Language and its proper use in philosophy and in real life.
By “proper” I do not mean whatever I like or prefer, but the most objective and empirical.
We begin with a division of man, in accordance with the platonic psyche, that was later translated into the Abrahamic triad of father/son/holy ghost.
The division is that which was represented by the charriot rider, and his two stallions, one black and one white - dark impulses and white passions.
The triad in physis is that of past/present/future, corresponding to mind/body/nervous system, including brain.
language can b placed within this triad in the present, corresponding to the dynamic part experienced as dynamic existence. The nervous system is where language engages dynamic reality, in the present.
It synthesizes past - i.e., sum of all nurturing, or nature, and future - i.e., projection of objective, also known as idea/ideal, destination, goal.
The nervous system synthesizes body/mind, ad this is where language, as a representation of mental abstractions, finds its place as its expression.
To put it philosophically, the triad is physis/metaphysis/ideal.
The starting point in this triad model is physis, presence, empirical…also called nature engaged directly in the present.
Philosophy must begin by grounding tis language here, before it proceeds towards metaphysis and ideologia, just as building a house begins from the surface of the earth, digging downward a foundation and from there upward towards the sky as a projection of the structure outward, while remaining in harmony with the environment.
Therefore, words like morality, sex, truth, god, love, can find a grounding in observable, experienced reality. Intentionally misusing these words indicates a motive other than clarity. it indicates a motive of manipulation, in the service fo a personal agenda, and of exploitation.
For example the term ‘god’ was not a meaningless abstraction, representing man’s idealization of himself, or remaining vague and insinuating, as it is today.
Ancient gods were empierced and observed acting, as natural forces.
Morality, as well, is not some abstract idea with no meaning. It refers to a type of behaviour observed within specific species, facilitating particular goals, such as cooperative social structures and social cohesion.
The rule against killing is about not disturbing the group’s internal harmony, and did not apply to anything outside of the group; rules against incest also find a utility ni simple genetics and the prevention of deformities.
To this evolved moral behaviour man added his own codes of conduct, ushering ni the age of the Theocracies. The Ten Commandment. An addition that often contradicts naturally evolved impulses and behaviours. We can distinguish these by naming them Ethical codes.
we now have a division between naturally evolved behaviours - morality - and socially imposed rules of conduct - ethics. These correspond to the mind/body duality, or to genetic and memetics.
Genes are of the body; memes are of the mind.
Ethical rules, such as those concerning adultery, or thieving, or respecting the neighbour though he is not part of your group, often fail to bring about the control that morals, evolved over thousands of years of natural selection, can produce.
But that’s another tangent. For now, my position is that words, many words, currently being misused and intentionally abused, can be “brought down to earth”, i.e., they can be grounded in empiricism, as a starting point.
This would be an objective start. observable, testable, falsifiable to all. not requiring priests to offer entrance into a theoretical occult alternate reality - oftentimes a nonsensical alternative - which they define and describe, as a way of controlling the masses.
Words returned to their rightful place as mediators, connectors, between awareness and world.
