I have not spent my life to perpetuate stupidity, but to eradicate it. I know very well that fools write dictionaries today. I hope you are not trying to maintain that “vision” of theirs.
Look at standards of weights and measures. They have done a great deal to effect commerce. Notice a disparity between the two practices?
One of them recognize a convention of terms, the other does not.
Monetary systems are languages. Think about that. Was the failure due to standards or lack of them?
i have no clue what tangent you’re on right now, but regardless, the point is that James’s post was completely correct, and in fact it didn’t imply that language is self-referential. You misunderstood.
Really? I am that much of an idiot?
There are three, and only three primitive categories of names Only one of them can be defined, the other two must be abstracted and set by a convention of names. See Plato and Aristotle, and more recently, examine your own pysiology.
Obviously you can look at a self referential statement and not even see it.
no thanks, if you’re not going to offer anything specific and of substance, i’m not going to go digging for your ideas in the writings of other people.
Well, one thing is for certain. What does it have to say for the state of education when people do not even know the principles of the names they use?
That is how far ahead of his time Confucius was.
If someone were to come up to you today, and say that they were a mathematician, and you asked them, “What is one.” and they could not tell you, would you think he was a mathematician or a fool?
And then if another were to come to you, and tell you what one was, but as they used “one” they kept changing what it denoted, would you consider them competent?
In the beginning is the Word. That statement is so mysterious even today. That is sad.
No, the state of the world today is not due to man’s ability to give his word and keep his word, he is, quite frankly, incompetent in the use of words.
Try something very, very simple, if you can muster it…
You find definitions in dictionaries right?
Take my word for it. You do.
Now go look at any dictionary. It doesn’t matter what page you look at.
Here is an example.
Do you see words on there?
…yeah words being used to explain words. How about that.
The rest of us have been doing that for centuries.
Perhaps you should try it some time.
It is clear you do not even know the difference between an explanation and a definition.
If, given three and only three primitive categories of names, where only one category can be defined, what are explanations used for?
And more importantly, of the almost dozen or so theories of what a simple sentence is, and you can find them on the net, which is true and which not? Or are they all false?
Haha… gyahd…
Look at this page from a dictionary.
Do you see words or not?
What does that page say about the word “definition”?
You can read right?
So much for the simple ability to see or not see a self referential fallacy.
Here, let me make it clear.
Do we learn by experience?
Language is effected through a convention of experience.
Some of us learn by reading - reading words even, not just looking at the pictures.
I see you are trying to run and hide.
Here is one for you, since we learn language by experience, think about what Confucius did in the way of formalizing experiences. This, the historians missed. It was a great achievement in linguistics, which goes far beyond the rectification of names being read in a book.
However, few understand the importance of either.
Read the right books and you can even learn how to recognize logical fallacies properly. Merely words related to other words. You really should try it. It allows you to maintain the impression, valid or not, that you are intelligent.
Maybe Confucius would have enjoyed our use of words on the internet. It would have been a bit tough to relay experiences online without words.
Is it me, or does it seem like 8569 is just throwing out names haphazardly in a desperate attempt to add credibility to his posts? Seems like once someone challenges something he says, he just puts a name out there. “Plato!” “Confucius!” “Aristotle!” And he doesn’t even say what they said, he doesn’t say where they said it, he doesn’t give any hint as to what he’s actually talking about, he’s just putting the name out there just to add credibility by proxy.
He does seem to be an extreme example of the inattentive thinker who doesn’t understand the concept of “relevance”, and thus lacks in social and communication skills. Such people usually end up longing for respect (that they could have obtained with a little more attention to the real needs of others in communication).
Well try this.
Plato’s Ion. Where do we learn the meaning of words.
People learn language by BOTH experience and communication with WORDS that have merely been learned via other words.
I frankly couldn’t care less what Plato or Confusion thought about it.
I think I am done toying with those less fortunate.
I was gonna say something similar. This name game is ridiculous.
yes, first we say we learn words via other words, then we say we cannot. How absolutely illuminating.
I can tell you that you can’t teach people much by just saying “Plato’s Ion”. Those two words aren’t really enough to learn from. If you have any substantial ideas, say them. The names of various philosophers you like…that’s not enough. Just saying their names is not enough. Any retard can say “Plato’s Ion.” If you’re not just any retard, you can say something more.
then why do you believe you can say considerably less? I appreciate your display in the lack of simple comprehension, however, you consistency is somewhat just as abbreviated.