finding out more about the world around us. These truths are supposed to be questioned and studied, but that will help bring us more into the sunlight each time we question something.
I never realized how one word can mean a multitude of things, and how sometimes it depends on the cultural or emotional connotation of the word to decide which translation is used. With that much variety and uncertainty in translation, it is almost impossible to translate it word for word (pure language) while still capturing the original tone and meaning of the text. I was wondering if looking at multiple versions of translations would be beneficial, or would it confuse the original meaning of the text? Some translations focus on the pure translation while some focus on the original tone and syntax. Looking at both of them may help the reader understand the text better, but I was wondering if this much variation would be confusing to determine the original meaning of the text.