Why do gardners make up labels for everything?
Because it’s a pain in the ass to describe everything from scratch all the time.
*You know those a really tall plants that stand up straight like a soldiers. At the top, it has a big, round face that looks like the sun, with bright yellow petals all around it, just like the sun’s rays, and this face follows, sometimes the movement of the sun. The middle part of the plant, where all the seeds are, is brown and bumpy, almost like a big cookie. The stem is thick and green, and if you touch it, it might feel a little rough or fuzzy. Those things…Well, some of mine they’ve got their leaves and stems covered in a white, powdery substance. It looks like someone dusted them with flour. The problem is that over time, this powdery stuff is making the plant’s leaves look dull and feel rough. The leaves are starting to curl and become brittle, as if they were getting really dry. The plants that have this aren’t growing as big or strong… So, I’m worried.
compared to…
A: I got a problem: my sunflowers have powdery mildew.
B: Oh, I’ve got a natural spray that’s helped mine with that problem.
There’s always a point of optimization to aim for. You can simplify and condense meaning into new terms in order to save time and free up mental and linguistic processing space in time to allow the discussion to expand, but every time you do that you are also shrinking and covering up certain meanings. Unless those meanings which are being covered up and shrunken are entirely and accurately understood by all parties involved, including yourself, there is a loss of overall meaning which will lead to errors of misunderstanding. Part of this is good insofar as what is lost is largely irrelevant subjective-personal stuff and indeed this is part of why language is so interesting and useful, because when we say things each person who read or hears it will have their own interpretation and experience of it based on their own life. This is a good thing for the most part, it keeps novelty alive and makes it actually fun to talk to other people. But once this begins to get TOO novel and too much meaning is being truncated away you have problems.
This would especially be the case in philosophy because philosophy is primarily concerned with tracking the truth. Therefore content should only be truncated into new summative terms when this is actually useful overall or when it is necessary for truth-seeking to continue, i.e. where it would be necessary because there is no more or not enough remaining processing space or time to keep pushing the thought higher. Yet strangely this isn’t how my mind works, although this is certainly how most of our language works; there is always an opportunity cost for everything we say, but when I think about ideas there is no similar opportunity cost as would apply to the subject I am actually thinking about (of course there remain opportunity costs for other subjects that aren’t currently being thought about). This is, I assume, why I can find it difficult to keep up with my thoughts while typing them down or saying them out loud. I have developed a fast typing speed out of necessity of trying to keep pace with what goes on in my mind.
The value of reducing the volume of text as we discuss a subject is less important than actually getting to the truth of that subject, and as far as I see here and elsewhere it is almost never the case that we are wanting for truth-discovery because it’s taking too long to say what we need to say. In fact, 99.99% of the time it is the very opposite and we want for truth-discovery because not enough of what is meaningful is being said or because too many useless irrelevancies and cloaked/undisclosed meaning is present. Given that situation, truncating content into new labels to shorten things up is not going to help but will only cover over the problem even more, especially when people don’t agree on the underlying contents that have been shrunken away under the new labels. Then you end up getting what is common in philosophy here and in academia: people going on and on and on about debating the meaning of their special little pet labels, rather than actually discussing the truth itself.
So objectivity, to you, requires certain criteria to exist/occur/happen/needs an observer for it to manifest itself into the ultimate one true standpoint of all universal activity?
Putting an observer in the equation belies the process imo, for the universe did pretty well in evolving before we ever came into being, iow, existence does not need an observer to exist… the space/time-continuum can vouch, for that.
Jeeze, you’re right.
The bright yellow blooms are supported by sturdy, green supports that rise tall and straight from the ground. These supports are lined with broad, heart-shaped greenery that often has a slightly rough texture. The surfaces of the greenery have a somewhat fuzzy feel, with veins that run from the center to the edges. As you move upward, you’ll notice that the greenery gets smaller and alternates in placement, spiraling around the central support that extends toward the sky.