Originally Posted by Philosopher8659
Self referential fallacy. Most do not take into account two factors, the convention of names, and the fact that predication is the inverse function of abstraction. The principles of any logic are the same, no matter if arithmetic or common grammar.
Not being aware of first principles, and normally people are not, does not mean that their lack of comprehension dictate the fundamental principles of grammar.
Most believe that a convention of names rests upon their abstraction, which is a fallacy. The convention rests with the standard from which the abstraction is made. Standards of Weights and Measures are an example.
If one truly follow the principles of common grammar, the results will be the same for everyone, just as the resluts of 3 + 2 will always be the same.
A reason one does not see this, is because they were not taught, and were not bright enough to figure it out for themselves.
In the simple, grammar consists in giving your word and being bright enough to keep it.
Can you explain plainly what, specifically you're getting at here? You're using jargon like "convention of names" and "predication is the inverse function of abstraction" without explaining them.
"Most believe that a convention of names rests upon their abstraction, which is a fallacy." - I don't even know what this means. And neither does google, by the way. If you look up "convention of names" in google, the results consist of:
1) An abstract reference in a linguistics book, about Chinese linguistics
2) A reference to the "getpid" system call on the postgre SQL message board
3) An article about the law of Kamma/Karma
4) Something about Sun Microsystems freeware enhancements
I'm assuming you didn't invent the term, so I'll go with what was said about linguistics in China:
Code:
The conventionality of names, of course, is the conventionality of the initial choice of names for a certain purpose. It does not alter the nature of correspondence or the nature of what the names correspond to. Thus, Xunzi's theory does not allow us to infer that we can legislate reality to the world through the convention of names.
source
I'm not sure what exactly were you getting at, and that's pending discussion, but this passage (which, remember, is just someone's opinion, as are all "factual" statements in a philosophy book, which is also just my opinion) seems to contradict what you say here:
"If one truly follow the principles of common grammar, the results will be the same for everyone, just as the resluts of 3 + 2 will always be the same."
Like I said, I am still unsure as to the nature of your argument, because you've riddled it with exactly the amount of jargon I would expect from a philosophy student writing a paper, but my feeling is that the answer is a simple, "...and you are neglecting the human factor."
|
|
Bookmarks