![]() ![]() That's why language or proper linguistics, must take into account the "specificness" of its terminology so it can be used for exchanges of ideas and logical investigation. One only needs to imagine something and make a series of inquiries into how it could bring the idea to life, Karl Marx, for all his theories on wage labor and alienation and class struggle, seemed to have a weak point in his ontology, which could be potentially dangerous since summoning something without making inquires into its practical use, could make human life on Earth inhospitable. Of course poetry is an art, but isn't Poetry supposed to communicate at least a sembalance of a clear idea? One could postulate that its supposed to invoke our imagination, which by all rights, is the root of scientific inquiry. Because the language isn't clear, and full of similies, it poses more questions than answers. ![]() lets look at this sentence: "a waking wave waved to the sunrise", the problem with this sentence, is it waking as in the distinction of awakening from a dream, or did the tide come in? Waves don't have hands either, but it could have signaled a greeting to the morning sunrise. John could be anyone named John and Simpson could be any family named Simpson, as it does not denote a particular significance to a specific clan of Simpsons, but any Simpson. taken alone, those three predicates are really all just universal things, as "Father" could mean your father, my father or a priest. ![]() Take something like "Father John Simpson", by this induction we know he is likely a priest, his name is John, and comes from a family of Simpson. "Red Foreman" is two names, not just designating any "Red", but a particular "Red", that of the "Foreman" clan. that sentence is defined by "Clifford" and them being "red" and a "dog", those words taken alone are simply descriptions, as who is "Clifford"? Clifford could be anyone, and the word "red" could be capitalized as "Red" and it might denote "Red Foreman" from a particular sitcom we have watched in the past. For instance saying or referring to "the world" does it mean any "world" or a particular "world", or which of the many "worlds"? if we prefix it with "red world" does it mean any red world or something like Mars or another planet that is defined by "red"? Furthermore, "red" only denotes a color, but you cannot say "I am going to the red" the red what? the red house? the red factory or something absurd like "Clifford the big red dog"? No, entertain me for a second. For if a word describe many different synonyms or had meanings that were divergent from from its core root word, it would only serve to confuse the listener or reader to what the intention of the name's origin would be. in order to do this we must define words as they are written, in plain form, their sole unique meanings that belong to them individually, and individually only. One of the problems of universals is that in order to make a groundwork of knowledge, one must presuppose that all theories have a level of intelligiblity close enough to approximate the transference of ideas from one person to another, provided the transference is successful, one can connect the dots and form a serious web of associations that would be needed to uncover more knowledge and make discoveries of epistemic proportions that would lead to a society that advances in the arts, architecture, biology, zoology, psychology and so forth. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |