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.
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.
