Often the term ‘methodology’ sounds intimidating and hard to understand. It is basically a collection of methods, or ways and principles. In accordance with these methods and principles a scholar or scientist conducts research within the framework of their discipline (subject), such as physics, chemistry, history, sociology or literary studies.
The term ‘methodology’ is a western European neologism (newly formed word) coined (formed) at the turn of the 19th century. It is composed of two elements ‘method’ and ‘-logy.’ The former is another western European neologism, that is, Latin methodus, which was coined at the turn of the 15th century for denoting a ‘systematic way’ of doing something, such as a medical procedure or a theological exegesis (explanation) of a biblical issue. In turn, this medieval Latin word methodus is composed from two Greek words, namely, met(a) for ‘beyond’ and hodós for ‘way, road.’ So method is not a ‘simple way of doing something,’ but a way that was developed through a prolonged practice that was thoroughly reflected upon (discussed), described, and finally standardized as the ‘best’ or ‘normal’ way of proceeding in a given case.
In interwar Bulgaria, Turkish intellectuals began using the Latin alphabet for writing and publishing in Turkish about two years earlier than in Turkey itself, where the Latin alphabet replaced the Arabic script in 1928. Afterward only few religious and pro-Ottoman Turkish-language periodicals were brought out in Bulgaria with the use of the Arabic script. The country was a short hop from Konstantiniyya (officially renamed Istanbul in 1935). Besides, until 1908, Bulgaria officially was an autonomous principality of the Ottoman Empire. What is more, Konstantiniyya remained the seat of the Bulgarian Exarchate (or semi-autonomous Orthodox Church) until 1913. Hence, Bulgaria did not appear to be a foreign land to pro-Ottoman refugees from Mustafa Kemal’s radically republican and anti-religious Turkey.
Slavic and Germanic languages have considerably more sounds (phonemes) than Latin. It caused technical problems when at the beginning of the second millennium the Latin alphabet was employed for writing these vernaculars. The initial makeshift strategy was to use two or three letters (diagraphs and trigraphs) for the extra sounds. Czech was the first written language among Catholic and Protestant Slavs. Not surprisingly in the 14th century the diagraph [cz] was employed for writing the phoneme /tʃ/, the diagraph [rz] for /r̝/, or the diagraph [ſſ] for /ʃ/. With his 1406 work De orthographia Bohemica, Jan Hus changed this system by introducing diacritical letters for the extra Slavic phonemes. As a result, in today’s Czech orthography each phoneme is reflected by a single letter, for instance, /tʃ/ is written as [č], /r̝/ as [ř], or /ʃ/ as [š]. The sole exception to this rule is the grapheme [ch] retained to denote the sound /x/.
The particularist nature of nationalism is inherently opposed to the universalist character of human rights. In other words, any loyalty to a group (be it a town, village, nation, state, religion, or economic bloc) is directly opposed to loyalty for all Humankind. It is difficult to love all thy neighbors. One tends to love more those who belong to one’s own group.
The studies of national specificity, usually focused on this or that national language originated in the 19th-century central Europe. They grew out from two kinds of pursuits. On the one hand, philologists discovered languages, that is, national languages, or speech communities that were quickly equated with nations. While on the other hand, folklorists (ethnographers) discovered peasantry, seen as the forgotten soul and the true body of the nation. Philologists put themselves to the task of endowing their (usually native) languages with ‘scientific’ dictionaries and grammars, while folklorists were collecting a given peasantry’s songs and customs which they saw as equal in quality or even transcending the ancient Homeric tradition. Both groups of scholars soon propounded that the language of an elite (nobility) was ‘impure,’ due to ‘foreign’ influences, usually from Latin, French or German. But an ethnically correlated peasantry’s speech extolled as an epitome of the ‘pure’ national language posed a problem of easily observed spatial variability. The ‘peasant language’ differed from village to village, from region to region, and not at all was free of ‘foreign impurities,’ either. These problems was ‘explained away’ by nobles’ long-century oppression of peasants through the system of serfdom. As a result, the supposedly pristine culture and language of peasantry were corrupted, and the putative early medieval or even ancient nation was fragmented, as serfs were not allowed to leave their villages or parishes. Simultaneously nobility ‘unjustifiably’ separated themselves from their ethnically kin ‘peasant brethren’ (‘betrayed the people’), by allowing a succession of (nationally) foreign monarchs to assume the throne of the (national) kingdom, and by marrying foreign nobles.
Human perception of the material reality is always indirect. This perception is mediated by the senses and incredibly limited to the tiniest scrap of the material reality, or to the extent that in the process of evolution was established by trial and error as necessary for the successful survival of an average human.
A strange question to pose, one might say. Why, of course, evil does exist, we all know. But who are these ‘we’? It is people, humans. They seem to know what evil is, because evil things are done to them and they do evil things to others. The distinction between good and evil yields what is known as morality and ethics. People’s deeds may be assessed as good or bad (evil). But it is sufficient to ask whether a tiger killing and devouring an antelope is guilty of an evil act, or for that matter an elephant that in the course of walking across a wood inadvertently squashes a creature under its foot. The popular opinion is that such acts are ethically neutral, neither bad nor good, because that is the way of nature. Nature is opposed to civilization or culture, which are terms for the human (social) world composed of human groups. Evil exists only in the latter sphere, that is, in relations among people. It is a truism to say that there is no evil on the Moon. Evil is an impossibility there, where no human groups exist.