It looks to me like some people have seen a problem with how words are used. Some of the people believe in a certain limited exact meaning of words or a word, while other people use multiple meanings more loosely. A name is something that people stamp onto an “object”. Now, an object is a supposed self, usually a non human self, but still an individual. There are also clusters of objects. They are still considered to have an essence. They are basically selves of the non human sort. Peoples and cultures become comfortable with attaching always one kind of name with one kind of sense or perception. When someone goes against culture, by using a name differently, only a minority of people will understand it. The majority will see it all as error. They, in this way, seem to believe in true names, or perfect names, which are always so. Before mankind there were no names. Names are an additive. They are a format and a paradigm. But allot of people fuze the world with the essence of a format or paradigm. This is like living in a box with no windows. The box seems to be the end of reality if you never find a way out. It could be a box, or a cave, or a planet, etc. But only from the outside do ya realize there is more to it than what you normally saw. This happens with language and thought paradigms too. People have no windows on their paradigm, then they think it’s all there is. The word “nature” is an example of this.
I think there’s a lot packed in here—lots of parts that could be taken apart and delved into. But as a whole, I think there’s a kind of deep truth in it. Language can be a constraining phenomenon, sometimes. (Like a box with no windows). Language is kind of like a tool, but sometimes seems more blunt to the tasks we demand of it. It can be a source of confusion, and a solution.
Feel free to post what ever comes to mind.
This thread relates to what I was saying in that hume=dummy thread.
Pragmatism is applicable to almost anything in life.
But, absolutism can also be universally applied.
There are cosequences for what ever belief we use and take up.
That is the main reason why some paradigms are better than others.
I considered your post there to be pragmatic words.
AE : words meant to be useful.
A philosopher may want perfect words, not pragmatic words.
The result is that they describe these complex sequences of logic [and of illogic] to produce ideally a more true set of thoughts and words.
Perfecting words is different than communication. Common communication is clumsy but we were born for it.
Open meanings can be creative, for sure, but there’s a risk: misunderstanding, or misrecognition. Often we feel it’s important to avoid risk. As a teacher, I’m wary of it, because it means relinquishing my control of a classroom. Unless I feel comfortable with the environment, I’m likely to shut down debate. I guess what I’m saying is that in order to create the right conditions, we need to do a lot of preparatory work.