27-07-2026, 01:58 PM
I understand the argument, but Baresch' words can be interpreted in so many ways. It's probably a bit of both.
He didn't see much use in the object without understanding the text. He didn't value it as a physical object, a work of craftmanship, or for its esthetic value. The only value he saw in it was of a potential kind: if Kircher could decipher the language, perhaps knowledge about the applications of plants could be obtained from it.
It's actually an elegant rhetoric device: as an object, it does little more than uselessly take up space, but Kircher could make it useful by deciphering the script.
He didn't see much use in the object without understanding the text. He didn't value it as a physical object, a work of craftmanship, or for its esthetic value. The only value he saw in it was of a potential kind: if Kircher could decipher the language, perhaps knowledge about the applications of plants could be obtained from it.
It's actually an elegant rhetoric device: as an object, it does little more than uselessly take up space, but Kircher could make it useful by deciphering the script.