Post by Eugene 2.0 on Mar 18, 2021 21:17:02 GMT
* Taking a certain term to use it with no definition would be just nothing. Because we can ask - what is that term about? And hearing back a silence doesn't lead us to anything. So, a term for usage must be defined.
** All those things that are presented in many others like glassness, or red, or blue, or nice odor, or woodeness, etc - are needed to be defined as well as many other signifying and meaningful words.
*** Surely, we can left aside those definitions if what do we want is to feel some things, instead of articulate them and to conceive them at some discoursive level up. But till we're doing it there's no reason for any talks.
**** The definition is about to reduce one phenomenon into a series of other phenomena or some other things. And any definition shows us the incompleteness of any associative way to approach the defined things.
***** So, all what we can get from the terms of universals is that each terms of it is built up with a nominal. We can try to articulate those terms or to change its pitch, while it'll be just about to prove their "name nature".
** All those things that are presented in many others like glassness, or red, or blue, or nice odor, or woodeness, etc - are needed to be defined as well as many other signifying and meaningful words.
*** Surely, we can left aside those definitions if what do we want is to feel some things, instead of articulate them and to conceive them at some discoursive level up. But till we're doing it there's no reason for any talks.
**** The definition is about to reduce one phenomenon into a series of other phenomena or some other things. And any definition shows us the incompleteness of any associative way to approach the defined things.
***** So, all what we can get from the terms of universals is that each terms of it is built up with a nominal. We can try to articulate those terms or to change its pitch, while it'll be just about to prove their "name nature".
