Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 7, 2021 22:00:16 GMT
Some words and linguistic constructions are of a specific nature, these words include the so-called categories - special meaningful units that can be recognized in a sentence, and which perform some special functions.
Among such words and constructions, one can single out logical, epistemological, metaphysical and other philosophical constructions. And some of these words are often spread in philosophical articles and publications, meanwhile, such words and constructions are not so definite as to easily manipulate them. In other words, such words and constructions are much less definite than others - simpler words and constructions.
Negation
So let's start with logical negation . This operation is usually referred to as the opposite in meaning. In other words, the wording is as follows:
For any concept, the following is true:
it either has the value B, or it does not. If the concept A has the meaning of B, then what does not matter B is the opposite of the concept A. (I)
(Recorded): M(x) = df x has meaning
(Recorded): N(y) = df x has meaning; y is not included in the set of x
This is just one of the phrases; others are possible, however, as a rule, intuitively it seems to be true, than negation is. It is less certain to say how negation is to be understood and what it is. If negation is an exclusively logical definition, then is it only by virtue of its property (and definition), or does something correspond to this concept outside the logical concept?
Independence
The following metaphysical definition will help to answer this question :
Any entity either has an independent being, or does not. If entity A is independent, then it has status S, otherwise, it does not have status S. (II)
Later, Definition II will become in fact defining for any of the above terms.
Truth
One of the most confusing definitions (as well as its opposite in meaning) is the concept of truth . In order to characterize a certain concept as true, in general it must - like the two above concepts - satisfy a certain definition. What this definition should be is a debatable question, however, the fact that truth is compliance with a certain definition is taken for granted.
As in the previous versions, this will not stand out, so it is advisable to immediately write it in mathematical notation:
T(N(y), S(x)) = df y satisfies the definition opposite to T (III).
Parts
One of the less common semantic categories is the part category. As a rule, this category is considered along with another, namely, the category of the whole. If we define the part , then we also define the whole. (This seems redundant, though, since we are contrasting one category with another.)
The complexity of defining this category is such that it cannot be simply expressed in terms of quantity, and also that it can be compared with value. In other words, the non-quantitative part of a concept is the same as the part of the definition of that concept.
Let's also try to express what a part is:
Meaning
It seems that it is with this category that one should start, but what the meaning is or what it represents is a separate task.
One of the most common definitions of what a value is is a logical definition. (It should be noted that meaning is a semantic category, but either its logical interpretation or a metaphysical interpretation is possible.)
Let's try to find a logical value expression:
L(x, y) = df y is deducible from x;
a) M(L(N(y), N(x)) = df y has the meaning
b) M(L(x, S(y)) = df y has the meaning (V)
It is clear that we are falling into a circle trying to define meaning using the terms defined above.
The problem with all the terms that have been encountered before is that no matter what category we choose as the main one, we will be directly or indirectly forced to use others. This is what you might call semantic aberration. However, it is not this property - the property of expressibility of some terms through others - that is the main problem. The most important problem can be indicated as follows:
1) any concept is either part of another, or is independent of others
2) any semantic concept is a concept that has a functional component, or, otherwise, it characterizes some categories by means of others
3) if one of the above categories is part of another, then it is included in the definition of the other, and therefore is the value of the specified category
4) if one of the above categories is independent of the others, then its value is not determined by the values of other categories and, therefore, this category does not have a functional component