|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 11, 2022 19:21:04 GMT
A word means something if it describes a part of reality. If not, it may use a technical role as, for instance, to name something, or to connect words syntactically.
Of course we consider words to stick fragments of reality by how do we use them. If a word is being used for that fragment, we repeat it to call for that fragment, if another one describes the same, we call such the word to be synonym, and if a word has two or more meanings, this word is called a homonym.
If we expand the reality as a map into different elements we can fill that map using relevant words, if to take those elements by groups or taking them as states of affairs we can fill the map by propositions.
Either way we can cover our map using words, however we would have infinity extra capacity of technical words to cover the rest: the general notion of the reality, and other it's combinations.
Seems like such a process has to describe something in general as philosophy does, and what it tries to do, but at the same time, it doesn't seem to be possible: any new technical words wouldn't have a trusted meaning.
Indeed, if they had to, they would use words backed by something. And such words (or propositions) can be taken only from mathematics, because only this field has successfully done many external progress.
Otherwise, either we can describe the transcendent map of the world using math, or we can describe transcendtal reality in common reality (reducing terms to terms: any reality into the described one).
Since math is doing well describing the transcendental reality, the task of transcendental description of can successfully be done by math, because its terms have transcendental meaning.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 13, 2022 11:48:40 GMT
Do you know the concept of semantic field?
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 14, 2022 4:46:33 GMT
Do you know the concept of semantic field? No, and I would be really appreciate if you could tell it in details. Major part of my knowledge is self-education.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 14, 2022 10:40:25 GMT
I only have the idea, never found any book about. But is a kind of aristotelian derivatives, (or paronimes) as he says in Categories.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 14, 2022 15:05:48 GMT
I only have the idea, never found any book about. But is a kind of aristotelian derivatives, (or paronimes) as he says in Categories. I think that Aristotle was far from semantic studies, however some of his texts, and Categories - is one of such, contain similar info about it. He almost never speaks about whether or not calling this or that name means something, instead he uses logic just as a tool. And there was a major debate between Aristotelian one, and Stoic one school about logic. The last one said that logic was more, than a tool, while Peripathetikos (Aristotelians) said the opposite. So, that's why your quesiton about semantic fields made me guessing and that's all.
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Mar 14, 2022 22:35:27 GMT
A word means something if it describes a part of reality. If not, it may use a technical role as, for instance, to name something, or to connect words syntactically. Of course we consider words to stick fragments of reality by how do we use them. If a word is being used for that fragment, we repeat it to call for that fragment, if another one describes the same, we call such the word to be synonym, and if a word has two or more meanings, this word is called a homonym. If we expand the reality as a map into different elements we can fill that map using relevant words, if to take those elements by groups or taking them as states of affairs we can fill the map by propositions. Either way we can cover our map using words, however we would have infinity extra capacity of technical words to cover the rest: the general notion of the reality, and other it's combinations. Seems like such a process has to describe something in general as philosophy does, and what it tries to do, but at the same time, it doesn't seem to be possible: any new technical words wouldn't have a trusted meaning. Indeed, if they had to, they would use words backed by something. And such words (or propositions) can be taken only from mathematics, because only this field has successfully done many external progress. Otherwise, either we can describe the transcendent map of the world using math, or we can describe transcendtal reality in common reality (reducing terms to terms: any reality into the described one). Since math is doing well describing the transcendental reality, the task of transcendental description of can successfully be done by math, because its terms have transcendental meaning. There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 15, 2022 1:06:00 GMT
I think all work of Aristotle is a work of semantics. He almost deduce everything by the logic of language.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 15, 2022 1:07:12 GMT
Language have a logic, there is logic in language. That's all I have to say here.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2022 20:09:57 GMT
A word means something if it describes a part of reality. If not, it may use a technical role as, for instance, to name something, or to connect words syntactically. Of course we consider words to stick fragments of reality by how do we use them. If a word is being used for that fragment, we repeat it to call for that fragment, if another one describes the same, we call such the word to be synonym, and if a word has two or more meanings, this word is called a homonym. If we expand the reality as a map into different elements we can fill that map using relevant words, if to take those elements by groups or taking them as states of affairs we can fill the map by propositions. Either way we can cover our map using words, however we would have infinity extra capacity of technical words to cover the rest: the general notion of the reality, and other it's combinations. Seems like such a process has to describe something in general as philosophy does, and what it tries to do, but at the same time, it doesn't seem to be possible: any new technical words wouldn't have a trusted meaning. Indeed, if they had to, they would use words backed by something. And such words (or propositions) can be taken only from mathematics, because only this field has successfully done many external progress. Otherwise, either we can describe the transcendent map of the world using math, or we can describe transcendtal reality in common reality (reducing terms to terms: any reality into the described one). Since math is doing well describing the transcendental reality, the task of transcendental description of can successfully be done by math, because its terms have transcendental meaning. There is no full transcendence if one cannot transcend above the phenomenon of transcendence; dually if one transcends above the phenomenon of transcendence there is no transcendence. Transcendence is relative and as relative is nothing in its totality. You're right. I cannot imagine full transcendence at all either. It's like an attempt to go higher, however it's another metaphysics in result.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2022 20:12:36 GMT
I think all work of Aristotle is a work of semantics. He almost deduce everything by the logic of language. As I said it might be cause it looked like he used semantics, but not so much as stoics did. Aristotle didn't believe in magic between words & world, and in manipulating words as manipulating world either. His logic was about general reasons/causations. It was almost like a doctor did gathering info about illnesses.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 15, 2022 20:14:42 GMT
Language have a logic, there is logic in language. That's all I have to say here. It is really true. Since ~50's this direction is a trend one. If AI can learn how to use language as we do, it will be able to think as we think. I don't think that thinking is totally in language, but I think that philosophy can use language and logic analysis successfully to try to solve anything.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 17, 2022 1:02:23 GMT
Logic is more than reasoning. Is more than language. Logic is form, language is categories. Each language have a form, so each country have a logic.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2022 4:37:42 GMT
Logic is more than reasoning. Is more than language. Logic is form, language is categories. Each language have a form, so each country have a logic. Here's a paradox in your claim: if each country has its own logic via language form, then what you have said is true only for using language of yours. So, you can be true for this language, while being false for another. Besides, any languages are not stable, they keep changing daily (except for such as Latin or Ancient Greek).
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Mar 17, 2022 14:14:29 GMT
There is general logic, and specifical uses of general logic. So, each country have a logic.
As a tree is made of roots, leafs and flowers, but differs in the form, in the genetics. So is the logic.
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 17, 2022 14:55:30 GMT
There is general logic, and specifical uses of general logic. So, each country have a logic. As a tree is made of roots, leafs and flowers, but differs in the form, in the genetics. So is the logic. I think you don't differ about general and peculiar/specific. If each country has logic, then it can be ask further whether or not they have each own logic, or each country shares the same logic with the others? An example with a tree isn't a logical example, it is an analogy, which is far from logic. It can be used only for inductive generalizations. There's a form and a kind, so a leaf or a branch can shares the same form having different kinds.
|
|